The Sound of Lefty Heads Exploding

Gotta love it!

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS to us political junkies) handed the Bush administration, and the President himself, a resounding defeat today.

BDS sufferers, rejoice! Bushitler got smacked down by the Courts!

But, wait... the case dealt with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), long the darling of the left. And the SCOTUS ruling was that Bush could not, I say again, could not order the state of Texas to obey an ICJ order.

So a defeat of Bush is also a defeat for the legality of ICJ orders within the US.

In other words, to say that SCOTUS was wrong is to say that President Bush was right.

I can hear BDS sufferers crying into their pillows now.

Get Out the Blue Hankies

Karl Rove is retiring effective 31 August.

Who will the lefties say is pulling Dubya's strings now?

Get ready for much wailing and gnashing of teeth... and/or frothing at the mouth.

Hat Tip to the Confederate Yankee.

John adds: To answer CCG's question of who the lefties will accuse of pulling Dubya's strings now. They'll just say Rove is directing him from Texas. After all, there are phones and emails. 'Cuz you know, Bush could never figure out what to do on his own.

Body Counts

During his radio show Thursday, Boortz related that one of the questions raised during the conservative talkers meeting with President Bush was the lack of body count of dead terrorists in Iraq. As Boortz related it, body count of terrorists is something that the Administration has distinctly and adamantly refused to engage in.

I've heard this point of contention raised several times during the War in Iraq. The media, every anti-war group and democrat politician can tell us with almost up to the minute exactness how many U.S. servicemen have been killed in Iraq, but we don't know how many terrorists and al Qaeda have been killed in the fighting. Oh, certainly, we'll hear the occasional news report of a major operation and that a certain number of terrorists were killed in the fighting, but no running total. It seems inconceivable that we have the number of U.S. military dead shoved in our face day after day, yet we have no comparable number of enemy dead to use as a yardstick for measurement.

I'm with the President on this. I don't think a body count of dead terrorists is a good metric to use - especially in this kind of fight. If we were fighting a conventional standing army, or in pitched battle against a nation, then the number of enemy killed might be a useful measurement. In that type of fight you can use the number of enemy killed to gauge the deleterious effects it's having on their ability to fight effectively. You could use the number of enemy tanks or aircraft or ships destroyed to measure the ability of the enemy to attack or counter-attack.

In the fight in Iraq, we are not fighting a conventional force, nor a nation. We are fighting terrorists, a shadowy, non-cohesive enemy with no battle lines or fronts. There is no army to wage battle with, nor an entity that can surrender. All that will happen is they will melt away.

I think that many of the leaders of our military today are products of the Vietnam experience and it's aftermath. The body count was a much utilized measurement to indicate success or advancement in Vietnam. However, even if the North Vietnamese body count was ten times that of American forces, it didn't guarantee our success, nor popular support for the war. Part of this phenomenon can likely be found in the differences in our cultures and values. A loss of an American life in any effort is seen as a loss by Americans. In other countries, the loss of a soldier or fighter is just the loss of a soldier or fighter. This is probably more true of terrorists. The death of a terrorist is simply a martyr for jihad. Heralding and tallying their deaths probably only feeds their sense of martyrdom and can be used as a marketing tool for terrorism.

Yes, it would be nice if we had some distinct measurement of overall success in Iraq. It would make it much easier to debate with, and fight off, the anti-war hordes who can so easily hold up the number of American dead. However, this is a war that is different than a conventional war, and an enemy that is different than any we have met. A body count of dead terrorists to use as some artificial measure of success would be handy, but it would hardly be any measure of where we are at in attaining our goals in Iraq.

In reality, having a body count of the terrorists we have killed in Iraq would not sway the anti-war crowd one way or another. It might make us on the opposite side feel better if we had something to throw out there to counter their attacks. But, we can debate this war without an artificial measure of success like body counts. We can debate, and ultimately win this war, on the facts and the merits, and in the end, that's all that is going to count.

Conservative Talk Radio Hosts Summoned to White House, Receive Talking Points

Ten conservative talkers were invited to the White House on Wednesday for a sit-down with President Bush. The conversation was off the record and they can't quote the President. The talkers attending were Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, Scott Hennon, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Janet Parshall and Hugh Hewitt.

Listening to a couple of the attendees shows since the meeting, the theme seemed to be primarily centered around the President reiterating his commitment to the war in Iraq and the war on global terrorism. They came away with the impression that he is totally engaged, aware and committed to this effort.

