As you may have heard, corporate greed drove America to invade Iraq, where now our troops spill their blood — and wantonly spill the blood of civilians — for oil, occupying and repressing a nation in defiance of the U.N. as part of America’s imperialist ambitions.

Right. And now this word from our sponsor, Reality:

BAGHDAD – Iraq’s government is prepared to offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq and preferential treatment for American investments in return for an American guarantee of long-term security including defense against internal coups, The Associated Press learned Monday.

The proposal, described to the AP by two senior officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like, once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence.

As part of the package, the Iraqis want an end to the current U.N.-mandated multinational forces mission, and also an end to all U.N.-ordered restrictions on Iraq’s sovereignty.

Iraq has been living under some form of U.N. restriction since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the officials said.

American troops and other foreign forces now operate in Iraq under a U.N. Security Council mandate, which has been renewed annually since 2003. Iraqi officials have have said they want that next renewal — which must be approved by the U.N. Security Council by the end of this year — to be the last.

Do you suppose this might be the story most ignored by the Left … or do you more correctly suppose that they’ll simply see it as evidence of “our puppet government in Baghdad” and add it to their collection of false myths and outright lies?

I’m betting on the latter.

No Comments yet »

Jack Kelly is one of my favorite columnists; clear-headed, supportive of our troops and the War on Terror, and a no-BS critic of those who don’t understand life in the post-9/11 world. So imagine my surprise at this lead to his column today:

We’re floundering in a quagmire in Iraq. Our strategy is flawed, and it’s too late to change it. Our resources have been squandered, our best people killed, we’re hated by the natives and our reputation around the world is circling the drain. We must withdraw.

Rest assured; it’s just evidence of Kelly’s skills as a journalist, not of his turning against the mission.

No, I’m not channeling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I’m channeling Osama bin Laden, for whom the war in Iraq has been a catastrophe.

The evidence is clear for the clear-eyed:

Al-Qaida is evacuating populated areas and is trying to establish hideouts in the Hamrin mountains in northern Iraq, with U.S. and Iraqi security forces, and former insurgent allies who have turned on them, in hot pursuit. Forty-five al-Qaida leaders were killed or captured in October alone.

Al-Qaida’s support in the Muslim world has plummeted, partly because of the terror group’s lack of success in Iraq, more because al-Qaida’s attacks have mostly killed Muslim civilians.

Meanwhile, at the mis-named AmericaBlog, we find the D-featist attitude continues unquelled by hard facts and changed circumstances:

Oh how he’s [sic, referring to Bush, not Bush's] loves to beat that drum over and over again… the troops, the troops, the troops. As if the only way to support them is to provide Bush with the sufficient funds to continue getting them killed for his delusional plan for Iraq.

Al-Qaeda and the Muslim world can read the writing on the wall, but the American Left cannot. Delusional? Please explain, and please offer a better alternative.

Of course, the Left cannot explain and cannot offer a viable alternative … because they are stuck in a Bush-hatred quagmire.

hat-tip: memeorandum

No Comments yet »

The McClatchy headline and the lead are bold indeed:

Experts: No Evidence of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program

WASHINGTON — Despite President Bush’s claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons that could trigger “World War III,” experts in and out of government say there’s no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program.

Even his own administration appears divided about the immediacy of the threat. While Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney speak of an Iranian weapons program as a fact, Bush’s point man on Iran, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, has attempted to ratchet down the rhetoric.

Leftyblogs were quick to jump on this bandwagon because, after all, there is no evil in the world other than Bush:

If you listen to White House officials, Iran’s nuclear-weapons program is already a reality. There’s no hesitation on the rhetoric — the program, top administration officials say, is an unfortunate reality that demands our immediate attention. As Dick Cheney recently put it, “Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions. We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

With this in mind, it’s probably worth taking a moment, now and again, to point out that there’s no conclusive evidence that such a program actually exists. (The crooks and liars at Crooks and Liars)

Then there’s The Newshoggers with this pig-eyed view:

One of the contributing worries of people who believe that there is a significant possibility of overt US military actions against Iran before Jan. 20, 2009 is the roll-out of the propaganda and FUD factors. We have Kyl-Lieberman taking the place of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, we have the unfounded accusations, we have the massive hyping of potential threats built upon gossamar threads of plausibility, we have freakish exile groups stovepiping their ‘intel’ and we have a coterie of officials who have a long-standing hard-on for ‘regime change’ with power in the White House.

