Alito; Catholic and Italian

Short and sweet tonight, I've got three kids looking to go trick-or-treating and my role as father trumps my role as educator.

During the 2004 Presidential campaign, President Bush promised that if elected he would nominate Justices of the mind of Scalia and Thomas. The American people voted in overwhelming numbers for George W. Bush. And, this morning, President George W. Bush kept his campaign promise.

It will now be interesting to see what kind of stranglehold the extremists of the Democrat Party have on the seven moderate Democrats (do they really exist?) that agreed to not filibuster any U.S. Supreme Court nominee except for "extraordinary circumstances." Clearly, Judge Alito does not fit the definition of an extraordinary circumstance.

My pick a few days ago that the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would be Judge Emilio Garza was partly based on he being a Latino. Given the choice between a brilliant Hispanic-American and a brilliant Italian-American, I thought Judge Garza's ethnicity would tone down the vitriol of the liberal extremists; that the Country could experience an intelligent conversation on the role of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Instead, the liberal extremists have pounced on Judge Alito with unprecedented speed and viciousness; Judge Alito's ethnicity offered absolutely no protection.

I'm concerned that Judge Alito is now at least the fifth judicial nomination of a Roman Catholic by President Bush that has been met with radical opposition by Democrats. Recall, the judges recently filibustered by the Democrats, Miguel Estrada (Hispanic-American male), Priscilla Owens (white female), Janice Rogers Brown (African-American female), and William Pryor, Jr. (white male), were all Roman Catholic. Odd coincidence or intolerance? When just one of "theirs" is challenged, Democrats think it is a pattern and they scream all kinds of ugly words: racist, sexist, homophobe, you know the litany. But, five?! Yes, intolerance, cleverly disguised, is alive and well in America; ask any Democrat, just as they argue there is "good" racism, their actions suggest there is "good" religious intolerance.

Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson

I've just finished reading every article, and the Chronology, in the Boston Globe concerning Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of an aide to an aide of the President; literally, with 5 minutes of preparation, I'm ready to rebut the hate-Bush spin universally reflected.

Before I start, it is my goal to make this space "smarter" than the hate-Bush garbage we have to read on the editorial page of the Boston Globe. I intend this space to be smarter than the garbage non-intellectuals traffic in, on both sides of the argument, on shows like Hannity & Colmes. I hope this space is smarter than each side's claims of hypocrisy (while at the same time choosing convenient references) with the impeachment of President Clinton (see my reference from yesterday!).

First, conceding the most damaging charge against the aide, if the aide told the grand jury that he did not know Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, then he truly appears to have made a false statement. That someone as smart as the aide would make such a statement knowing the overwhelming proof that existed to the contrary is extraordinary; actually, it's almost unbelievable. If, however, it is proved, the aide should be convicted and punished accordingly.

Second, I have read the Globe's Chronology of events from February 2002 through the indictments. That the outrageous acts of Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, are not being investigated is utterly amazing. For the purpose of this post, I'll accept all dates in the Globe Chronology as accurate. Further, I'll accept, as the Chronology accepts, that all things "said" damaging to the aide are true and all things "said" helpful to the aide are false or are to be questioned; even with this ridiculous acceptance, the observation's below are sobering.

Vice President Dick Cheney, based on a Defense Intelligence Agency report, asked for an analysis of a claim that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium in Niger. Apparently, Valerie Plame orchestrated her husband's assignment to Niger to satisfy the Vice President's request.

On May 6 2003, Joseph Wilson leaked information from his CIA report to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof who published Mr. Wilson's claims. Again for emphasis, Mr. Wilson leaked actual CIA information to a reporter and the reporter published the information.

In early June, 2003, the aide began researching the human assets the CIA sent to Niger. This action is exactly the correct response by the aide. The aide is trying to determine if classified CIA information that the Vice President requested was accurate, valid and . . . still classified (which it was not!). To have not tried to determine the validity of the source would have been a betrayal of the oath to protect and defend the United States. Is the liberal media really suggesting with its Chronology of the aide asking questions about the CIA resources providing THE information on THE foreign policy event of the century that the aide is somehow misbehaving? Suppose Wilson was completely wrong and Los Angeles was lost in a smoke plume in 2005. Would the Country and liberal media accept, "Well, Joseph Wilson provided the information Los Angeles was safe so we didn't need to follow-up on it" as an explanation. Nope, don't need to question Joe Wilson's work, he's the best.

