Democrats Boycott Rogue Primaries

Democratic presidential wannabees Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson pledge not to campaign in states that hold early nominating contests in violation of party rules.

The three signed onto a pledge circulated by Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, which have the Democratic Party's blessing to hold early primaries. The pledge says they will avoid competing in any other states that vote before February 5.

A week ago, Democratic Party officials decided to disenfranchise Florida voters, unless the state party agrees to hold its primary later in the 2008 election calendar.

The Democrats' boycott won't amount to much if the frontrunners don't participate.

Vice President Franks?

In today's Washington Times "Inside The Ring" column Bill Gertz reports three Republican presidential candidates are considering retired Army General Tommy Franks as a vice presidential running mate.

General Franks, commander of U.S. Central Command from June 2000 until he retired in 2003, led American and Coalition troops in two strategically unprecedented campaigns in two years – Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.

Franks would boost Republican prospects in the South and provide an articulate spokesman for winning the global war against Islamist extremism and a counter to the Democrats' current defeatism:

All Democratic candidates overtly oppose the Iraq war and most favor ending the Bush administration's military and paramilitary emphasis on fighting global terrorism. A Democratic administration in 2009 likely would restore the approach of the Clinton administration, which favored law enforcement and diplomacy over military action.

Reviving those failed Clinton policies will only bring us more terrorist attacks such as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; the 1995 bombing of U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the 1996 bobming of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; the 2000 attack against the USS Cole in Yemen, and 9/11.

Fred Almost Makes It Official

There were lots of rumors today that Fred Thompson was going to make his long awaited "presidential announcement."

In the end, Fred spoke to certain supporters and pre-announced the formal announcement.

Fred will "formally" announce his candidacy via a video on September 6. I know, it was just three days ago that I posted Fred would announce on the 6th. As I posted then, the delay doesn't bothers me. What bothers me is the constant shifting of the date, which makes the campaign look second-rate.

After the release of the announcement video, Fred's campaign launch festivities include a tour of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.

What About The Other $977,000?

Democratic presidential wannabee, Hillary Clinton, will donate to charity $23,000 of the contributions she has received from her fugitive fundraiser.

Why only $23,000? The Wall Street Journal [subscription required] reports that Hillary's fugitive fundraiser, also known as Norman Hsu, has raised over $1 million for Hillary's Presidential campaign:

Beyond his $23,000 in personal contributions to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Hsu had raised well over $1 million for the New York senator's presidential campaign, making him one of her top 20 "bundlers.

As recently as Tuesday, Hillary's campaign was touting Hsu's integrity saying, "there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question."

After the Los Angeles Times reported that Hsu pleaded no contest to a grand theft charge, agreed to accept up to three years in prison, failed to show up for a sentencing hearing, and then disappeared, Hillary changed her tune. At least she changed her tune for 2 percent of the money Hsu raised for Hillary.

I don't get it. All of the money raised by Hillary's fugitive fundraiser is equally tainted. The entire $1 million should be given to charity, not just 2 percent of the funds raised by Hsu. Maybe Hillary is consulting with Al Gore, who remains unaware of any controlling legal authority.

Hillary's Fugitive Fundraiser

The Los Angeles Times reports California authorities have been trying Norman Hsu for 15 years. Hsu "pleaded no contest to grand theft, agreed to serve up to three years in prison and then seemed to vanish:

"He is a fugitive," Ronald Smetana, who handled the case for the state attorney general, said in an interview. "Do you know where he is?"

According to the Times, Hsu has been hiding in plain sight:

Since 2004, one Norman Hsu has been carving out a prominent place of honor among Democratic fundraisers. He has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into party coffers, much of it earmarked for presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Hsu earned a place in the Clinton campaign's "HillRaiser" group by pledging to raise more than $100,000 for her presidential bid.

Tuesday The Wall Street Journal reported Clinton campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said in an email:

Norman Hsu is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic party and its candidates, including Senator Clinton. During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question.

