Dems To Fund War Without Withdrawal Timeline

Finally, 105 days after President Bush sent Congress his urgent request for funds to support our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, it looks like Reid, Pelosi, and Murtha have decided that they have gotten all the partisan political points to be gained from withholding funds for our troops fighting the war:

In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.

Democratic leaders have said they hope to send a war spending bill to President Bush by week's end, with the intention was to avoid a veto.

It's about time. Congress' failure to act in a responsible and timely way belies the Democrats claims that they support the troops, if not the mission. The Delay in providing the funding has resulted in problems for our troops.

The Defense Department has notified Congress that in order to meet the force protection needs of the Marine Corps and the Army, it has been forced to borrow funds from other Marine and Army procurement programs. The borrowing means using funding intended for tactical vehicle replacement, Humvees and Humvee equipment, the tactical communications modernization program, and upgrades for other vehicles.

The borrowing forced by the Democrats and their preference to make partisan political points rather than fund the troops has negative impacts. On April 2, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, and Gen. James T. Conway, sent a letter to the House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, stating:

Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, the Armed Services will be forced to take increasingly disruptive measures in order to sustain combat operations. The impacts on readiness and quality of life could be profound. … Reprogramming is a short-term, cost-inefficient solution that wastes our limited resources. Spending restrictions will delay and disrupt our follow-on forces as they prepare for war, possibly compromising future readiness and strategic agility.

In a March 28, letter to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker and Acting Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, warned:

Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families.

Right, the Democrats support the troops.

If the Democrats truly want to end the war, they can refuse to fund it. If they don't want to end the war, the Democrats should provide the required funds to fight it. Having made their political points, it is way past time for the Democrats to stop using the money, needed to support our troops fighting the war, to seek some partisan political advantage.

Democrats Sour On Kennedy's Immigration Deal

Democrats aren't impressed with Kennedy's immigration deal.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a statement expressed serious concern over Kennedy's agreement:

Their agreement can serve as a starting point for the Senate debate next week. I have serious concerns about some aspects of this proposal, including the structure of the temporary worker program and undue limitations on family immigration. We need to improve the bill as it moves through the legislative process.

In remarks on the Senate floor, Reid questioned whether "we're going to be able to pass it."

Only two Democrats, Ken Salazar of Colorado and Dianne Feinstein of California, stood beside Kennedy when he announced his immigration deal. Seven Republican senators and two Cabinet secretaries joined the three Democrats.

According to Bloomberg, Democrats expressed doubts over provisions to create a temporary-worker program and to reduce the emphasis on uniting families when deciding which legal immigrants are admitted to the U.S.

New York Senator Charles Schumer said, "There are a lot of Democrats who want to see it improved." New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez called Kennedy's deal "far to the right" last year's Senate immigration reform effort.

Maryland Senator Ben Cardin expressed concern, saying low-wage workers seeking to reunite with their families could suffer.

John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO condemned Kennedy's deal, saying it strikes at "the reunification of families" and expands temporary-worker programs that can amount to "virtual servitude."

Democratic presidential frontrunners, Senators Clinton and Obama and former Edwards reacted cautiously. Hillary said she will study the proposal to make sure it "does not lead to the creation of a new underclass in our country." Obama, told reporters the temporary-worker plan and the merit-based point system must be "carefully examined" to ensure they are "just and humane." Edwards said he had concerns about parts of the proposal, including a “poorly conceived guest worker program.”

West Virginia Senator Robert C. Byrd said, "We should not give a blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants who want to flaunt the laws of this land."

According to The Ledger, North Dakota Senator Byron L. Dorgan said he would offer an amendment to eliminate the guest worker program from the bill.

House Democrats likewise don't seem to like Kennedy's deal.

Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said it will be difficult to pass an immigration bill similar to the Senate proposal.

Representative Xavier Becerra, Democrat of California and a former chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said he had grave concerns about the Senate bill.

All in all, not a very auspicious Democratic reaction to Kennedy's deal.

Immigration Agreement Reached

Senate negotiators reached agreement on immigration legislation, which provides a path to citizenship for 12 million illegal aliens.

As I posted here, it is not yet clear that the agreement will manage to slow illegal immigration anymore that did the failed 1986 Immigration Reform Act.

It is not encouraging that the world's greatest deliberative body will be given the 1,000 page text of the immigration bill late Friday, and Senators are expected to vote on the bill Monday. Weeks after the Senate passed the 850-page Senate immigration reform bill last year, House Republicans were finding unheralded features in that Senate bill such as these beauties:

Illegal aliens allowed to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal work.

The U.S. Required to consult with Mexican officials before commencement of any fence construction along the border.

Discounted in-state tuition rates at state colleges and universities for illegal aliens who reside in those states. Meanwhile, legal immigrants and citizens who reside outside that state must still pay the full price.

Complete amnesty for employers who have illegally hired the millions of aliens and provided the magnet that drew them here in the first place.

A path to citizenship to illegals who have snuck across the border, counterfeited documentation, committed Social Security fraud and cheated on taxes.

Even more discouraging are the talking points Hugh Hewitt published earlier today. Hewitt refers to the talking points as "four pages of crap." If the Senators recent agreement was truly "reform," could not the agreement withstand a meaningful deliberation? The fact that the Senate is rushing to vote on it too quickly, with only a farcical debate that can not pass a simple smell test can only lead to one conclusion.

UPDATE: RedState has learned that the Senates 1,000-page Immigration "Reform" bill was released to members of the Senate this afternoon. A Cloture vote is scheduled for Monday. If passed, the floor debate will be cut off after 30 hours of additional debate time.

UPDATE II There is no immigration bill:

Multiple Senate sources confirmed that, despite Senator Kennedy and others’ original statements, as of 10:00 PM eastern daylight time Thursday night, “no bill presently exists and probably won't until tomorrow at the earliest” because “the lawyers are still behind closed doors putting it together.” Senate sources also confirmed that “the bill probably will not be online [and available to the public] in its final form until after the Senate has voted on it.” Furthermore, even Senators involved in the process itself offered contradictory reports on its contents. For example, at the same time that John Kyl (R-AZ) was on one news channel praising the bill’s elimination of chain migration – a key provision he himself had championed – Reid was telling another network that that provision would not be in the bill’s final draft.

This Is Reform?

At RedState, here and here, my esteemed colleague Rob Bluey reports that once again a so-called immigration "reform" deal is imminent.

Little is publicly known about the latest "reform" effort. What is known suggests that it will do little to discourage illegal aliens from crossing the Mexican border.

The Washington Times reports the administration, trying to win an immigration agreement with Democrats, is backing away from safeguards designed to target businesses that hire illegal aliens and to prevent a repeat of the rampant fraud that resulted from the 1986 amnesty.

According to the Associated Press and the NewYork Times, the current proposal adopts a point system to reduce the number of family members of illegal aliens that would otherwise be permitted after the illegal aliens are legalized.

The Washington Post reports the tentative deal, allows illegal aliens, who crossed into the country before January 1 would be offered a temporary-residency permit while they await a new "Z Visa" that would allow them to live and work lawfully here:

The head of an illegal-immigrant household would have eight years to return to his or her home country to apply for permanent legal residence for members of the household, but each Z Visa itself would be renewable indefinitely, as long as the holder passes a criminal background check, remains fully employed and pays a $5,000 fine, plus a paperwork-processing fee.