On June 12, 2003, the aide meets with Vice President Cheney and Cheney tells the aide that Valerie Plame is a CIA employee. Apparently, this is supposed to contradict a statement the aide made to the grand jury that he learned of Plame's name from a reporter. Well, we know that at least one reporter may have known her name as early as May 6; is it really not possible that the aide learned this in the month from May 6 - June 12 from a reporter?

Robert Novak puts Plame's name in an article on July 14, 2003 and a Special Counsel is named on December 30, 2003 to investigate if the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (the Act) has been violated.

On February 10, 2004, only forty days after the Counsel is named, the aide signs a waiver to all reporters requesting that none assert any privilege to protect his identity. Forty days later! This is light-speed for this kind of action; how could this investigation have lasted two years given the aide's cooperation and waiver?

Two years into an investigation and there is no evidence that the Act has been violated. If there was no investigation into the non-crime, there would have been no indictments (ah, Martha Stewart knows what this is all about). Discussing Valerie Plame's job, apparently, was no more a crime than discussing if Manny Ramirez wants to be traded from the Boston Red Sox. I think I learned of Manny's trade request from the Boston Globe. I'd tell a grand jury that that is where I learned the information. If a Special Counsel could prove I had a conversation about a Manny trade prior to the Globe article, yes, he could indict me for making false statements. But, my false statements and the aide's alleged false statements involve a subject that was not a crime to discuss. If anyone thinks otherwise, I hope you are as deeply concerned with Mr. Wilson sharing government secrets with the New York Times as he did prior to May 6. President Bush is the elected official; he conducts U.S. foreign policy based on an infrastructure that answers to him and Congress. The foreign policy of the United States should not be conducted by a rogue CIA employee and her spouse. As I asked October 23, who has "oversight" responsibility for the Wilson's?

According to the Globe chronology, the aide met with reporters almost three weeks before Mr. Wilson went public with his criticism of the Bush Administration. As I have already asked, how do you retaliate against someone BEFORE they've committed the act that you're retaliating against? Of course, the liberal media won't stop using the word "retaliation"; the ugly suggestion fits in nicely with their agenda.

I found the words "leak" and "outing" a zillion times in the Globe articles this morning. THERE WAS NO LEAK! Well, other than Joe Wilson's leak of classified CIA information prior to May 6. THERE WAS NO OUTING! No matter how many times the liberal media and Congressional Democrats say it, it simply is not true according to the Special Counsel. Is the Counsel only right when he's indicting Republicans?

And just one more word on the Special Counsel, notice how he has not been vilified by the White House, Congressional Republicans or conservative thinkers and writers? If only Judge Ken Starr, supervised every single step of the way by U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, was treated with such civility. Wow, almost the whole post with no cheap Clinton references. Oh, well.

Finally, searching down below, in my list of Accomplishments of President Bush, please refer to #8, the vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. I know my liberal readers get greatly agitated when I remind them of this, but the vote was 77 - 23. Sens. John F. Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, among many others, voted for the war on terror in Iraq. Can someone please provide the explanation for their vote that makes them intelligent and noble at the same time making President Bush a liar? The British Government, headed by President Clinton's closest ally during his Presidency, stands by its intelligence Iraq was pursuing yellowcake in Niger. Joe Wilson was in Niger for no more than 8 days and he was able to learn enough to conclude the British government was "unequivocally wrong"? Eight days! If you want to hate President Bush, you will believe what you need to believe no matter how ridiculous it makes you look (don't say anything; it will make you sound ridiculous, too!).

As I said on October 23, it appears that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also does not believe Valerie Plame was a covert agent of the CIA; though Fitzgerald announced indictments today, none of the indictments was for violating the Identities Protection Act of 1982.

It is amazing to me that Fitzgerald chose to indict a man for not remembering the day he told the truth. I can only imagine the outrage in the liberal media if President Clinton was impeached for admitting to receiving oral sex from an intern on Friday when it was really Tuesday given their outrage over his impeachment for denying the oral sex occurred at all.

