Another Democratic Party Scandal

While the liberal media seems obsessed with a “sex” scandal where there was no “sex” (recall how the liberal media recoiled when “sex scandal” was used to describe a Presidential sex scandal when sex actually did occur), I could not help but notice how another Democratic Party campaign finance scandal was being relatively ignored. Anyway, I found this story in the Wall Street Journal on August 29, 2007. The authors are Ianthe Jeanne Dugan and Brody Mullins. The article:

Leading Clinton Donor Stays Below the Radar

Norman Hsu is one of the leading political fund-raisers in the country this year. In fact, many fund-raisers say he is one of a small handful of people capable of raising more than $1 million -- a major feat considering the maximum donation allowed by an individual for 2008 races is $4,600 per candidate.

But longtime political donors are curious: "Who is Norman Hsu?" asks Robin Chandler Duke, a former ambassador and longtime supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Until three years ago, Mr. Hsu never made a campaign contribution to a presidential candidate, according to federal election records. Now, though, several people involved in raising money for White House candidates say Mr. Hsu is a major player.

Many "HillRaisers" -- people who rustle up at least $100,000 for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign -- are dwarfed beside Mr. Hsu (pronounced "Shu"). Several people involved in Democratic presidential fund-raising say Mr. Hsu, an apparel executive, has raised well over $1 million for the New York senator's presidential campaign, making him one of the top 20 Democratic fund-raisers in the country. The Clinton campaign doesn't disclose such details and declined to comment for this story (Blogger’s Note: As nobody in the liberal media asked Sen. Clinton to explain her “we are safer than we were” and “Our troops succeeded in Iraq” quotes, I doubt she’ll ever be asked to explain what appear to be illegal campaign contributions. And, since she doesn't have the spine to face the moderate and conservative media these media will never have the access to ask her about these apparent illegal campaign contributions).

"Forget the politics -- Norman is widely regarded as decent, and enormously generous," says Orin Kramer, a hedge-fund manager who is a chief fund-raiser for Barack Obama, the Illinois senator who is Mrs. Clinton's strongest rival for the party's presidential nomination.

"I have been blessed by what this country has given me and have tried to give back in many ways," Mr. Hsu said in an email to a Wall Street Journal reporter earlier this week. "One way has been through political contributions to candidates and causes I believe in. I have never asked for anything in return. I've asked friends and colleagues of mine to give money out of their own pockets and sometimes they have agreed," he added.

People who have met him at events describe Mr. Hsu as warm, giving, charming and well-dressed. But unlike most big fund-raisers this cycle -- such as hedge-fund magnate Paul Tudor Jones for Mr. Obama and buyout pioneer Henry Kravis for Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain -- Mr. Hsu remains remarkably low-profile. Even some other Clinton fund-raisers say they don't know him at all and have been surprised to see him emerge as a top fund-raiser.

Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that a modest home in a middle-class San Francisco suburb, where the family of mail carrier William Paw resides, is listed as the address for many contributions to the Clinton campaign. Mr. Hsu once listed the home as his address, according to public records, and the Paws' donations closely tracked his.

Mr. Hsu's lawyer, Lawrence Barcella, took issue with a connection between his client and the Paws.

"Like every fund-raiser, he asks friends, colleagues and others to support the causes and candidates he supports. That is what every fund-raiser in America for any cause -- political or nonprofit -- does," Mr. Barcella said in a written statement. "And, in none of these instances, to address the WSJ innuendo, has Mr. Hsu reimbursed them for their contributions."

Campaign-finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission list Mr. Hsu as a consultant with a company called Components Ltd.; a director of another called Next Components; a designer for Because Men's Clothes; and an independent apparel consultant.

Mr. Hsu has been connected with the Paws for at least a decade, according to a person familiar with the matter. Mr. Hsu recently hired William Paw's 35-year-old son, Winkle Paw, to work for several of his New York apparel companies.

According to campaign-finance records, Mr. Hsu made his first campaign contribution, in the amount of $2,000, to the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry on July 21, 2004. Mr. Hsu has since donated $225,000 to Democratic candidates.

During that same time, Mr. Hsu has "bundled" contributions from other donors for candidates. It is legal for individuals to ask friends, colleagues and family members to make donations to political candidates, though not to reimburse people for such donations.

Most presidential candidates disclose the names of their bundlers, and a new law requires registered lobbyists to disclose how much money they raise for lawmakers beginning next year.

Mr. Hsu supports other Democrats besides Mrs. Clinton. On June 23, he helped throw a "6th Anniversary of his 60th Birthday fund-raiser" for California Rep. Mike Honda. A few days later, he joined Blackstone Group Chairman Stephen Schwarzman and lawyer David Boies to host a $1,000-a-plate 40th-birthday bash for Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island.

In the email to the Journal, Mr. Hsu listed several Democratic politicians to whom he has given money, and said he has never asked any for favors. They include Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell; New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine; Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy; California Sen. Dianne Feinstein; and Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown.

Representatives for each of the Democrats declined to comment for this story. (End of Wall Street Journal article.)

Consequences of Failure in Iraq

Again, I reproduce an article from the Wall Street Journal. This was published on August 27, 2007 and provides a point-of-view you will not see if your hometown "news"paper slants Left and you watch network news.