But Kent Cooper, a former disclosure official with the Federal Election Commission, sees it differently. According to Cooper, the two-year pattern of donations justifies a probe of possible violations of campaign-finance law, which forbid one person from reimbursing another to make contributions:

"There are red lights all over this one," Mr. Cooper said

.The Times makes it clear that this isn't a case of mistaken identity:

On Tuesday, E. Lawrence Barcella Jr. -- a Washington lawyer who represents the Democratic fundraiser -- confirmed that Hsu was the same man who was involved in the California case. Barcella said his client did not remember pleading to a criminal charge and facing the prospect of jail time.

I'm sorry, does anyone truly believe Hsu would forget the possibility of going to jail? Nor am I impressed with attorney Barcella implication that Hsu is being picked on because of his "name." Yesterday's Wall Street Journal quoted Barcella:

You are barking up the wrong tree. There is no factual support for this story and if Mr. Hsu's name was Smith or Jones, I don't believe it would be a story.

Attorney Barcella doth protest too much. Hsu's attorney acknoewledged Hsu's California legal troubles. I'm inclined to think where there is smoke there is fire.

It's not just Hillary who is connected to Hsu. He is also coonected to Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell; New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine; Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy; California Sen. Dianne Feinstein; Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, California Rep. Mike Honda; and Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island

Hillary and the rest of the money hungry Democrats should be distancing themselves from such questionable folks, not singing Hsu's praises as Hillary campaign spokesman Wolfson did yesterday.

Most Americans Say Iraq War Not Lost

A new UPI/Zogby poll finds a majority of Americans - 54% - believe the United States has not lost the war in Iraq.

As usual there is a huge partisan divide on this question:

While two in three Democrats (66%) said the war effort has already failed, just 9% of Republicans say the same.

This Democratic defeatism echoes that of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said in April that he believed that "this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything."

While the President's approval for his handling of the war improved, up to 27% from 24% in July, Congress remains stuck at a 3% approval rating for its handling of the war. Nearly all Democrats -95% are dissatisfied with the way the Democratic Congress has handled the war. Perhaps Democrats would hold a higher opinion of Congress if Democratic leaders advocate victory rather than retreat. If Democrats would join in the call for Reids resignation over his moral support for our enemies, other Democrats in Congress would realize Americans want to win the war.

Americans are also split over which party, if elected in 2008, would be more likely to bring the war to a successful conclusion - 39% say a Republican president, while 36% say a Democratic president.

Asked which of the 2008 presidential candidates would best handle the war in Iraq, respondents preferred Rudy Giuliani - 14%, followed by Fred Thompson - 11%; Hillary Clinton - 10%; Barack Obama 9%; John McCain and Joe Biden - 7%; John Edwards - 5%,;Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich - 4%. But more Americans said they were unsure (15%).

The poll was conducted August 17-20, and has a margin of error of +/- 1.2 percent.

Castro's Choice - Hillary/Obama

Cuba's Fidel Castro tells Democrats the winning ticket is Hillary Clinton and Obama:

"The word today is that an apparently unbeatable ticket could be Hillary for president and Obama as her running mate," he wrote in an editorial column on U.S. presidents published on Tuesday by Cuba's Communist Party newspaper, Granma.

Castro also had kind words for former President Bill Clinton, saying Clinton was "really kind" when the two men shook hands at the U.N. in 2000:

He also praised Clinton for sending elite police to "rescue" shipwrecked Cuban boy Elian Gonzalez from the home of his Miami relatives in 2000 to end an international custody battle.

Castro's favorite U.S. president is Democrat Jimmy Carter.

Fred Fixes A Date

Fred Thompson's new campaign manager, Bill Lacy, forces out communications director Linda Rozett and suddenly we have a date for Fred's announcement:

Sources tell numerous outlets that Thompson will announce his campaign September 4th, and that he will participate in his first debate on September 27 at Morgan State University in Baltimore. His first major appearance at a GOP event will be at the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference in Michigan around a week earlier.