One of the positive repeats of that entire cycle was the McClatchy/Knight Ridder team. They were the ones who were digging around and pointing out the bullshit on weapons claims, threat assessments and intel ‘sources’ while the big boys in the national media reprinted official claims without any skepticism on the front page, or in the lede. McClatchy is doing it again today with an analysis of the Iranian nuclear capacity in a great article.

Beware, my friends, it appears the Leftyblogs are content to make news from headlines and leads, and not really probe into the articles they are basing their posts on. The highly suspect and blatantly anti-Bush motivations of McClatchy’s headline and lead-writers notwithstanding, let’s fisk a bit, shall we?

The gist of the article is that Iran is no doubt pursuing a nuclear program, but there’s no evidence they’re actually making bombs. Well, duh. There’s not much point in making bombs until you have something to put in them, eh? And there’s plenty of evidence related in the article about their efforts to do that, including:

• Seized drawings “that indicated that Iranian experts studied mounting a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile.”
• Seized plans for a deep-bored shaft “apparently designed to contain an nuclear explosion.”
• A document viewed by the IAEA that showed how to produce uranium hemispheres which have no application in nuclear power plants “but form the explosive cores of nuclear weapons.”
• Iran’s assertions that it only has P1 centrifuges, not P2′s, which are much faster, fly in the face of IAEA evidence that they do, indeed, have plans for P2s.
• Iran’s assertions that they’re not doing anything with their P2 plans flies in the face of proof “that Iran sought to buy thousands of specialized magnets for P2s from European suppliers.”

And on and on. The McClatchy article, in totality, is a condemnation of Iran’s claims that it seeks nukes only for peaceful purposes, but the Left is content to skim the headline and lead and make their own safe, anti-American conclusions.

hat-tip: memeorandum

No Comments yet »

It’s a funny political world we live in when one of the nation’s top timber processors newspapers leads off the day’s coverage with:

Director Rob Reiner, one of liberal Hollywood’s most courted presidential fence-sitters, said Wednesday that he has decided to endorse New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination. (LA Times)

Yes, Meathead is even going to throw Bill’s gal a 60th birthday party/Hollywood fundraiser, the equivalent of giving her his ring. And it’s big, big news from Malibu all the way to the Hollywood Hills.

The article is a hoot — and a piece of one-sided Hillary boosterism — that’s a fun read. We learn of the other Hollywood fence sitters and their response to the news of the Meathead endorsement. You can almost hear paparazzi jostling in the background.

Reiner began telling his friends about his decision last week. He ran into [former studio exec Sherry] Lansing on Friday evening in the valet line at Morton’s restaurant, a film industry favorite, where he sprang the news.

“He said, ‘Have you made up your mind yet?’ ” Lansing said. She told him that she was still busy fundraising for all the Democrats and she didn’t plan to make a decision until after she holds her own event for Edwards. “He said, ‘Well, I’m coming out for Hillary.’ I told him that I think it’s great. I think she’s wonderful,” Lansing said in an interview Wednesday.

Reiner also informed [irritating has-been Norman] Lear, considered by many as political Hollywood’s elder statesman, about his decision. Lear was supportive, although he said he was not yet ready to pick a candidate.

Brace yourselves Breck Boy fans, because the next paragraph contains some bad, bad news for your boy.

“I certainly support Hillary,” Lear said. “I certainly support Obama, and I support Edwards. It will take me a little more time.”

Lear, man of nuance.

What’s interesting in this Hillaryfest is that the LATimes — self-professed chronicler of “The Biz” — failed to mention anywhere in the story of David Geffen’s early endorsement of Obama, his bitter comments about the unusually finely honed lying ability of the Clintons, and Hil’s subsequent hissy fit.

How can you write about self-effacing, society-debasing Hollywood luminaries and not write about Geffen? You can’t, unless you’re pretty sharply focused on promoting Hil for prez.