A separate, temporary-worker program would be established for 400,000 migrants a year. Each temporary work visa would be good for two years and could be renewed up to three times, as long as the worker leaves the country for a year between renewals.

Those provisions would be effective only after the federal government implements tough new border controls and a crackdown on employers that hire illegal immigrants, including 18,000 new Border Patrol agents, 370 miles of additional border fencing and an effective, electronic employee-verification system for the workplace.

From the Wall Street Journal we learn it will take about 13 years for illegal aliens, who qualify and have survive the screening process, to become a citizens. The Journal also warns that tougher employer verification rules that will very well impact American citizens when we change jobs.

You are sure to recall that last year a great immigration reform compromise was announced only to fall victim to New York Senator Charles (Chuck) Schumer's belief that the failure to get an immigration reform bill would help the Democrats regain power in the midterm elections.

That compromise dealt with the 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. by proposing to treat illegal aliens differently based upon the length of time they have been in the U.S.:

Those who have lived in the country at least five years would be put on a path toward guaranteed citizenship, provided that they remained employed, paid fines and back taxes, and learned English, a senior Republican aide said. The aide said this group accounted for about 7 million of the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants believed to be living here.

Those who have lived here for two to five years, said to number about three million, would have to leave the country briefly before reporting to an American port of entry, where they would be classified as temporary workers. They would be allowed to apply for citizenship but would have no guarantee of obtaining it. Those who did not would have to leave after participating in the temporary worker program for six years.

The remaining one million or so, those who have lived in the country less than two years, would be required to leave. They could apply for temporary worker status but would not be guaranteed it.

I supported last year's compromise. My main objection to all previous proposals to give legal status to illegal aliens was that it would just encourage more illegal aliens as did the amnesty authorized by the 1986 Immigration Reform Act.

The new proposal doesn't seem to contain anything to discourage the ongoing flood of illegals crossing the border. To the contrary, If enacted into law this proposal will ensure that an ever greater number of illegal aliens will continue to sneak across the border. And why not, we continue to encourage the tidal wave of illegal aliens flooding the country. By allowing those that disregard the nation's immigration laws to remain here and pursue citizenship. This latest proposal sends a simple message - get into the United States anyway you can because eventually you will legalized.

That message will be heard loud and clear just as it was with the adoption of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"). That "immigration reform" legalized 4 million illegal aliens. IRCA has been a monumental failure. Twenty years later there 12 million illegal aliens to legalize. If amnesty is now given to these millions, then we should only expect that twenty years from now we will have to consider granting amnesty to 36 million more illegal aliens.

I have commended President Bush and his willingness to try and reform immigration since he announced his initiative in January 2004. True reform might well include some path to citizenship, but it must be seen to discourage the flood tide of illegals constantly crossing the border.

Edwards Rebuked

Edwards, in a crass attempt to "politicize" Memorial Day, asks his supporters to use the holiday to denounce the war.

"REVOLTING," that's what the leader of the American Legion calls John Edwards' efforts to dishonor Memorial Day by attempting to make the holiday an antiwar statement:

"Revolting is a kind word for it. It's as inappropriate as a political bumper sticker on an Arlington headstone," Morin wrote on the Legion's Web site. "Edwards is hardly the first politician from either political party to exploit this day, a holiday that was consecrated with the blood of American heroes. But the e-mail makes me sick nonetheless."

[. . .]

"It's not about picnics or trips to the beach. It's not about making pro- or anti-war statements. It's not about supporting political candidates," Morin wrote.

The special website Edwards setup to support this despicable perversion of the day this nation set aside to honor and recognize the ultimate sacrifice made by so many, suggests this activity:

Get vocal. Buy a bunch of poster-board and markers. At a picnic or with family and friends, make signs that say “SUPPORT THE TROOPS - END THE WAR.” Bring them to your local Memorial Day parade. Then take a digital photo of yourself and your family or friends holding up the poster and tell us about it. We’ll include it in a “Democracy Photo Album” on our site.

Edwards' attempt to seek a personal political advantage by dishonoring the sacrifice of our heros is a sad departure from the way Memorial Day is usually celebrated in this country.

U.S. Army soldiers of the 3rd U.S. Infantry, The Old Guard, place American flags in front of grave markers during the "Flags In" ceremony in Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Va., May 25, 2006. Photos courtesy of the Defense Dept. by William D. Moss.


A flag waves in front of the Tomb of the Unknowns also known as the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier for the "Flag's In" ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Va. May 25, 2006.

Chris Wallace On Bill Clinton's Temper Tantrum

Betsy Rothstein, of 20 Questions, interviewed Chris Wallace, host of “Fox News Sunday,” about tonight’s GOP debate.

During the interview, Rothstein asked about former President Clinton's temper tantrum:

After your testy exchange with former President Clinton, do you think you can get along with the presidential hopefuls and not make them angry?

Well, I don’t think it was a testy exchange. I think he was testy; I was polite.

[. . .]

Did you have any hint that that was going to happen with Clinton?

No, and I don’t think he did either. I know the Clinton team likes to make it seem that this was pre-planned on their part, but the fact that the president’s press secretary tried to get the cameras turned off as soon as the president erupted convinces me that it was as pre-planned as a car wreck.

How do you feel about it now?

I’m delighted, and I think [Clinton] is delighted as well. We ran into each other at party a couple of months ago and there were no hard feelings. It clearly attracted a lot of viewers to our show, and I think [Clinton] feels that it had the effect of energizing the Democratic base.

You will recall, former President Clinton lost it when Chris Wallace asked him whether he'd done to hunt for Osama bin Laden.

VoteVets Target McCain

VoteVets will target Senator John McCain, by broadcasting the organization's newest antiwar ad on Fox News Channel after tonight's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina.

The ad, which can be seen here, is a slightly edited version of the ad that caused CBS News to fire retired U.S. Army Major General John Batiste as a consultant

The antiwar organization doesn't like McCain's steadfast support of our revised war strategy.

Taking Heat Over Mother Teresa

A Catholic advocacy group is urging New York Senator Hillary Clinton to remove an image of Mother Teresa from a campaign video narrated by former President Bill Clinton:

"It is wholly inappropriate, disrespectful and disturbing that Hillary Clinton is using an image of Blessed Mother Teresa as a political tool, especially given their radically different views on abortion," said Fidelis President Joseph Cella.

He noted that Mother Teresa fought to protect unborn children, while Hillary Clinton "staunchly supports abortion on demand in all nine months of pregnancy, including partial birth abortion and taxpayer funding of abortion."

A shot of Mother Teresa standing with then-First Lady Hillary Clinton appears in the five-minute campaign video. The video then cuts to a clip of Mrs. Clinton's address at the 1995 Beijing Conference, in which she says, "It is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights." The Beijing Conference tried to declare abortion a fundamental human right, something the video fails to mention. The video of Hillary's campaign video is available here.

Mother Teresa sent a letter to the 1995 Beijing Conference in which she condemned abortion:

That special power of loving that belongs to a woman is seen most clearly when she becomes a mother. Motherhood is the gift of God to women....Yet we can destroy this gift of motherhood, especially by the evil of abortion .... No job, no plans, no possessions, no idea of 'freedom' can take the place of love.

It was a huge mistake on the part of Hillary to allow the video to cut from the picture of Hillary and Mother Teresa to the Beijing Conference. Inappropriate, disrespectful and misleading.

