It's Not Easy Being Green....

Just in time for Halloween, the New York Times pubishes this photo of Samuel Alito, Bush's new SCOTUS pick. (From Confederate Yankee).











...and everyone is complaining because Bush picked a WHITE male.

If you haven't already, check out Michelle Malkin for altered pix of Condi and some great posts on the subliminal messaging of photojournalism.

It Depends On What Your Definition of "Corruption" Is

Can you believe all of the liberal media hysteria over the indictments of Scooter Libby? Cries of "corruption", "smear campaigns", "outing a CIA covert agent" abound, even though there is absolutely no evidence that anything of the kind actually occurred!

Seems these folks have very short memories. Remember the Clinton administration? Now, there was a 'culture of corruption'. John at The Citizen's Journal has done a great job of providing a synopsis of the Clinton legacy as chronicled by The Progressive Review.

Check out the whole thing, but here are a few of the highlights.

THE CLINTON LEGACY
RECORDS SET
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates**
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.

It goes on (and on, and on).

Remember the preachiness of the media during the Clinton era? The villification of Kenneth Starr? The vast right-wing conspiracy?

And they say that elephants have short memories.

More on Libby

Here is another excellent article by Stephen F. Hayes on the Libby indictments. Here is what prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has to say about the relevance of the charges to the media assertions that this is all about the justification for the Iraq war

Fitzgerald was asked directly about the connection between the indictment and the Iraq war during his press conference Friday.

Question: A lot of Americans, people who are opposed to the war, critics of the administration, have looked to your investigation with hope in some ways and might see this indictment as a vindication of their argument that the administration took the country to war on false premises.
Does this indictment do that?

Fitzgerald: This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person--a person, Mr. Libby--lied or not.

The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.
And I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.

Watch for continuing swirls of hype around this story, completely obfuscating the actual facts.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

MSM Glee Over Libby Indictment

Breathless piece from Knight Ridder today about the Scooter Libby indictments. The conclusions they are drawing from the indictments can only be attributable to:

1. Their seething disappointment over the prosecutor's failure to indict Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or George Bush.
2. Their utter inability to actually read and understand the Libby indictments.
3. Their fervid hope that the American people will believe ANYTHING, as long as it is repeated often enough and loudly enough from the MSM.

The prosecution's case against White House adviser I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby pulls back the curtain on the Bush administration's efforts to silence its critics and challenges its rationale for war with Iraq.

Huh? But wait, there's more...

The five-count indictment raises new questions about whether Vice President Dick Cheney had any role in revealing the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame. A Libby trial almost certainly would delve into internal White House deliberations that could provide more embarrassment for Bush, who'd promised to bring a new ethical climate to Washington.

Bush's name doesn't appear anywhere in the 22-page indictment, but his reputation is inextricably linked to the case. Even beyond the alleged criminal wrongdoing, the indictment offers an unflattering portrait of a White House with little tolerance for dissent and a no-holds-barred attitude toward its critics.

From the New York Times:

Over a seven-week period in the spring of 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney's suite in the Old Executive Office Building appears to have served as the nerve center of an effort to gather and spread word about Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, a C.I.A. operative.

Okay, stop, now. I am laughing. "....to gather and spread word" about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? Gather and spread word? Now THERE's an indictable offense!

But the indictment alleges that Mr. Cheney himself and others in the office took part in discussions about the origins of a trip by Mr. Wilson to Niger in 2002; about the identity of his wife, Valerie Wilson; and whether the information could be shared with reporters, in the period before it was made public in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak.

The indictment identifies the other officials only by their titles, but it clearly asserts that others involved in the discussion included David Addington, Mr. Cheney's counsel; John Hannah, deputy national security adviser; and Catherine Martin, then Mr. Cheney's press secretary.

Well, yeah. In May 2003, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times had reported that Cheney was the one who sent Wilson to Iraq. Do you think it is sinister that Cheney's reaction was to meet with his advisors to find out who REALLY sent Wilson? And learning that it was his wife, who worked for the CIA, do you think it bizarre that he would have conferred with his legal counsel to determine whether or not the information could be released?

Gee, what would YOU have done in his shoes?

What would the New York Times or Knight Ridder do if someone erroneously reported that THEY had initiated the investigation?

If you really want to separate the facts of the indictment from the breathless MSM tizzy, read the indictment yourself here.

Now, do you think this is an expose of nefarious dealings from the Bush administration to "silence its critics"? Are you scratching your head, wondering what indictment the Knight Ridder and NY Times guys read?

After reading the indictment, it appears to me that Scooter Libby is guilty of two things:

1. Lying to the media, which, according to my limited knowledge of the law, is not a crime. If we are going to make lying TO the media a crime, then we'd better make lying FROM the media a crime as well.

2. Forgetting about specifically which conversations he may have had with whom. And goodness, if THIS is a crime, most of the US population would be in jail. (And then who would be paying taxes to keep our government working doing valuable service by indicting our officials for minor infractions?)