BTW, the story contained this gem:

[Reiner] said Wednesday that he found it “deplorable” that MoveOn.org recently characterized Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, as “General Betray Us” in a controversial New York Times ad. “This is a guy who is a military officer who is working hard to do his job,” said Reiner, who has made ads for MoveOn.org in the past but is not sure if he will in the future.

Kudos, man. What a blessed relief to find at least one icon of the Left that is ready to stand up to the despicable anti-Americanism of MoveOn.org. As we all know, Clinton couldn’t find it in her to criticize the hardcore left of the party about the ad.

Which goes to show that Rob is a better man than Hillary.

No Comments yet »

If I could nominate one news article this week as the one most likely to drive MoveOn.org and the Kos-sac into a fine dither, it would be the second excerpt from Bill Sammon’s The Evangelical President that ran in the SF Chronicle.

In Sammon’s piece, we see a president that is supposedly too stupid to articulate his way to the end of a sentence, and too partisan to ever look beyond the hateful blinders of his GOP cohorts, actually planning for the possible transition of the Iraq war to a Democratic president.

(Not that he thinks that will happen. In the first part of the two-parter, Bush predicts that Clinton will win the primary but lose the general, a statement that’s obsessed the leftyblogs.)

Sammon reveals that Bush is “quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president.”

Chief of Staff Josh Bolten told Sammon:

“He wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it out.”

The Left will think the Bush is taking recreational breaks with Marion Barry when they read the president’s remarks to Sammon:

The Examiner asked Bush why Democratic candidates such as Clinton and Barack Obama, who routinely lambaste his handling of Iraq, should take his advice.

“First of all, I expect them to criticize me. That’s one way you get elected in the Democratic primary, is to criticize the president,” Bush replied. “I don’t expect them to necessarily take advice from me. I would expect their insiders to at least get a perspective about how we see things.”

He added: “We have an obligation to make sure that whoever is interested, they get our point of view, because you want somebody running for president to at least understand all perspectives, apart from the politics.”

Besides, Bush suggested that Clinton and Obama just might benefit from his advice.

“If I were a candidate running for president in a complex world that we’re in, I would be asking my national security team to touch base with the White House just to at least listen about plans, thoughts,” he said.

And apparently the Clinton campaign, and possibly others, are doing just that — listening to the thoughts of a man MoveOn et. al. would have us believe is incapable of thinking. Why shouldn’t they? Unlike most of us, they’ve seen Bush up close and bluster as they will in public, they know he’s a smart man with a clear, long-term vision.

Of course, his long-term vision could become a short-term vision in the hands of a Dem president, but it looks more and more like we will be able to wrap up Iraq much more successfully than appeared would be the case earlier this year.

Part of the reason for optimism is that Bush has done such a good job of making that possible. He’s taken the hits on surveillance and Guantanamo so others won’t have to. He’s changed tactics and leadership. He’s cobbled together his shattered party to stand up to Dem white-flag bullying. And, we now learn, he’s reaching out to anyone who may take his chair to help them form a viable ongoing policy for Iraq.

There must be no joy in Kosville.

hat-tip: Jim

No Comments yet »

Update: The Bollinger transcript is out; view it here. He did quite a good job all in all, as I discuss above … which I’ll post as soon as I’m done.

I‘m still waiting for a transcript of Lee Bollinger’s reportedly scathing introduction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be posted. Despite the views of some I respect that it was an award-winning intro, I’m holding my opinion until I can see the transcript.

Here’s why.

The LAT clip below is indicative of most clips I’ve read regarding the appearance:

In his scathing introduction to the much-anticipated on-campus event, Bollinger told the leader of Iran that he resembled “a petty and cruel dictator.”

Bollinger levied repeated criticisms against Ahmadinejad, calling on him to answer a series of challenges about his leadership, blasting his views about the “myth” of the Holocaust “absurd” and saying that he doubted he “will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions.”

“Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,” Bollinger said, to loud applause.

He said Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.