What I got from their remarks was how open, communicative, engaging and human the man is. Anytime I've heard or read anecdotal reports from anyone who has met President Bush in that kind of setting, the stories are always the same. George Bush is just a good guy. Contrast that with the popular characterization of him in the driveby media or the left wing blogosphere and you would not know they are talking about the same person.

Hugh Hewitt posts: Wartime President

I will say on today's show that I am confident about the course of the war and about the momentum in Iraq, as well of the president's absolute commitment to doing right by the troops and his concern for every lost and wounded soldier and their families. President Bush's command of the details and his broad view of the conflict is reassuring, and among my comments to him was the wish that he found more opportunities to engage in long interviews that would allow the American public to see that grasp and that commitment.

Neal Boortz reports: No....I Didn't Go Play Augusta

As many of you know, I made a similar visit last September. My principal impression this time mirrored what I told you last year. Anybody who thinks that this president is, somehow, ignorant or stupid is either sadly misinformed or delusional. Let the left think this man is unintelligent at their peril. I was particularly impressed by his grasp of the political and cultural interactions among the various Muslim sects and countries of the Middle East.

Another observation ... actually a reinforcement of what I felt after last September's visit. This man was completely transformed by the 9/11 Islamic attacks against our country. From the moment he heard of the attack in that classroom in Florida to this day he has been completely dedicated to the cause of protecting and defending our country from another such attack.

Of course, as Neal points out, many people are invited for these one-on-ones with the President, but when it happens to be conservative talkers, then it's scandalous. I suppose the White House could invite some liberal talkers for the same thing, but there's the whole problem of how to get the slug slime off the Oval Office rugs once they are gone.

The Plame Still Flickers

Despite the celebration last week that the Plame suit against the Bush Administration (blogged about in Plame Suit Flames Out) being dismissed, the decision is being appealed to the DC Circuit Court.

Erwin Chemerinsky (professor of law at Duke University Law School) and John Eastman (Dean of Chapman University Law School) are regular guests on Hugh Hewitt's radio show - usually on Wednesday. Hugh refers to the pair as The Smart Guys. Today the issues were executive privilege and the Plame-Wilson suit. Erwin is one of the attorney's for the Plame's and argued the case in federal district court.

(from the transcript)

EC: I was, I was the lawyer who argued the case in federal district court. I continue to be the lawyer for Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson, and I will be involved in writing and arguing the case on appeal in the D.C. Circuit.

HH: And your grounds for appeal will be what?

EC: Well, the Privacy Act does not apply to the offices of the president and the vice president. That was conceded by all of the parties in this litigation, and the judge recognized it. And of course, at least as to Cheney, Libby and Rove, the Privacy Act provides no remedy. And our argument is a statute that doesn’t apply can’t be used to preclude a civil suit under the Constitution. Also, we have four Constitutional claims, a privacy claim, but also a 1st Amendment claim, an equal protection claim, and a due process claim. And our argument is that at most, the Privacy Act should preclude the privacy claim, but not the others.So, there's the basis for appealing the dismissal of the suit. When asked if he thought Richard Armitage had committed a crime, Chemerinsky said yes:

HH: But let me ask you, do you think Richard Armitage committed a crime?

EC: Yes.

Chemerinsky clings to the belief that Valerie Plame was a covert agent, stating that he knows for a fact that she held that designation:

HH: But it seems to me that…what’s obvious to all of us is that Fitzgerald concluded there was no crime in the revelation of Valerie Plame’s identity, because she was not covert, and it was not what the intent of the law was intended to do in this instance, and that therefore, Armitage wasn’t charged, because there was no crime, and that therefore, Libby didn’t commit a crime, and the Grand Jury ought never to have met, because he knew, Fitzgerald did, before the investigation even opened, that Armitage was a leaker, and he never charged him, therefore no charges and no Grand Jury should have happened.

EC: Some of what you said is just false, some I don’t know. First, there’s no doubt whatsoever that Valerie Plame was a covert operative. The attorney for the United States government said that in open court on May 17th, in the District of Columbia. So I don’t think we can dispute that she’s a covert agent. The United States government said that they would agree that at least for a certain period of time, she was a covert operative.

HH: Erwin, we certainly can dispute that, because it was not made in a context at when it could be challenged to an impartial observer. And of course, the United States government’s going to say that in that circumstance. I don’t believe it for a second, I’ve never been persuaded of that, and I think it is nonsense to ask my audience to take that on fact. It’s a disputed issue.