It is very interesting that, although Fitzgerald did not bring the more serious indictments of 'outing' Valerie Plame, the MSM is acting as though he did. Maybe they had their articles all ready to run, in eager anticipation of a more serious indictment and just didn't have the heart to do a re-write.

For more on the MSM/anti-war crowd's spin on the Libby indictments as proof that there was some sort of cover-up involved in the war with Iraq, read Stephen F. Hayes' article here.


Since the left is losing the "Iraq as quagmire" argument in the face of democratic progress and free elections, they need to drag out the old "Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" argument.

Heroes of the American Left

I am thinking about writing a children's book, entitled "Heroes of the American Left". It will be a tribute to today's darlings of the media who deserve admiration for their patriotism, integrity, leadership and vision for America.

Here is my table of contents so far:

Michael Moore
George Soros
Cindy Sheehan
Al Franken
Joe Wilson
Richard Clarke
Ted Kennedy
Jesse Jackson
Louis Farrakhan
Al Gore

Just picturing future generations of parents sharing these inspiring stories with their progency makes my heart warm.

Please nominate your favorite candidates in my comments field. This may grow into a 10-volume set.

Update: Oops. I forgot George Galloway!

Wisconsin Taxpayers Overwhelmingly Support TABOR

According to a recent poll by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Wisconsin residents are strongly in favor of a constitutional amendment to limit spending increases in state and local government to the rate of inflation.

This support cuts across party lines, ideologies, race and geography.

Wisconsinites favor TABOR by more than a 2:1 majority (62% in favor, 27% opposed, 12% undecided). TABOR is supported by 56% of Democrats, 60% of Independents, 76% of Republicans and even 46% of Liberals.

And here's why....another recent poll by WPRI shows that most Wisconsin residents feel that elected representatives do not represent taxpayer interests.

Only 6% of residents polled in Wisconsin believe that their elected officials represent the interests of the electorate. Wow. That is amazing. Think of all of the hoopla made over Bush's low approval ratings. Well, even at his current all-time low of 39% approval, he beats the heck out of our own representatives!

41% think that elected officials represent special interest groups and 47% feel that elected officials are more interested in promoting their own agendas.

In addition, 46% of those polled felt that in the last ten years, ethics of members of Wisconsin State Government have gotten worse. To quote the report, "The widespread feeling that the institutions in Madison were deteriorating ethically produced the highest negative numbers we have seen in our polling back to 1991."

The overwhelming landslide vote tonight for Daniel Vrakas in Waukesha County demonstrates the frustration of Wisconsin taxpayers with the 'pass the buck' attitude of state and local officials who think that playing the economic shell game will somehow continue to bamboozle the electorate.

We've tried electing people who pledged to reduce spending. We have a governor who thinks we are stupid enough to believe that a reduction in how much he INCREASES spending is a 'tax freeze'. We have clearly given our elected officials every opportunity to bring state and local spending in line with our ability to pay. But, they can't help themselves....they are out of control.

If someone has a control problem, the best thing you can do for them is to enforce limits on their behavior--and keep them out of situations where they could lose control. So, you don't let a gambling addict loose in Vegas, and you don't leave a chocoholic alone in the Godiva store. If your husband or wife goes beserk with the credit cards, you cut them up. When your elected officials can't stop spending, you put them on a budget. A budget with teeth. A budget called TABOR.

I think the reason that we no longer trust our elected officials is that they can't seem to resist the 'siren call' of spend-spend-spend. We, like Odysseus, need to 'tie them to the mast' of TABOR to keep them from driving the ship into the rocks.

After giving them decades to deal responsibly with the budget, Wisconsin residents have decided that 'enough is enough'. And it is about time. Maybe if they can prove that they have the ability to spend OUR money wisely, we can trust them again. But until then, we need to cut up the credit cards.

Let's Start Calling it Like it Is....

Great column by Mark Steyn on the reluctance of the mainstream media to name the true enemies we are fighting in the war on terror.

From Thursday's New York Times: ''Nalchik, Russia -- Insurgents launched a series of raids today in this southern Russian city, striking the area's main airport and several police and security buildings in large-scale, daytime attacks that left at least 85 people dead.''

"Insurgents," eh?

From Agence France Presse:
"Nalchik, Russia: More than 60 people were killed as scores of militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."

"Militants," you say?

From the Scotsman:
"Rebel forces battled Russian troops for control of a provincial capital in the Caucasus yesterday . . ."
"Rebel forces,'' huh?

(My comment: Good grief! Weren't the GOOD guys in 'Star Wars' the Rebel Forces?)

From Toronto's Globe & Mail:
"Nalchik, Russia -- Scores of rebels launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."

"Rebels," by the score. But why were they rebelling? What were they insurging over? You had to pick up the Globe & Mail's rival, the Toronto Star, to read exactly the same Associated Press dispatch but with one subtle difference:

''Nalchik, Russia -- Scores of Islamic militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."