It appears from all the coverage I’ve read that Bollinger focused on the Holocaust, which certainly wouldn’t have been my focus. As appalling has Ahmadinejad’s view on the Holocaust is, it is inconsequential in terms of the politics of today. That’s not to say the extermination of Jews isn’t a critical issue, but Bollinger should have gone after Ahmadinejad for his declarations that Israel should be wiped off the map today. That is much more relevant than his denial that Hitler tried to exterminate them 60 years ago.

I also have seen no mention that Bollinger attacked Ahmadinejad for Iran’s supply of munitions, funding and training to terrorists in Iraq, all in a deliberate effort to kill as many American troops as possible.

It would have taken some real courage to bring that up at Columbia, a place where a fair number on the faculty and in the student body probably think killing “imperialist” U.S. soldiers is a fine thing to do. Criticizing holocaust deniers, in contrast, is not risk-taking in an American campus (yet, thank God), so I don’t give Bollinger any kudos for that.

Like I say, when I get to read the transcript, I may change my viewpoint.

Meanwhile, I thought David Schizer, the dean of the Columbia Law School did some pretty commendable risk-taking with this statement:

A controversy has developed about the invitation extended to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran by the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs. Although Columbia Law School was not involved in arranging this invitation, we have received many inquiries about it.

This event raises deep and complicated issues about how best to express our commitment to intellectual freedom, and to our free way of life. Although we believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of view, we are also committed to academic standards. A high-quality academic discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are true. Therefore, my personal opinion is that he should not be invited to speak. Mr. Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible and dangerous figure who presides over a repressive regime, is responsible for the death of American soldiers, denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel. It would be deeply regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to his views.

Our university is a pluralistic place, and I recognize that others within our community take a different view in good faith, and that they have the right to extend invitations that I personally would not extend. I know that we will learn from each other in discussing the difficult questions prompted by this invitation. (emphasis added)

That’s getting it right.

Meanwhile, over at Kos, we read this:

As an American, I was stunned and embarrassed by Bollinger’s harangue of Ahmedinejad. It was a craven and cowardly capitulation to political pressures, and unworthy of the academic institution that Bollinger represents. I know who and what Ahmedinejad is, but I also know that he was at Columbia at Columbia’s invitation. Bollinger’s speech was less a challenge to Ahmedinejad than it was an ambush, and it dishonered [sic] all of us as Americans.

Hmm. I wonder what this writer’s response would be if Bollinger had been equally pointed in introducing the president of the United States. I’ll hazard a guess that he wouldn’t think that to be unworthy of Columbia or — and this is really odd — dishonoring to Americans.

And speaking of Kos, we also see this on the site, courtesy of LGF:

Obviously, this is not a poll based on reality so a lot of people used it to make political statements that do not reflect what their actual actions would have been if we were suddenly transported to Bizzaro World, where such a vote might in fact take place.

Be that as it may, Kos posed the question, a question no one on the Left in the pre-Bush era would have ever thought about asking. It appears that as the Bush administration is winding down, the demented hatred of Bush is only increasing among the rabid Left.

hat-tip: memeorandum

No Comments yet »

Failure in Iraq, failure in Iraq: It’s the drum beat of the Left heard loud and repetitiously in DC this weekend, among the puppets and play actors. All the noise and silliness is intended to drown out the emerging truth in Iraq, a truth that’s very threatening to the anti-Bush, anti-progress Progressives.

Today’s Opinion Journal has news of exactly the sort they Left wants to drown out: the latest column by Fouad Ajami giving us loud and clear the voices from inside Iraq.

Voices that don’t say we’re winning, but that we’ve won.