Separately, for many reasons, my guess as to the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is Emilio Garza. I don't have time to elaborate tonight, but I wanted to be on record should anything go down this weekend.

Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA agent. She was and is a CIA analyst stationed in Washington that apparently has (had) extraordinary connections within the CIA hierarchy. Ms. Plame is not "secret agent woman"; she's a CIA employee. But, let's wait for the Special Counsel to tell us this.

In order for a crime to have been committed per the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the Act) of 1982, Valerie Plame would have had to have been stationed overseas and operating undercover. Ms. Plame has not been stationed overseas since 1997. There are other requirements necessary to violate the Act but I don't think it's necessary to list those that have also not been violated when the foremost aspect of the Act was not violated.

Just recently, the 1917 Espionage Act is now being mentioned by the liberal media as a law that was broken during the Plame affair. They can hope, I guess. The Espionage Act prohibits the sharing of military secrets during war time. Well, even if no "military secret" was shared (confirming a CIA employee is a CIA employee?), it is good to know that the liberal media at least accepts that the United States is at war (somebody please let Ms. Cindy Sheehan know; she's still not taking my calls).

I don't think it is possible for me to laugh anymore (I'm simply laughed out) if I have to read one more time in the Boston Globe that the motive for confirming Ms. Plame's job was to "discredit her husband, (hate-Bush, loud-mouth) Joseph Wilson." How can those two dots possibly get connected? "I don't like what you're saying about foreign affairs, in order to discredited you I'm going to tell everyone that your spouse is a covert CIA agent." Wouldn't it give hate-Bush Mr. Wilson more credibility if, in fact, his wife really was a covert CIA agent? Do I have more credibility talking about football if my wife is an NFL scout or if she is not an NFL scout? If you hate President Bush, I guess you will twist anything into a justification to hate him.

I'm quoting directly from yesterday's Boston Globe, "The evidence of that meeting (between a high ranking White House official and a New York Times reporter) has become important to the investigation because it indicates that (a high ranking White House official) was passing information to reporters about Plame WELL BEFORE (all caps mine for emphasis) her husband, (hate-Bush, loud-mouth) Joseph Wilson, went public with his accusations" against the Bush Administration. Further, the Special Counsel is investigating whether "presidential aides violated a law prohibiting the intentional disclosure of covert CIA officers, and had tried to punish (hate-Bush, loud-mouth) Wilson for his criticism . . . ." Well, I don't know how you can be accused of a crime of retaliation when you retaliate BEFORE the event that you are retaliating against has occurred. Read the two Boston Globe quotes above. Again, if you hate President Bush, I guess you will twist anything as justification to hate him even if it means lying to yourself.

Finally, I'm assuming that someone in the liberal media is eventually going to ask how loud-mouth Wilson got his Niger assignment. It looks more and more like Ms. Plame used her CIA contacts to get Clinton appointee, and yes, Bush retainee, (my goodness, what a huge mistake at trying to be a "uniter") CIA Director, George "Slam Dunk" Tenet to recommend Wilson for the job. Do Americans really want U.S. foreign policy conducted by rogue employees operating in secrecy and with a personal agenda? I hope not and I hope someone besides me is asking the tough questions. The President's foreign policy decisions are the subject of many oversight committees in the House and Senate. Who has oversight over Ms. Plame's agenda? I'm more comfortable with the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, 19 years as a former prosecutor and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (certainly he can ask a tough question, oops, okay, so he never has, but he could if he had the courage), reviewing everything the President sees than I am with the possibility that no one is reviewing what Ms. Plame orchestrates.

I guess I have consumed the Miers Kool-Aid; I'm hoping for one of the following scenarios:

1. Miers was heavily involved in all of the judicial nominations President Bush has made over the last 5 years and by discussing the qualifications of these the President has satisfied himself of her "originalist" credentials. All conservative thinkers and writers applaud the overwhelming brilliance of his lower court appointments; I just can't believe this President would fail on the third most important nomination (Dr. Rice and Gen. Powell being #1 and #2) he'll make as President (and on a issue he explicitly discussed during the Presidential campaign).