The author is Mr. Josef Joffe. He is publisher-editor of Die Zeit, the German weekly and he will be teaching foreign policy at Stanford University this fall (so apparently somebody in higher education thinks this gentleman has something to offer).

So, hoping all required citations are in order:

If Iraq Falls

In contrast to President Bush's dark comparison between Iraq and the bloody aftermath of the Vietnam War last week, there is another, comforting version of the Vietnam analogy that's gained currency among policy makers and pundits. It goes something like this:

After that last helicopter took off from the U.S. embassy in Saigon 32 years ago, the nasty strategic consequences then predicted did not in fact materialize. The "dominoes" did not fall, the Russians and Chinese did not take over, and America remained No. 1 in Southeast Asia and in the world.

But alas, cut-and-run from Iraq will not have the same serendipitous aftermath, because Iraq is not at all like Vietnam.

Unlike Iraq, Vietnam was a peripheral arena of the Cold War. Strategic resources like oil were not at stake, and neither were bases (OK, Moscow obtained access to Da Nang and Cam Ranh Bay for a while). In the global hierarchy of power, Vietnam was a pawn, not a pillar, and the decisive battle lines at the time were drawn in Europe, not in Southeast Asia.

The Middle East, by contrast, was always the "elephant path of history," as Israel's fabled defense minister, Moshe Dayan, put it. Legions of conquerors have marched up and down the Levant, and from Alexander's Macedonia all the way to India. Other prominent visitors were Julius Caesar, Napoleon and the German Wehrmacht.

This is not just ancient history. Today, the Greater Middle East is a cauldron even Macbeth's witches would be terrified to touch. The world's worst political and religious pathologies combine with oil and gas, terrorism and nuclear ambitions.

In short, unlike yesterday's Vietnam, the Greater Middle East (including Turkey) is the central strategic arena of the 21st century, as Europe was in the 20th. This is where three continents -- Europe, Asia, and Africa -- are joined. So let's take a moment to think about what would happen once that last Blackhawk took off from Baghdad International.

Here is a short list. Iran advances to No. 1, completing its nuclear-arms program undeterred and unhindered. America's cowed Sunni allies -- Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, the oil-rich "Gulfies" -- are drawn into the Khomeinist orbit.

You might ask: Wouldn't they converge in a mighty anti-Tehran alliance instead? Think again. The local players have never managed to establish a regional balance of power; it was always outsiders -- first Britain, then the U.S. -- who chastened the malfeasants and blocked anti-Western intruders like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

With the U.S. gone from Iraq, emboldened jihadi forces shift to Afghanistan and turn it again into a bastion of Terror International. Syria reclaims Lebanon, which it has always labeled as a part of "Great Syria." Hezbollah and Hamas, both funded and equipped by Tehran, resume their war against Israel. Russia, extruded from the Middle East by adroit Kissingerian diplomacy in the 1970s, rebuilds its anti-Western alliances. In Iraq, the war escalates, unleashing even more torrents of refugees and provoking outside intervention, if not partition.

Now, let's look beyond the region. The Europeans will be the first to revise their romantic notions of multipolarity, or world governance by committee. For worse than an overbearing, in-your-face America is a weakened and demoralized one. Shall Vladimir Putin's Russia acquire a controlling stake? This ruthlessly revisionist power wants revenge for its post-Gorbachev humiliation, not responsibility.

China with its fabulous riches? The Middle Kingdom is still happily counting its currency surpluses as it pretties up its act for the 2008 Olympics, but watch its next play if the U.S. quits the highest stakes game in Iraq. The message from Beijing might well read: "Move over America, the Western Pacific, as you call it, is our lake."

Europe? It is wealthy, populous and well-ordered. But strategic players those 27 member-states of the E.U. are not. They cannot pacify the Middle East, stop the Iranian bomb or keep Mr. Putin from wielding gas pipelines as tools of "persuasion." When the Europeans did wade into the fray, as in the Balkan wars of the 1990s, they let the U.S. Air Force go first.

Now to the upside. The U.S. may have spent piles of chips foolishly, but it is still the richest player at the global gaming table. In the Bush years, the U.S. may have squandered tons of political capital, but then the rest of the world is not exactly making up for the shortfall.

Nor has the U.S. become a "dispensable nation." That is the most remarkable truth in these trying times. Its enemies from al Qaeda to Iran -- and its rivals from Russia to China -- can disrupt and defy, but they cannot build and lead.

For all the damage to Washington's reputation, nothing of great import can be achieved without, let alone against, the U.S. Can Moscow and Beijing bring peace to Palestine? Or mend a global financial system battered by the subprime crisis? Where are the central banks of Russia and China?

The Bush presidency will soon be on the way out, but America is not. This truth has recently begun to sink in among the major Democratic contenders. Listen to Hillary Clinton, who would leave "residual forces" to fight terrorism. Or to Barack Obama, who would stay in Iraq with an as-yet-unspecified force. Even the most leftish of them all, John Edwards, would keep troops around to stop genocide in Iraq or to prevent violence from spilling over into the neighborhood. And no wonder, for it might be one of them who will have to deal with the bitter aftermath if the U.S. slinks out of Iraq.

These realists have it right. Withdrawal cannot serve America's interests on the day after tomorrow. Friends and foes will ask: If this superpower doesn't care about the world's central and most dangerous stage -- what will it care about?