Michael Moore Challenges Fred Thompson To Debate

In a publicity stunt for his new project, Michael challenged Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson to a debate:

Our debate would provide you an opportunity to appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party by continuing to attack me; it would give me a chance to discuss health care and tell you exactly what happened in Cuba, given your apparent inters; and it would provide the American people an opportunity to see just how serious Hollywood can be, with a purported conservative and an avowed progressive Hollywood personality on stage.

Thomson replied to Moore in a video, which you can watch below.



If Fred campaigns like that for president, he will be a formidable candidate.

Fred Waiting Until July

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson will wait a little longer to decide whether to run for president.

Last week, Thompson said he is "ready to run," but not decided:

He told Cate he’s “ready to run” personally, and that opening an exploratory campaign committee would be the logical first step.

He wouldn’t commit to any timetable, but suggested that he thinks voters need to know before fall what their choices in the race will be.

Thompson also implied he would make a decision by September:

He wouldn’t commit to any timetable, but suggested that he thinks voters need to know before fall what their choices in the race will be.

His decision may come sooner. According to Chuck Raasch, political editor for Gannett News Service, there are several reasons why Thompson may announce whether he's running around July 1:

First, July is the start of the next three-month fundraising reporting schedule. If Thompson were to announce in June, the fundraising clock would start ticking and an unimpressive quarterly fundraising report released in July could dampen the enthusiasm his teasing candidacy has enjoyed this spring.

Second, Thompson already is on TV more than his potential rivals. His campaign tease is getting more publicity than many of the announced presidential candidates are getting. Should Thompson announce he's running, the broadcasting fairness doctrine would place Thompson's acting career on hiatus.

Third, Thompson needs time to deal with his multiple acting and business obligations, including his radio commentary for ABC.

Though he’s not a declared candidate, and hasn’t even formed an exploratory committee, Thompson still registers third in polls, behind the two Republican leaders, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, and ahead declared candidates, former Governors Romney, Huckabee, and Tommy Thompson.

Waiting until September, like the strategy adopted by former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, is a mistake. It is now less likely that a successful campaign can be announced just weeks before the Iowa caucuses as Bill Clinton did in 1992. The front loading of the 2008 primaries, and 20 candidates, requires an earlier commitment.

Hillary vs. Obama

A new strategy for Rudy courtesy of LisaNova and MadTV:

Richardson's Job Interview

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's Presidential campaign has released two new television ads in hopes of breaking away from the rest of the also rans.

I think the ads are the best of the 2008 campaign., but that isn't saying much. The first ad, entitled "Job Interview," summarizes Richardson's public service. The second, "Tell Me," continues the series by touching on a number of his achievements as governor. You can watch the ads below:

Cox Sues Over Debate

Republican presidential candidate John Cox asked a federal court to stop next week's GOP presidential debate unless he is allowed to take part.

Cox claims that the South Carolina Republican Party and Fox News Channel rigged their selection process to exclude him. According to the complaint, at issue is a requirement that the South Carolina Republican Party and FOX News used to decide who could participate in the debate. Candidates were required to obtain at least 1 percent of support in recent state and national polls leading up to the early May deadline for registering in the state's primary. Just prior to the May 1, 2007 deadline, the polling criteria was changed to reliance upon a single Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll conducted on April 1-3, 2007. That poll did not include Cox.

The complaint alleges that the polling criteria was changed because several of the candidates who filed for the South Carolina Republican Primary did not poll at least 1% in national and state polls and therefore would not be allowed to take part in the Debate. You can find the complaint here.

Cox isn't likely to get his way. Despite his efforts, Cox isn't taken as a serious presidential cadidate by the media or the Republican Party.

Conan Takes On Hillary's Occasional Twang

Conan O'Brien offers additional evidence that Hillary Clinton panders to certain audiences by using phony accents during her campaign speeches:

Huckabee's Evolution Beliefs

Republican presidential candidates Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo raised their hands during Thursday's debate when asked if they don't believe in evolution:



Huckabee, in a conference call with reporters the morning after the debate, explained how he would have responded if given a chance to elaborate on the question:

"If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, that's fine. I'll accept that," he said Friday. "I just don't happen to think that I did."

As for what should be taught in public schools, Huckabee said he wants "schools to acknowledge that there are views that are different than evolution."

Huckabee downplayed the role evolution should have in the election. "Is a president going to sit in the Oval Office and really make a decision on what's being taught in a third-grade class in Dubuque, Iowa, on creation or evolution?" he said. "The answer is no."

Huckabee's views about his faith are sincere. Prior to his political career Huckabee was pastor of several Southern Baptist churches. He also served as president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention.

Googling McCain

In addition to all of the other perks available to Google employees, they now a chance to personally question presidential candidates:

How do you determine good ways of sorting 1 million 32-bit integers in two megabytes of RAM?

That's the first question asked of Senator John McCain by Google chief executive Eric Schmidt. It was a humorous icebreaker that received laughs from the Google geeks and McCain.

Google has invited all the major candidates. McCain was the second candidate to accept Senator Clinton was interviewed February.

After the opening brainteaser, Schmidt asked about McCain's Vietnam War combat and POW experiences. The Googlers wanted to talk about Iraq:

The candidate delivered a well-worn but impassioned defense of the policy, guaranteeing that "if we have to withdraw on a date-certain, there will be chaos, genocide and other nations in the region will be drawn in."

Schmidt did not challenge this view, but one of his subordinates did.

Why discount the possibility that no one will win the war, the worker asked.

"Any rational observer would say that if the war's lost, then someone won the war," McCain responded. "Al-Qaida will win that war."

The Google interviews, along with the use of YouTube, represent an interesting new dynamic in political campaigns. The Internet obviously makes it easier for candidates to reach certain groups, but controlling the message becomes more difficult. Just ask former Senator Allen.

You can find the McCain and Hillary interviews at YouTube:

Senator McCain Interview

Senator Clinton Interview

Hagel Changes His Mind

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska now says he would consider entering the 2008 presidential campaign as an independent:

An independent bid "is possible," Hagel, 60, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt," scheduled to air today. "I don't ever foreclose any options." He will decide in the next few months whether to run for a third Senate term, pursue the presidency or leave politics altogether, he said.

There has been plenty of speculation that Hagel might run on a so-called fusion ticket. Before now, Hagel has said that if he ran for president, it would be as a Republican. At The RealClearPolitics Blog, Tom Bevan posts this quote from Senator Hagel:

Q: Would you give any consideration to running as an Independent?
HAGEL: Well, if I seek the Presidency, I would seek it as a Republican. Where all this is going to go and how it ends up next year, whether that's possible for an Independent to be elected President, maybe. Maybe it would be. But, right now, I'd be focused on seeking the Republican nomination.

When Hagel was seen having diner with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg this week, it fueled speculation about the two of them teaming up for a presidential campaign. Hagel says no:

Hagel said they talked about their families, politics and Iraq, and there was no discussion about teaming up for a presidential campaign.

"We have a lot of common interests," he said. "But no, there was no talk of any ticket."

Recently, Hagel has made it very clear that we can't rely on what he says about his ambitions. The evidence suggests that he will run for reelection. Hagel has scheduled a fundraiser, which will be headlined by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The message here is that Hagel, despite a possible challenge from Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, Hagel's strong opposition to Iraq war policies and his criticism of the president, is still a member of the team.

