Politics Blog

Betsy Newmark posts the interesting take of Walter Jajko, a retired Air Force brigadier general and former assistant to the secretary of Defense for intelligence oversight, regarding paying for good media coverage in Iraq.

Congress wants to investigate the issue. I agree. I think there should be a very intense investigation into the propaganda that has been published and aired on the subject of the war in Iraq. I am not speaking of anything the Pentagon has paid for, though. I am not even talking about anything that has aired in Iraq. It is not necessary to go that far. There is plenty to investigate here in our own back yard. I would love to see those at the networks and the major national daily papers explain why they choose to ignore so many of the good news stories coming out of Iraq. I would also love to hear them explain why so much of their “news” coverage includes editorial characterizations of the war in Iraq as being a disaster, a failure, a losing effort, and a mess. I would love to see people like Eason Jordan and Linda Foley explain the basis for their statements that American troops were targeting journalists. Jordan lost hisjob at CNN over the allegation, but only after bloggers pushed the story. In 2003, CNN did not fire Jordan when he revealed that the CNN Baghdad bureau had been falsely reporting (lying about) the situation in Iraq prior to the U.S. led invasion. I would like to see them explain that.

Why was it okay for CNN to work as propagandists for Saddam Hussein? I don’t think that is too harsh a way to pose the question. Look at what they were doing there. They were knowingly covering up the atrocities of the Hussein regime. They were doing so at a time when the U.S. and others were debating various reasons to implement regime change in Iraq, including human rights abuses. They were intentionally misleading the American (and indeed the world) public about the situation in Iraq. They were representing their presence in Iraq as one of a free and independent news organization. If you believe Jordan, though, they were reporting what they did out of fear of bodily harm or even death to those associated with them in the Baghdad bureau. They could have pulled out of Iraq and reported the truth, but they thought it was more important to maintain a presence there, even though the reporting from there was fake, and not accurate. It still amazes me that the pre-war reporting out of the CNN Baghdad bureau never became a huge scandal. Heck, it didn’t even become a minor embarrassment for the network. Ask someone who is not a political junkie whether they have ever even heard the story. I would be shocked to find one that had.

I am not for Congress infringing on freedom of the press, and don’t have much confidence in their investigations into anything. When there is a widespread practice by the major U.S. media outlets of reporting only those stories from Iraq that are negative and potentially harmful to the war effort, and no one in the media is willing to look into that story, maybe some sort of an investigation is in order. It is clear that the media coverage of the war has a potential impact on the outcome. The most appropriate investigation would be one conducted as a piece of investigative journalism into why the war was reported as it was. No one in the MSM is going to do that though because they were all in on it. I am not saying they conspired, but pack mentality and agenda-driven journalism definitely kicked in when it came to Iraq coverage. Maybe an investigative blogger could do it. Any volunteers? And while they are at it maybe they could investigate the MSM coverage of the economy.

Check out Carol Platt Liebau’s excellent point about the misperception many Americans have about the economy.

Convicted murderer, gangbanger and Liberal celebrity Stanley Tookie Williams is scheduled to die in California. Not surprisingly, there are many people on his side, including a showcaseof successful rappers.

“He’s a special guy”, gushed Snoop Dogg. You got that right, Snoop. Williams not only murdered four people in 1979, he was a co-founder of that famous Youth Activities Association known as the “Crips”, whose long history includes murdering young men for the offense of wearing the wrong color or being in the wrong neighborhood, or even for just being in the way.

Governor Schwarzenegger has agreed to meet privately with Williams’ lawyers on December 8. That does not speak well for Justice, or promise solace for the families of Yen-I Yang, Ysai-Shai, Yee-Chen Lin, or Albert Owens.

I notice that no celebrity seems to believe they should speak up for a murdered convenience store clerk, or for a family who did everything he demanded, but whom he killed just to leave no witnesses. Let me be very, very clear: In my book, if you put a shotgun to the head of a little girl and end her life, just because she’s inconvenient, there is nothing, at all, that you can say or do that justifies letting you continue to draw air. These murders were especially brutal and unprovoked. And his career as an entrepreneur of violence and devastated lives only confirms it. Justice demands that Williams receive the fate he earned.