America's allies will look for insurance elsewhere. And the others will muse: If the police won't stay in this most critical of neighborhoods, why not break a few windows, or just take over? The U.S. as "Gulliver Unbound" may have stumbled during its "unipolar" moment. But as giant with feet of clay, it will do worse: and so will the rest of the world. (End of essay.)

Idiotic Phrase III – “Against the War in Iraq”

I’m serious, I don’t have any clue what a person means when they say or write, “I’m against the war in Iraq.”

And, I don’t know what it means when a person is described as “against the war in Iraq”.

And, I cannot hang this on just liberal extremists though I’m certain they are all “against the war in Iraq”. But, I have no clue if Sen. John Warner (R, VA) is “against the war in Iraq”, too.

But let’s explore what the phrase can mean:

Does the phrase means the person was always against the war as Sen. Barak Obama claims he was always against the war. Mind you, Sens. Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and many others who saw the evidence, voted for the war. So, based on evidence that convinced these liberal extremists to vote for the war, Sen. Barack Obama was still against the war? I’ve written it before: I’m quite sure I don’t want Sen. Obama to have the responsibility to protect Americans and the United States of America. As President Clinton said as he announced a series of cruise missile attacks on Iraq in December 1998, “And mark my words, (Saddam Hussein) will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them . . . .”

Or, does the phrase mean the person is against the war now? As in, the cost of staying is greater than the cost of leaving? As I’ve written before, I regret the loss of U.S. servicemen and women. But that is the job they chose. I regret the loss of 9 firefighters in South Carolina not too long ago and two more from New York City just two weeks ago. But those are the jobs they chose. I think fires that may take human life should be extinguished. I think murderers should be arrested. Because I think these things, does not mean that I should be the one to fight fires or arrest murderers. People volunteer for these jobs. They are tested, accepted and then trained. I believe more innocent Americans would have been killed if we never went into Iraq than the 3,800 Americans that have been killed in Iraq to date. I cannot prove this but nor can anyone prove fewer Americans would have been killed if we did not go into Iraq.

Or, does the phrase only mean “I’m against U.S. troops getting killed”. Is the expression “I’m against the war” immediately followed by some lip-biting lament about our lost “treasure”. Yes, the loss of American life is tragic, but what is the option? What is the option? (Blogger’s Note: Sen. John McCain is the most prolific user of the word “treasure”; he, of all people should not be question on the use, but it just sounds so cheap and pandering every time I hear it; Sen. McCain does support the war effort, though.) My goodness, how long until our enemies get jobs cleaning airplanes at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport like a recently deported, high-profile, illegal immigrant had? What is the option for surrender in Iraq? To sit and wait for the next terrorist attack on our soil? Gee, I wonder where the blame for that is going to go if we suffer such an attack before January 20, 2009. Actually, I’m quite sure the blame will always fall on President Bush even if the attack occurs after he leaves office; “they wouldn’t have attacked us here if we didn’t go into Iraq.”

Or, does it mean you want to defeat terrorists but the tactics are all wrong. I’m simply not going to look it up but it took President Abraham Lincoln many tries before he found a General willing to win the Civil War. People that did not expect casualties in the current war remind me of the civilians who took picnic baskets out to the very first Civil War battles, thinking a little wine and cheese would go well with all the fun. In war, people die. Even the good guys. And, all battle plans need revisions as soon as the ink has dried on the original.

Anyway, I started this piece by writing I had no clue what the phrase means; I don’t know if the phrase equally describes Republicans and Democrats. What I do know is that during the last Democratic Presidential debate, of the serious contenders, the earliest anyone would have the troops out of Iraq was 8 months from now. The “mandate” to bring them home, according to the liberal extremists, was 10 months ago! Who on the Left is “against the war in Iraq”? Could it be less than I think? Do the loud-mouths on the Left give me the wrong impression?

If anyone has a more precise explanation of the meaning of the phrase “against the war in Iraq” than any of the four general meanings I’ve mentioned above, I’d love to read it.

Idiotic Phrase II – “Close Guantanamo”

This phrase is so stupid I should just end my commentary here.

The coefficient of delusional hatred for this phrase is almost 1; meaning, there is an almost perfect correlation between those who hate President Bush and those who speak or write this phrase.

“Oh, if Bush wants it open, aarrgghhh!!, I hate him so much, close Guantanamo!” We all know people this delusional. We all know people this unglued.

Simply, I can find no other explanation for closing the prison.

What, close Guantanamo and let the prisoners free?

Close Guantanamo and move the prisoners to another prison? Oh, it’s a symbolic thing; now I get it. Maybe we could build a brand new prison with cable TV.

Close Guantanamo and what? If anyone can tell me what we are supposed to do with the prisoners at Guantanamo after we close it, I’d love to hear it.

Or, is one man’s torture another man’s “aggressive interrogation technique”? There has not been one substantiated claim of torture at Guantanamo. Yes, it makes for great headlines for the pro-terrorist lobby (al Fedaban Americans and the liberal media), but torture is simply not happening at Guantanamo.