Californians Say Rudy Won

The pundits are wrong, A SurveyUSA of California debate watchers finds Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani convincingly won the California debate among Republican presidential candidates.

Giuliani was picked as the winner by 30% of those in CA who watched. Former Massachusetts Governor Romney was picked as the winner by 12%, and Arizona Senator McCain was picked as the winner by 11%. All other candidates were in single digits:

Who Won The Debate?

4% Brownback
8% Gilmore
30% Giuliani
4% Huckabee
7% Hunter
11% McCain
12% Romney
2% Paul
4% Tancredo
2% Thompson
16% Not Sure

Californians are much less engaged in the 2008 presidential campaign than are South Carolinians. One in three South Carolinians watched the Democratic debate, compared to one in eight Californians who watched the Republican debate.

This small number of adult Californians, who watched a Republican presidential debate nine months from the California primary and 18 months from the General Election, is unlikely to be a very reliable guide to California Republican primary voters. More information on the SurveyUSA poll results, or how the survey was conducted, is available here and here.

The California debate watchers think Giuliani has the best plan for Iraq and immigration reform:

20% of CA debate watchers say McCain has the best plan for Iraq, which was only slightly behind Giuliani, who was picked by 25% as having the best Iraq plan. [. . .] Giuliani was seen as having the best solution for immigration reform by 31% of CA viewers. No one else was close.

That is peculiar because I don't recall Giuliani saying much about Iraq during the debate.

Tommy Thompson Takes It Back

Tommy Thompson, one of the remaining 15 prospective Republican 2008 presidential candidates, apologizes for his comment on gay discrimination at the GOP presidential debate.

When asked whether a private employers should be allowed to fire gay employees because of their sexual preference, Thompson said yes:

MR. HARRIS: Governor Thompson, same theme. If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?
MR. THOMPSON: I think that is left up to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have to got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be.
MR. VANDEHEI: Okay. So the answer’s yes.
MR. THOMPSON: Yes.
MR. VANDEHEI: Okay.

Even though the answer was probably right on the law in most jurisdictions in the U.S., it certainly didn't pass the political correctness test. Today Thompson tried to take it all back:

In a telephone interview from O'Hare Airport, Thompson told "American Morning" that he "misinterpreted" the question and should have asked to have it repeated.

"That's never been my position," Thompson said, said adding that discrimination isn't acceptable.

Thompson never had much of a chance in this presidential sweepstakes. After that comment at last night's debate you can pretty much stick a fork in whatever his chances were. He's done.

McCain And Romney Win

That is my initial take after watching the Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Presidential Library last night.

McCain came out with guns blazing, effectively countering the growing perception that he is too old and tired to be president:

MR. MATTHEWS: Senator McCain, most of the public pessimism today has to do with Iraq. How -- what would you need, as commander in chief, to win the war in Iraq?
SEN. MCCAIN: I would need the support of the American people. I would need to be able to show them some success in Iraq, both on the battlefield as well as with the Maliki government.

We have a new general, we have a new strategy. That strategy can succeed. The young men and women who are serving are the best of America. I believe that if we could bring around -- about stability in the neighborhoods in Iraq and have the Maliki government govern, you are going to succeed.

My friends, when the majority leader of the United States Senate says we’ve lost the war, the men and women that are serving in Iraq reject that notion. And if we lost, then who won? Did al Qaeda win? When on the floor of House of Representatives -- they cheer. They cheer when they passed a withdrawal motion -- that is, a certain date for surrender, what were they cheering? Surrender? Defeat?

We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, there will be chaos, there will be genocide, and they will follow us home.
MR. MATTHEWS: Do you need anything beyond what the president has now to win the war?
SEN. MCCAIN: Now I think it’s on the right track. The war was terribly mismanaged. The war was terribly mismanaged, and we now have to fix a lot of the mistakes that were made. Books have been written. But we have a new strategy and a new general, and these young men and women are committed to winning.

The transcript fails to convey the energy and emotion that McCain conveyed in this exchange. I'm sure the YouTube video of that exchange will be a plus for McCain.

Romney came across as smooth and polished, maybe so smooth some will find him slick. He should mess his hair or something. Romney's best shot was when Mathews asked him if the Roman Catholic Church should deny communion to pro-abortion politicians:

MR. MATTHEWS: Governor Romney, what do you say to Roman Catholic bishops who would deny communion to elected officials who support abortion rights?
MR. ROMNEY: I don’t say anything to Roman Catholic bishops. They can do whatever the heck they want. (Laughter.) Roman Catholic bishops are in a private institution, a religion, and they can do whatever they want in a religion. America --
MR. MATTHEWS: Do you see that as interference in public life?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, I can’t imagine a government telling a church who can have communion in their church. I can’t -- we have a separation of church and state; it’s served us well in this country.
MR. MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. ROMNEY: This is a nation, after all, that wants a leader that’s a person of faith, but we don’t choose our leader based on which church they go to. This is a nation which also comes together. We unite over faith and over the right of people to worship as they choose. The people we’re fighting, they’re the ones who divide over faith and decide matters of this nature in the public forum. This is a place where we celebrate different religions and different faiths.

The main stream media is excoriating Giuliani for not appearing presidential, and even more so for his waffling on abortion. Giuliani had three shots at the abortion question last night. First, Matthews asked all the candidates, except Paul whether it would be good if Roe v. Wade is repealed:

MR. MATTHEWS: Time.

We now go to the next segment. We’re going to talk about values. Let’s go down the line on this, just like they did with the Democrats last week on some of these trickier calls, but they do have clear answers.

Starting with you, Governor. Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for Americans?

[. . .]

MR. MATTHEWS: Mayor.
MR. GIULIANI: It would be okay.
MR. MATTHEWS: Okay to repeal?
MR. GIULIANI: It would be okay to repeal. Or it would be okay also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision.
MR. MATTHEWS: Would it be okay if they didn’t repeal it?
MR. GIULIANI: I think that -- I think the court has to make that decision, and then the country can deal with it. We’re a federalist system of government, and states could make their own decisions.

Next, Matthews asked Rudy why he supports public funding of abortions:

MR. MATTHEWS: Let me get back to Governor -- Mayor Giuliani because I want to give you a chance on this. You became very well known for standing up against the use of public funds for what many people considered indecent exhibits at the Brooklyn Museum and places like that.

Why do you support the use of public funds for abortion?
MR. GIULIANI: I don’t. I support the Hyde amendment. I hate abortion. I wish people didn’t have abortions.
MR. MATTHEWS: So you’re not for funding at all?
MR. GIULIANI: I believe that the Hyde amendment should remain the law. States should make their decision. Some states decide to do it, most states decide not to do it. And I think that’s the appropriate way to have this decided.
MR. MATTHEWS: Should New York -- when you were mayor of New York, should they have been paying for -- the state should have been paying for --
MR. GIULIANI: That’s a decision New York made a long time ago, and New York --
MR. MATTHEWS: And where were you on that?
MR. GIULIANI: I supported it in New York. But I think in other places, people can come to a different decision.

A bit later, Giuliani had a third opportunity:

MR. MATTHEWS: That’s time, Governor.

Let me ask Mayor Giuliani, do you want to respond to this? Because it seems like across the room here there’s strong, unrelenting -- with the exception of Governor Gilmore -- an unrelenting pro-life position. You seem to have a nuanced position on this. Many people think you’re pro-choice. Could you define it in a couple of seconds?
MR. GIULIANI: Sure. This is a very, very difficult issue of conscience for many, many people. In my case, I hate abortion. I would encourage someone to not take that option. When I was mayor of New York city, I encouraged adoptions; adoptions went up 65-70 percent, abortions went down 16 percent.

