Thinkin’bout Stuff

As a Belgian-American, a proudly non-priviledged, underrepresented, minority group who does not ask much in return for our great contributions to this country, I am outraged that Senator John Kerry is playing politics with the appointment of Sam Fox to be the ambassador to Belgium…  OK, not really. Frankly, I don’t really care who the ambassador to Belgium is, and I have never really identified myself as a Belgian-American.

But there is something that does bother me about the forced withdrawal of this nomination.  John Kerry has disqualified a qualified individual because this individual legally (LEGALLY) contributed to a legal (LEGAL) political action committee that opposed his run for president. To be considered for this position by John and the other Dems, all Fox needed to do was apologize for exercising his 1st Amendment right to free speech.

Now that is scary.

By the way… since the can of worms is open yet again… the majority of the accusations levied by the Swift Boat Vets were supported with documented evidence, and I have copies of some of it; much can be found just by googling articles from the Boston Globe (not exactly a right-wing rag).  So… if the good senator decides to run for president again, I will also exercise my 1st Amendment right yet again. I’ll just have to live with the burden of disqualifying myself for an appointment to an ambassador position.

“Politics of personal destruction”?  Only if you believe discussing and correcting historical inaccuracies is a bad thing.

Sandy Berger steals US secrets and destroys them in an obvious cover-up, gets a slap on the wrist, does not submit to a lie detector test as agreed in his plea agreement, and Congress yawns.

Politically appointed US Attorneys are legally fired for “political reasons” and Leaky Leahy sees monsters in the closet:

From Yahoo News/AP: Sampson’s testimony Thursday is voluntary, though committee chairman Patrick Leahy told reporters he has kept a signed subpoena under lock and key in case Gonzales’ chief of staff backed out.

There was no indication of that happening. In his remarks, Sampson said he was pleased to appear and pledged to stay as long as necessary.

Nothing will stop the investigation, Leahy said Wednesday — not even Gonzales’ resignation.

“In case anybody’s thinking of shortchanging it that way, I have a message for them: We’ll finish this investigation before we’ll have any confirmation hearings for a new attorney general,” said Leahy, D-Vt. “I want to know what the facts were.”

Is this really important senator? As important as finding out what Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton are hiding about pre-911 security issues?  Did President Bush have a legal right to fire these attorneys? Since he obviously did, what the hell are you investigating? Isn’t this all about politics?

Too bad Leahy’s curiosity does not extend into areas of national security and are so transparently political.

For the record, although the headline reads: “Aide: U.S. attorneys fired over politics”, what he actually said was:

“The distinction between ‘political’ and ‘performance-related’ reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial,” said Kyle Sampson.

“A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective … is unsuccessful,” Sampson said.

Sampson maintained that adherence to the president’s and attorney general’s priorities was a legitimate standard. He strongly denied Democrats’ allegations that some of the prosecutors were dismissed for pursuing Republicans too much and Democrats not enough in corruption cases.

“To my knowledge, nothing of the sort occurred here,” he said. “As presidential appointees, U.S. attorneys serve at the ‘pleasure of the president’ and may be asked to resign for almost any reason, with no public or private explanation.”

In other words, the President and the Attorney General of the United States set the agenda and if the attorneys they hire do not work towards the defined goals of the administration, they risk being removed.  Well, duh! 

By the way… did Nancy Pelosi, who has all but called President Bush a laggard lout, really tell the president to take a deep breath because Bush threatened to veto the pork-laden bill with the ridiculous path-to-surrender timeline? Did she really say that he needs to respect the constitutional role of Congress while they will recognize the constitutional role of the president? Isn’t the veto part of that role? And if anyone needs to take a deep breath, isn’t it the shrill left wing loons like Pelosi and Reed who rode to power on the backs of moderate Dems who, if they had any self-respect, would reject the lunatic fringe of their party.

Reconcile these statements from the press conference if you can:

From CBS News: Pelosi — “I would extend a hand of friendship to the president, just say to him, ‘Calm down with the threats, there’s a new Congress in town. We respect your constitutional role. We want you to respect ours.’ ”

“The fact is the president of United States as the Commander-In-Chief has weakened our military.

“We’re the Congress. Let’s work together for the American people. Take a deep breath, Mr. President.”

With friends like these…

And how about this bit of irony:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) also commented on the Democratic leadership’s decision not to allow Republicans the chance to offer amendments on the Iraq funding bill:

“We pledge to be fair but not stupid…Until the Republicans come to grips with doing real things with their opportunities, the American people are going to continue to be disappointed by their solely playing politics.”

Priceless… we are not allowing the Republicans to offer amendments to a bill, amendments that would need to be voted on just like any other amendment, because the REPUBLICANS are playing politics… no politics on the part of the DEMOCRATS blocking the representation of approximately 50% of the UNITED STATES from offering amendments…  none at all. Unbelievable.

One closing thought… Senator Webb may have made the best political move in years, switching the Democrat Party. Had he been a Republican when he potentially broke the law, he’d actually be in trouble right now and the press would even be investigating the issue. Way to go Senator… you get a free pass… so far.