Take the case of Mohamed al-Qahtani, the 20th hijacker, who should have been on Flight 93. There is no doubting that Qahtani was(is) given IVs. The Pentagon’s story was(is) that Qahtani was(is) on a food and beverage hunger-strike and they were(are) simply trying to keep him alive (I’ll concede the motive was(is) two-fold: to get more information from him and to avoid the damage done in the court of public opinion and in the all-important, "international community" if he died in custody). The liberal media’s position was(is) that the IVs were(are) provided to speed along the pace at which Qahtani would be forced to urinate all over himself; oh, the barbarism!

I’ve written it a thousand times: people believe what they want to believe. I want to believe the U.S. government knows the international outrage it would incur if Qahtani dies in custody. Liberal extremists who hate their country want to believe we torture innocents picked up in the wrong place (the battlefield!) at the wrong time (during a battle!).

People will find evidence to support what they want, but I think you have to be delusional to think the 350 remaining prisoners at Guantanamo are not immediate threats to the security of Americans and the United States of America.

"Poems from Guantanamo" has such a romantic sound and feel (See my Post of August 7, 2007 as well as the accompanying Comments). Only 19 shopping days left to get your loved one a copy before 9/11.

Idiotic Phrase I – “jobs Americans won’t do”

Today begins what I think may be a three-part series, that may not run consecutively, of idiotic phrases that have been repeated ad nauseam for which I have no clue what the speaker/writer means when she/he utters/writes the idiotic phrase.

Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, and smart folks and dummies have used the phrase “jobs Americans won’t do” when discussing illegal immigration.

My goodness, this is the most ridiculous phrase. What the heck does it mean? If it means what I think the user is trying to say, it is both arrogant in its implication as to Americans and insulting in its implication as to illegal immigrants.

First, from a literal perspective, there are simply NO jobs that Americans will not do. Can someone please name a single job that an America will not do? Of course, you can’t because no such job exists.

So, second, then, from a figurative perspective, no one can seriously argue that there are these magical jobs in America that do not obey the laws of supply, demand and price. And, the laws of supply, demand, and price are laws that everyone obeys, Americans, Europeans, Asians, South Americans, and illegal immigrants from all corners of the world. If the price is right, an American, who is no different than anyone else in the entire world, will do ANY job.

Third, and what of this word “American” in the phrase. Is that African-American? Asian-American? Native American Indian? Does it really mean white Americans? As in, there are no white Americans that are willing to do a job that pays minimum wage? C’mon, you are an idiot if you believe such a thing.

Fourth, the implication that illegal immigrants are somehow inferior to ALL Americans (again, whatever the phrase-user means by “Americans”) is terribly insulting to all the illegal immigrants. But assessing superiority solely on education, there are no supremely educated people in the illegal immigrant pool? There are no supremely educated people fleeing oppressive conditions in their home country who are prepared to break laws in order to hopefully provide a better life for their family? The implication that illegal immigrants are so devoid of any skills other than those necessary to perform the ugliest of jobs is obscene.

If I'm missing something here, I'd love for someone to explain it to me.

If someone knows of a phrase that has been fully integrated into the American lexicon but you're sure no one knows the meaning of the phrase, please share that with us as well. Like I mentioned above, I have at least two more that I intend to write about.

The Cheney Imperative

I could write a piece on the Karl Rove resignation but didn't the wall-to-wall coverage by the liberal media establishment of the resignation of an aide to an aide of the President tell you all you needed to know about the delusional hatred the Left has for this White House? Quick, who was Deputy Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton (actually, I'll give you 10 minutes to research it and you probably still couldn't find the answer)? Anyway, see what I mean?

I'm tempted to write about the liberal media establishment's obsession with Mayor Giuliani's daughter's "support" for Sen. Barak Obama but I'll do that piece if this story is still in the news next week. But, sheesh, this is what the liberal media is using to attack a man running for President who has such a massive public record to question instead? What is the liberal media afraid of? I think we know. A Republican rout in 2008.

No, instead, I re-print, in its entirety, a column from the Wall Street Journal on August 15, 2007; it is written by Stephen F. Hayes who's authored a book on Cheney, "Cheney: The Untold Story of Anerica's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President"; Mr. Hayes also writes for The Weekly Standard. So, hopefully all the approriate credits being given (bold italics are for my emphasis; giant font for super-emphasis):

Dick Cheney sat transfixed by the images on the small television screen in the corner of his West Wing office. Smoke poured out of a gaping hole in the World Trade Center's North Tower. John McConnell, the vice president's chief speechwriter, sat next to him and said nothing.

Then, a second plane appeared on the right-hand side of the screen, banked slightly to the left, and plunged into the South Tower. "Did you see that?" Mr. Cheney asked his aide.

A little more than an hour later, Mr. Cheney was seated below the presidential seal at a long conference table in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, better known as the bunker. When an aide told Mr. Cheney that another passenger airplane was rapidly approaching the White House, the vice president gave the order to shoot it down. The young man was so surprised at Mr. Cheney's immediate response that he asked again. Mr. Cheney reiterated the order. Thinking that Mr. Cheney must have misunderstood the question, the military aide asked him a third time.

The vice president responded evenly. "I said yes."

These early moments and all that followed from them will define Mr. Cheney's vice presidency. He was aggressive in those first moments of the war on terror and has been ever since.