But ultimately, since it is an issue of conscience, I would respect a woman’s right to make a different choice. I support the ban on partial-birth abortion, I support the Hyde amendment, but ultimately I think when you come down to that choice, you have to respect a woman’s right to make that choice differently than my conscience.

And I’d like to respond on spending if you (give me a little time later ?) --
MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, later. We’ll have to kill you now because it’s a red light.

I don't think Rudy's abortion answers hurt him as much as the pundits believe. Giuliani's position is closer to that held by most of the electorate, especially young voters. If Rudy is able to win the nomination espousing such views, he will be a more appealing candidate in the general election.

I thought Brownback and Huckabee distinguished themselves from the other "second-tier" candidates. However, I was completely taken aback when Matthews asked for a show of hands as to who did not believe in evolution and the two of them joined Tancredo raised their hands:

MR. VANDEHEI: I’m curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree -- believe in evolution?

(Senator Brownback, Mr. Huckabee, Representative Tancredo raise their hands.)

The remaining four candidates, Gilmore, Hunter, Paul, Tommy Thompson, along with Tancredo failed to distinguish themselves and remain also rans.

Hillary To Move To Deauthorize The War

Senator Clinton will introduce legislation to end authority for the war in Iraq.

From Senator Clinton's remarks on the Senate floor:

SENATOR CLINTON: Madam President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, to announce our intention to introduce legislation which proposes that October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

[. . .]

I believe this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and to have a full national debate so the people can be heard. I supported the Byrd amendment on October 10, 2002, which would have limited the original authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue. This bill would require the president to do just that.

Now, assuming such a bad idea can get sufficient votes, she just has to convince President Bush to sign it. Then all we need is for our terrorist enemies to deauthorize the war they are waging against us. It sounds so easy.

Fineman Sizes Up Tonight's Second Tier Candidates

Howard Fineman, in a Newsweek web exclusive, considers most of the second-tier Republican Presidential candidates participating in tonight's debate:

Consider Rep. Ron Paul, a Libertarian Republican from Texas who has opposed the Iraq War from the beginning because of his small-government, isolationist worldview. He is not a nut case but rather a doctor with a degree from Duke Medical School. And he’s steeped in a branch of conservative intellectual history that traces its modern lineage to the Founding Fathers.

Most people back East know nothing of Rep. Duncan Hunter of San Diego, but he is a serious character, too—a Vietnam vet and student of military matters who should not be confused with the Duke Cunninghams of the world. You know the anti-illegal fence near his city, the one that is now a model for a larger fence along the Mexican border? That was Hunter’s project. Living at the other end of the foreign-policy spectrum from Paul—there is no more dedicated supporter of the use of military power in world affairs—Hunter represents the big-stick tradition now known as neoconservatism. He mixes it up with Democrats, big time.

Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado has made a name for himself as the leading proponent of tough immigration rules and sanctions—far tougher than the ideas the GOP front runners are daring to discuss. You think this doesn’t resonate in the core of the base? Of course it does, and the big names know it.

Former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore has some anti-tax cred, not so much for what he did as governor per se but for having been a key player in the drive—so far successful—to prevent the imposition of government taxes on Internet transactions.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is best known for having lost 100 pounds, but as I see it he is one of two candidates—the other is Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas—who represent the pure strain of religious conservatism in the party. Huckabee has the best credential of all on that score: he is an ordained Baptist preacher, and that was his day job before he entered politics. If you are an evangelical Christian, why not be for Huckabee? That way you eliminate the middle man.

I don't know why Fineman left former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson out of his commentary

With the focus always on former New York City Mayor Giuliani, Arizona Senator McCain, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, most folks don't hear much about the other prospective candidates.

Like Kucinich and Gravel in the Democratic candidate's debate held last week, the seven lessor known candidates will likely be much more strident during this chance to bask in national attention. The big three will concentrate on trying to avoid making any mistakes.

Obama Gets Secret Service Protection

Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been placed under the protection of the Secret Service. The protection was requested of the Obama campaign:

"As a matter of procedure, we will not release any details of the deliberations of assessments that led to protection being initiated," the Secret Service statement said.

Protection goes beyond surrounding the candidate with well-armed agents, the Secret Service's Web site states. The agency does extensive advance work and threat assessments developed by its Intelligence Division to identify potential risks, the site says.

As a former first lady, Senator Clinton, also a presidential candidate, already has Secret Service protection.

House Dems Fail To Override Veto

The House today tried – and failed – to override President Bush's veto of the pork laden war supplemental bill that required troops to be withdrawn from Iraq.

The vote was 222-203 to override the veto, far short of the two-thirds necessary.

Everyone knew the veto, promised for the last three months, would be sustained:



Perhaps now the Democrats will send the President a war funding bill he can sign. If the Democrats truly want to end the war, they should refuse to fund it. Either way, having made the political points, it is time for the Democrats to stop using the money, needed to support our troops fighting the war, to seek some partisan political advantage.

Also posted at Examining Presidential Politics.

Brownback Becomes A Girl Scout

Presidential candidate, Senator Sam Brownback became an honorary Girl Scout yesterday when he visited a group of Scouts and talked to them about following their dreams:

"A dream is a big thing, and it's a special dream that's just yours," he said. "But a lot of times people talk themselves out of their own dreams."

[. . .]

The Scouts gave Brownback a commemorative song book, a sing-along badge, a lapel pin and a framed certificate of membership into the Girl Scouts.

It won't do anyone any harm if Brownback takes his membership seriously and abides by the Girl Scout Promise and Law:

Promise

On my honor, I will try:
To serve God and my country,
To help people at all times,
And to live by the Girl Scout Law.

Law

I will do my best to be Honest and fair, Friendly and helpful, Considerate and caring, Courageous and strong, and Responsible for what I say and do, And to respect myself and others, respect authority, use resources wisely, make the world a better place, and be a sister to every Girl Scout.

Also posted at Examining Presidential Politics and California Yankee.

President Bush Vetoes Democrats' Withdrawal Date

Just as he had promised to do for three months, when the Democrats finished delaying the war supplemental bill to make their partisan political points and sent the bill containing a withdrawal date, President Bush vetoed the bill.

The president cites three reasons he felt compelled to veto the bill:

The bill mandates a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq.

The bill substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders on the ground.

The bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror.

President Bush signed the veto with a pen given to him by the father of Marine Cpl. Dustin Derga, whose son was killed in Iraq.

Robert Derga was in the group of Gold Star families who met Bush in the Oval Office two weeks ago. He wanted Bush to use the pen to veto that bill, and called back to make sure he was going to do it.

[. . .]

Derga asked Bush to promise to use the pen in his veto. On Tuesday, Derga contacted the White House to remind Bush to use the pen, and so he did.

The President made the following remarks after vetoing the bill:

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Twelve weeks ago, I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need.

Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed this bill.

Tonight I will explain the reasons for this veto -- and my desire to work with Congress to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. We can begin tomorrow with a bipartisan meeting with the congressional leaders here at the White House.

Here is why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1st. And it would have to start no later than October 1st, regardless of the situation on the ground.

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength -- and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible.

Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means American commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.

Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits -- and not as part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.