The call is simple, Mr. Governor, but it’s vital you tell California there is a line which cannot be crossed. When you meet with his lawyers, explain to Mr. Williams through them that he will receive as he has dealt, in full measure. No mercy – that was the creed of Williams’ life before he got caught, it should be no different now that he sees his fell resolution come to claim him.

While acid-dropping leftists on campus and in the media have been ranting and raving about this, that, or the other thing, Prez Bush and the GOP caucus in the U.S. Senate have been stacking various federal appeals courts with so many conservatives they’ll be issuing anti-leftist rulings 20-30 years after the Dean/Kos blocs finally graduate.

One of those courts is the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals – on which the Prez/Senate have placed seven jurists.

Two of those judges are Jeffrey Sutton and John Rogers.

Judge Sutton once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He then represented the State of Ohio as a state solicitor.

Judge Rogers spent 30 years in the U.S. Army Reserves. He made his legal bones working in Prez Ford’s Department of Justice.

The Senate confirmed Rogers in November 2002. Yeah, right after the MediaCrats got Foleyed in those mid-terms. Sutton was confirmed in April 2003.

In this case, Judge Rogers found that strip searches conducted of high school students were unconstitutional, but that because case law at the time they were undertaken was not cut-and-dried on that point the school districts were immune from liability. Judge Sutton reversed the denial of the school district’s summary judgment motion and ordered that summary judgment to be granted [Ed. note: practicing civil litigators reading this will know just how rarely *that* happens; once in a blue moon].

Here Judge Rogers threw out a claim that challenged a federal Bureau of Prisons’ policy change regarding the custody dispositions of incarcerated crime-bots.

In this case, Judge Sutton addressed claims made against a local school district based upon its adoption of a dress code for middle school students.

The money quote:

It is not lost on us that, in the eyes of a 12 year-old, ‘look[ing] nice’ and ‘feel[ing] good’ about the clothing one wears are important and, rightly or wrongly, may be enough to make or break a kid’s day. Style and taste in clothing, it also is true, may be one of the first ways in which children learn to express their individuality and engage in self-expression. And, as every parent knows (or will soon learn), it is often through choices in clothing that children first learn how to challenge authority, though usually authority in the form of their parents, not their school (which perhaps is the reason why parents urge schools to adopt dress codes in the first place).

Even so, the First Amendment does not protect such vague and attenuated notions of expression – namely, self-expression through any and all clothing that a 12 year-old may wish to wear on a given day.

* * *

To rule otherwise not only would erase the requirement that expressive conduct have an identifiable message but also would risk depreciating the First Amendment in cases in which a ‘particularized message’ does exist.

Indeed.

Neither Judge Sutton nor Judge Rogers are bleeding heart “librulz,” that’s quite clear.

Judge Sutton is 45 years old. Judge Rogers is 57.

They’ll be issuing rulings along those lines for decades, Chomsky.

Decades.

Here are excerpts from a press release that will not be covered in too many corners of the press or the Internet:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) special agents yesterday carried out two separate enforcement actions resulting in the arrest of 42 aliens who were illegally working at a military base in New Mexico and at the International Airport in Louisiana.

* * *

The Louisiana arrests were part of an ongoing local operation that has netted 50 illegal aliens in recent months. Five of the six criminal aliens in custody from the previous arrests are now being prosecuted . . . on charges of re-entry after deportation and document fraud; the sixth criminal alien is being prosecuted . . . on charges of false claims of U.S. citizenship. Of those arrested yesterday, all are in ICE custody and have been placed in removal proceedings.

‘Those businesses who knowingly hire illegal aliens and allow them to be placed in areas critically important to this country will face significant criminal and administrative charges,’ said Michael A. Holt, special agent-in-charge for the ICE New Orleans office . . . .

There’s more.

Much more.

Read the whole thing.

in Miami:

“ICE Deports Former Ecuadorian Customs Director Convicted by Ecuadorian Government for Embezzling $ 1 Million U.S.Dollars“

Read the whole thing.

Contrary to the often-hysterical fears of conservatives, the far left does not control the judiciary.

Not even close.

In fact, they lose far more cases than those in which they prevail.

