Friday, July 29, 2005

A Bunch of Tree Huggin' Hippy Crap.....[Nasa's Foam problem]




Shuttle Foam Loss Linked to EPA Regs

As recently as last month, NASA had been warned that foam insulation on the space shuttle's external fuel tank could sheer off as it did in the 2003 Columbia disaster - a problem that has plagued space shuttle flights since NASA switched to a non-Freon-based type of foam insulation to comply with Clinton administration Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

"Despite exhaustive work and considerable progress over the past 2-1/2 years, NASA has been unable to eliminate the possibility of dangerous pieces of foam and ice from breaking off the external fuel tank and striking the shuttle at liftoff," the agency's Return-to-Flight Task Force said just last month, according to The Associated Press.

But instead of returning the much safer, politically incorrect, Freon-based foam for Discovery's launch, the space agency tinkered with the application process, changing "the way the foam was applied to reduce the size and number of air pockets," according to Newsday.

"NASA chose to stick with non-Freon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to 11 times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based foam," warned space expert Robert Garmong just nine months ago.

[snip]
--------------------------------


Privatize Space Exploration

By Robert Garmong, Ph.D. (07/21/05)

[snip]

There is reason to believe that the political nature of the space program may have even been directly responsible for the Columbia disaster. Fox News reported that NASA chose to stick with non-Freon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to eleven times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based foam. Although NASA was exempted from the restrictions on Freon use, which environmentalists believe causes ozone depletion, and despite the fact that the amount of Freon released by NASA's rockets would have been trivial, the space agency elected to stick with the politically correct foam.

It is impossible to integrate the contradictory. To whatever extent an engineer is forced to base his decisions, not on the realities of science but on the arbitrary, unpredictable, and often impossible demands of a politicized system, he is stymied. Yet this politicizing is an unavoidable consequence of governmental control over scientific research and development.


[snip]

ISS passes in front of the Sun



Explanation: That large sunspot near the right edge of the Sun is actually not a sunspot at all. It's the International Space Station (ISS) and the Space Shuttle Discovery on mission STS-114. In the past, many skygazers have spotted the space station and space shuttles as bright stars gliding through twilight skies, still glinting in the sunlight while orbiting 200 kilometers or so above the Earth's surface. But here, astronomer Anthony Ayiomamitis took advantage of a rarer opportunity to record the spacefaring combination moving quickly in silhouette across the solar disk. He snapped the picture on Thursday, July 28th from Athens, Greece. Launched on Tuesday, Discovery joined with the ISS Thursday, making the already large space station seem to loom even larger.

Hatch Unloads..

I was glad to see there was still a republican with balls enough to come to the floor and set things straight yesterday!

Let me set this up for ya.

For the last few days the dems have been saying the Repubs moved off the DoD bill and went onto the Gun liablities bill.

But the reason they went onto the gun bill is because the DEMOCRATS didn't vote for cloture on Tue.

Here's what Frist said BEFORE they voted for cloture.

Frist:(7-26) "If cloture is invoked, we will stay on the Defense bill until that is completed, something I am very hopeful we will be able to do shortly. If cloture is not invoked, we would proceed to a cloture vote with respect to the motion to proceed to the gun manufacturers liability bill "

-------------

Well, yesterday Kennedy and Durbin kept up with the lie and Hatch called them on it.

--------------

PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT -- (Senate - July 28, 2005)

Kennedy: We have spent 3 days on the Defense authorization bill. And then we have the Republican leadership pull that down? It makes no sense to me.

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would further yield for a question, I would say to the Senator, through the Chair, that the Army Times, the publication for our U.S. Army and its soldiers who are risking their lives in Iraq, ran a headline story that the Senate pushed off the Department of Defense authorization bill, which included amendments which were being offered to provide additional financial assistance to the widows and orphans of those soldiers who lost their lives in combat, took away the bill which included an amendment to allow additional payment for totally disabled veterans, and instead moved on the floor this bill for one special interest group, the gun lobby.

The Senator has made it clear the Republican leadership considers this bill, a National Rifle Association sponsored bill, more important than the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to conclude the morning business.

I think the Senator from Massachusetts has laid out the case. Can you imagine? We took the bill off the floor for the Department of Defense, for our soldiers and their families, and said we didn't have time to finish it this week because we had to go to this bill, the National Rifle Association's most important bill, which says that gun manufacturers and gun dealers selling their firearms to those on the FBI Most Wanted list, or to those in terrorist organizations, would not be held accountable for their misconduct? Where are the priorities of this Senate?

--------------------


Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard a lot of arguments on the floor in my day, but some of these arguments are some of the worst ever heard. I don't know, maybe I missed something. We were moving ahead on the Defense authorization bill when all of a sudden we couldn't get cloture. We couldn't move ahead because of the very people who have been making these arguments, in a holy fashion, that they want to help our soldiers. Yet they filibuster by preventing cloture and preventing a full acceptance of the Department of Defense authorization bill, and then turn around and say we stopped them from amending the bill. If they were stopped, it is because their amendments were not germane.

I have never heard arguments like this, that we are just going to give gun dealers an absolute right to violate the law. They haven't read this legislation at all.

And then they bring in an antiterrorism argument. What they do not tell the American public is that there are millions of guns out there in the underworld that people can get. But that doesn't justify holding liable gun manufacturers--who manufacture guns for our soldiers, by the way; if they all go broke we will not have the guns for our soldiers--when somebody takes one of their guns and misuses it. The person misusing it ought to be liable, not the gun manufacturer who cannot supervise the persons to whom they legitimately sold guns.

Let's face it. The folks on that side of the aisle hate guns. They talk in terms of, We want to take care of our hunters and our gun collectors and people who love guns who are decent, law-abiding citizens. But look over the years how they have argued against anything that makes sense with regard to the right to manufacture weapons that we have always had in this country, and the right to keep and bear arms, which is explicitly in the Constitution. These are the same people who are constantly arguing about things that are not explicitly in the Constitution, claiming that they should be given the sanctification of constitutional protection. Yet something that is expressly written in the Constitution, they turn around and blast.

I could spend a lot of time on that, but that is not what I came over here to do. All I can say is I find it amazing that an argument would be made, after they voted against cloture--in other words, proceeding with the Defense authorization bill, they voted against proceeding--and now they are saying, Why didn't we proceed. I missed something maybe. But I don't think so. This is just typical: Politics trumps everybody. No one is saying, with regard to this issue of the gun manufacturer's right to manufacture guns that are legal, they have a legal right to do so--nobody is making the argument that dealers who are honest and decent and honorable should not be able to sell those guns to decent, honorable people. We have plenty of restrictions already in law against illegality with regard to the sale of weapons.

My gosh, is there no end to politics in these issues? This argument that this modest bill gives criminals a free pass and aids and abets terrorists is as phony an argument as I have heard. And the argument that it lets manufacturers off the hook for their wrongdoing--if they do wrong, they are on the hook under this bill.

They are not doing wrong. That is the problem. What is wrong is the chief fundraiser of our friends on the left happens to be--the chief hard-money funder in this country happens to be the personal injury trial lawyer for liberals. And those people literally are the reason why we have these, I think, misconceived arguments.

I could not sit here without saying something about it because it is hard to believe that they can stand and make these kinds of arguments. Much as I respect my fellow Senators, it is mind-boggling that they can make an argument that we are preventing going ahead with the DOD bill when they are the ones who stopped it. My gracious. Let me shift gears. I could talk for hours on that subject.

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Terror Friendly Organizations Issue Fatuous Fatwa Against Terror

PIPE LINE NEWS

July 28, 2005 – San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews - In a preemptive media broadside designed to deflect the monsoon of public criticism that will soon engulf the organization on August 1, when Ghassan Elashi – Texas board member of CAIR – is sentenced in Dallas on 21 Federal terrorism counts, the Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR] today joined with the Fiqh Council of North America in issuing a sham ruling that in essence can be reduced to the non-controversial statement that "terrorism is not a good thing."

