Politics Blog

Former chief of staff to Gonzales will make remarks today that firings were based on lack of support for President Bush’s priorities:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Eight federal prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support President Bush’s priorities, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ former chief of staff says in remarks prepared for delivery Thursday to Congress.
Separately, the Justice Department admitted Wednesday it gave senators inaccurate information about the firings and presidential political adviser Karl Rove’s role in trying to secure a U.S. attorney’s post for one of his former aides, Tim Griffin.

In a letter accompanying new documents sent to the House and Senate Judiciary committees, Justice officials acknowledged that a Feb. 23 letter to four Democratic senators erred in asserting that the department was not aware of any role Rove played in the decision to appoint Griffin to replace U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark.

Using taxpayer money to go after republicans:

Conyers , meanwhile, has signed a contract with the law firm Arnold & Porter worth up to $225,000 through the end of the year to help with the investigation.

Republicans said the contract, which was first reported by The Washington Times, was evidence that Democrats were willing to invest taxpayer money in efforts to conduct political investigations of the administration.

Code Pink, the anti-war, anti-military group funded by a Communist organization, is following Hillary everywhere:

An anti-war group, Code Pink, is hounding Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) at almost every stop she makes on the campaign trail, hitting her again yesterday as she joined other candidates in seeking a union endorsement.

Standing in front of the Capitol Hill Hyatt Regency, the group made its presence known, inviting a sea of union members from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers to “go back downstairs and kiss Hillary’s a–.”

While the group of laborers, enjoying cigarettes between speakers at the Communications Workers of America (CWA) forum, looked on with bemused interest, the protesters sang songs and waved signs advising Clinton not to “buy Bush’s war.”

Although they rarely show up at an event in large numbers, the pink-clad protesters do make their presence known with persistence and intensity.

As The Hill reported last week, former President Bill Clinton all but acknowledged his wife’s glaring vulnerabilities — stemming from her vote for the Iraq war authorization in 2002 — by offering an animated and full-throated defense of her decision.

Will stop when Hillary introduces legislation to bring troops home:

One of Code Pink’s co-founders, Gael Murphy, said the group has been following Clinton for almost two years and will continue to do so until she introduces legislation to bringAmerican soldiers home from Iraq. Murphy said it was likely the group would protest Clinton and other candidates at this morning’s forum sponsored by the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO.

“We think it’s important to put pressure on her as one of the most important politicians in the United States,” Murphy said.
Murphy said not even an apology for the 2002 vote, like the one rival candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) has given, would appease the group.

“She’s welcome to apologize, and it would be great to hear her apologize,” Murphy said, adding that the group would only be satisfied with a candidate who will “sincerely demonstrate” his or her commitment to ending “the occupation” of Iraq.

Bill standing by his woman:

Clinton’s campaign did not return phone calls from The Hill Tuesday, but President Clinton hardly was shy in his wife’s defense last week, questioning the fairness of media reporting on Sen. Clinton’s votes.

“It’s just not fair to say that people who voted for the resolution wanted war,” the former president said last week.

What do you really expect on the “new tone” of employer enforcement when the illegalsthemselves get “five free passes” themselves at the border?

SAN DIEGO - Two executives at a company that once helped build a fence to keep illegal immigrants from crossing the Mexican border were sentenced Wednesday to six months of home confinement for hiring undocumented workers.

Yep, you read the right six months home confinement.

What did the law provide?

Federal prosecutors took the rare step of seeking prison time after the men acknowledged hiring at least 10 illegal immigrants in 2004 and 2005. The charges carried a maximum possible penalty of five years in prison.

What about the Judge?

Moskowitz said he was uneasy with handing down jail time because the company did not deserve to be “the poster child” for unscrupulous employers. All of Kay’s workers paid
Social Security taxes and received health benefits, vacation and sick time. Many earned more than $50,000 a year.

Someone must have gotten their wires crossed. We want the illegals sent home and the employers in jail.

Unreal,

Nancy Pelosi took an early survey of her first 100 days as speaker of the House of Representatives and called reporters to the Capitol Wednesday to proclaim she had compiled a “remarkable record of which I’m enormously proud.”

Outside experts said her boast was only somewhat hyperbolic. Even Republicans conceded that Pelosi, whom they have derided as an out-of-touch San Francisco liberal, has done a good job of keeping the 233 House Democrats together through some tough votes – although few of their bills have made it through the Senate and onto President Bush’s desk.