Ah, "Islamic militants." So that's what the rebels were insurging over. In the geopolitical Hogwart's, Islamic "militants" are the new Voldemort, the enemy whose name it's best never to utter.

I really don't understand the reluctance of the media to describe who these people are and why they are hell-bent on our destruction. If it were a group of Christians out blowing things up, you can be sure that their religious affiliation would be in every headline. If I had a nickel for every time a liberal mentions the Crusades in conversations about the brutality done in the name of religion, I could retire.

Continue to watch this in the media---over time, I predict that the euphemisms will continue until it appears that the terrorists are merely innocents victims of Western interference, fighting for their rights and freedoms against the Great Satan.

Photo IDs Required for Just About Everything But Voting

Shopping at Menard's over the weekend, my husband presented a $4 instant rebate coupon he had received in the mail. The cashier asked him for a photo ID in order to process the rebate.

I was in Blockbuster last week and I forgot my Blockbuster card. The checkout guy asked me to show a photo ID to rent a movie.

I stopped at the Red Cross Blood Drive at my church on Sunday. They asked me for my photo ID in order to give blood.

The librarian asked me for my photo ID a few weeks ago when I went to check out a book and realized that I had forgotten my library card.

Do you see a pattern developing here?

What is wrong with a country where you have to show a photo ID to get a $4 rebate, rent a movie, donate blood and check out a book, but not to vote?

NOW they are babies....

Jonah Goldberg makes a brilliant point about all of the liberal brouhaha over William Bennett's infamous remarks that no one else seems to have noticed....

Democrats and many liberals have been trying to distort what Bennett said. Former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe: "The point he was trying to make, I guess, he said, you know, if you were to go out there and kill the black babies, the crime would go down." Ted Kennedy and a predictably long list of others have called him a racist. Radio host Ed Schultz said: Bennett is "out there advocating the murder of all black babies."

There are too many ways in which this anti-Bennett backlash is cheap and tawdry to discuss here. (Though I should note that a considerable minority of liberal writers who loathe Bennett refuse to participate in the witchhunt.)

My first objection is more of a delicious irony. Notice how so many righteously offended liberals keep referring to fetuses as people. In the New York Times, Bob Herbert proclaims that Bennett considers "exterminating blacks would be a most effective crime-fighting tool." Schultz and McAuliffe say Bennett wants to exterminate "babies."

Funny, I thought the bedrock faith of pro-abortion liberals is that fetuses aren't babies. Isn't it interesting how this lynchpin of liberal morality evaporates the moment an opportunity to call Bennett a racist presents itself? Talk about utilitarianism. (emphases mine)

So, now liberals are horrified at the thought of killing babies? That's a new one.

"Fake, But Accurate" - the Continuing MSM Saga

Stephen Spruiell, on his Media Blog (via National Review Online) posts this interesting quote from Heath Allen, a reporter from NBC's New Orleans affiliate. Heath was being asked about the inaccuracies and exaggerations by the MSM in post-Katrina New Orleans.

I don’t think the media overplays. I don’t think the media exaggerates. Maybe the people on the ground were exaggerating because, hey, they wanted help, they needed help and they weren’t getting it. Perhaps they would say anything they could say. Maybe they would say the first thing that came to mind to try and get help. But if the photojournalist, if that photographer is there to capture it, who’s doing the overplaying? You’re certainly gonna take that person and you’re gonna tell that story because that’s the story of the need, of the person that camera is on. And I don’t think that’s over-exaggerating in the least…It’s the responsibility of the photojournalist to capture that and put it on television because those people at that point needed help no matter what was true, what was false, what was exaggerated.

(emphasis mine).

Hold the phone. So the new level of accuracy in journalism is that it doesn't matter what is true or false, what is exaggerated...as long as the end goal is helping people?

Well, depending upon your definition of 'helping people', this could be a dangerous philosophy. And how is Joe Citizen to know if the reports we are reading, hearing, seeing are accurate, fake, or 'fake but accurate'? How do we know if it is real or staged?

And, as Hugh Hewitt points out in his radio interview of Heath Allen (via Radioblogger), if they get it SO wrong this close to home, what is the hope of them having any chance of accuracy in somewhere far away.....say, like....Iraq for instance?

We had all the resources of the American media combined in New Orleans. Everything they had, they threw at it. With the help of locals like you and national networks, print, media, radio, everything, not one outlet could get inside the convention center or the Superdome to do accurate reporting. What's that tell us about the trustworthyness of American media, when it's far away from home in a war zone like Iraq. Isn't that in fact an obvious admission that not only can they not do the job in New Orleans, we can't expect them to do the job of accurate reporting in a war zone like Iraq.

Scary thought. And if they are motivated by 'helping us' understand the 'reality' behind the progress of the war as THEY see it (think quagmire), what hope is there of receiving accurate information from the mainstream media on Iraq? Or anything else, for that matter?

What the heck are they teaching in journalism school these days?