The brazen nature of such terror friendly groups issuing a fatwa on terrorism, is further underlined by the fact that the former chairman of Fiqh Council of North America, Taher Jaber Al Alwani is according to numerous media reports the number 5 unindicted co-conspirator in the current Sami Al Arian terror trial [taking place in Florida] and whose organizations have been raided by Federal authorities as part of the ongoing investigation into the domestic funding of terrorism.


[snip]

In some way I feel that PipeLineNews had a hand in planting the fatwa seed in CAIR's spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper's head which today flowered in Washington DC's Press Club so grotesquely.

On the morning of Friday July 22, 2005 at 7:45AM PST we had a long conversation with Mr. Hooper.

We discussed a number of issues which will be covered in a later piece, the following transcript is relevant and verbatim, as we promised Hooper it would be.

PipeLineNews - What would your response be to call for a fatwa against Osama bin Laden or Mr. Zarqawi?"

Hooper: "I have no problem with that."

PLN: "Are you calling for one right now?"

Hooper: "The whole concept of the fatwa has been misinterpreted by many people, in the public perception it has come to mean a death sentence but that is not what it is at all...It could be more in this country compared to an attorney general's opinion...you have a specific legal question anything from can you have this land zoned to matters of state all it says is it's a legal opinion by recognized Muslim scholars...The British Muslim community has issued a fatwa condemning terrorism, condemning extremism..."

PLN: "There are fatwas that do call for the death of people such as the one that was issued against Salmon Rushdie. The question is, since that is a part of Islam, since those types of fatwas, those types of religious pronouncements can be issued, would you call for that type of a fatwa?

Calling for the death of Osama bin Laden?"

Hooper: "You are arguing from a false premise, that fatwas are a death sentence and that is not the case, in fact the world was outraged that there was a death sentence that was against Salmon Rushdie...they should have been...now you called for a similar one...that's a bit of a contradiction."

PLN: "So you're calling for Osama Bin Laden's death?"

Hooper: "Give me a break."

PLN: "So you are not willing to call for a fatwa calling for the death of Osama bin Laden?...The question goes to the core of what CAIR stands for."

Hooper: "The penalty for murder in Islam is death..if someone is convicted of murder the death penalty could be applied, no problem with that."

PLN: "You're unwilling to answer the question Mr. Hooper, are you willing to call for the death of Osama bin Laden?"

Hooper: Click...end of conversation.

What can be gathered from this?

Hooper had an opportunity to simply state that terrorism was so egregious, so antithetical to Islam that it was appropriate to support a fatwa calling for the death of Osamma bin-Laden, that Muslims should turn him and people like Zarqawi over to authorities, but he refused, on numerous occasions.

He refused because his organization and those associated with it in today's cruel game are merely engaging in an elaborate public relations lie.

The ugly reality is that Islamists have a different conception of truth than other people do.

Radical Muslims look at the world in a unique way.

To them if the cause is justified in their twisted thinking, then any avenue to attain that goal is just.

What else would motivate two organizations - CAIR and the Fiqh Council of North America - with the types of associations just hinted at above, engage in such obvious subterfuge?

At some point today's stunt must be seen for what it is - a charade, a freak-town side show in which the geek bites off the head of the chicken while the barker standing by denies that it happened.

That is what you saw at the National Press Club today, there is no less harsh, nor more accurate way to talk about it.

Bomb suspect reportedly held in Africa ( key suspect in July 7 London bombings)



NEW YORKZambian authorities have detained a man sought for questioning in this month's deadly London bombing plot, as well as for his alleged role in setting up a terrorist training camp in Oregon, U.S. officials said yesterday.

Haroon Rashid Aswat, 30, a British citizen of Indian descent, piqued the interest of investigators when they discovered that about 20 calls had been placed from his cellphone to some of the men who set off bombs on London's

I just think this is funny.......

And I imagine this is how some people really type....


‘Millennium bomber’ sentenced to 22 years

SEATTLE - The man convicted of plotting to blow up the Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium was sentenced Wednesday to 22 years in prison.




22 years?!?! This guy should have been shipped to GITMO!

Ya just have to read what Hugh had to say about the judge in the case.




Judge Coughenour: Your arrogance is exceeded only by your contempt for the lives of your fellow citizens.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

News from Cuba

The Real Cuba

The rumors have been confirmed!

We reported two days ago that there were rumors that for the first time in 46 years there was
not going to be an outside mass rally to celebrate the 26 of July, the date in 1953 when Castro
and a group of his followers attacked the Moncada barracks in Santiago de Cuba.

And now the rumors have been officially confirmed. It seems that Castro is afraid to hold a mass rally under the present conditions in the island, where there have been many protests taking place during the last few days. He feels more secure inside a theatre, where no one can get in without an official invitation. Click here for all the details: Latest news




Castro style 'democracy: Mobs, protected by police and soldiers, attack with sticks and iron
bars any peaceful demonstrator who dares to exercise his right to protest.







Castro warns against `acts of treason' - Heat, misery and popular discontent a dangerous brew

Miami Herald | July 27, 2005 | RENATO PEREZ AND NANCY SAN MARTIN

In the darkest, bluntest warning to Cuban dissidents yet, Fidel Castro said Tuesday that ''acts of treason'' would not be tolerated and warned that attempts to destabilize would be confronted by the population ``whenever traitors and mercenaries go one millimeter beyond what the revolutionary people . . . are willing to permit.''

Castro's strong words on the 52nd anniversary of the start of his revolution came on the heels of a new roundup of more than 50 dissidents who tried to participate in two separate protests this month.

Most of the would-be protesters were released after clashes with government supporters, but as many as 16 remain behind bars, including six charged with ``public disorder.''


Thefts of U.S. technology boost China's weaponry

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 27, 2005

Part I: Chinese dragon awakens

Second of two parts.

China is stepping up its overt and covert efforts to gather intelligence and technology in the United States, and the activities have boosted Beijing's plans to rapidly produce advanced-weapons systems.
"I think you see it where something that would normally take 10 years to develop takes them two or three," said David Szady, chief of FBI counterintelligence operations.
He said the Chinese are prolific collectors of secrets and military-related information.

[snip]

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

These soldiers say 'Over There' is 'bogus'

I had a feeling this show was gonna be BS.

----------------


By M.L. LYKE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

A truck tire hits a flagged wire, a roadside bomb explodes, a handsome private with shredded leg screams in agony. In the bloody chaos of the moment, his soldier buddies panic. One pukes.

Stop the cameras! Sir!

"People don't act like that when an i.e.d. (improvised explosive device) goes off. They make us look like idiots. We're not idiots!" said a first lieutenant previewing "Over There," the new TV series from Steven Bochco ("NYPD Blue," "Hill Street Blues") that debuts tomorrow night on FX cable network. It's set in Iraq, hyped as "true to life" by producers and hailed by critics as "unflinching" and "gut-wrenching."

"Bogus" was the preferred adjective among the eight soldiers -- most of them Iraq vets -- viewing the series pilot last week at Camp Murray, headquarters of the Washington State National Guard in Tacoma.

"Thank God that's over," said a master sergeant as the credits rolled.

The uniformed skeptics dissected the series pilot scene by scene, beginning with the roadside bombing and panicked soldiers. Who, they asked, was pulling security? And what kind of idiot pulls off his helmet after a bombing attack? "In real life, training takes over. Not in Hollywood," said Sgt. Dan Purcell.

The flags on the trip wires got an "F": roadside bombs in Iraq are typically hidden in watermelons, hay stacks, animal carcasses -- not marked for easy viewing. "A flag to mark an i.e.d.? What is that -- like don't land here?"


[snip]

Ready for lift off!!

RETURN TO FLIGHT






I'll have pictures later of the what the launch looks like form JAX.

----------------

No luck w/ the pics, too overcast here in JAX.

But here's where I was hoping to get a shot.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

Monday, July 25, 2005

Wait.........Is that John Kerry?