“Little more than two decades ago, in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution and the Lebanon War of 1982, the American position in this region was exposed and endangered. Look around you today: Everyone seeks American protection and patronage. The line was held in Iraq; perhaps America was overly sanguine about the course of things in Iraq. But that initial optimism now behind us, the war has been an American victory. All in the region are romancing the Americans, even Syria and Iran in their own way.” — Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi

“We may differ with our American friends about tactics, I might not see eye to eye with them on all matters. But my message to them is one of appreciation and gratitude. To them I say, you have liberated a people, brought them into the modern world. They used to live in fear and now they live in liberty. Iraqis were cut off from the modern world, and thanks to American intervention we now belong to the world around us. We used to be decimated and killed like locusts in Saddam’s endless wars, and we have now come into the light. A teacher used to work for $2 a month, now there is a living wage, and indeed in some sectors of our economy, we are suffering from labor shortages.” — Nouri al-Malaki

And here’s an unnamed Iraqi speaking about the recently murdered anti-al Qaeda tribal leader Abu Reisha, a murder the Left gleefully trumpeted as another sign of failure in Iraq:

“No doubt he was shooting at Americans not so long ago, but the tide has turned, and Abu Reisha knew how to reach an accommodation with the real order of power. The truth is that the Sunnis launched this war four years ago, and have been defeated. The tribes never win wars, they only join the winners.”

The Left has not yet even recognized that we can win in Iraq, let alone even conceive the idea that we have won and our purpose now is to sustain the victory.

That leaves this holding onto this purpose: To steal defeat from victory.

hat-tip: RCP

No Comments yet »

I heard the founder of Code Pink, Medea Benjaminon (shown here with her mouth in its normal position), the radio yesterday, controlling herself, working hard to sound normal. She even said at one point that she encouraged alternative points of view and would invite questioners at rallies to come on up, take the mike and state their views.

What a liar. She is a shrill feminist, and as a feminist, she is really more akin to this:

After a group of UC Davis women faculty began circulating a petition, UC regents rescinded an invitation to Larry Summers, the controversial former president of Harvard University, to speak at a board dinner Wednesday night in Sacramento. The dinner comes during the regents’ meeting at UCD next week.

Summers gained notoriety for saying that innate differences between men and women could be a reason for under-representation of women in science, math and engineering. …

UCD professor Maureen Stanton, one of the petition organizers, was delighted by news of the change this morning, saying it’s “a move in the right direction.”

“UC has an enormous historical commitment to diversity within its faculty ranks, but still has a long way to go before our faculty adequately represent the diversity of our constituency, the people of California,” said Stanton, professor and chairwoman of the section of evolution and ecology. (source)

Diversity? The Left has redefined diversity in their clouded minds, so it now means full acceptance of those who they feel good about and unity in rejecting they don’t’ feel good about. That is not diversity, not by a long shot.

Stanon, by the way, is a professor of evolution and biology. She should understand the evolutionary (God-given) differences between men and women better than most and should have no patience with people who don’t accept what Summers said as truth. But truth hasn’t got in the way of feminism yet, and it appears unlikely to start any time soon.

hat-tip: memeorandum

No Comments yet »

Those compassionate Lefties at Democratic Underground are beside themselves with glee:

The largest single home foreclosure auction in Las Vegas history will take place this weekend on Sunday, Aug. 5 at the J.W. Marriott in Summerlin. It starts at 1 p.m.

Drive through any neighborhood in the Las Vegas Valley and you are bound to see evidence of a housing market in a free fall.

“I would say this is a new home someone bought, whether they could not afford it or they decided not to move, whatever the case may be — obviously unlived in as you can tell. Everything is brand new,” said Joe Iuliucci, a Prudential real estate agent.

Eighty homes located near the Northern 215 Beltway and Jones will be auctioned. Last year’s auction had only twelve homes.

An upside-down American flag accompanies the brief. Is DU normally a real estate blog? No. Then why the interest?

Because they’re anti-greed (other people’s greed, that is) and anti-Bush. The presumption is people were too bought-into the materialistic society and spent beyond their means in order to keep up with the Joneses. It’s OK to keep up with the Mother Joneses, but not the Joneses. And their hope is that a real estate market in “freefall” (it’s not) will be bad for Bush and good for Dems.

And where are the people — you know, The People — in all this? Well, let’s take a look at some of those conspicuously consumed homes that are on the auction block:
These do not appear to be the homes of greedy people. The Left used to worry about the working man. Shoot, they used to be the working man. Now that they’re spoiled brats, college professors and guilty rich folks, they see a home auction and they immediately think people like them … but not as smart as them … are going under, and it’s Bush’s fault and consumerism’s fault and America’s fault.