Uh, let’s see:
Surrendered to al Qaeda in Iraq? Check.
Cobbled together the largest tax increase in history? Check.
Increased pork spending? Check.
Politicized the Congressional Research Service? Check.
Got outmanuevered by House Republicans on the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007? Check.
Change the rules on Republicans when they’re in the minority? Check.

Yes, a lot there to be “proud” of Nancy. You’re an embarrassment to the office and America.

Lets see, the United States is spending $9 Billion a month along with countless numbers of American Soldiers and Marines that are getting killed and wounded to protect the minority Sunni population in Iraq from the Shiite population seeking thirty years of revenge.

Just what would our “ally” the Saudi King (psst, a Sunni) have to say about our presence in Iraq?

Saudi King Abdullah, whose country is a close US ally, on Wednesday slammed the “illegitimate foreign occupation” of Iraq in an opening speech to the annual Arab summit in Riyadh.

Doesn’t King Abdullah realize that there are a whole lot of formerly very patient Americans that are ready to hand him and his fellow Muslims (who I guess would not be “foreign") the “keys to Iraq” and tell them to go have fun (and pound sand)?

Anyone supporting this guy needs to re-evaluate their opinion of him:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen.Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.

In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.

Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.

McCain ‘08! R.I.P.

Yesterday, a web blog at the BBC had some comments from a senior military officeron the “Gulf Incident:”

Our forces were carrying out a routine inspection. They were approached at high speed by two heavily-armed Iranian boats, although they initially adopted a ‘friendly posture’. It was only at the last minute that the Iranians, armed with RPGs and heavy machine guns, became aggressive. By then, we were told, there was a distance of only a few feet between the British and Iranian boats - a distance too short, we were told, for an ‘arc of fire’.

That is in line with my original guess of the situation considering that the United Kingdoms position with Iran (economic and diplomatic) is much different than the United States.

What was even more interesting was that there were some comments in that thread that had a link to another web blog that had some comments on the possible positioning of the craft. I have no opinion of the writer though I suspect he does not like the government. For the purpose of this discussion, the technical point he brings up is rather interesting.

A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

In the United States, we are able to rely on all types of maps and no one disputes them. When was the last time Ohio had a map dispute with Kentucky? The rest of the world however is not so clear cut. Much of the world’s nations are constantly disputing borders. Go ahead and google “border dispute.”

This may offer a clue as to how we will see the situation defused by the diplomats. Or it will be some interesting technical foot note.

UPDATE: If someone has links to maps of that area, showing boundaries, and who made the map, please leave a link in the thread.

UPDATE II: From the above link more comments on the “maps:”

It is true that there is no agreed maritime boundary between Iran and Iraq. However, you have missed two important points regarding the Iran-Iraq boundary:

1) The international law of the sea require that, in the absence of agreement on a territorial sea boundary, neither side may extend its territorial sea beyond the median line between the two coasts unless historic title or other special circumstances justify doing so. I can see no such justification in this case. While Iran is not a party to either the 1958 or 1982 law of the sea conventions, the provisions in those conventions concerning the territorial sea are widely-regarded to have become customary international law, and therefore binding on Iran. So until Iran and Iraq formally agree a territorial sea boundary, the median line (more or less as depicted on the Ministry of Defence graphics) serves as a de facto boundary.

2) The land boundary agreed between Iran and Iraq in 1975 extended to the mouth of the Shatt al Arab river at the lowest low-water line. The point at which the British government claims that the incident took place lies just under 1.7 nautical miles southwest of the agreed land boundary terminus, and it is arguable that the incident actually took place on what is technically Iraqi land territory: Britsh charts of the area show the low-water line (the normal baseline from which the territorial sea is measured) running around 100 metres south of where the British government says the incident took place.

My feeling is that the British government slightly oversimplified the legal situation in its presentation but, assuming the coordinates given for the incident are correct, it is extremely unlikely that Iran has any legitimate claim to the point in question.

Martin Pratt
Director of Research
International Boundaries Research Unit
Durham University

Again as I have written, the purpose of those post is to bring discussion as to how this situation may find itself being resolved in the real world amongst diplomats.