Visiting Democratic Sen. John Kerry, left, poses with overall leader of the Tour de France cycling race, Lance Armstrong, of Austin, Texas, at the Team Discovery Channel quarters near the start line in Saint-Etienne, central France, as Armstrong warms up prior to the 20th stage of the Tour de France cycling race, a 55.5-kilometer (34.5-mile) individual time trial Saturday, July 23, 2005. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena)



Sheryl Crow, right, the partner of now seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong, of Austin, Texas, holds Armstrong's daughter Grace as they watch Armstrong race to his seventh straight Tour de France cycling race, after the 21st and final stage of the race between Corbeil-Essonnes, south of Paris, and the French capital, Sunday, July 24, 2005. Unidentified woman at left holds Grace's twin sister Isabelle. In rear right is Democratic Senator John Kerry. (AP Photo/Michel Spingler)

----------

OMG it is!

This man is getting better at getting in front a camera when you least expect it.

Has he been taking pointers from Je$$e Jackson, Chuckie Schumer, Joe Biden, and John McCain?

Driving bill upsets [NJ] smokers

Bill would ban puffing behind wheel

By LUIS PUGA
Courier-Post Staff
CHERRY HILL

Jamie Maynard can't even begin to comprehend why someone would propose legislation to ban drivers from smoking.

"That's like saying you can't smoke in your own house," said Maynard, 25, of Maple Shade, as she finished off a cigarette before heading into the Wal-Mart on Route 38. "This kind of stuff really gets me mad."

But if one lawmaker has his way, those who like to light up behind the wheel could face the same fate as those who talk on cell phones.

Assemblyman John F. McKeon, D-West Orange, sponsored a measure that would fine drivers up to $250 if they are found smoking while driving.


[snip]




This is just dumb IMO.

Now I' m not a smoker but I could care less if people want to smoke in their cars. But parents if you have kids in the car could you at least crack the window.

What else does Nanny Gov't want to restrict while driving?

Changing the radio? Hell why even let people have a radio in the car!

No eating or drinking in your car?

Don't roll your window down while driving! That's a distraction too.

-----------------

I do think cell phones fall into a different category though, unless you have an absolute need to call someone STAY OFF THE DAMN PHONE AND DRIVE!!

Donald Trump & the UN.

Don't miss this!

--------

Donald Trump, regarding the United Nations' remodeling plan: Senator, congratulations. You've got a mess on your hands.



---------

Here's the Full hearing.

Sunday, July 24, 2005

[PA] Lt. gov. crashed Marine's funeral, kin say

Now I've heard of low, but this is crawling on the floor, lifting up the scum on the floor and crawling under the scum low!





Saturday, July 23, 2005
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau


The family of a Marine who was killed in Iraq is furious with Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll for showing up uninvited at his funeral this week, handing out her business card and then saying "our government" is against the war."

Rhonda Goodrich of Indiana, Pa., said yesterday that a funeral was held Tuesday at a church in Carnegie for her brother-in-law, Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich, 32.

She said he "died bravely and courageously in Iraq on July 10, serving his country."

In a phone interview, Goodrich said the funeral service was packed with people "who wanted to tell his family how Joe had impacted their lives."

Then, suddenly, "one uninvited guest made an appearance, Catherine Baker Knoll."

She sat down next to a Goodrich family member and, during the distribution of communion, said, "Who are you?" Then she handed the family member one of her business cards, which Goodrich said she still has.

"Knoll felt this was an appropriate time to campaign and impose her will on us," Goodrich said. "I am amazed and disgusted Knoll finds a Marine funeral a prime place to campaign."

Goodrich said she is positive that Knoll was not invited to the funeral, which was jammed with Marines in dress uniform and police officers, because the fallen Marine had been a policeman in McKeesport and Indiana County.

"Our family deserves an apology," Rhonda Goodrich said. "Here you have a soldier who was killed -- dying for his country -- in a church full of grieving family members and she shows up uninvited. It made a mockery of Joey's death."

What really upset the family, Goodrich said, is that Knoll said, 'I want you to know our government is against this war,' " Goodrich said.

She said she is going to seek an answer from Gov. Ed Rendell's administration if it opposes the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Knoll was traveling yesterday, away from the Capitol, and couldn't be reached. But an aide said she "extends condolences to all families who have lost loved ones" serving in the military.

Without having talked to her, the aide, who asked not to be named, said, "The family members of fallen soldiers are in our hearts and prayers. Our prayers go out to their loved ones in their hour of grief."

Asked to comment on Goodrich's complaints about Knoll's conduct at the funeral, the aide said that "would be inappropriate."

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Report: Justice Department Probing Durbin, Rockefeller, Wyden CIA [satellite] Leak

The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into whether Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Jay Rockefeller and Ron Wyden leaked details about a secret "black ops" CIA satellite program last December in a move that may have seriously compromised national security, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin said on Saturday.

"The CIA made a request to the Justice Department to investigate and possibly bring criminal charges against these three [senators]," Babbin told WABC Radio host Monica Crowley. "My information is that investigation is ongoing."

Rockefeller is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Durbin is the No. 2-ranking Democrat in the Senate.

Media reports on the satellite leak last December indicated that the Bush administration was concerned about public comments by Durbin, Rockefeller and Wyden and that the CIA had requested a Justice Department probe.

"The formal request for a leaks investigation would target people who described sensitive details about a new generation of spy satellites to The Washington Post, which published a page-one story about the espionage program Saturday [Dec. 11, 2004]," a Justice Department official told The Associated Press at the time.

But the same official told the AP that Justice "has not decided whether to investigate."

Former Deputy Undersecretary Babbin's comments on Saturday were the first indication that such a probe was actually launched and is ongoing.

"The fact of the matter is that [Durbin, Rockefeller and Wyden] divulged something that was above and beyond top secret and frankly, they probably blew the strategy and the hundreds of millions of dollars that were being spent to pursue it," Babbin told Crowley.

"The acknowledgement of [the "black ops" program's] existence is not even proper and the acknowledgement of them and the details of them can very well damage national security," Babbin added.

Asked if he thought the three Senate Democrats should have their security clearances revoked for the duration of the leak probe, the former Defense Department official said: "Absolutely and forthwith. I mean, they should have been revoked at the time of the leak."

"There's really not much doubt about the leak having occurred," Babbin told Crowley. "It's in the press records, it's in the Congressional record. We know what they did."

"The only question," he explained, "is how much damage was done by the leak. And that's part of the criminal investigation right now - to do a damage assessment, to figure out how much this is going to cost us strategically and militarily."





Here's the WaPo story form 12-04

New Spy Satellite Debated On Hill

&

The NYT story from 12--04 too.


New Spy Plan Said to Involve Satellite System

[BTW..... I hate infowars.]

Democrats-only Hill hearing [forum] targets Rove

By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 23, 2005


Democrats convened a partisan hearing yesterday in an attempt to breathe new life into the suspicion that Karl Rove is guilty of an illegal leak to the press.

The hearing, convened in a Senate office building by the Democratic Policy Committee, featured both House and Senate members and a slate of witnesses guaranteed to testify that the deputy White House chief of staff was guilty of misdeeds in leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

"We know that a dastardly crime in all likelihood was committed," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat. [Way to uphold "innocent until proven guilty" Chuckie! ~ ox]

White House spokesman Scott McClellan was peppered with questions about Mr. Rove nearly every day for two weeks in early July, and the story dominated the political news. Since Mr. Bush tapped Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, however, questions about Mr. Rove and stories about the controversy have dwindled to a trickle.
Mr. McClellan was not asked a single question about Mr. Rove by reporters traveling aboard Air Force One yesterday. [Because the press wasn't on TV?]

Roll Call reported Thursday that a set of "talking points" was issued Wednesday by Senate Democratic leadership urging rank-and-file senators to do what they could to keep the controversy surrounding Mr. Rove in the news.[Did the Dem leadership get them from Moveon.org?]

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said the "faux hearings" demonstrate that Democrats are too eager to score political points to wait for the facts to come out upon completion of the special prosecutor's investigation into the matter.

"If Democrats had any confidence in the investigatory process, they would hold their fire and let the investigation proceed rather than rushing to judgment," Miss Schmitt said.

Mrs. Plame is the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who has accused the White House of lying about Iraq's attempts to acquire weapons-grade nuclear material from Niger. A report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the British intelligence service and other intelligence agencies around the world, however, claim the attempt was made.