2. The conservative critics of Miers are part of a vast right-wing conspiracy (they exist all over the place, you know!). As in, maybe President Bush can trick Democrats into overwhelmingly supporting Miers if he asks conservatives to "pretend" to be offended by her. She's being morphed into a Trojan (Supreme Court justice) horse. I'm hoping the President could not believe his luck when Senate Minority Leader Reid suggested the President consider Miers for the post (then see 1. above). Also, by taking such serious counsel with Reid, the President, again, gets to highlight his amazing efforts to include Democrats in governing; uniting!, uniting!, uniting!

Tomorrow, some comments on rogue CIA employee Valerie Plame, wife of hate-Bush, loud-mouth, Joseph Wilson. My goodness, where there's a television camera, there's Joe Wilson.

I'm doing some business travel so it is difficult for me to post; coming this weekend I'll share my thoughts on Miers, Plame and Iraq elections.

Last in my series on President Bush Accomplishments; there are simply other things that I need to address and I think I've made my point about how successful President Bush has been either in the international or domestic arena.

Below are several massive pieces of legislation that received bipartisan (if not overwhelming) support in the House and Senate. All Americans now pay less in taxes than they did in the Clinton years. More people are working today than in the Clinton years. And, most importatly, I believe we are safer today than we were in the Clinton years. Congressional Democrats have overwhelmingly supported every major action and request the White House has made in conducting the war on terror.

I'm disappointed that the President's efforts to save Social Security have stalled. When legislation is ultimately passed to save this program, President Bush should receive credit for initiating the conversation, for touching the "third rail".

Accomplishment #12 - The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA). This passed the Senate 62 - 38, twelve (12) Democrats voting in favor. Passed the House 240 - 154 with 28 Democrats voting to give a tax cut to every single American that paid/pays taxes, to eliminate the marriage penalty, and to eliminate the death tax. Uniting, uniting, uniting.

Accomplishment #13 - Four million new jobs since May, 2003. I include this job number here because the link to the tax cuts mentioned above cannot be denied. This Accomplishment did not fit my original definition for inclusion in this list but this Accomplishment is simply to great to ignore.

Prior Accomplishments:
#11 - Confirmation for everyone!
#10 - $15 Billion in AIDS relief for Africa
#9 - Medicare Reform
#8 - The overwhelming authorization to use force in Iraq
#7 - The No Child Left Behind (landmark) Education (reform) Act
#6 - Advancing a peace initiative in the Middle East
#5 - The PATRIOT ACT
#4 - The Partial Birth Abortion Ban
#3 - Nuke free Libya
#2 - The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
#1 - Nuke free North Korea

Accomplishment #11 - The overwhelming Senate confirmation votes for Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John G. Roberts, Secretary of State (African-American) Colin Powell, Secretary of State (African-American) Dr. Condoleezza Rice (a Bush crony; odd, that a black woman can fit such a description for a man called Bull Connor by Rep. Charles Rangel), U.S. Attorney General (Hispanic-American) Alberto Gonzalez (another Bush crony; my goodness, doesn't this President have any white, male cronies?), Secretary of Commerce (Hispanic-American) Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (African-American) Alphonso Jackson.

I could have broken this down into six separate Accomplishments but there is no sense in piling on.

Next, this President has bona fide African-American and Hispanic (and Female -I didn't even mention Karen Hughes until now) friends yet the liberal media paints him as a racist (and a sexist). Would a President Hillary Clinton or John Kerry have so much color in their Cabinet? And, if they did, would it be for show or because they got the right person? Can anyone really argue that Dr. Rice is not already an extremely accomplished Secretary of State?

On just the first vote, for Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, President Bush nominated a man that got half (22 of 44) the Democrat vote in the Senate. Yes, all the Presidential hopefuls voted against for political reasons but the sensible others voted for John G. Roberts. 78 - 22 for a Chief Justice in a polarized 2005! Is there no end to the "uniting"?

Prior Accomplishments:
#10 - $15 Billion in AIDS relief for Africa
#9 - Medicare Reform
#8 - The overwhelming authorization to use force in Iraq
#7 - The No Child Left Behind (landmark) Education (reform) Act
#6 - Advancing a peace initiative in the Middle East
#5 - The PATRIOT ACT
#4 - The Partial Birth Abortion Ban
#3 - Nuke free Libya
#2 - The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
#1 - Nuke free North Korea

Accomplishments #9 & #10

Accomplishment #9 - The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. The President attempted to reform the Medicare program and he succeeded with this landmark legislation. No, the votes were not veto-proof (should he not have signed his own initiative) but the legislation was hugely bi-partisan. The AARP endorsed it!