Drudge has a headline right now that is starting to tie together with an earlier thread;

REPORT: IRANIAN TV SHOWS CAPTURE OF BRITISH SEAMEN

In the comments of an earlier thread, I started to develop the following thesis;

Step back for a moment, what would have empowered the Iranian Radicals more? Had the UK, which has diplomatic relations with Iran, fired upon on an Iranian boat in “Iranian waters” it would have been a PRIZE for the radicals! Now I am wondering what the radical wanted more? Did they want hostages or did they want an Iranian boat shot up? What stokes the fire of radicals more? 15 “illegal immigrants” consisting of one woman in a burka or an Iranian Naval Boat fired upon? When you think of it in those terms, Iran has blown it big time, they look like fools. Putting that woman in a burka was plain stupid. If the UK woman asked for it, she was brilliant.

If the Drudge scoop hold up, that possibly indicates that this whole thing was “planned” but what was the “plan?” The knee jerk reaction was that they wanted hostages, but as the post title says, that is so 1970’s.

Really, how “valuable” is it for the radicals in Iran to detain a “girl in a burka” and parade her around? As I also wrote, if it was her idea at all, she deserves a medal as it subtly mocks the Iranians.

I dohope that the Iranian people got to see the following, or that they at least read about it:

“They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we’ve been arrested. There was no harm, no aggression.”

Something tells me that radical Iranians wanted something that they could really use, like the United Kingdom sinking the ship of another nation that it has full diplomatic relations with. And better yet, to be ready to show it on television.

The “girl in the burka” and her 14 polite British Sailors/Marines friends does not stoke up Iranian nationalism which is exactly what the radicals need to maintain their slipping power.

The radicals have already lost. The question is how much. Every action they do now is damage mitigation.

UPDATE: Step back for a moment and compare/contrast the propaganda that Saddam had to this. Saddam’s regime was “first class” in creating internal images compared to this “two bit” production. I am sure that Saddam is looking up and laughing at his former Persian nemesis.

UPDATE 2: The link is up and it would be funny if it was not reality. First, there was only FIVE seconds that were fit for televised propaganda!!

In thefive-seconds long footage, gunshots were heard and a helicopter is shown hovering above inflatable boats in choppy seas. Iranian guard boats are shown cruising around while a couple of Iranian guardsmen shoot into the air. Then, some of the British sailors—including the captured British woman, Leading Seaman Faye Turney—appear seated in a boat with an Iranian flag, presumably after their capture.

The brief video did not show the actual moment when the Iranian Revolutionary Guard navy seized the 15 British soldiers last Friday.

When they are released I will be waiting to hear if they fired any weapons, if the television version gun shots were just added for effect. Don’t you “love” how they always have to fire weapons in the “air.” If I was an Iranian dissident, I would do my damn best to get a copy of the not shown capture scene.

I’m sure if this were a Republican there would be the same sort of media blackout on the matter. I’m positive Chrissy M, Olbermann, et.al. would never be talking about it:

SEN. Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum’s ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.

As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband’s companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.

Funny how these Democrats, who despise the military, use it to enrich themselves and their families, huh? Murtha has done it, and there probably has been no bigger example of someone using their office to enrich themself than Harry Reid. Yet their media enablers/protectors don’t hound them about it.

Depressing:

IT’S been a tough month for the British Navy. On March 7, it learned that Tony Blair’s Labor government was going ahead with drastic cuts in its budget and number of ships. By this time next year, the once-vaunted Royal Navy will be about the size of the Belgian Navy, while its officers face a five-year moratorium on all promotions.

If that wasn’t demoralizing enough, last Friday the Iranian Navy seized a patrol boat containing 15 British sailors and Marines, claiming they’d crossed into Iranian waters. They’re now hostages and may well go on trial as spies.

The latest report is that the Britons were ready to fight off their abductors. Certainly their escorting ship, HMS Cornwall, could have blown the Iranian naval vessel out of the water. However, at the last minute the British Ministry of Defense ordered the Cornwall not to fire, and her captain and crew were forced to watch their shipmates led away into captivity.

Now read this:

Following Britain’s claims Iran’s embassy in London issued a statement in which it said the sailors and marines had been 0.5 km inside Iranian waters at the time.

Am I the only one wondering a) Why Iran has an embassy in London and b) Why said embassy isn’t a pile of rubble?