The bipartisan intelligence committee report also determined that Mrs. Plame recommended to the CIA that her husband -- a critic of the war in Iraq -- travel to Niger to verify the story of attempted "yellowcake" uranium purchases. Though his own report suggested it had occurred, Mr. Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6, 2003, saying it was wrong of the White House to suggest it did happen.

Mr. Wilson has never publicly reconciled that conflict.

Democrats, however, made it clear that they believe Mr. Wilson's op-ed, and are convinced that Mr. Rove "outed" Mrs. Plame as a form of political retribution.

"The White House launched a smear campaign, and Valerie Plame became collateral damage," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat. "Now the White House has gone silent. It won't answer any questions. It won't take any administrative action against Mr. Rove."

Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, said that what occurred is "at its worst, treason committed by high-level White House officials, and at the best we have seen an abuse of power."


[I can't stand Conyers & Waxman!]




This was not a "hearing" this was a witch trial. (I think they even had a duck.)

I watched about 10mins of it, that all I could stand, and I listened to an ex-CIA analyst that left the CIA in '89. He talked about the process of how the CIA works and that's all find and good but once he started talking about what VP Cheney did, what Wilson did, what Valerie Plame did, I had to turn him off cause HE WASN'T THERE. How could he know all these things to be true? Sounded a lot like what the left wants to be true but I don't see how this guy had the truth.

Friday, July 22, 2005

Democrats demand [Roberts'] legal papers

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 22, 2005

Democrats said yesterday they will demand that the Bush administration hand over internal legal memorandums written by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. while he was a government lawyer -- something the White House has refused to do in the past.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said he broached the topic during a meeting yesterday with Judge Roberts, who replied that any decision about his writings as deputy solicitor general would be made by the White House.

Republicans on Capitol Hill said the request is not likely to be granted.

Demands for those same documents -- deemed legally privileged by this and previous administrations -- led to the rejection of Miguel Estrada, an earlier Bush nominee to a lower court.

Democrats have used this tactic to stall the nomination of John R. Bolton, Mr. Bush's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations.

Some Republicans said yesterday that the demands may be early signs of a stealth campaign by Democrats to kill the Supreme Court nomination by demanding documents they know they won't get -- a strategy one Republican termed "Estradification."

[snip]



I was right.




Add on:

Tim Chapman from "From the Bleachers" blog has some good links over at his Townhall Soapbox of the letter from all former Solicitor Generals (PDF) denouncing the tactic and a letter from the Justic Department (PDF) regarding the tactic when the dems filibustered Estrada.

Let a Thousand Filters Bloom [China & the internet]

By Anne Applebaum

Wednesday, July 20, 2005; Page A23

In 1949, when George Orwell wrote his dystopian novel "1984," he gave its hero, Winston, a job at the Ministry of Truth. All day long, Winston clips politically unacceptable facts, stuffs them into little pneumatic tubes, and then pushes the tubes down a chute. Beside him sits a woman in charge of finding and erasing the names of people who have been "vaporized." And their office, Orwell wrote, "with its fifty workers or thereabouts, was only one sub-section, a single cell, as it were, in the huge complexity of the Records Department."

It's odd to read "1984" in 2005, because the politics of Orwell's vision aren't outdated. There are still plenty of governments in the world that go to extraordinary lengths to shape what their citizens read, think and say, just like Orwell's Big Brother. But the technology envisioned in "1984" is so -- well, 1980s. Paper? Pneumatic tubes? Workers in cubicles? Nowadays, none of that is necessary: It can all be done electronically, especially if, like the Chinese government, you seek the cooperation of large American companies.



Without question, China's Internet filtering regime is "the most sophisticated effort of its kind in the world," in the words of a recent report by Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. The system involves the censorship of Web logs, search engines, chat rooms and e-mail by "thousands of public and private personnel." It also involves Microsoft Inc., as Chinese bloggers discovered last month. Since early June, Chinese bloggers who post messages containing a forbidden word -- "Dalai Lama," for example, or "democracy" -- receive a warning: "This message contains a banned expression, please delete." It seems Microsoft has altered the Chinese version of its blog tool, MSN Spaces, at the behest of Chinese government. Bill Gates, so eloquent on the subject of African poverty, is less worried about Chinese free speech.

But he isn't alone: Because Yahoo Inc. is one of several companies that have signed a "public pledge on self-discipline," a Yahoo search in China doesn't turn up all of the (politically sensitive) results. Cisco Systems Inc., another U.S. company, has also sold hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment to China, including technology that blocks traffic not only to banned Web sites, but even to particular pages within an otherwise accessible site.

Until now, most of these companies have defended themselves on the grounds that there are side benefits -- a Microsoft spokesman has said that "we're helping millions of people communicate, share stories, share photographs and build relationships" -- or on the grounds that they can't control technology anyway. A Cisco spokesman told me that this is the "same equipment technology that your local library uses to block pornography," and besides, "we're not doing anything illegal."

But as U.S. companies become more deeply involved in China, and as technology itself progresses, those lines may begin to sound weaker. Over the past couple of years, Harry Wu, a Chinese human rights activist and former political prisoner, has carefully tracked Western corporate cooperation with Chinese police and internal security, and in particular with a Chinese project called "Golden Shield," a high-tech surveillance system that has been under construction for the past five years. Although the company won't confirm it, Wu says, Cisco representatives in China have told him that the company has contracts to provide technology to the police departments of at least 31 provinces. Some of that technology may be similar to what the writer and former businessman Ethan Gutmann describes in his recent book, "Losing the New China: A Story of American Commerce, Desire and Betrayal." Gutmann -- whose account is also bitterly disputed by Cisco ("He's getting a lot of press out of this," complained the spokesman) -- claims to have visited a Shanghai trade fair where Cisco was advertising its ability to "integrate judicial networks, border security, and vertical police networks" and more generally its willingness to build Golden Shield.

If this isn't illegal, maybe it should be. After the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, the United States passed a law prohibiting U.S. firms from selling "crime control and detection" equipment to the Chinese. But in 1989, the definition of police equipment ran to truncheons, handcuffs and riot gear. Has it been updated? We may soon find out: A few days ago, Rep. Dan Burton of the House Foreign Relations Committee wrote a letter to the Commerce Department asking exactly that. In any case, it's time to have this debate again. There could be other solutions -- such as flooding the Chinese Internet with filter-breaking technology.

Beyond legality, of course, there's morality. And here the judgment of history will prove more important than whatever Congress does or does not do today. Sixty years after the end of World War II, IBM is still battling lawsuits from plaintiffs who accuse the company of providing the "enabling technologies" that facilitated the Holocaust. Sixty years from now, will Microsoft, Cisco and Yahoo be doing the same?

Islam is a religion of peace. Right—and Paris Hilton is a virgin.

Pardon My Intolerance

By: Rachel Marsden

Islam is a religion of peace. Right—and Paris Hilton is a virgin. But “moderate” Muslims—an oxymoron if ever there was one—would have us trying to reconcile the completely irreconcilable.

After last week’s civilian bombings by Islamists in London, England, I was walking through Toronto’s Dundas Square when a man handed me a booklet entitled “Islam: Does it Make Sense?” Complete with subheadings like “the religion of balance and moderation”, “the religion of human equality”, “the most tolerant and inclusive religion”, and “the liberating religion”, it makes for a nice spun-out version of Islam for kids, lefties, or anyone with an uncontrollable drooling problem.

[snip]

The Quran also instructs: “never be a helper to the disbelievers”. That might explain why the few token condemnations of the London bombings by Muslim clerics ring about as true as O.J. Simpson’s vow to search for the "real killer" on golf courses across America.

[snip]


Now that's funny.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Where did this qualifier come from? [Roberts]

Have a look at these three quotes said on the 20th.

Kennedy: "What all Americans deserve to know is whether Judge Roberts respects the core values of the Constitution and falls within the conservative mainstream of America, along the lines of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."

Reid: "Justice O'Connor, therefore, should be replaced by someone like her in the constitutional mainstream. "

Leahy: "This nomination fills the seat that Justice O'Connor occupied while serving as the ``swing'' or decisive vote in so many cases, and if her successor does not share her judicial philosophy, that replacement could radically change the Court in the way our Constitution is interpreted."