EC: I’ll tell you, I mean, you’ve known me a long time, whatever trust you have in me, I know as fact she was a covert operative.

From what I heard during the discussion and what I've read and heard previously on this matter, I'm still not convinced that Plame was a covert agent as defined by the law. What we do know is that the special prosecutor did not charge or indict anyone for revealing Plame's identity. That leads me to believe Fitzgerald didn't think she fit the definition of a covert agent or that anyone who revealed her identity didn't commit a crime as defined by the law.

Something else that I believe gets overlooked in this debate - someone revealing Plame's identity has to know she held the distinction of being a covert agent. Simply saying she works for the CIA reveals nothing except that she works at the CIA.

Erwin is a liberal, and that comes out clearly in most of the positions he takes week after week on judicial issues. He also doesn't like President Bush and I'm sure he'd love to be the attorney who helped to hang a crime on the President or someone in the Administration.

I still think they are tracking a cold trail, but maybe we'll still get to see Plame and Wilson cross examined in open court.

To read the rest of the interview, follow the transcript link above, or listen to the audio here (app. 30 minutes).

Plame Suit Flames Out

Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush Administration was dismissed today by John D. Bates, United States District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

A federal judge dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration Thursday, eliminating one of the last courtroom remnants of the leak scandal.

The only thing Plame got right in her lawsuit was the inclusion of Richard Armitage as a defendant. One of the many odd things about this whole affair has been the distinct absence of Armitage in the accusations of culpable names in the supposed leak of Plame's covert status.

Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

Judge Bates is a Bush 43 appointment to the court. I suspect, if the left holds true to form, charges will fly that the judge is a Bush toady. Judge Bates is also the judge who dismissed Congress's lawsuit by the Comptroller to force Vice President Cheney to reveal information about his energy task force. However, Plame's lawyer had known from the beginning they were facing an uphill battle with the suit.

Plame's attorneys had said the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs.

In a way, I'm disappointed this will not go to trial. I was looking forward to Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame being put on the stand in public, under oath, and being cross examined by a good defense attorney. It would have been interesting to see how they resolved their conflicting testimony during Congressional hearings with their public statements and reporting by the driveby media.

Plame-Wilson's fifteen minutes of fame are over. Time to retire to their new digs in New Mexico.

Iraq Mid-term Eval

The highly anticipated, and speculated on, White House Iraq Progress Report is due for formal release today. It will show that the Iraqi government has made satisfactory progress on eight of eighteen benchmarks.

A widely anticipated White House report on Iraq, set for release today, contends that Iraq has made "satisfactory" progress toward nearly half of the political and military goals sought by Congress, while acknowledging that an equal number remain "unsatisfactory," an administration official said yesterday. (via Boston.com)

The findings of this report will be pored over, dissected and argued about. Considering the current debate in the Senate on the best plan to ensure we lose in Iraq, I'm sure the results will be used as evidence by democrats that Iraq is a lost cause, and we should surrender as fast as we can.

If we measured our federal government in eighteen critical areas, would eight of them be satisfactory? Probably not. Perhaps it's time we give up and pull out of Washington, DC.

After Amnesty After Action

Illegal Immigrant Amnesty (formally known as Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 {S. 1348}) died on June 28, 2007. Despite the best efforts of its advocates, it failed. The opponents of the legislation prevailed. The bigots, nativists, loud people, and right wing talk radio hosts, prevailed. Most of all this odious piece of legislation died because of the tens of thousands of citizens contacted their senators and told them it sucked big fat rotten eggs. Or something like that.

Since then there have been many articles and blog posts written, heralding it's demise, chronicling it's death; postmortems written detailing the maneuvering of both sides in the legislation battle and analysis's on the future of immigration reform and the current status of our illegal immigration problem.

We learned we could have an impact. I learned that any major legislation with the names Kennedy or McCain is probably bad legislation. Some GOP Senators stood strong on conservative principles, helping to defeat the bill. Some of them were old reliables like Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK). Some were less well known like Jim DeMint (R-SC) and David Vitter (R-LA). There were others, including the MLB Hall of Fame pitcher, Jim Bunning (R-KY). And there were others.

If you are so inclined, take a minute or two and send an email to one, or all of those Senators that stood strong and helped defeat this legislation. Thank them for doing a great job.

We breathed a sigh of relief, believing we had dodged a bullet, and celebrated our victory. However, it's no time to rest. There is still work to be done on immigration. We still have a porous border, we still have millions of illegal immigrants in the United States.