The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach, and that there are not enough votes to override a veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They've sent their message. And now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.

Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander -- General David Petraeus. The goal of this new strategy is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation, and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists and radicals and killers alongside the United States in this war on terror.

In January, General Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate. In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements he requested. Not all of these reinforcements have arrived. And as General Petraeus has said, it will be at least the end of summer before we can assess the impact of this operation. Congress ought to give General Petraeus' plan a chance to work.

In the months since our military has been implementing this plan, we've begun to see some important results. For example, Iraqi and coalition forces have closed down an al Qaeda car bomb network, they've captured a Shia militia leader implicated in the kidnapping and killing of American soldiers, they've broken up a death squad that had terrorized hundreds of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood.

Last week, General Petraeus was in Washington to brief me, and he briefed members of Congress on how the operation is unfolding. He noted that one of the most important indicators of progress is the level of sectarian violence in Baghdad. And he reported that since January, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially.

Even as sectarian attacks have declined, we continue to see spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering. These attacks are largely the work of al Qaeda -- the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting. The objective of these al Qaeda attacks is to subvert our efforts by reigniting the sectarian violence in Baghdad -- and breaking support for the war here at home. In Washington last week, General Petraeus explained it this way: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all al Qaeda's global campaign."

Al Qaeda -- al Qaeda's role makes the conflict in Iraq far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis. It's true that not everyone taking innocent life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home. But many do. Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September 11th, 2001 -- and wants to attack us here at home again. We saw the death and destruction al Qaeda inflicted on our people when they were permitted a safe haven in Afghanistan. For the security of the American people, we must not allow al Qaeda to establish a new safe haven in Iraq.

We need to give our troops all the equipment and the training and protection they need to prevail. That means that Congress needs to pass an emergency war spending bill quickly. I've invited leaders of both parties to come to the White House tomorrow -- and to discuss how we can get these vital funds to our troops. I am confident that with goodwill on both sides, we can agree on a bill that gets our troops the money and flexibility they need as soon as possible.

The need to act is urgent. Without a war funding bill, the military has to take money from some other account or training program so the troops in combat have what they need. Without a war funding bill, the Armed Forces will have to consider cutting back on buying new equipment or repairing existing equipment. Without a war funding bill, we add to the uncertainty felt by our military families. Our troops and their families deserve better -- and their elected leaders can do better.

Here in Washington, we have our differences on the way forward in Iraq, and we will debate them openly. Yet whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding -- and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay.

Thank you for listening. May God bless our troops.

The President’s veto will be sustained. Perhaps having had the opportunity of making all the partisan political points imaginable over the three months since the President asked for the war supplemental funding to provide the funds needed to support our troops fighting the war, the Democrats can now see fit to provide the critical troop funding without attaching arbitrary conditions and time lines, not to mention billions in unrelated spending.

Also posted at California Yankee and Examining Presidential Politics.

Pelosi Still Reading War Supplemental

Today, the Congressional Quarterly (subscription required), reveals that the conference report on the war supplemental adopted by the House and cleared by the Senate last week, had not yet been sent to the president because Speaker Pelosi wants more time to personally read it and sign it.

That's right, even though she voted for it, Pelosi hasn’t even read the bill yet. The presidential veto of the legislation containing the Democrats' withdrawal language, the veto promised for the last three months, should have happened long ago. It hasn't because Speaker Pelosi has done everything imaginable, and some things unimaginable - like going on vacation to visit a state sponsor of terrorism before naming the conferees and waiting days to sign the report she failed to read before she voted on - to delay getting the bill to the White House for the certain veto. The delay prompted presidential Tony Snow to offer to walk down to the Capital to pick it up:

“It’s now been passed for five days,” said Bush spokesman Tony Snow. “We’re not quite sure why it’s been so difficult to convey it one mile up Pennsylvania Avenue … I could walk down and pick it up today.”

Apparently all of Nancy's delaying shenanigans were designed to allow a carefully arranged political statement by the Democrats. According to The Hill, they will stage a signing event to send their war supplemental bill to the White House:

The ceremony will come four years to the day after Bush stood in front of a “Mission Accomplished” sign and declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq.

Is anyone else tiring of the Democrats' political theater? If they are going to fund the war, just do it. If the Democrats truly want to end the war, they should refuse to fund it. Either way the Democrats should stop using the money, needed to support our troops fighting the war, to seek some partisan political advantage.

Vote In The 2008 GOP Strawpoll

This is GOP Bloggers' April 2008 Straw Poll.

You get to pick which candidates you find acceptable and which ones you don't to tally who has the largest net positive or net negative support. You can also choose which candidate is your first choice for the GOP nomination in 2008. If you are so inclined you can also provide certain demographic information such as your state, gender, and age bracket.

Democrats Pushing Impeachment

The Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The California Democratic Party approved a resolution on Sunday calling on Congress to investigate the actions of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and take appropriate action, including impeachment. Meeting in San Diego, the left wing loons also passed a resolution calling for President Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. soldiers from Iraq.

Apparently, the reason the Democrats want the President impeached is because they continue to believe the discredited assertion that we were mislead into invading Iraq:

Delegate Charles Coleman from San Fernando said he believes Bush should be removed from office for lying about the war in Iraq.

Sunday, on CBS'"Face The Nation," Pennsylvania Congressman and Speaker Pelosi's preferred choice for House Majority Leader, threatened to impeach President Bush as a means to "influence" the President to accept the Democrats position that we should retreat from Iraq:

MURTHA: The White House says no. But the White House has said no to everything. They say we’re willing to compromise, and then we don’t get any compromise. We’ve compromised on waivers for the requirements for the troops, which is their own requirements, and also goals instead of requirements for the benchmarks.

So, we’ve already compromised. And we need to make this president understand, Mr. President, the public has spoken. There’s three ways or four ways to influence a president. One is popular opinion, the election, third is impeachment and fourth is, and fourth is the purse.

SCHIEFFER: Are you seriously talking about contemplating an impeachment of this president by Congress?

MURTHA: Bob, what I’m saying, there’s four ways to influence a president.

SCHIEFFER: And that’s one of them?

MURTHA: And one of them’s impeachment, and the fourth one…

SCHIEFFER: That’s an option that is on the table?

MURTHA: … I’m just saying that’s one way to influence a president. The other way is through the purse. And the purse is controlled by the Congress, who’s elected the by the public. In the last election, the public said, we want the Democrats in control.

Last week, Ohio Congressman and presidential wannabee, Dennis Kucinich introduced three articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

On April 20th, the Vermont Senate voted 16-9 to support a resolution urging the initiation of impeachment proceedings in Congress against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. All 16 supporters were Democrats.

The Democrats need a brief lesson on recent history. We were not mislead or lied to about why we went to war in Iraq. Supplanting Saddam's tyranny and oppression with freedom and democracy was one of the rationales put forward in the run up to the liberation of Iraq. Even the New York Times acknowledged this in a February 27, 2003 editorial:

President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [in an American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ‘free and peaceful Iraq’ that would serve as a ‘dramatic and inspiring example’ to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East, and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time. President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union made the same case....

There is no justification for the false allegation that the administration lied about the WMDs. Everyone was convinced that Saddam had such weapons and had used them. The intelligence and common wisdom proved to be wrong, but that doesn't equate to a lie. The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. At pages 284-285 the reports states:

Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

[Redacted]

Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

Besides that report, two other independent investigations came to the same conclusion.