Fred's campaign must be paying attention and catching on.

Scott Rasmussen doesn't think much of the media story line that it is a mistake for Fred to delay his announcement:

However, the polls show Thompson remains more of a threat to Giuliani's lead that Romney. His support is down a bit from its peak, but he's still showing a lot of potential. As Rasmussen Reports has noted many times in recent months, that may change when Thompson does enter the race for real. But, it may not.

]. . .]

Those who really understand the game know that spring training victories don't count once the regular season begins.

The delay doesn't bothers me. What bothers me is the constant shifting of the date, which makes the campaign look second-rate at best. But, like Rasmussen says, that's what spring training is all about.

Gonzales Resigns

The New York Times reports Alberto Gonzalez has resigned as Attorney General:

The official who disclosed the resignation today said that the decision was Mr. Gonzales’s and that the president accepted it grudgingly. At the same time, the official acknowledged that the turmoil over Mr. Gonzales had made his continuing as attorney general difficult.

Gonzales submitted his to President Bush by telephone on Friday.

According to the Times, President Bush will not leave the position open long.

The President had better select a squeaky clean paragon of virtue to replace Gonzales. The confirmation process will be the political equivalent of sharks reacting to blood in the water.

Fred - Not Till October?

Speaking to reporters at the Midwest Republican Leadership Conference, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson told reporters he "expects to officially announce his candidacy in either September or October."

Does this mean Fred's recent pre-announcement lacks credibility? Maybe not, consider the Associated Press report on Fred's speech. According to the AP, Thompson is still expected to announce his bid early next month, saying he will "certainly be making a statement within short order."

Fred's stealth campaign needs to get its act together and give it to us straight about when Fred will announce.

Democratic Party Disenfranchises Florida Democrats

National Democratic Party officials decided to disenfranchise Florida voters. Florida will lose all 210 of its presidential delegates, leaving the fourth largest state without a vote for the Democrats' presidential nominee, unless the state party agrees to hold its primary later in the 2008 election calendar.

Party rules allow only Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to hold 2008 primary contests before February 5.

Florida's primary date was advanced to January 29, by the state's Republican-controlled Legislature, to give the state a more prominent voice in presidential selection process. Florida Democratic party officials said they originally opposed the change. That may be, but they are now committed to January primary election because they fear less voter participation if Democrats hold a separate primary after January 29.

The Florida Democratic Party was given 30 days to comply with the national party rules by moving its presidential primary at least seven days later. In true Democratic fashion, the state party would rather sue than play by the rules:

Elected officials in Florida have said they would consider legal action and a protest at the convention if the national party barred the state's delegates.

[. . .]

Florida's congressional delegation has raised the possibility of a voting rights investigation in response to the punishment.

National Democratic officials insist there is no legal basis to force the party to seat delegates in violation of its rules. Florida officials could not say what law the DNC would have violated or where the case could be pursued.

Get creative lawyers and you can always sue. The question is whether you will win, and if so what will you win? Someday, Democrats may come to understand it is better to simply play by the rules.

Waiting For Fred - Not Too Long Now

"IT WON'T BE VERY MANY MORE DAYS."

Six weeks ago I posted Waiting For Fred - Just A Little Bit Longer...

Today I heard rumors that Fred's announcement could come this weekend. The rumors can't be confirmed and don't sound right. Why would Fred announce during the last weekend of August?

What can be confirmed is that former Virginia Senator George Allen, got Fred to say the wait will soon be over:

Thompson told Allen "We're not allowed to announce before we announce, but I can tell you that it won't be very many more days before I'll be making a statement on it."

The former Tennessee Senator and "Law and Order" actor made the pre-announcement on Jimmy Barrett's radio show guest-hosted by Allen, on Richmond's WRVA.

During the five minute interview Thompson addressed complaints that he is taking too long to announce:

"This is not an attempt to be cute or game the system," he promised. Thompson said instead that he's just working on more of an old school schedule, when candidates didn't announce until the fall before the election year.