Accomplishment #10 - $15 Billion in AIDS relief for sub-Saharan Africa. This was approved by a voice vote in the Senate (don't know why Senators did not want to be on record for this Bush accomplishment) and passed the House 375 - 41.

Prior Accomplishments:
#8 - Overwhelming Authorization to Use Force in Iraq
#7 - The No Child Left Behind (landmark education reform) Act
#6 - Advancing a peace initiative in the Mid-East
#5 - The PATRIOT ACT.
#4 - The Partial Birth Abortion Ban
#3 - No Nukes Libya.
#2 - The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.
#1 - No Nukes North Korea

Accomplishments #7 & #8

Accomplishment #7 - Legislation co-written by the President of the United States George W. Bush and the second most liberal member of the Senate, Sen. Edward Kennedy, The No Child Left Behind Act. It simply does not get anymore "uniting" that actually writing legislation with this true, liberal extremist. The legislation was agreed to by the House 381 - 41 and by the Senate 87 - 10. Both the President and the Senator got passed the rhetoric and agreed to this landmark education reform legislation.

Accomplishment #8 - The vote to Authorize the Use of Force in Iraq. The "authorization" was agreed to in the House 296 - 133. Sen. John F. Kerry, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Sen. John Edwards, to name just a few Democrats (these are noteworthy for their liberalism and their presidential aspirations) voted with the majority in a 77 - 23 vote. Uniting and foreign affairs gravitas all rolled into one.

Prior Accomplishments:
#6 - Advancing a peace initiative in the Mid-East
#5 - The PATRIOT ACT.
#4 - The Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
#3 - Libya gives up nukes.
#2 - The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.
#1 - North Korea pledges to give up nukes.

Accomplishments #5 & #6

Accomplishment #5 - The PATRIOT ACT. This is my favorite, quite possibly because the liberal media hates this legislation so much. They enjoyed beyond no end tarring former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (whose son serves/d aboard a U.S. warship in the Persian Gulf) for executing segments of this law. That's fine, I guess, President Bush, his boss, was a big supporter of the law. But, if President Bush did not sign this bill into law, the numbers to override his veto were huge. The House voted for the bill 357 - 66. The Senate voted in support by a whopping 98 - 1. The 2004 Democrat Presidential ticket of Sens. John F. Kerry and John Edwards, of course, voted for it. Yet, U.S. Attorney General is criticized for enforcing it. General Ashcroft was obligated to enforce it. I never read in the liberal media anyone calling out any Senate Democrat for his/her vote in support. Anyway, another huge "uniting" moment for President Bush. That was 98 - 1 in the Senate for those scoring at home.

Accomplishment #6 - Israel gave the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians. In another flash-point for global warfare, peace is being pursued by those serious about finding peace. It was not easy for Israel to relinquish this land: the Israeli hawks hammered Sharon and the most anti-Israeli Palestinians rubbed Sharon's nose in his "capitulation". It cannot be denied that the United States (the Bush Administration and Dr. Condoleezza Rice) played a huge part in convincing Sharon to take a chance on peace.

Notice the balance so far in the Accomplishments? International. Domestic. International. Domestic. Now, a combo. My goodness, this President can do it all. Two, maybe three, more Accomplishments tomorrow.

Prior Accomplishments:
#4 - The Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
#3 - Libya gave up its nukes.
#2 - The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.
#1 - North Korea pledged to give up nukes.

Accomplishment #4 - The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. This law, ruled unconstitutional by several liberal judges that legislate from the bench, prohibited the killing of a partially delivered fetus (the head is delivered; the mouth could be gasping for the first breath; the eyes may even open). This kind of abortion was called "infanticide" by the late, and great, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D, NY). This law passed the Senate with a near veto-proof tally of 64 - 34; seventeen (17) Democrats united with all but three (3) Republicans in support. This law passed the House with another near veto-proof tally of 281 - 142. Your usual liberal extremists cared not for the life of the partially born baby; the baby can't vote, afterall. Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins were the Republican barbarians. Anyway, President Bush campaigned as pro-life and as President he delivered this law with fantastic bi-partisan support. I'm sure the U.S. Supreme Court will be looking into the constitutionality of this law (and the will of the people) very shortly.