Am I missing something, where in the Constitution does it say an incoming Judge replacing an outgoing Judge must prescribe to the same judicial philosophy?

Article II sec. II says;

He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Article III sec. I says;

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Nope sorry, I don't see anything about judicial philosophy being applied, the Supreme Court being "balanced," there being a "swing" vote requirement, or the word "mainstream".

GTA for PS3?

Check this out!






gta-sanandreas.com

Wife of Nominee Holds Strong Antiabortion Views



WASHINGTON — While Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s views on abortion triggered intense debate on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, there is no mistaking where his wife stands: Jane Sullivan Roberts, a lawyer, is ardently against abortion.


A Roman Catholic like her husband, Jane Roberts has been deeply involved in the antiabortion movement. She provides her name, money and professional advice to a small Washington organization — Feminists for Life of America — that offers counseling and educational programs. The group has filed legal briefs before the high court challenging the constitutionality of abortion.

A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.




I had no idea John Roberts' wife was going to be on the SCOTUS.

Update on Sniper story.

Jack Army has an update & pics from this story.

China's Zhu-doo diplomacy [nuclear first-strike against the U.S.]

By Don Feder
July 21, 2005

Late last week, Maj. Gen Zhu Chenghu of the People's Liberation Army forecast a nuclear first-strike against the U.S. if America interferes with China's plans to take Taiwan.
Dismissing this as Marxist bravado would be a tragic mistake. China is preparing for a war with us and will not hesitate to use any means to achieve its strategic objectives.

Gen. Zhu, a professor at China's National Defense University, calmly told a group of foreign journalists what would happen if America intervened to save Taiwan: "We will be determined to respond. We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all cities east of Xian [in central China]. Of course, the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds ... of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."

Gen. Zhu isn't the first PLA diplomat to threaten nuclear war over Taiwan. In 1995, Gen. Xiong Guangkai, now deputy chief of the general staff, told a former Pentagon official he was sure the U.S. would think twice about supporting Taiwan in a military confrontation, because Americans "cared more about losing Los Angeles" than saving Taipei.


[snip]


When I read stories like this I can't understand why some Democrats say we don't need a missile defense system.

Roberts gave GOP advice in 2000 recount

Oh boy!

The moonbats are going to shit themselves silly once they hear about this.

So if you see a moonbat walking down the sidewalk talking to themselves saying over and over

"
Karl Rove.......
Downing street memo.....
Bush lied.....
Stolen Election..........
Roberts........
2000.......
Florida......"

Have some fun, tell them you're with the local Republican party and would they like to volunteer to help get Republican Senators elected in '06.



-------------------

John G. Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, played a role in the chaotic, 36-day period following the disputed 2000 presidential election.

By GARY FINEOUT AND MARY ELLEN KLAS


TALLAHASSEE - U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts provided legal advice to Gov. Jeb Bush in the weeks following the November 2000 election as part of the effort to make sure the governor's brother won the disputed presidential vote.

Roberts, at the time a private attorney in Washington, D.C., came to Tallahassee to advise the state's Republican administration as it was trying to prevent a Democratic end-run that the GOP feared might give the election to Al Gore, sources told The Herald.

The maneuver, which the Democrats never attempted, might have kept the state from sending its list of official ''electors'' -- the Electoral College members who actually cast the votes that count -- to Congress and the National Archives.

If the names were not forwarded to Washington in a timely fashion, Republicans feared, Gore might be declared the winner because Florida's 25 electoral votes wouldn't be counted -- and the Democrat had garnered more electoral votes than George W. Bush in the rest of the country.

Roberts, himself a noted constitutional lawyer, and an unnamed law professor spent between 30 and 40 minutes talking to Bush in the governor's conference room, sources told The Herald.

Roberts' perceived partisanship during the recount has been enough for some Democrats to suggest that his nomination should be rejected by the U.S. Senate.

A spokesman for the governor confirmed Wednesday that Bush met with Roberts during the recount.

Roberts was ''one of several experts who came to Florida to share their ideas,'' said spokesman Jacob DiPietre. Roberts came ``at his own expense and met with Gov. Bush to share what he believed the governor's responsibilities were under federal law after a presidential election and a presidential election under dispute.''

The reason that Roberts was tapped: His connection to Dean Colson, a lawyer with the Miami firm of Colson Hicks Eidson. Colson had been a clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist at the same time as Roberts in 1980 and was best man at Roberts' wedding. Brian Yablonski, who was then a top aide to the governor, worked at the Colson law firm before he went to work with Bush.

Since the recount, the ties between the firm where Roberts worked at the time, Hogan & Hartson, and Florida's government has grown deeper, as Hogan & Hartson has taken on several high-profile legal jobs in the state. The firm, for which Roberts worked from 1986 to 1989 and again from 1993 to 2003, represents and lobbies the Legislature for the Scripps Research Institute, which was given $500 million by state and local governments to set up an operation in Florida.

When Roberts came to Tallahassee in November 2000, he outlined for the governor the formal process that needed to be followed once the Florida popular vote was certified for Bush. At least one book documenting the period, Too Close to Call by journalist Jeffrey Toobin, said Bush strategists feared Gore attorneys would try to block the state from sending the ''certificate of ascertainment'' -- the list of electors -- to the National Archives. That book documents the elaborate lengths to which the governor's staff went to ensure that the certificate -- which said Bush had won -- was not subpoenaed by Democrats and stopped in its tracks.

DiPietre refused to answer questions on Roberts' role during the recount or why the governor talked to the attorney after his vow to recuse himself from the dispute.


[snip]

Haroon Rashid Aswat Captured In Pakistan

Top al-Qaeda Briton called Tube bombers before attack



THE British al-Qaeda leader linked to the London terrorist attacks was being questioned by police in Pakistan last night after the discovery of mobile phone records detailing his calls with the suicide bombers.

Haroon Rashid Aswat has emerged as the figure that Scotland Yard have been hunting since he flew out of Britain just hours before the attacks which killed 56 people.

Aswat, 30, who is believed to come from the same West Yorkshire town as one of the bombers, arrived in Britain a fortnight before the attacks to orchestrate final planning for the atrocity. He spoke to the suicide team on his mobile phone a few hours before the four men blew themselves up and killed fifty-two other people.

Intelligence sources told The Times that during his stay Aswat visited the home towns of all four bombers as well as selecting targets in London.

Aswat has been known to Western intelligence services for more than three years after the FBI accused him of trying to set up al-Qaeda training camps in the US. When he was arrested in a madrassa (religious school), Aswat is understood to have been posing as a businessmen and using a false name. He was picked up in a raid at a madrassa at Sargodha, 90 miles from Islamabad, by Pakistani intelligence officials and flown to a jail in the capital.

Security sources there told The Times that he was armed with a number of guns, wearing an explosive belt and carrying around £17,000 in cash. He had a British passport and was about to flee across the border to Afghanistan.

[snip]



(7-28-05) Update:

Bomb suspect reportedly held in Africa ( key suspect in July 7 London bombings)

British Seeking Abu Hamza's Top Aide in Connection With 7-7 Attack

LONDON, July 20 - The police investigating the terrorist bombings here have begun a worldwide hunt for a former aide to one of Britain's most militant Islamic clerics who they believe may have played a key role in the July 7 attacks, according to British, European and American intelligence and law enforcement officials.

The man, identified as Haroon Rashid Aswat, 31, originally from Dewsbury in north-central England, was a senior aide to Abu Hamza al-Masri, the blind, one-armed militant cleric who preached at the Finsbury Park mosque in north London until his arrest in April 2004. Mr. Masri, who urged young men to wage jihad in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond, is now facing extradition to the United States to face terrorism-related charges.

Several intelligence and law enforcement officials said they believed that Mr. Aswat was also involved in a plan to set up a training camp for Al Qaeda in Oregon six years ago.

[snip]

"Nobody's tying him in or making him the mastermind yet," a senior American official said. "There's no real substantiation yet. But people are looking at some of his confederates and connections, and saying that it's a possibility."