And he said that running for president isn't something he's planned all his life. "I'm doing in a few months what people have taken a long, long time period to do," he said.

Some think Fred's announcement, recently expected to be made in early September, will be timed perfectly.

Please, please, please, please, please, say you will.

Clinton Caught In Yet Another Lie

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, weigh in on the scathing CIA Inspector's General Report the CIA didn't want us to see.

Buried on page three of the web exclusive is a passage which shows that Slick Willie lied during his September 2006 encounter with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace. As I'm sure you remember, during an interview, Clinton erupted in anger, became unhinged, pointed his finger at Wallace, and boldly asserted:

What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.

Isikoff and Hosenball write the IG report criticized intelligence problems when Clinton was president, "detailing political and legal 'constraints' agency officials felt in the late 1990s." Then they mention Clinton's 2006 temper tantrum and explain Clinton's prevarication:

Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden. But the inspector general’s report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a license to “kill” bin Laden—one reason it never mounted more effective operations against him. “The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations,” the report stated. (Scheuer agreed with the inspector general’s findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. “There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.” A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)[Emphasis added]

So now we can see why Clinton went nuts when asked if he did enough to get Osama bin Laden - he knows he did not do enough.

In case you want to review the whole sorry Clinton meltdown, a YouTube video of the Wallace interview can be watched below and the FoxNews transcript is available here. My post refuting Clinton's Clarke Defense is here. A post about Chris Wallace's reaction to Clinton's temper tantrum is here.



No matter how many times I watch that video, it always make me think of Clinton getting on national television, pointing his finger at the camera and saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."

UPDATE: More at Captain's Quarters, Fausta's blog, and The Strata-Sphere

Hillary: The Surge Is Working

Even Hilary admits the surge is working.

Speaking at the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Hillary noted that the "new tactics" in Iraq are working:



Unfortunately, the liberal presidential wannabee went on to say that the best way to honor U.S. soldiers is "by beginning to bring them home."

The crowd was more in-tune with McCain, who speaking after Hillary, said a troop pullout would be a mistake:

The reception for Mrs. Clinton was respectful yet tepid. Mr. McCain received loud applause when he suggested that a troop pullout would be “a mistake of colossal historical proportions.”

[. . . ]

Mr. McCain’s speech was interrupted by friendly applause from people seated throughout the hall. When Mrs. Clinton spoke, applause often was started by three young people in the middle of the room who were not wearing the trademark blue V.F.W. cap or convention name badges.

Hillary is wrong about pulling the troops out. The best way to honor the troops is to win.

Script For A Giuliani v. Clinton Commercial

Cliff Thier lays out Rudy a Hillary's contrasting approaches in dealing with terrorists and their supporters.


Cliff forgot to include Mayor Giuliani's rejection of Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal's $10 million donation for the Twin Towers Fund after the prince suggested U.S. policies contributed to the September 11 attacks:

"To suggest that there's a justification for [the terrorist attacks] only invites this happening in the future," he said. "It is highly irresponsible and very, very dangerous.

"And one of the reasons I think this happened is because people were engaged in moral equivalency in not understanding the difference between liberal democracies like the United States, like Israel, and terrorist states and those who condone terrorism.

Rudy gets it.

Image credit: Associated Press

Snow To Step Down

Financial Pressures Force Snow Departure

White House press secretary Tony Snow, who has been undergoing chemotherapy treatment for a recurrence of cancer, will step down from his position as early as next month:

Snow told conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday "financial reasons" may prevent him for serving the remainder of his boss's presidency.

"I'm not going to be able to go the distance, but that's primarily for financial reasons." Snow said. "I've told people when my money runs out, then I've got to go."

According to the Associated Press, Snow, the father of three children, earns $168,000 as an assistant to the president. He made considerably more as a pundit and syndicated talk-show host on Fox News Radio.