Mr. Cheney flew from the White House that night to Camp David, where he stayed in the Aspen Lodge, usually reserved for the president. It was his first night in the "secure, undisclosed location" that would eventually provide fodder for late night comedians. When he woke the next morning, Mr. Cheney asked himself two questions: When is the next attack? And what can I do to prevent it?

They were the questions on the minds of many politicians immediately following 9/11. "When, not if" quickly became one of many clichés to emerge from the national trauma of that day. Democrats and Republicans alike spoke of further terrorist acts on U.S. soil with certainty. Sen. Bob Graham, a Democrat from Florida who has since retired but at the time was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, described the intelligence after a CIA briefing days after 9/11. "There is evidence that Tuesday's attack was the first phase of a multi-phase series of terrorist assaults against the United States, all under one umbrella plan," he said. "It's critical that we move with what capabilities we have today and strengthen those capabilities so that the next acts of this horrendous scheme against the people of the United States can be interdicted before it is executed (Blogger's Note: The fear-mongering alarmist, Sen. Graham!)."

No wonder, then, that a Time/CNN poll, taken in September 2001, found that four out of five Americans believed another attack within a year was either "somewhat likely" or "very likely."
That was nearly six years ago. To many, the threats no longer seem urgent. Critics speak of "the so-called war on terror," and accuse the administration of exaggerating the threats. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a leading indicator of Democratic conventional wisdom, recently argued that the "culture of fear" created in response to the 9/11 attacks has done more damage than the attacks themselves.

But Mr. Cheney has not moved on. He still awakens each day asking the same questions he asked on Sept. 12, 2001. Then, as he sips his morning coffee, he pores over the latest intelligence on his own before receiving an exhaustive briefing on the latest threat reports. After that, he joins his boss for the president's daily intelligence briefing. All of this happens before 9 a.m. He mentions the war on terror in virtually every speech he gives, and in a letter he wrote to his grandchildren he acknowledged that his "principal focus" as vice president has been national security.

The way that he has gone about his job has won him many critics. His approval ratings are low. A small but growing group of congressional Democrats is mobilizing to impeach him. Respected commentators from respected publications have suggested that his heart problems have left him mentally unstable. Others have called on him to resign. Some conservatives have joined this chorus of criticism, with one prominent columnist labeling the vice president "destructive" and another dismissing those who share his views as "Cheneyite nutjobs." This past Saturday, protesters near his home outside Jackson, Wyo., tore down an effigy of Mr. Cheney in much the way Iraqis famously toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein.

So President Bush should ignore Mr. Cheney's advice and the White House communications team should keep him hidden from public view, right?

Nonsense. With intelligence officials in Washington increasingly alarmed about the prospect of another major attack on the U.S. homeland, and public support for the Bush administration's anti-terror efforts reclaiming lost ground, we need more Dick Cheney.

The policies he has advocated have been controversial. But they have also been effective. Consider the procedures put in place to extract information from hardcore terrorists. Mr. Cheney did not dream up these interrogation methods, but when intelligence officials insisted that they would work, the vice president championed them in internal White House debates and on Capitol Hill. Former CIA Director George Tenet -- a Clinton-era appointee and certainly no Cheney fan -- was asked about the value of those interrogation programs in a recent television appearance. His response, ignored by virtually everyone in the media, was extraordinary.

"Here's what I would say to you, to the Congress, to the American people, to the president of the United States: I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. . . . I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together, have been able to tell us."

And what about the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program? Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush instructed his top intelligence officials to be aggressive in their efforts to track terrorists and disrupt their plots. Michael Hayden, NSA director at the time, took that opportunity to propose changes to the ways his agency monitored terrorist communications. A little more than a year before the 9/11 attacks, while Bill Clinton was still president, Mr. Hayden dramatized the NSA's dilemma in congressional testimony.

"If, as we are speaking here this afternoon, Osama bin Laden is walking . . . from Niagara Falls, Ontario, to Niagara Falls, New York, as he gets to the New York side, he is an 'American person.' And my agency must respect his rights against unreasonable search and seizure as provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution."

Once President Bush took office, Messrs. Hayden and Tenet took the problem to Dick Cheney. The vice president walked them in to see Mr. Bush and in short order the changes were implemented. The results were almost immediate. The New York Times article that exposed the surveillance program in December 2005 also reported that "the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program."

In the most recent battle over reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Mr. Cheney did not spend much time on Capitol Hill seeking support for the White House-backed changes as he had during the debates over detainee interrogations and earlier versions of the NSA programs. Instead, Mr. Cheney pushed and prodded inside the White House, insisting that the legislative affairs team approach the issue with the same urgency Mr. Cheney feels.

As the White House enters a critical domestic phases of the war on terror -- with a heightened threat environment and the coming report from Gen. David Petraeus on progress in Iraq -- Mr. Cheney may be called on to play a more public role. That may seem counterintuitive. If Mr. Cheney's approval ratings are so abysmal, why increase his visibility? The answer is simple: because his low poll numbers are the result of his low profile.

Mr. Cheney likes to work in the background and he does not care much about being loved. "Am I the evil genius in the corner that nobody ever sees come out of his hole?" Mr. Cheney said in 2004. "It's a nice way to operate, actually." But this reticence has a price. Where there is an information vacuum, people move to fill it, particularly in Washington, a town that operates on appearances.