But it’s just people who are down on their luck, or who bought the hustle on a bad morgage. The Left should be compassionate, concerned, even outraged … but they’re just ugly.

No Comments yet »

My senator, Dianne Feinstein, she who has never addressed her husband’s profiteering from her Senate seat, said today Alberto Gonzales “should be held to the highest ethical standards” and called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate whether Gonzales perjured himself in Congressional testimony about the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP).

Three other Dem Sens joined her: Charles Schumer, Russ Feingold and Sheldon Whitehouse.

In reporting the story, despite mounds of criticism about its careless reporting on the subject, AP continues to mis-report, saying “the terrorist surveillance program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on suspects in the United States without receiving prior court approval.” Of course it did not; it was a program of intercepting foreign communications, not domestic.

That’s not terribly relevant to the call for a special prosecutor, but it is extremely relevant to the greater story of the Dems’ Gonzales Derangement Syndrome. The parallels with Condi Rice are just amazing. Both are minorities. Both came from working class beginnings. Both worked their way up, realizing the American dream and stand as an example to young blacks and Hispanics of what can be accomplished in this great, remarkably unracist country.

But since they grew up to become conservatives, the Dems must attack them, destroy their reputations and drag their example through the mud — even if it shatters the American dream for thousands of youngsters and even if it is jeopardizes national security.

Gonzales appears to be deeply trusted by GWB, but does not appear to be a particularly savvy lawyer or competent administrator. Still, let’s look at the bare bones of this case:

• TSP had opponents and defenders, and underwent a vigorous internal debate, after which the defenders prevailed,
• Warrantless “wiretaps” were only used when matters were so time-sensitive that normal procedures could not be followed; there is no evidence that time sensitivity was ever wrongly used as an excuse to cover questionable probes,
• The courts issued a gray-area illegality finding and suggested easy remedies; while a defeat for Bush and Gonzales, the decision was hardly a finding of black and white evil-doing by the administration;
• The Dem position ultimately prevailed, even though it probably weakened our intelligence gathering capabilities.

All in all, a victory for the Dems — but they can’t let it rest because they can’t recognize victory unless a body is broken and bleeding at their feet; in this case, Gonzales’ body.

Their new attack, like the Scooter Libby conviction, is on ribbon-thin grounds, and like their earlier TSP victory, threatens to further weaken our security.

It boils down to Gonzales’ testimony vs. the facts at the time, but there’s disagreement over what the testimony covered. The Dem Sens say it was about TSP; Gonzales says it was about another program he cannot discuss publicly.

The Dem Sens could have clarified all this during the AG’s testimony this week — he offered to describe in closed session the program he said he was talking about, but they refused. They refused because it could have closed the door on this latest quest for blood.

Rather than seek the easy answer, the Dem Sens want a multi-million dollar special investigation into the AG — a perfect ploy because it will so hobble the Justice Department that they’re assured Gonzales will not be able to accomplish anything positive before the next election. No wonder they weren’t interested in learning what program Gonzales was talking about.

Worse, there’s the program Gonzales was talking about. Whatever it is, it’s top secret and still functioning despite the Dem attacks on TSP. Last week, its existence was unknown to the public. Now the combination of Dem pushing and Gonzales ineptitude as a witness has made the public aware that some program we don’t know about exists.

A program we don’t know about is a vacuum the media wants at all cost — including national security costs — to fill. That means NYT, WaPo, AP and other reporters are hounding their leaky sources looking for someone, anyone, who will spill the beans.

I give it less than a week before we see this program splashed over the front page of one of the majors, no matter what its revealing will do to diminish our security or put at risk our agents in the field — the agents the media was all concerned about when it was Plame’s outing that supposedly put them in jeopardy. Oblivious to this, the Dems will strive to paint the program as illegal, even if it’s not, and even if doing so brings it more out into the open, because they have proven they can only put themselves first, never national security.

The Left’s desire to trounce Bush and any minorities that align with him is about to damage our country once again. Bush should squelch this phony investigation. If it moves forward, Gonzales should resign in order to do whatever he can to protect the top secret program his testimony has now jeopardized.

No Comments yet »