If you’ve visited with any frequency, by now you know I have a pet peeve:  misleading headlines.

Here’s the article that caught my eye today, reprinted in full so that you can decide what the headline should be based upon the actual content and the significance of what is being reported (I’ve bolded what I see as key points… feel free to disagree):

From Yahoo News/AP: MOSCOW – Russia’s Foreign Ministry on Tuesday criticized the United States for what it called over-reliance on force and warned Washington against military action against Iran.

But in a major review of foreign policy priorities, the ministry said Russia was ready to cooperate to end global crises if Washington treats it as an equal partner.

The statement reflects Russia’s growing confidence and economic clout, and appears to be a signal to Washington that, while the two nations can work together, Russia will not always follow the U.S. lead. It also plays to national pride in advance of parliamentary and presidential elections.

Russia criticized what it called “the creeping American strategy of dragging the global community into a large-scale crisis around Iran,” saying that Iran helps maintain stability in Afghanistan and Central Asia.

At the same time, the ministry’s paper assailed Iran for its “unconstructive” stance, reflecting growing Kremlin irritation with its ally’s refusal to freeze uranium enrichment, as the U.N. demands.

Russia and China, both permanent UN Security Council members with significant trade ties with Iran, have opposed U.S. efforts to impose harsh sanctions against the country. But years of growing international mistrust over Iran’s ultimate goals led to initial U.N. sanctions in December and to tougher penalties imposed last Saturday.

Iran has remained defiant, rejecting the latest sanctions and announcing a partial suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. It also accused Russia of caving in to Western pressure.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Tuesday that the latest set of sanctions was a “call for the resumption of talks rather than an instrument of punishment” — a statement apparently aimed both at soothing Iran and assuring Russians public that their government was not betraying its partner.

The ministry’s paper emphasized the need to conduct a “balanced course on Iran, protecting our national interests in that country while preventing violations of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.”

The ministry also hinted that Russia would tie weapons sales to Iran to its cooperation on the enrichment program. “Military-technical ties with Iran must develop on the basis of strict compliance with Russia’s international obligations while taking into account developments related to the Iranian nuclear program,” it said.

Russia recently delivered 29 Tor M-1 air defense missile systems to Iran despite strong U.S. complaints.

The strategy paper said that arms exports would remain an important component of Russia’s foreign policy.

When you consider that Iran is a Russian ally, there are some pretty harsh words in here. Essentially, Russia is trying to maintain the perception that it is supporting Iran while at the same time not voting against sanctions, indicating Iran needs to comply with UN demands, and even threatening to tie weapons sales to Iran’s compliance.

But.. the foreign minister did criticize the US for “over-reliance on force” and of dragging the world into a crises around Iran.  Setting aside whether you believe this is true or not for the moment, what is the key point of this article?  Russia’s criticism of the US reaction to Iran’s non-compliance or Russia’s criticism of an ally?

To put this into perspective, substitute the United States for Russia, Russia for the United States and Israel for Iran in this article. would this be the headline:

US Slams Russian Global Policy

Or would we more likely see this blasted across every paper in the world:

US Slams Israel for Non-Compliance to UN Demands; Threatens to Withdraw Military Support

If you guessed number 2, you are 100% right.

So why is the headline for this article: “Russia Slams US Global Policy”? Because my friends, the press no longer simply reports, they have taken it upon themselves to influence public opinion in a way that should be reserved for editorials and opinion pieces. They may even report the whole story, but they will ensure you know what they believe are the key takeaways, and you can be certain it will almost always be something that will paint the US in a negative light.

First we learned that President Bush did not have the right to fire US Attorney’s, even though he does, because he may have fired them for the “wrong reasons”, even though he doesn’t need a reason.

Then we learned that exercising a presidential right to veto a bill that did not get enough votes to override a veto is an impeachable offense.

And now we find out that exercising a 5th Amendment right is an admission of guilt: 

From Yahoo News/AP: Goodling, on voluntary leave from the Justice Department, was one of several aides closely involved in planning the firings. She was called to testify as part of a Senate inquiry, and her refusal appeared to surprise Justice officials who hours earlier said department aides would fully cooperate with the investigation.

“I have decided to follow my lawyer’s advice and respectfully invoke my constitutional right,” Goodling said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Her attorney, John Dowd, said the Senate inquiry amounts to a perjury trap for his client. “One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby,” Dowd said.

“The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling’s concern that she may incriminate herself in connection with criminal charges if she appears before the committee under oath,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy D-Vt

Really? So every time someone exercises their constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination, that in and of itself is incriminating?

Senator, please pick up a copy of the US Constitution and read it. Here, I’ll save you a quarter for the copy machine:

Amendment V  (Senator, to avoid any misunderstanding, ”V” is the same as “5″ in this case)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I bolded the key phrase to save you some time.  The part that was clearly left out of this amendment was: “… nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, with the understanding that refusing to testify will be an indication of guilt in and of itself…”

And they want us to believe THEY are the ones protecting our rights…

By the way…  chalk this up as an unintended consequence of the Libby witch-hunt.