Snow has been a phenomenal press secretary. We wish him all the best.

Rove To Resign

Karl Rove, President Bush's longtime political adviser, is resigning as White House deputy chief of staff effective Aug. 31, and returning to Texas. Rove announced the resignation plans during in an interview with Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page:

In the interview, Mr. Rove said he expects Democrats to give the 2008 presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom he described as "a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate." He also said Republicans have "a very good chance" to hold onto the White House in next year's elections.

Mr. Rove also said he expects the president's approval rating to rise again, and that conditions in Iraq will improve as the U.S. military surge continues. He said he expects Democrats to be divided this fall in the battle over warrantless wiretapping, while the budget battle -- and a series of presidential vetoes -- should help Republicans gain an edge on spending restraint and taxes.

In a related editorial Gigot writes that Rove remains optimistic about the outlook for the GOP:

He says young people are if anything more pro-life and free-market than older Americans, and that, despite the difficulties in Iraq, the country doesn't want to be defeated there or in the fight against Islamic terror. He recalls how Democrats thought driving the U.S. out of Vietnam would also help them politically. "Instead, Democrats have suffered ever since on national security," he says.

[. . .]

As for 2008, he says, Americans "do want change," but "every election is a change election"; even in 1988, when Ronald Reagan was popular, the Gipper famously said at the nominating convention for George H. W. Bush that, "We are the change." Adds Mr. Rove, "I don't want to be Pollyanish about it, but if we keep our nerve and represent big things, we'll win."

Regarding the 2006 thumpin', Rove said his biggest error was in not working soon enough to replace Republicans tainted by scandal. No argument about that here.

Rove has advised President Bush for more than a decade, working with him closely since Mr. Bush first announced he was running for governor of Texas in 1993 and serving as chief strategist in his presidential campaign in 2000.

President Bush is expected to make a statement today with Mr. Rove.

Another Californicator Endorses Hillary

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom joined fellow Californicator Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and endorsed Hillary's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Newsom is best known nationally for openly defying California state law in 2004 by directing clerks at City Hall to sanction same-sex unions. According to the Chronicle, Newsom's flaunting of the law made him a pariah within the Democratic Party. Some observers credit President Bush's re-election and the passage of constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in 11 states that same year on a backlash triggered by Newsom's lawlessness. Why would Hillary seek the support of a Democratic pariah?

Like Villaraigosa, Newsom is one of 12 national co-chairs of Hillary's campaign. In addition to advising on municipal issues and fundraising muscle, Newsom can also advise Hillary on political adultery. Newsom betrayed his campaign manager Alex Tourk—who was also one of the mayor's best friends—by sleeping with Tourk’s wife. Mayor Newsom was separated at the time of the affair (and later divorced) from television commentator Kimberly Guilfoyle.

Why is it that Hillary continues to associate herself with political adulterers?

Dems Court Gay Voters

Democratic presidential candidates demonstrate their support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender voters tonight by participating in a televised forum on gay rights:

All the major Democrats favor civil unions for gay couples, and repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy against openly gay service members that front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's husband initiated.

In a previous debate, the eight Democratic hopefuls all raised their hands to acknowledge they would work toward lifting Clinton's policy against openly gay service members. Surveys filled out ahead of tonight's forum, indicate the leading Democratic candidates are committed to the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell:"

"This is a matter of national security, and I will fix it," wrote Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the Democratic front-runner. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina wrote similar statements.

None of the Democrats, except for fringe candidates Ohio Congressman Kucinich and former Alaska Senator Gravel, supports the gay community's top goal - marriage rights:

"No viable mainstream contender for president is going to support gay marriage in this election cycle," said Ethan Geto, an adviser to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I hope that's going to change in the next couple of elections."

The public still largely disapproves of gay marriage and remains closely divided on whether homosexual relations are morally acceptable:

Public opinion overall is moving slowly toward greater acceptance of a range of gay-rights positions, and passions have cooled since same-sex marriage erupted as a key issue on the verge of the last presidential campaign.