The Robb-Silberman Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction likewise found "no evidence of political pressure." At pages 50-51 the Robb-Silberman report states:

The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

The British Butler Report, Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction similarly "found no evidence of deliberate distortion." At page 110 the British Butler report states:

Treatment of intelligence material

449. In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the '45 minute' report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying qualifications. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence.

The effect of departmental policy agendas

450. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was evidence that the judgements inside them were systematically distorted by non-intelligence factors, in particular the influence of the policy positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgements inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior officials on the JIC.

The consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction formed in the Clinton administration. The consensus was more than evident in 1998, when President Clinton was threatening to attack Iraq.

President Clinton:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Secretary of State Madeline Albright:

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction," Albright said Sunday, addressing a news conference in Jerusalem.

"The chemical weapons Saddam has used and the biological weapons we know he has tested pay no attention to borders and nationalities."

Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Nancy Pelosi, now Speaker the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

In a letter to President Clinton, from 27 U.S. Senators:

We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

In addition to the history lesson, the Democrats need a lesson in Constitutional Law. The Constitution provides for impeachment for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, not to "influence" a president to accept Mr. Murtha'

s strategy to slowly bleed the war effort to death.

From California Yankee.

Hillary's Virtuous Twang

Presidential wannabee, Hillary Clinton sees her occasional Southern accent as a virtue:

"I think America is ready for a multilingual president," Clinton said during a campaign stop at a charter school in Greenville, S.C.

The New York senator noted that she's split her life between Arkansas, Illinois and the East Coast.

Observers have long noted Hillary's tendency to speak Southern primarily in front of black audiences. Two recent incidents resulted in a great deal of ribbing in the media and more than a few humorous YouTube video clips.

In early March Hillary made a campaign trip to Selma, Alabama. Speaking at a black church, the Senator tried to fake a southern accent, while apparently quoting from the Gospel hymn "I Don't Feel Noways Tired." It came across as a cheap pandering. You can listen to a short audio clip below and come to your own conclusion.



A week ago, Clinton spoke to the annual convention of Al Sharpton's National Action Network. She again broke into her Southern twang. You can watch the video below:



Hillary's tendency to break into a Southern twang when speaking to black audiences is hardly a virtue. it's just phony.

Edwards Tries To Answer

Here's the video of Edwards trying to answer when asked whom he considers his moral leader:



Having watched Edwards' answer several times I still maintain the pause was way too long and conveyed the message I don't have a moral leader.

Some readers disagree. One comments:

The pause is nothing. He seemed to really think the question through, which I appreciated. And the answer was golden.

Others agree with me. There was this:

That pause is painfully long and awkward.

And this:

Exactly. If he had paused for 10 seconds (that is how long it took him to think!) and then said, "well, it's my Lord," then it'd be a little better.

But he says "I don't think I could identify one person who I consider to be my moral leader." Well, thanks. But it's the next thing he does which is really interesting. When he says "my Lord," he shrugs, as if it is a passing thought. You can tell he's trying to save himself there, because he really doesn't have an answer. It was really, truly sad.

Watch the video and let us know what you think.

Obama Wins

SurveyUSA conducted a poll on last night's Democratic Presidential candidate debate in South Carolina and found Senator Barack Obama came out on top:

Thirty-one percent gave that honor to Obama. Senator Hillary Clinton took second place, with 24 percent. Fourteen percent of respondents thought Senator John Edwards emerged as a leader among the candidates.

Obama did three times better than Clinton and twice as well as Edwards among South Carolina's Independents. Obama and Clinton tied among Democrats. Edwards and Obama tied among Republicans. Clinton won among white viewers. Of the respondents, 60 percent were white and 36 percent were black.

The debate got a lot of attention from South Carolinians. A third of the South Carolina adults contacted by SurveyUSA listened to the debate. Those who watched were asked who won the debate:

6% Biden
24% Clinton
2% Dodd
14% Edwards
2% Gravel
3% Kucinich
31% Obama
4% Richardson
13% Not Sure

More information on the SurveyUSA poll results, or how the survey was conducted, is available here and here.

The main stream media must not have listened to the same debate. The New York Times reported:

By the end of the night, none of the eight appeared to have distinguished themselves in any appreciable way with the kind of statement or dramatic moment that they might have hoped for; that said, none appeared to have made any campaign-altering mistakes either.

It's peculiar that the same url earlier brought up a story dated the 26th and titled "Democratic Hopefuls Square Off for First Time." Yesterday's article was less nuanced:

It was a night where no candidate appeared to particularly distinguish themselves. Mr. Obama, in particular, was so soft-spoken and reserved that he appeared at times to recede off the stage.

The Washington Post described the Candidates as "balanced:"

The field seems both talented and evenly balanced.

Long Island Newsday was less kind to Obama, saying he stumbled:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered a cool, confident performance Thursday night in the first primary debate of the 2008 presidential season, while her fast-gaining opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, seemed to sweat a bit in the national spotlight.

According to McClatchy, the debate failed to alter the campaign:

Absent direct challenges - or any pronounced gaffes - the debate probably did nothing to fundamentally change the shape of the contest with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina leading in the polls and the rest trailing well behind.

Clinton and Biden were asked if they support Senate Majority Leader Reid's comment that the war in Iraq is lost. Both simply didn't answer the question:

"The American people have spoken," Clinton said. "The Congress has voted as of today to end this war, and now we can only hope that the president will listen. … This is not America's war to win or lose."

Look, Brian, this is not a game show," Biden told moderator Brian Williams. "This is not a football game. This is not win or lose."

I watched the last half of the debate. I didn't see a winner. What I saw was another opportunity taken by the Democratic candidates to beat up on President Bush. Something all eight did with abandon. I agree with the Washington Post that Kucinich and Gravel "provided a counterpoint of left-wing idea that drew rebukes for a lack of seriousness from Biden and Obama." The rebukes were well deserved.

Finally, I think Edwards was the biggest loser. As reported by the Chicago Tribune, when Edwards was asked whom he considers his moral leader, he "paused for a long and uncomfortable moment, seemingly at a loss for an answer:"

"I don't think I could identify one person that I consider to be my moral leader," Edwards said. "My Lord is important to me. … My wife … is a source of great conscience for me. My father … "

Watching the debate, that pause was way too long. The message conveyed was I don't have a moral leader. I found it devastating. When video of the long pause comes out on YouTube, it will require a great deal of spin from the Edwards campaign

The Techie Vote

At the New York Sun Politics Blog, Ryan Sager posts that Hillary wins the Apple and Cisco primary, but Obama wins at Adobe, Google, Intel, and Microsoft. Republicans don't even rate:

Contributions listing Google as employer:
Clinton (D): 13
Obama (D): 22
Giuliani (R): 1
Romney (R): 0

Contributions listing Cisco Systems as employer:
Clinton (D): 22
Obama (D): 3
Giuliani (R): 3
Romney (R): 1

Contributions listing Microsoft as employer:
Clinton (D): 10
Obama (D): 18
Giuliani (R): 1
Romney (R): 5

Contributions listing Apple Inc. or Apple Computer as employer:
Clinton (D): 3
Obama (D): 1
Giuliani (R): 0
Romney (R): 1

Contributions listing Intel Corporation as employer:
Clinton (D): 1
Obama (D): 4
Giuliani (R): 0
Romney (R): 2

Contributions listing Adobe Systems as employer:
Clinton (D): 1
Obama (D): 3
Giuliani (R): 0
Romney (R): 1

Kucinich Offers Articles Of Impeachment

Seeking free publicity to obtain much neede traction in his quixotic presidential campaign, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich called a press conference to announce plans to offer articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kucinich needs to generate “free media” attention because his campaign is failing. The Kucinich campaign only raised $345,000 for his presidential bid during the first three months of the year. As of March 31 the "campaign" and had $183,000. Kucinich also has $361,000 in outstanding campaign debt. Kucinich is not one of the front-runners among the prospective 2008 Democratic presidential candidates. Kucinich shouldn't even be considered among the so-called second tier candidates.