More important, Mr. Cheney understands these issues as well as anyone in the Bush administration. "He really does get it," says former Iraq Administrator L. Paul Bremer, no Cheney acolyte. "From his time in Congress on the Intel Committee, to his time as secretary of defense -- I saw him every now and then in the '90s when we were both out of government -- he really is a student a international security matters."

Before he accepted his current position, Michael McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, was critical of Mr. Cheney's use of intelligence. But he nonetheless argued that the vice president was underutilized as a spokesman. "He has such a way of making it simple and compelling."

Mr. McConnell is right. Mr. Cheney can be a very effective communicator. That doesn't mean he never makes mistakes. He does. (His prediction in 2005 that the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes" comes to mind.) But recall his impressive outings in debates against Joseph Lieberman in 2000 and John Edwards four years later, or his appearance on "Meet the Press" shortly after 9/11 -- an interview that even the New York Times called "a command performance."

Mr. Cheney has given some thought to the Bush administration's difficulties communicating on the war. "The notion that somehow we've got to get across to people is they just cannot think of this as a conventional war," he says. "This is not Desert Storm. It's not Korea. It's not World War II. This is a struggle that's going to go on in that part of the world for decades. I don't know that you're going to be involved for Iraq for decades; I don't want to say that. But just think about it. We just have to have people understand that and understand that the alternative is not peace. The alternative is not [that] we go back to the way the world was before 9/11. You can't turn back the clock." (End of Hayes column.)

NYC Police and Firefighters for Truth
(Giuliani is "fire-fighted")

If Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee for President of the United States in 2008, there will be a group, the NYC Police and Firefighters for Truth (or similar), that will publicly speak out against the Mayor’s “fitness” for President based on his actions on 9/11, his immediate response to 9/11 and his conduct since the day 19 terrorists murdered 2,700 Americans and 300 non-Americans. My (news)paper reported on August 11 that some NYC police and fire officials have already started to speak out against Mayor Giuliani; I’m predicting well-funded, liberal, political operatives will help organize these officials and some of the like-minded, rank and file if the Mayor wins the nomination.

And, very predictably, the liberal media will play the “if it was OK for the Swift Boat Vets, it should be OK for these first-responders” martyr card.

Well, there will be at least two problems with these predicted events:

The first problem is that the liberal media never thought it was OK for 295 Vietnam veterans who carried a rifle in a swamp halfway around the world and earned enough medals to armor-plate a Humvee (that my Senators, Sen. John F. Kerry and Sen. Edward Kennedy voted against armor-plating) to speak out during the 2004 Presidential election. The Swiftees were, and continue to be, vilified by the liberal media and liberal extremists at every opportunity. Heck, they only wore the uniform. What would give them the right to speak out on the subject of Commander-in-Chief?

The second problem, and this is where the liberal media and liberal extremists are expert at playing the victim and martyr, is that no one will vilify the yet to be born NYC Police and Firefighters for Truth. The liberal media and liberal extremists will claim this group is being smeared but there will be no such evidence; recall, the liberal media and liberal extremists claimed the Bush Administration was trying to silence retired Generals and Admirals from speaking out against defeating the terrorists in Iraq when, in fact, all the statements from the White House defended the Generals and Admirals’ right to express their opinions.

The Vietnam vets should never have been smeared and we should definitely hear the opinions, favorable and unfavorable, of NYC First-Responders if they have one about Mayor Giuliani.

To quickly summerize some previously-made predictions:

Sen. Hillary Clinton will still have to answer to the huge Muslim population in Michigan for her knee-jerk, bigoted, opposition to Dubai Ports World buying port operation rights to six U.S. ports.

Sen. Hillary Clinton will still have to answer to another Democratic candidate about her June 3, 2007 comment that "we are safer than we were" on September 11.

Gov. Mitt Romney will be the next President of the United States.

Gov. Tom Ridge will be the next Vice President of the United States.

And, just newly added, if Mayor Giuliani is the Republican nominee, we'll see the birth of NYC Police and Firefighters for Truth.

Massachusetts Tax Holiday

This past weekend, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had a tax-free weekend; the state sales tax, 5%, was suspended on all purchases less than $2,500.

And, yes, according to the Boston Globe, the state lost $30 to $50 million dollars in tax revenue. The hysterical letters to the editor repeated the same $30 to $50 million dollar figure and one talked of the missed opportunity to “repair” our bridges with the “lost revenues".

Well, to my liberally extreme neighbors who repeatedly return tax-and-spend, liberal, extremists to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives: so did you buy anything during the “tax holiday”? To anyone that answered “yes”, now do you get it? If not, let me explain:

The state did not lose $30 to $50 million dollars in tax revenues. My goodness, the ignorance of anyone that repeated this number and considered no other directly, related activity. The number suggests that over the weekend, there were an estimated $600 to $1,000 million dollars in retail sales. How much of these sales would not have been made if there was no holiday? Of course the tax on the additional sales cannot be included in the “lost revenue” number. I’ll concede that most purchases were for items that were going to be purchased anyway and the timing of the purchase just shifted . . . but this does not mean the state lost tax revenue.