It is time to demand that the administration enforce our current immigration laws. It's time to build the really big fence, time to enforce work place employment rules, time to find and deport visa over stays. Time do whatever is required to secure our border and let illegal immigrants know they can't blatantly violate our laws and sovereignty.

The President needs to hear that we want the border secured, existing laws enforced. Send the White House an email. I sent one the day after the bill was defeated. If the President receives as many emails or faxes as the Senate received during the debate, maybe he'll get the message.

Contact your Senators and tell them the same thing. You want the existing immigration laws enforced.

Some Senators are already trying to get some movement on this. Senator DeMint sent a letter to the President on this issue:

June 12th, 2007 - Today, nine U.S. Senators wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to fulfill the border security provisions listed in the Senate immigration bill whether the legislation passes or not. Each border security trigger in the bill can be implemented under current law without any need for new legislation from Congress. The text of the letter is below:

Dear Mr. President:

We respectfully ask that your Administration enforce the border security laws that have already been authorized by Congress regardless of whether the Senate passes the immigration reform bill. The bill assumes that several critical border security benchmarks can be achieved within 18 months. These security triggers are already authorized under current law and can be completed without the immigration bill. We believe these enforcement measures are vital and should not wait until Congress passes additional immigration reforms.

Securing the border is the best way to restore trust with the American people and facilitate future improvements of our immigration policy.

Sincerely,

U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R – South Carolina), Tom Coburn (R – Oklahoma), Mike Enzi (R – Wyoming), David Vitter (R – Louisiana), Jim Inhofe (R – Oklahoma), Jim Bunning (R – Kentucky), Charles Grassley (R – Iowa), John Ensign (R – Nevada) and Jeff Sessions (R – Alabama).

USA Today op-ed piece:

We do not need the Senate immigration bill to secure the border.

Congress has already passed laws authorizing border security, but the Homeland Security Department has failed to fully implement them. The administration already has the authority to build hundreds of miles of border fencing, hire and train 6,000 border patrol agents (bringing the total number of agents to 18,000), end catch and release, and create a national employment verification database. Essentially, all of the security benchmarks in the current Senate bill are already law.

[...]

There are Congressmen who are working to get our borders secured. They need your support. This democrat Congress seems to want to investigate or have hearings on everything. This would be a legitimate subject for their inquisitiveness. Let them call Secretary Chertoff up to Capitol Hill and explain why our southern border isn't secure.

Whatever the administration does, it has to make the effort to enforce the immigration laws and secure the border.

There is about sixteen months until the 2008 elections. There is time to make great strides on border security, to make this a winning issue for the GOP, and time to make it a winning result for America.

Pardoning an Administration Member Convicted of Perjury

Amid all the kerfuffle about President Bush commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby, one fact has been missed over and over.

It's not the first time a President has pardoned a member of his Administration convicted of perjury.

In 2001, as he was leaving office, President William Jefferson Clinton pardoned Henry Cisneros, who had been his Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Cisneros had been convicted of giving false information to the FBI (essentially perjury).

So, the next time your lefty friends complain about Bush's pardon, bring up Henry Cisneros and ask what they think about that.

Libby's Prison Sentence Commuted

President Bush finally did the right thing.

WASHINGTON — President Bush commuted the sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term that Bush said was excessive.

Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That meant Libby was likely to have to report to prison soon and put new pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, and Bush said his action still "leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."

Good for him. However, if Dubya thinks this buys him absolution for the immigration fiasco, he'd better think again.

Oh, and those aren't early 4th of July fireworks you're hearing. That's the sound of lefty heads exploding.

Libby Gets 30 Months

Lewis "Scooter" Libby has just been sentenced to 30 months in jail.

Expect an immediate appeal.

Will update with reactions from the blogosphere as other activities permit.

Update the First: Sticky Notes has a pretty good comparison.

Update the Second: Let's take a wander through some online journals of conservative thought and see what they think. IMPORTANT NOTE-- this is by no means an exhaustive list, nor is it intended to be. The statements made are correct as of 14:00 PDT, things may change later.

Human Events: silence.

National Review Online: "We said it in March, when I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby became the only person convicted of any crime in the CIA-leak investigation, and we’ll say it again now that he has been sentenced to two and a half years in prison: President Bush should pardon Libby, and do it now."

OpinionJournal.com (otherwise known as the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal): silence.

The American Spectator: silence.

The Weekly Standard: "So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?"