An American official and two European officials said Mr. Aswat spent several weeks in Bly, Ore., in late 1999 and early 2000, trying to help several associates establish a Qaeda training camp there. Although he was not identified by name in court papers in the Oregon case, several American officials said he was an unindicted co-conspirator in the indictment of James Ujaama, who pleaded guilty to aiding the Taliban. Mr. Ujaama, 39, is now the leading witness in the United States terrorism indictment of Mr. Masri, American officials said.

Two American officials cautioned it was not fully confirmed that the Mr. Aswat being sought was the same man implicated in the Oregon case.

Mr. Aswat is believed to have met Osama bin Laden sometime in the late 1990's, senior investigators said. He trained at Qaeda-run camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they said.


Wednesday, July 20, 2005

The Ginsburg Precedent

Well I'll be dipped........

I just checked over at Hugh Hewitt's site after getting back from lunch and I see he's got the same link I just posted in the comments.

----------------

Posted at 7:30 AM, Pacific

The Ginsburg Precedent

"I prefer not to answer questions like that; again, to talk in grand terms about principles that have to be applied in concrete cases. I like to reason from the specific case," was the response of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Patrick Leahy's 1993 question to then nominee Judge Ginsburg on which of the two religion clauses of the First Amendment was subordinate to the other.

Judge Roberts will no doubt be spending a lot of time with the transcripts of the confirmation hearings, especially that part where Senator Leahy says "I understand. Just trying, Judge, just trying" in response to Justice Ginsburg refusal to engage in great debate over constitutional principles.

This article by Jay T. Jorgensen explains in detail the importance of the precedents established by the Ginsburg hearings. One of his many key findings:

"Justice Ginsburg declined to answer questions about her views on both prospective and many historical Supreme Court cases. She also declined to answer questions (or gave non-responsive answers to questions) involving a number of controversial issues, hypothetical facts, or areas in which she is not an expert."


[snip]

Schumer's Questions for Roberts

Wow!

Chuckie has lost his mind.
---------


Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Fox News

WASHINGTON — The following is a list of questions Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., wants a Supreme Court nominee to answer before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Unocal accepts ChevronTexaco offer

Good! I'm really glad China didn't get it!

-----------

Wednesday, July 20 08:41:33

(BizWorld)

Unocal said it accepted an increased USD63.01 per share offer from ChevronTexaco, valuing the US oil company at USD17.1bn.

This is what the dems think....

Chuckie showed his hand, twice, last night while on C-span.

This is a perfect example of what the left thinks the SCOTUS does. They think the SC "makes law".


"Now that he is nominated for a position where he can overturn precedent and make law, it is even more important that he fully answers a very broad range of questions," Schumer said. "I hope for the sake of the country that Judge Roberts understands this and answers questions openly, honestly and thoroughly."


It's Congess that "makes" the laws Chuckie.

Something you didn't see on TV when Pres. Bush was announcing his SC pick.







President Bush introduces his nominee for the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts Jr., left, as his son John, dances, and wife Jane and daughter Josephine, look on in the State Dining Room at the White House, Tuesday, July 19, 2005, in Washington. President Bush chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday as his first nominee for the Supreme Court, selecting a rock solid conservative whose nomination could trigger a tumultuous battle over the direction of the nation's highest court.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

It's Roberts!!

I really don't know much about who he is but from what I've heard so far he's a great pick.


I'm watching Leaky Leahy on FNC right now.


IMO........The dems WILL filibuster.

War of the Words ~ By: S.o.D. DON RUMSFELD

July 18, 2005; Page A12: Wall Street Journal

Every conflict in history has seen its share of rumor, propaganda and misinformation. The "yellow journalism" that helped launch the Spanish-American War and the infamous radio broadcasts of "Tokyo Rose" during World War II come to mind. But the information technology of the 21st century has made waging an ideological global struggle against extremism particularly complex. Decision makers, the media and the public at large will need to come to terms with the effect of these new realities. The old adage that "A lie can be half-way around the world before truth has its boots on" becomes doubly true with today's technology.

[snip]

Monday, July 18, 2005

Things you don't say when you're a Congressman.......this is one of them.

This is Congressman Tom Tancredo Friday during an interview on WFLA in Orlando, Fla.

------------------------------------

Campbell: Worst case scenario, if they do have these nukes inside the borders and they were to use something like that — what would our response be?

Tancredo: What would be the response? You know, there are things that you could threaten to do before something like that happens and then you may have to do afterwards that are quite draconian.

Campbell: Such as...

Tancredo: Well, what if you said something like — if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, um, you know, you could take out their holy sites . . .

Campbell: You're talking about bombing Mecca.

Tancredo: Yeah. What if you said — what if you said that we recognize that this is the ultimate threat to the United States — therefore this is the ultimate threat, this is the ultimate response.

I mean, I don't know, I'm just throwing out there some ideas because it seems to me . . . at that point in time you would be talking about taking the most draconian measures you could possibly imagine and because other than that all you could do is once again tighten up internally.

--------------------------

Now I like Tom, but you don't say something like this OUT LOUD ON THE RADIO!!

Should Mecca be a target if multiple cities in the US are hit?........No.

I think it might create more problems than solve problems..

But I would say the Dome of the Rock should be on the list after we hit Iran's nuke facilities.

Course that shouldn't be a bombing but a strategic take over.......or I should say a take back.



But back to what Tancredo said..............dumb dumb dumb.........It's almost as bad as what Drubin said, maybe even worse.

I can just see his words being use as an example for Kornanimals to inculcate their skulls of mush and use what he said as a recruiting tool.

48th Brigade helps bring water to Iraqi farmers

July 10, 2005

Release A050710a

48th Brigade helps bring water to Iraqi farmers

YUSUFIYAH, Iraq – The Tigris River is the lifeblood of the Arab J'Bour village and other rural farming communities in Yusufiyah , Iraq . With that in mind, 48th Brigade Combat Team civil affairs Soldiers paid a visit to the Yusufiyah water pumping Station on July 4 to follow up on the progress of military engineering efforts there.

Thousands of families rely on the water supplied by the pumping station. A predominantly farming region, the need for water factors greatly into the community's ability to flourish.

Servicing a vital irrigation reservoir, the pumping station feeds from the only abundant water source, the Tigris River . Maintaining functionality of the pumping station has been challenging.

The 48th Brigade has been working with Iraq 's Ministry of Electricity, said Lt. Col. Scott Carter, the civil affairs officer. "The goal is to have 12 hours of power a day. But because of the necessity for rolling blackouts, the down-time puts significant demands on the pumping system.”

The blackouts are mandatory, as the electrical infrastructure is re-worked to give consistent electrical service throughout Iraq .

“We are very proud and very thankful for the U.S. Military's help,” Abou Hamid, an apricot farmer who lives 25 kilometers away from the pumping station stated through a translator.

Hamid once felt no one cared about the region's situation. Now he sees and appreciates the compassion and hard work Coalition Forces have shown to the people of Iraq .

“I see the situation getting better,” Hamid added.

Initial surveys indicate 12 pumps are needed to supply the region, but current power availability levels only allow eight to operate. The plant has its own generators, but they are old and require constant repairs. Wiring problems are also an issue. A new generator was recently delivered to the site and the 48th BCT has arranged for two more to be delivered by mid-July. This will benefit farming efforts enormously.

As a close community, the villagers are very considerate of each other. They desire peace, to be successful and self-sufficient.

“I thank you for everything,” Hamid said, enjoying a cool sip of water. “My dream is to one day visit your country and repay you for all of your kindness, God willing.”