Consider, all the “extra” sales compelled all the drivers of all those cars to buy gas. The state sales tax on a gallon of gasoline is $0.21 per gallon. The $30 to $50 million in “lost revenue” was not reduced by the increased gasoline taxes collected. If anyone drove through a toll booth they would not have otherwise, bam!, tax revenue to the state.

Consider, all the “extra” sales compelled the employers to add additional employees to cover the sales floor and cash registers. I’m sure the payroll taxes paid for just the “extra” sales help and the personal income taxes paid by the employees was not deducted from the “lost revenue” figure.

Consider, the employees who worked additional hours over the weekend, now have more disposable income . . . even after all the tax withholdings. My bet is that none of them will save the extra money; they will all most certainly spend the money, thus probably paying a sales tax when they do.

Consider, the publicly traded companies that do a considerable amount of retail business in Massachusetts probably improved their financial position because of the holiday. Maybe the stock price will get a bounce (yes, I’m aware the Dow is well off its high of 14,000.41). Massachusetts residents who sell on the pop will pay a state income tax. Or, maybe the company will pay a dividend to shareholders. Again, the dividend will be taxed. Oh, and if the Massachusetts resident spends this dividend in Massachusetts, yup!, you got it, taxed again!

And, on and on it goes.

Tax cuts stimulate the economy.

And, I’ll take this opportunity while discussing taxes to repeat one of my core beliefs: my money is my money.

The Pro-Terrorist Lobby

http://www.senate.gov/, then right-hand side of the screen, click Votes, then vote 309 to see the members of the Pro-Terrorist Lobby in the United States Senate.

(Cheap aside: Of course, the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry missed the vote. I'm sure it was for a very serious, unimpeachable reason.)

http://www.house.gov/, then Find Vote Information, Roll Call Votes, 110th Congress 1st Session, vote #836 for the members of the Pro-Terrorist Lobby in the United States House of Representatives.

Of course, on the flip side of all these votes you will find the names of the Senators and Representatives who are serious about protecting the lives of innocent Americans.

Poems from Guantanamo

On Sunday, August 5, the Boston Globe, sympathetic to the cause of the terrorists being detained at Guantanamo, published three poems by three different detainees.

This was the caption introducing the three poems:

The just released "Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak" is a collection of 22 poems by 17 detainees at the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Edited by Marc Falkoff, each poem had to be cleared by the Pentagon. The result offers a rare glimpse into the lives of the prisoners. The following is an excerpt.

Well, al Fedaban Americans will now have something to buy their loved ones for those special occasions. Birthdays, anniversaries (September 11, maybe?), etc.

First, Sen. Jack Reed (D, RI), no friend of President Bush but certainly a man concerned about the security of the United States, insists the 350 detainees at Guantanamo are "very bad guys". If Senator Reed thinks these guys are bad, then I'm not losing any sleep when they are (if they even are).

Second, wow!, paper and pens to write poems. No wonder the pro-terrorist lobby is outraged at the treatment the detainees are receiving!

Third, I simply do not recall the Boston Sunday Globe publishing poems by the children or other family members of those killed on September 11, 2001. I tried all my web search tricks but I couldn't find anything (if anyone is aware of such a publication, please advise and I'll prominantly address it here). In the spirit of balance, I think such poems running opposite the poems of the detainees would have been appropriate . . . I know this would have surely upset the pro-terrorist lobby, though.

Finally, the caption that introduced these poems said that each had to be "cleared by the Pentagon" (can't you just feel the censorship implication?). Anyway, I'm sure that's why "death to America" didn't find its way into anything I had to read Sunday morning. But, how soon until we hear the detainees First Amendment rights were trampled? Oh, that's right, these terrorists aren't U.S. citizens; they are not entitled to our constitutional protections.

I'd write something about artwork and the National Endowment for the Arts but I don't want to give any ideas to the liberal extremists who are U.S. citizens and who are sympathetic to the detainees.

Emptying the Folder

I maintain a “Blog Ideas” manila folder. I see something in a (news)paper (the Boston Globe) or a newspaper (The Wall Street Journal) and I rip out the article and throw it in the folder for future reference. Well, the folder is bursting and I’m never going to be able to write a full piece on many of the items but I want to comment on each of them so I do all of that today, but briefly.

How long until Chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, hate-Bush member, Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), subpoenas President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove to learn about their involvement in destroying the I-35 Bridge in Minnesota and their subsequent efforts to cover-up their involvement?

A while back I predicted Gov. Mitt Romney would be the next President of the United States. Well, after trailing badly in New Hampshire, Gov. Romney is now leading the pack in the state that will hold the first primary. Yes, I know that Mr. Romney still polls fourth in all national polls but since we do not have a national selection process that idiotic poll means nothing to me (and it should mean nothing to any of you). My point is, the Presidential chase will be over for the Republican candidate that finishes fourth in New Hampshire; won’t he not have met national expectations?

I see Sen. Barack Obama is running around the country this week saying “we are not safer than we were” prior to September 11. A news story I read yesterday said this put Sen. Obama at odds with all of the other Democratic Party Presidential candidates. On June 4, 2007, I wrote about Sen. Hillary Clinton’s quote from the debate the night before (“we are safer than we were”). I wrote it was ignored. Little did I know all the other candidates except Sen. Obama thought the same thing! They all think we’re safer and no one is congratulating the President of the United States? The liberal media isn’t reporting to Americans that these candidates think we are safer? Anyway, liberal bias in the media aside, I also wrote that an opponent of hers would resuscitate the quote if the opponent saw political advantage. Sen. Obama just might be reading ZACKlyRight.