Oh, and where are the Pat Moynihans of today's Democrat Party? Sen. Paul Wellstone (D, MN) tragically died in a plane crash. Liberal as they are, Sens. Russ Feingold (D, WI) and Joe Lieberman (D, CT), should be admired for courageously voting their conscience. Why are they not more prominent in their party? How lonely they must be in their Senate caucuses.

Also, I know I said "one accomplishment a day" until I exhaust the list, but yesterday, I started a list off the top of my head and I got to #16, and I didn't even do any research! So, I may double-up accomplishments over the next few days just so my list is out there by the end of the coming week.

I'll defer to any "commenter" if I get a vote wrong. The way I'm doing my list is by simply recalling a MAJOR piece of legislation (or action) that was promoted by the White House that I knew received overwhelming support in Congress or bi-partisan support in Congress (see another vote below). I then "google" the topic which pin-points the date of action. I then go to senate.gov and try to find the roll call vote, if any. It is possible I misread the vote on the actual bill for a vote on amendments to the bill or other related parliamentary procedures because I am not an expert in Congress-speak. I think I got (will get) all the votes right, but if someone finds that I made a mistake, please let us know.

Next, I am not cherry-picking ridiculous pieces of legislation/action that had unanimous support in Congress. I'm not using a list circulated by the White House. I'm simply recalling all of the significant areas where the Executive Branch provided influence. My goodness, comparing the list to the Clinton years makes Bush look Rushmore-esque. I honestly cannot think of any major legislation or action promoted by the Executive Branch from 1992 - 2000 that would crack my current list of 16. NAFTA, The Balance Budget Amendment, the line-item veto, and fast tracking free trade agreements were all delivered to Clinton by a Republican Congress. I don't know the origination of FMLA and I'm not going to research it; I'll stipulate for the record that Clinton can have all the credit. I think we'll all agree FMLA is not comparable to the "greatest threat" to our national security.

Finally, on Friday, October 7, the Senate voted 97 - 0 to spend another $50 billion on the war on terror in Iraq. Ms. Cindy Sheehan won't take my calls, but if anyone can get through to her, please let her know that Sens. John F. Kerry, Edward Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, (ex-Klansman) Robert Byrd . . . okay, enough with the list, ALL 44 Democrats except Sen. Patrick Leahy (who missed the vote) voted in support of the aid. Maybe Ms. Sheehan can ask Sens. Kerry, Clinton and the others if they're planning to send their daughters to fight in Iraq.

Prior Accomplishments:
#3 - Libya gives up nukes.
#2 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.
#1 - North Korea pledges to give up nukes.

Accomplishment #3 - Libya abandoned its nuclear weapons program! Hello? Is anyone in the real world paying attention? I agree with the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, and the Boston Globe that the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially by rogue states, is the greatest threat to the security of the United States. Well, Libya is cashiering its nuclear weapons program. My goodness, making progress on those "greatest threat" items is certainly unrewarding for the Bush Administration. Instead of a speech acknowledging the success of the Bush Administration in Libya and North Korea, Sen. Kerry will blast the Administration in a speech later today on the environment. I'm not making light of environmental concerns, but I'm not the Democratic presidential candidate that said the proliferation of nuclear weapons by rogue states was the"greatest threat" to the security of the United States. A little perspective here? I can find no public remarks by Sen. Kerry about the progress made by the Bush Administration re: nuclear weapons, Libya and North Korea. I laugh when I recall liberals thought Sen. Kerry had foreign affairs gravitas.

For review:
Accomplishment #2 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
Accomplishment #1 - North Korea's declaration to abandon its nuclear weapons program

Accomplishment #2 - The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was passed by both Houses of Congress by a veto-proof 98-0 vote in the Senate and a veto-proof 380-15 (I don't know where the other 40 members were hiding) vote in the House. This law essentially says that infants born alive are, well, alive. Pro-abortion Senators and Representatives even agreed that infants that survived a failed abortion were worthy of saving. Yes, these chameleons only thought the babies were worth saving after attempts to kill them failed! Anyway, President Bush united 478 members of Congress to support this legislation.