It’s just that the national media underplays or occasionally even censors the left’s judicial defeats, while running their victories up flag poles in the hope that Joe and Jane Casual Voter will salute. And many conservatives allow the liberal media to set their daily moods; sometimes even to affect their decisions whether to participate in the electoral processes.

Not even Clinton’s appointees snort the leftist lines in all instances.

Not by a long shot.

In fact, a huge percentage of Clinton’s post-1994 appointees either are Zell Miller-style Democrats or Giuliani/Cohen-style Republicans.

Case in point:

A US federal judge ruled that random bag searches on the New York subway were constitutional, dismissing a lawsuit brought against the city by a civil rights group.

In his ruling, District Judge Richard Berman concluded that the invasion of privacy inherent in the searches was justified by the importance of preventing a terrorist attack.

The New York Civil Liberties Union, which had sought to end the searches on the grounds that they violated the constitutional rights of passengers and were ineffective, said it would appeal the ruling.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg welcomed the judge’s decision.

(Emphasis added.)

* * *

FYI: President Bush has nominated and the Senate has confirmed over 150 federal trial court judges, in addition to 40 or so appeals court judges. Now, they’re not all as far right as Scalia or Thomas. But they’re certainly not to the left of Clinton appointee and bane of the NYCLU’s existence, Richard Berman.

And Prez Bush still has three years remaining within which he can stack the federal courts.

Republicans in the Middle Atlantic states have been plagued by their own actions. Take for example the recent call by NY Senate majority leader Joe Bruno for Jeanine Pirro to drop her campaign for the NY Senate seat held by Hillary Clinton. While we think Jeanine, once she had the full backing of the NY Republican and Conservative parties, could have mounted a solid but long shot campaign against Hillary, Joe Bruno publicly pulling the carpet from her clearly did more damage to her campaign. But why did he do it? Local political party power in NY? Probably. The long standing division between the D’Amato / Pataki wing and those in the Bruno camp has not been resolved for the good of NY Republicans.

What needs to happen in New York is for the few Republicans of stature to make some hard decisions for the good of the party in the state and across the country. These hard decisions should have been made before Bruno went public. Chillary certainly will have an uncontested or light weight campaign now that Pirro has been totally marginalized. In fact Pirro running for Attorney General is in question since it would appear she does the bidding of the party bosses. Not an image for an Attorney General. Good work Bruno! Your power in NY and power play on Pataki was more important than showing a united Republican party.

The hard decisions are as follows: Ed Cox, President Nixon’s son-in-law, will probably be the US Senate candidate against Hillary. He has not run for any political office. The question will be whether he can be a strong challenger to Hillary or just a token candidate. While Bruno wants Mike Bloomberg to run for Governor, Bloomberg should stay right where he is, NYC mayor, where he will do the most good to regain Republican leadership in NY state. He can run for Governor in 2010 or Schumer’s Senate seat later.

And what else needs to happen is for all Republican leaders in NY to get together, recruit, and endorse strong candidates that can win or at least run strong campaigns in this heavily Democrat voting state. And, yes, you must strongly support these candidates whether you like them or not. If you do not, then shut up and let the voters do it in a primary, after all that is what primary elections are for. And, yes, if the candidate wins the primary, then support that candidate, after all that is what winning in November is about.

Joint energy research and development projects between the U.S. and China???

Joe Lieberman thinks it’s a good idea.

Indeed.
I like that trend of thought.

Sure, of course, we should always do whatever’s necessary to keep weapons technology out of the reach of the Chinese. Free trade has to have some limits. Open markets are great, but *not* when they can turn into de facto suicide notes. We know that.

But energy is energy. We’re not talking here about missiles, warplanes or submarines.

More energy sources means lower relative prices, stronger relative growth, and more net jobs. Who cares if the Chinese would get those benefits too? Big F’n deal. Let ‘em. As long as the wheels of our economy are greased.

Plus, it’s always good to keep your pals close but your {potential} enemies even closer. So said the great philosopher: Don Corleone.

Besides, if we don’t work with the Chinese in that arena other countries with fast-growing economies, e.g., India, eventually will. Better to be in the game than on the sidelines, right, Buchanan?

Strategy, not tactics.
Chess, not checkers.
The American Thinker, not The National Review.

George W. Bush, not DerbyshireNovakKristolAmericanConservative.