YUSUFIYAH, Iraq – Abou Hamid (foreground, kneeling) an apricot farmer, and his friend, Abou Najem (standing), visit the Yusufiyah Pumping Station to offer any assistance they can in maintaining the station July 4. The Tigris River is the ‘lifeblood' of the Arab J'Bour village and other rural farming communities in Yusufiyah , Iraq . (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Tracy Smith, 48th Brigade Combat Team PAO)



YUSUFIYAH, Iraq – Water pours into a canal channel as 48th Brigade Combat Team civil affairs Soldiers, working with the people of Yusufiyah, siphon the Tigris River, the ‘lifeblood' of the Arab J'Bour village and other rural farming communities in the arid region. This allows water to reach thousands of acres of parched farmland. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Tracy Smith, 48th Brigade Combat Team PAO)



YUSUFIYAH, Iraq – 1st Lt. Anthony Bittar, a Soldier with 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, 48th Brigade Combat Team, takes time to talk to a local boy during a visit to the Yusufiyah pumping station in Iraq July 4. The pumping station had not functioned for some time. The U.S. Military and the Iraq government have worked together on this humanitarian project to bring water to outlying areas in this region. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Tracy Smith, 48th Brigade Combat Team PAO)

Soldier survives attack; captures, medically treats sniper (Video)

I wonder why this didn't make it into the MSM?



During a routine patrol in Baghdad June 2, Army Pfc. Stephen Tschiderer, a medic, was shot in the chest by an enemy sniper, hiding in a van just 75 yards away. The incident was filmed by the insurgents.

Tschiderer, with E Troop, 101st “Saber” Cavalry Division, attached to 3rd Battalion, 156th Infantry Regiment, 256th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, was knocked to the ground from the impact, but he popped right back up, took cover and located the enemy’s position.

After tracking down the now-wounded sniper with a team from B Company, 4th Battalion, 1st Iraqi Army Brigade, Tschiderer secured the terrorist with a pair of handcuffs and gave medical aid to the terrorist who’d tried to kill him just minutes before.

See the video of the attack.

Read the account of the incident from the 256th Brigade Combat Team.

Hugh Hewitt interviews Victor Davis Hanson

RadioBlogger has the transcript.

Victor Davis Hanson on how serious our society is on effectively fighting the War on Terror.

Good Blog Read [Wilson]

Checking my site meter this morning I saw I got a few referrals from UNCoRRELATED and his post A Year to Realize Its Over. Two More to Get Over the Loss...

It's a good read, and after I read this...


"Karl Rove is in the clear. Now some of the more enthusiastically partisan Democrat readers of this blog might be blowing out chocolate milk through their nostrils at this "outrageous" claim, but hear me out on this."

I knew I had to link it over here so Tom could read it......



And I think I've come up with a new nickname for Valerie Plame ....... She is "THE CIA SOCCER MOM"

Friday, July 15, 2005

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals gets one right!!

NRO's The Corner....

BREAKING NEWS [Shannen Coffin]
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, decided today, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that invalidated a military tribunal against a detainee at GTMO, who just happened to have been Osama's personal driver. In short, court held that commissions were authorized by Congress's post-9/11 authorization of the use of force, that the Geneva Convention was not enforceable in federal court, and even if it was, it didn't provide "prisoner of war" protection to an unlawful combatant like Hamdan.

Posted at 10:28 AM


It means terrorists are cannot apply for habeas corpus and be tried in US courts.

The oringial case.
(That was just overturned)

Today's ruling.

Toon.....

Senator Sessions proves my point.....

No, I did not see Sessions say this last night. I just found this today while reading the record.


[Page: S8271]
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that we would have such an amendment offered at this time in our American process of passing a Homeland Security bill.

Karl Rove has served this country exceedingly well. One reason people do not want to involve themselves in public service is they go out and try to do something and somebody accuses them of a crime. He had no intent whatsoever to do anything wrong, to violate any law or out any undercover agent. And if the reports in the paper are so, and I assume they are, those are the facts.

Victoria Toensing, the former Assistant Attorney General of the United States, was quoted this morning on television. I happened to catch it. She is a skilled lawyer and articulate person. Asked: Was this statement that allegedly had been made that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, did that violate the law--a law she wrote; she was involved in writing the bill to deal with the deliberate outing of undercover operatives of the United States--she answered in one word, ``No.''

So what we have on the floor of this Senate is an attempt to pass an ex post facto law to remove the security clearance of one of America's finest public servants.

Look here. ``No Federal employee who discloses or has disclosed.'' We are going to change the law now? After somebody has done something that was not a violation of the law? What kind of principle of justice is that? This is a political charade. It is a game to embarrass the President of the United States, who is attempting to conduct a war on behalf of the American people, a war this Congress has voted to support, overwhelmingly, by three-fourths vote. And I do not appreciate it. I think it is beneath this Senate's dignity. It is contrary to the quality of debate and effort to amend the laws we ought to have in this country.

I am shocked by it. I prosecuted for over 15 years in Federal court. You don't pass a law to go back and grab somebody who did something that was not a violation of the law in order to embarrass the President of the United States over nothing. He intended no harm here. He had no intention to out an undercover agent of the CIA--if these allegations are true, and I haven't talked to him about it.

[snip]


Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, there might be a contest between which of these amendments is most poorly drafted. The Reid amendment that kicked off this event, that surprised me when it came up in this last minute, says that ``No Federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed classified information ..... '' And goodness, that has already been disclosed. It is something that has already happened. Apparently, it is not a violation of the law. Now we are going to reach back and make it a violation of law. That is ex post facto law. It would come back from the Supreme Court, if anybody were ever charged and convicted under it, like a rubber ball off the wall.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Democrats [tried] To Push Legislation In Light of Rove Accusations

July 14, 2005 4:20 p.m. EST

Douglas Maher - All Headline News Staff Reporter

Washington D.C. (AHN) - Democratic Senators Harry Reid of Nevada, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Joe Biden of Delaware and Dick Durbin of Illinois are currently putting legislation together that would strip security clearance from any official who reveals the identity of undercover agents in the field.

The Senators are planning to attach the amendment to a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill currently on the Senate floor.

The proposed amendment says, "No federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed, classified information, including the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not authorized to receive such information shall be permitted to hold a security clearance for access to such information."


-----------------------------------



This amendment failed 44-53 BTW.



But the reason I post this is to point out some I learned in my 8th grade Constitution class.


ARTICLE I. SEC 9. says;

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.


In laymen's terms it means you can't pass a law designed to find someone guilty of something they did before you passed the law and the law is narrowly written to go after a certain person.


---------------------

But I wonder if the dems would allow, if this had passed, to be applied to John Kerry?


But yes I know Kerry was immune to that because of ARTICLE I. sec 6 says "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

WILSON: "My wife was not a clandestine officer"

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in Vanity Fair appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC...





LOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Wait....




LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!


No wait ....



LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


--------------

I'll be right back with the first time her cover was blown........it was while she was in Russia.

--------------

OK I'm back.............just google Aldrich Ames + plame.

IMO the reason Joe Wilson said "That's not anything that I can talk about." is because he didn't want to tell Wolf her cover was blown 10+ years ago and Rove and the VRWC had nothing to do with it.

Joe Wilson's Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies And Misstatements

HT: Smartass

1.) Wilson Insisted That The Vice President’s Office Sent Him To Niger:

Wilson Said He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President’s Office. “In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. … The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.” (Joseph C. Wilson, Op-Ed, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa,” The New York Times, 7/6/03)

* Joe Wilson: “[W]hat They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby’s Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ...” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 8/3/03)

Vice President Cheney: “I Don’t Know Joe Wilson. I’ve Never Met Joe Wilson. … And Joe Wilson - I Don’t [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/14/03)

CIA Director George Tenet: “In An Effort To Inquire About Certain Reports Involving Niger, CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Experts, On Their Own Initiative, Asked An Individual With Ties To The Region To Make A Visit To See What He Could Learn.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)

2.) Wilson Claimed The Vice President And Other Senior White House Officials Were Briefed On His Niger Report:

“[Wilson] Believed That [His Report] Would Have Been Distributed To The White House And That The Vice President Received A Direct Response To His Question About The Possible Uranium Deal.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Reported That The Vice President Was Not Briefed On Wilson’s Report. “Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and it should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador’s findings.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

CIA Director George Tenet: “Because This Report, In Our View, Did Not Resolve Whether Iraq Was Or Was Not Seeking Uranium From Abroad, It Was Given A Normal And Wide Distribution, But We Did Not Brief It To The President, Vice-President Or Other Senior Administration Officials.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)