For the hard of reading, this is a blog where I primarily react to the extreme liberalism/hate-Bushism of the Boston Globe; if you're down with that then I hope you enjoy the blog.

If you want more hate-Bush stuff, check out the Boston Globe, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, or just about any media outlet. If you want fair and balanced, watch Fox News.

To wit, just a few days ago, the Boston Globe printed a letter from an idiot (this is not too strong a word and I don't use it to be insulting; it's accurate) that said the investigation of President Clinton was a "GOP investigation". Now, for the intelligent and well-informed, we all know that U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno appointed the independent counsel that investigated William Jefferson Clinton and Madison Guaranty; the investigation was initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice that was headed by a liberal extremist. The intelligent and well-informed know that General Reno expanded the investigation to the death of Mr. Vince Foster. The intelligent and well-informed know that General Reno expanded the investigation to include the perjury by the President in a deposition in a sexual harassment lawsuit against him.

The letters editor at the Boston Globe should be ashamed of himself (I know it's a he; we correspond) for allowing the letter; he knows like all intelligent and well-informed people that the investigation was a General Reno initiative. But, consistent with the hate-Bush mentality of the Globe and the liberal media, they publish factual inaccuracies to incite their hate-Bush base. They should be so proud.

Starting tomorrow, okay, tonight, a daily posting of a President Bush accomplishment that either demonstrates his status as a uniter or his amazing foreign affairs gravitas (Boy, I hope I can stay with it for the many nights that will be required!).

Accomplishment #1 - Just a few weeks ago, North Korea announced its abandonment of its nuclear weapons program. Recall, during the 2004 Presidential Debates, the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry said that a nuclear armed North Korea was the "greatest threat" to the security of the United States. Okay, so I don't take North Korea at their word, I lived through the Clinton Administration and empty promises extended by the same North Korea, afterall. But, a declaration by this rogue state is certainly progress. A liberal will have to help me here, but is this not something we should be praising the President for? It's the "greatest threat" to our national security! Damn those category 5 hurricanes that are so much more easily controlled.

Tomorrow night, for accomplishment #2, I think I'll go with something that passed both houses of Congress with veto-proof majorities, my goodness, so many to choose from!

My letter below was published in the Boston Globe on October 2:

Compare and contrast, well, primarily contrast, President Bush and Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid (D, Nevada).

President Bush is conducting a global war on terror, a by-product of which was national parliamentary elections in Afghanistan earlier this week (my, based on how under-reported the event was, democracy sure is dull).

President Bush is orchestrating relief aid to the Gulf Coast in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath.

President Bush is actively involved in the preparations along the Texas gulf coast for the arrival of Hurricane Rita.

President Bush won concessions earlier this week from North Korea for that country to suspend its nuclear weapons program.

President Bush is currently vetting candidates for the open Associate Justice position on the United States Supreme Court.

With regard to President Bush, I can go on and on.

Sen. Harry Reid, who has help from 99 other Senators is, according to the Boston Globe, encouraging "the President to take his time in picking a replacement (for the Supreme Court), so the Senate can concentrate on Hurricane Katrina relief . . . (Senate minority chief opposes Roberts, September 21, A2). "

Their can be no more startling difference of leadership than this contrast between an involved-in-everything President and a weak Senator that, by his own admission, truly cannot chew gum and walk at the same time.


Above, when I wrote, "with regard to President Bush, I can go on and on", I was of course thinking about the President's efforts to save Social Security, to educate children in failing urban schools, to make many of his tax cuts permanent, to add to the 4 million jobs created since May 2003, and to, as Hillary Clinton says, make abortion rare. Where is Harry Reid, or any Democrat, on any of these issues? They're simply AWOL. Or, if they appear, they are obstructionists, capable of only saying, "No, No, No!"

It's now about 63 months and counting since we've heard any liberal tell us what they are "for". Go to your newspaper, please let me know if you can find any article with a Democrat telling us what he or she is for. The "Against anything that Bush proposes" platform will get the Democrats exactly no more seats in the House or Senate in 2006. Are the Democrats really so completely devoid of any ideas? It appears so.