The Democratic candidates will be between a rock and a hard place. Opposition operatives will be watching for a video Macaca moment that can portray a candidate as out of the social mainstream, gay-rights advocates will be alert to signs of discomfort or hedged commitment:

"I think people will be looking for body language, the choice of words to see how comfortable the candidates are. Are they passionate?" said Geto.

The event, co-sponsored by the gay-rights activist group Human Rights Campaign Foundation and Viacom Inc.'s Logo network, reflects the gay community's increased importance to the Democratic Party. The debate also will be available online at logoonline.com.

Dems Debate And Nobody Cares

The AFL-CIO Democratic forum Tuesday night on MSNBC was the least watched of the eight primary debates/forums held this election season.

Is it because no one cares what the Dems have to say, only Democratic wannabees care about the AFL-CIO, or because it was August?

Will GOP Candidates Make A Long Term Commitment To Iraq?

Buzz Brockway asks the GOP candidates to make a long term commitment to Iraq. Buzz submitted the following question for consideration to the You Tube GOP debate:

Which candidate will make a commitment to have a permanent or long term military base in Iraq?

China Threatens Dollar Sales

In the Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that China has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its $1.33 trillion stash of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation:

Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress.

[. . .]

Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.

It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds.

At RedState, my colleague blackhedd, reveals what these "empty threats" say about China's internal problems:

The big elephant in China's room is inflation, caused by a combination of too many dollars, not enough domestic economy to soak them all up, and the currency quasi-peg that is the cause of the whole political ruckus.

China is caught in a box, and at the worst possible time.

Global markets for nearly every asset class, including commodities, are now in an extremely unsettled state. A secular change is taking place in everyone's attitude toward any kind of risk-taking. This is the very worst time to go to the markets looking for a new home for half a trillion dollars.

The Democratic controlled Senate is considering legislation which calls for trade tariffs against Chinese goods as retaliation for alleged currency manipulation. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson claims such sanctions "could trigger a global cycle of protectionist legislation."

We should also consider the domestic politics of this China problem. Last night, at a forum hosted by the AFL-CIO trade unions federation, the Democratic presidential wannabees took turn bashing China's currency manipulation.

Hillary warned the United States must deal with China's "currency manipulation."

Obama brands China a "competitor" but not necessarily an enemy and declared, "If they're manipulating their currency... we take them to the mat."

Richardson considers China a "strategic competitor" and said, "We've got to say to China, 'you've got to stop fooling around with currency; you've got to find ways to be more sensitive to your workers'," he said.

Is there any domestic political downside to this China Bashing? I don't see any. But there may be an economic price.

Looking For The Terrorist Surveillance Program Leaker

Two and one half years after the New York Times revealed the government's formerly secret Terrorist Surveillance Program, there is finally some evidence that the FBI is on the trail of the leaker.

Newsweek reports a team of FBI agents raided the home of a former Justice Department lawyer in connection with a criminal probe into who leaked the existence of Terrorist Surveillance Program to the news media:

The lawyer, Thomas M. Tamm, previously worked in Justice's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR)—the supersecret unit that oversees surveillance of terrorist and espionage targets. The agents seized Tamm's desktop computer, two of his children's laptops and a cache of personal files.

You may recall that the Times was accused of revealing the Terrorist Surveillance Program in order to sell a book.

Even the Washington Post took the Times to task for revealing the program.

It's way past time the Justice Department made some progress in tracking down the leaker. If we can spend who knows how much and more than two years to investigate who said what to whom to learn who revealed Plame worked for the CIA, we can damned well spend the necessary resources to determine who told the Times about the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

I still don't find the Terrorist Surveillance Program very bothersome. We are at war, even though too many pretend we are not. I like the idea that someone is keeping an eye on suspected terrorist communications. Additionally, anyone who assumes e-mail or cell phone conversations are private, needs a reality check.