As regular readers of this space know, the 2006 elections were not a referendum on the war against terrorists. This from my Boston Sunday Globe of July 29, 2007, “Despite claims to the contrary, it should be remembered that Democrats' victories in the 2006 midterms, while a repudiation of Bush's policies, hardly represented an unequivocal call for a quick pullout from Iraq.” The author is a professor of history at Rutgers University (yes, a liberal institution, aren’t all colleges and universities?). He authored at least two books, "Nixon's Shadow: The History of an Image" and "Calvin Coolidge." Anyway, and so it begins.

Well, the NAACP played the race card in the Michael Vick case earlier this week. Wow, I really didn’t see that coming! Again, I’ve written it so many times my fingers hardly need any guidance from my brain, “presumption of innocence” does not exist in the court of public opinion. The concept applies only and solely to the courtroom and most specifically, the jury box. I can think whatever I want about anyone I want based on as little or as much information as I choose . . . and so can every other American.

It was good to see PETA so aggressively demonstrating against Mr. Vick. A liberally extreme group attacking a black man, a member of a community that votes fairly monolithically for Democrats; it does not get any better for us moderates. But, over a few drinks, I’m sure the two Democratic Party constituencies will work out there differences because they cannot do anything to jeopardize a woman’s right for abortion on demand. Fighting for the rights of blacks to kill their babies at three times the rate as whites kill theirs is the great healer of all differences in the Democratic Party.

On July 30, my (news)paper reported, “Last week, four Democrats on Leahy's committee asked Paul Clement, solicitor general, for a special investigation of Gonzales. The request came after FBI Director Robert S. Mueller appeared to contradict Gonzales's statements to Congress about internal administration dissent over the president's secretive wiretapping program, the Democrats said.” Sure, accept the white man is telling the truth and accept the Latino is lying. Is anyone concerned that Director Mueller is not being investigated?

I missed the NAACP’s statement defending U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his presumed innocence and attacking the Country’s rush to judgment.

Democrats oppose the sale of U.S. weapons to Saudi Arabia. Recalling their knee-jerk opposition to the sale of port operations of six U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, I wonder what problem Democrats have with Muslims? The intolerance is grotesque.

The $90,000 in cash that was found in the freezer of Democratic Congressman William Jefferson (LA) was packed thusly: $20,000 wrapped in foil and rubber bands inside a box from a company that makes soybean burgers; $20,000 stashed inside a Pillsbury pie crust box; three stacks of $10,000 were hidden in a bag from a local market; and two other $10,000 bricks were just wrapped in foil. Sen. Ted Stevens (R, AK) offered the key of his home to the FBI prior to the FBI’s search of same; the FBI declined the key telling Sen. Stevens that they had the necessary means to gain entry.

A speedy recovery and extended wishes for good health to ZACKlyRight fan and Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John G. Roberts.

Gov. Tom Ridge: Counting to 270

As I like to be on record first, it is now time to make another prediction: the Republican Presidential nominee will ask former Gov. Tom Ridge (R, PA) to be his Vice-Presidential running mate.

I have not read nor seen anyone else mentioning Gov. Ridge in this capacity so I’m considering me to be the first (mark the date: August 1, 2007, about 460 days from election day).

After January 20, 2001 but before September 11, 2001, I wrote a letter to the Boston Globe stating that Gov. Tom Ridge would be the next Vice President of the United States. I was prompted by a news story reporting that Vice President Dick Cheney was having health issues (heart). I thought, well, who would President Bush nominate if Mr. Cheney either died in office or was compelled to resign? The answer (duh!): Gov. Tom Ridge.

On October 8, 2001, Gov. Tom Ridge was sworn in as the Nation’s first Homeland Security Secretary. Not being able to foresee 9/11 (recall the Clinton Administration’s Ms. Jamie Gorelick had constructed a super-sized wall between the FBI and the CIA preventing these agencies from sharing national security information with each other), I made my prediction. I think that Gov. Ridge’s elevation to Homeland Security Secretary made me figuratively correct (or, ZACKlyRight, as I like to say) . . . Gov. Tom Ridge certainly had to be at the very top of any list to replace Mr. Cheney if events unfolded in that direction.

Well, I insist I will still be literally correct. So, ramping-up my just-declared-prediction: the NEXT Vice President of the United States will be Gov. Tom Ridge.

Like the brilliant people surrounding the eventual Republican nominee, I, too, can count to 270 . . . the number of electoral votes needed to win the Presidency. In 2008, the state of Pennsylvania will be worth 21 electoral votes. If a Republican wins Pennsylvania there is NO electoral map configuration that will give the Democrat the election. Thus, Gov. Tom Ridge.

Gov. Ridge was twice elected governor of the State of Pennsylvania, a testament to his popularity in the state. He is a decorated Vietnam war veteran; he was the first enlisted Vietnam vet to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives (six or seven times); and, as Governor he had a record of achievement in education reform and economic development.

Again, the next Vice President of the United States of America will be former Gov. and former Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge (who, by the way, is endorsing Sen. John McCain).