3.) Wilson Has Claimed His Niger Report Was Conclusive And Significant

Wilson Claims His Trip Proved There Was Nothing To The Uranium “Allegations.” “I knew that [Dr. Rice] had fundamentally misstated the facts. In fact, she had lied about it. I had gone out and I had undertaken this study. I had come back and said that this was not feasible. … This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations.” (NBC’s, “Meet The Press,” 5/2/04)

Officials Said Evidence In Wilson’s Niger Report Was “Thin” And His “Homework Was Shoddy.” (Michael Duffy, “Leaking With A Vengeance,” Time, 10/13/03)
Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador’s Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts’ Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

* “For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (INR) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

CIA Said Wilson’s Findings Did Not Resolve The Issue. “Because [Wilson’s] report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release 7/11/03)

The Butler Report Claimed That The President’s State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, “Was Well-Founded.” “We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’ was well-founded.” (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, “Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” 7/14/04)

4.) Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger In 2002:

Wilson Claimed His Wife Did Not Suggest He Travel To Niger To Investigate Reports Of Uranium Deal; Instead, Wilson Claims It Came Out Of Meeting With CIA. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq. … Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?” Joe Wilson: “No. My wife served as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)

* But Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Received Not Only Testimony But Actual Documentation Indicating Wilson’s Wife Proposed Him For Trip. “Some CPD, [CIA Counterproliferation Division] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

5.) Wilson Has Claimed His 1999 Trip To Niger Was Not Suggested By His Wife:

Wilson Claims CIA Thought To Ask Him To Make Trip Because He Had Previously Made Trip For Them In 1999, Not Because Of His Wife’s Suggestion. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Who first raised your name, then, based on what you know? Who came up with the idea to send you there?” Joe Wilson: “The CIA knew my name from a trip, and it’s in the report, that I had taken in 1999 related to uranium activities but not related to Iraq. I had served for 23 years in government including as Bill Clinton’s Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. I had done a lot of work with the Niger government during a period punctuated by a military coup and a subsequent assassination of a president. So I knew all the people there.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)

In Fact, His Wife Suggested Him For 1999 Trip, As Well. “The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA’s behalf … The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region …” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

6.) Wilson Claimed He Was A Victim Of A Partisan Smear Campaign

Joe Wilson: “Well, I Don’t Know. Obviously, There’s Been This Orchestrated Campaign, This Smear Campaign. I Happen To Think That It’s Because The RNC, The Republican National Committee’s Been Involved In This In A Big Way …” CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “But They Weren’t Involved In The Senate Intelligence Committee Report.” Wilson: “No, They Weren’t.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)

Senate Intelligence Committee Unanimously Concluded That Wilson’s Report “Lent More Credibility” For Most Analysts “To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Reports.” “Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

Members Of The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence That Wrote The Unanimous “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq”:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH)

Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO)

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

Sen. John Warner (R-VA)

(Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

7.) A Month Before The Bob Novak And Matthew Cooper Articles Ever Came Out, Wilson Told The Washington Post That Previous Intelligence Reports About Niger Were Based On Forged Documents:

In June Of 2003, Wilson Told The Washington Post “The Niger Intelligence Was Based On Documents That Had Clearly Been Forged Because ‘The Dates Were Wrong And The Names Were Wrong.’” (Susan Schmidt, “Plame’s Input Is Cited On Niger Mission,” The Washington Post, 7/10/04)

However, “The [Senate Select Committee On Intelligence] Report … Said Wilson Provided Misleading Information To The Washington Post Last June [12th, 2003].” (Susan Schmidt, “Plame’s Input Is Cited On Niger Mission,” The Washington Post, 7/10/04)

* Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “The Former Ambassador Said That He May Have ‘Misspoken’ To The Reporter When He Said He Concluded The Documents Were ‘Forged.’” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

8.) Wilson Claimed His Book Would Enrich Debate:

NBC’s Katie Couric: “What Do You Hope The Whole Point Of This Book Will Be? Joe Wilson: “Well, I - I Hope, One, It Will Tell - It Tries To Tell An Interesting Story. Two, I Hope That It Enriches The Debate In A Year In Which We Are All Called Upon As Americans To Elect Our Leaders. And Three, … That [It] Says That This Is A Great Democracy That Is Worthy Of Our Taking Our Responsibilities As Stewards Seriously.” (NBC’s “Today Show,” 5/3/04)

Wilson Admits In His Book That He Had Been Involved In “A Little Literary Flair” When Talking To Reporters. “[Wilson] wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved ‘a little literary flair.’” (Matthew Continetti, “‘A Little Literary Flair’” The Weekly Standard, 7/26/04)

Wilson’s Book The Politics Of Truth: Inside The Lies That Put The White House On Trial And Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity Has Been Panned In Numerous Reviews For Its Inaccuracies:

* “On Page One Of Chapter One, He Quotes NBC Talk Show Host Chris Matthews, Who Told Him That, After Mr. Wilson Chose To Go Public: ‘Wilson’s Wife Is Fair Game.’ Later, He Bases His List Of Suspect Leakers On Conversations With Members Of The News Media And A ‘Source Close To The House Judiciary Committee.’” (Eli Lake, Op-Ed, “Don’t Quit Your Day Job, Mr. Wilson,” New York Post, 5/4/04)
* “For Example, When Asked How He ‘Knew’ That The Intelligence Community Had Rejected The Possibility Of A Niger-Iraq Uranium Deal, As He Wrote In His Book, He Told [Senate Intelligence] Committee Staff That His Assertion May Have Involved ‘A Little Literary Flair.’” (Matthew Continetti, “‘A Little Literary Flair,’” The Weekly Standard, 7/26/04)
* The Boston Globe: “In Essence, Much Of Wilson’s Book Is An Attempt To Portray The Bush Administration As A Ministry Of Fear Whose Mission In Pursuing War In Iraq Required It To Proclaim A Lie As Truth.” (Michael D. Langan, Op-Ed, “‘Truth’ Makes Much Of Bush Controversy,” The Boston Globe, 5/4/04)
* Newsweek’s Evan Thomas Wrote In The Washington Post: “[W]ilson’s Claims And Conclusions Are Either Long Hashed Over Or Based On What The Intelligence Business Describes As ‘Rumint,’ Or Rumor Intelligence.” (Evan Thomas, Op-Ed, “Indecent Exposure,” The Washington Post, 5/16/04)

9.) Wilson Claimed The CIA Provided Him With Information Related To The Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction:

“The Former Ambassador Noted That His CIA Contacts Told Him There Were Documents Pertaining To The Alleged Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction And That The Source Of The Information Was The [Redacted] Intelligence Service.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

* However, “The DO [Director Of Operations At The CIA] Reports Officer Told Committee Staff That He Did Not Provide The Former Ambassador With Any Information About The Source Or Details …” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

10.) Wilson Claimed He Is A Non-Partisan “Centrist”:

Recently, Joe Wilson Refused To Admit He Is A Registered Democrat. NBC’s Jamie Gangel: “You are a Democrat?” Joe Wilson: “I exercise my rights as a citizen of this country to participate in the selection of my leaders and I am proud to do so. I did so in the election in 2000 by contributing not just to Al Gore's campaign, but also to the Bush-Cheney campaign.” (NBC’s “Today Show,” 7/14/05)

“[Wilson] Insist[s] He Remained A Centrist At Heart.” (Scott Shane, “Private Spy And Public Spouse Live At Center Of Leak Case,” The New York Times, 7/5/05)

* Joe Wilson Is A Registered Democrat. (District Of Columbia Voter Registrations, Accessed 7/14/05)
* Joseph Wilson Has Donated Over $8,000 To Democrats Including $2,000 To John Kerry For President In 2003, $1,000 To Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) HILLPAC In 2002 And $3,000 To Al Gore In 1999. (The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 7/12/05)
* Wilson Endorsed John Kerry For President In October 2003 And Advised The Kerry Campaign. (David Tirrell-Wysocki, “Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race,” The Associated Press, 10/23/03)
* “[Wilson] Admits ‘It Will Be A Cold Day In Hell Before I Vote For A Republican, Even For Dog Catcher.’” (Scott Shane, “Private Spy And Public Spouse Live At Center Of Leak Case,” The New York Times, 7/5/05