Kucinich's impeachment ploy, like his presidential campaign ought to be doomed to failure. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have repeatedly said they have no interest in pursuing impeachment. Researching quotes of Pelosi saying impeachment is off the table, the articles I found all referred specifically to impeachment of the President and did not mention the Vice President. Have Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats decided to allow the extremists to waste time with political articles of impeachment against the Vice President?

Letterman's Top Ten President Bush Moments

David Letterman prepared this Top Ten list of President Bush moments for the White House Correspondents' Dinner:

Kerry Flips Flops On 2008

Less than three months after John Kerry said he intends to stay out of the 2008 presidential campaign, the Democrats' losing 2004 presidential candidate reopened the door to a possible 2008 presidential campaign.

Answering a question from a viewer on a television call-in program, whether his decision not to run could change Kerry said:

It might. It may change over years. It may change over months. I can't tell you, but I've said very clearly I don't consider myself out of it forever.

Kerry continues to be consistent in his inconsistency. In fairness, even Kerry thinks it unlikely he will seek the 2008 presidential nomination. When asked whether he would change his mind in time for the 2008 race, Kerry said:

If suddenly the field changed or the dynamics of the nation shifted, who knows? You might look at it differently, but I don't see that. I don't foresee that. That's not where I am today and that's not what I'm doing.

That was yesterday, what will he say tomorrow?

Fred Thompson Blogs

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, who is "giving some thought" to running for president in 2008, posted his first blog post at RedState over the holiday weekend. The article, "The Pirates of Tehran," Thompson paints a realistic picture of the Iranian mullahocracy:

Tony Blair doesn't appear to be in much of a mood for celebrating. I don't know how he could be, given the troubling spectacle of British soldiers shake the hand of their kidnapper as a condition of release. In the old days, they would have kissed his ring -- but wearing Iranian suits and carrying swag more appropriate to a Hollywood awards ceremony may have been as embarrassing. Ironically, Blair's options are fewer by the day as his own party moves to mothball the British fleet, once the fear of pirates and tyrants the world over.

Some in the West seem part of Iran's propaganda war; claiming that the release of the hostages was a victory that proves the Iranian dictatorship can be reasoned with. To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term "the global war on terror." What are we — Reuters?

Ahmadinejad must be particularly pleased to see "deep thinking" journalists making the case that American actions in Iraq were the true cause of the kidnappings. To believe this, all you have to do is ignore the history of the Iranian Revolution, which has been in the extortion business ever since it took power. Between the 1979 American embassy crisis in Tehran and the seizure of Israeli soldiers last year by Iran's Hezbollah proxies, there have been more than a hundred other examples.

Read the whole thing.

I hope Fred Thompson continues to blog. It will give him the opportunity to explain his "crucial" support for McCain-Feingold.

From California Yankee.

Duncan Hunter Seeks Conservative Support

Duncan Hunter has released a YouTube video asking for grassroots conservatives help and articulating what he'll do if elected president.



Such an appeal can't hurt. New media support from bloggers won't be enough if Hunter is unable to attract sufficient funds for to buy a presence in old media.

How Are You Going To Stop Her?

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley says Hillary's presidential campaign juggernaut is unstoppable.

Asked by a reporter whether he was confident Clinton would win the nomination, Grassley responded:

How are you going to stop her?

One way might be for Hillary to continue to lose support in New Hamshire.

Grassley says he may endorse one of the Republican contenders in September or October. He expects the number of Republican candidates will be winnowed down to about five by then.

Hillary Slipping In New Hampshire

A CNN-WMUR poll of 339 New Hampshire Democrats found Senator Clinton's support fell from 35 percent to 27 percent since February.

Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards picked up most of the slack. Edwards rose to 21 percent from 16 percent. Illinois Senator Barack Obama of Illinois was close at 20 percent.

Al Gore received 11 percent, Bill Richardson had 4 percent support, and Joe Biden was at 2 percent. Twelve 12 percent said they were undecided.

The telephone poll was conducted between March 27 and April 2 and has a 5.5 percent margin of error.

Tancredo Makes It Official

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo announced Monday he will seek the Republican presidential nomination.

Tancredo said immigration would be the primary focus of his campaign.

Obama Wants To Be Better Known

Iowa's caucuses are still almost ten months away. As Iowans and the presidential candidates get to know each other. Illinois Senator Barack Obama wants something from Iowa:

Well, I think I've got to get better known in Iowa . . .

Obama's focus is on the war:

"We should start a phased redeployment of troops out of Iraq and have our combat troops out of Iraq by next year because there's no military solutions to the problem in Iraq," said Obama.

Obama Says Congress Will Fund Iraq War

The Associated Press headline last night screamed "Obama Says Congress Will Fund Iraq War:"

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

Really? Like most things that seem too good to be true, don't take Obama's pollyannaish assessment at face value.

First, a little more of what Obama said in his AP interview:

"My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

[. . .]

Given that Bush is determined to veto a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Congress has little realistic choice but to approve money for the war, Obama said.

Before we congratulate the Democrats for acting like grownups and providing the necessary funding to support our troops fighting the war, consider this AP article in which Senate Democrats vow to keep trying to legislate defeat in Iraq, even if President Bush vetoes legislation calling for a pullout.

The Senate attempt to legislate defeat, requires the Democrats' troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, with a completion goal of March 31, 2008. The House attempt to legislate defeat, mandates that nearly all combat troops be withdrawn by September 1, 2008. These and other differences in the two bills must be reconciled before the legislation, which is supposed to provide the funding needed to support our troops fighting the war, can be sent to the president for his promised veto. This seemingly simple task has been delayed for weeks because Speaker Pelosi couldn't be bothered with appointing the House members who will meet with the Senate conferees because she found it more important to go and visit Syria, one of the original state sponsors of terrorism.

It has been 56 days since President Bush sent his request for the supplemental funding to Congress. When will Congress provide these critical funds to support our troops fighting the war? How many of the negative impacts of using money designated for training, repairs, and other readiness activities outlined by Secretary Gates will have to come to pass before the Democrats stop playing politics with war funding? If the Democrats truly think we should leave Iraq now, then they should saw so and refuse to fund the war.

Forcing the president to veto the war funding legislation, thereby delaying the war funding is simply part of the Democrats' slow bleed antiwar strategy. It is also part of the Democrats' 2008 campaign strategy to "wear down GOP support for President Bush," hoping to force a collapse of GOP support for the administration by fall. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Democrats, are confident that GOP support for the war will not last beyond the end of this year, when 21 Republican senators head into 2008 reelection campaigns.

From California Yankee.

Tommy Thompson Makes It Official

Former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson officially joined the field of Republicans running for the White House in 2008.