Recently in Scandals Category

Jim Johnson joins a growing family.

Imagine the turnover rate in an Obama administration. Fast food joints could look stable in comparison.

Glenn Reynolds points to a possible reason for Obama's oddly-timed churchectomy:

BREAKING NEWS: Michelle’s Whitey Problem

New and dramatic developments. This is a heads up. I’ll post the news Monday morning by 0900 hours. Now I know why people who have seen the videotape say it is stunning. Barack’s headaches are only starting.

The headline, of course, suggesting that the video is yet another controversial statement by Michelle Obama.

I have no doubts that such a tape exists. I'm skeptical, though, that this is going to be the holy grail that the Clinton supporters in the comments (also see the first thread here) are hoping for. Going after a candidate through the wife/husband is looked on unfavorably by most normal folks, and even the hint of such a tactic runs the risk of backlash.

And we've already seen lots of video of Michelle Obama saying controversial things, none of them bad enough to make a dent in Obama's chances this November. Some of the statements she's made are subject to multiple interpretations as well.

In my opinion, this tape that Larry Johnson speaks of will be a spectacular bust unless it satisfies several criteria:

• It must be recent - something from a decade or two in the past won't cut it.
• It must be really, really, really bad - the most positive interpretation has to equal or exceed the worst interpretation of anything Jeremiah Wright has said.
• It can't be subject to multiple interpretations - in context or out, it must be very clear what she meant.
• It has to implicate Barack Obama in some way - after all, he's running and she is not. Beliefs held by candidates spouses are usually tolerated even if abhorrent so long as there's no sign the candidate holds those beliefs as well.

Additionally, while I and many others have maintained that Barack Obama's judgment doesn't come close to the standard he himself sets in his speeches, you can't use Michelle as an example. People choose mates differently than they approach any other situation in life. Indeed, it appears that his choice of Michelle was a rare example of judgment based on something other than political expediency, and should be respected as such. You might argue it was a mistake to have her campaign for him, but that would be weak at best.

Taking the above into consideration, I'll be watching tomorrow to see what Larry has, and I'll share my thoughts here.

A question about the Lewinsky scandal surprised Chelsea Clinton on the campaign trail yesterday:

INDIANAPOLIS - Chelsea Clinton had a quick retort Tuesday when asked whether her mother's credibility had been hurt during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

"Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know maybe, 70 college campuses I've now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business," Clinton said during a campaign visit for her mother, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Much as I like Michelle Malkin, I have to disagree with her assessment. There's plenty about Hillary to pick on without asking Chelsea this type of question just to watch her squirm. I'm not saying Michelle's wrong, mind you. It's just one of those lines I would prefer not be crossed.

In the interest of disclosure, though, I should let you know that there was a similar situation in my family (except my parents were not famous and they wound up getting divorced over it). So maybe I'm just unable to see this objectively.

H/T Hot Air (where video is available)

Holiday Inn Express may make you smarter, but shacking up with an extra-marital sweetie is better at Days Inn, according to the newly sworn-in Gov. David Paterson. He recommended it to his staff as well:

As part of that relationship, Paterson said, he and the other woman sometimes stayed at an upper West Side hotel — the Days Inn at Broadway and W. 94th St.

He said members of his Albany legislative staff often used the same hotel when they visit the city.

Why? Convenience and price are apparently the answer. I checked the rates of the two discount hotels. $188.10/night for Days Inn vs. $228.00 for Holiday Inn Express (neither property offered "nooner" or hourly rates). Clearly the best choice for a penny-pinching Lt. Governor. As for convenience:

"It's convenient since it's only four subway stops from my Harlem office," Paterson said.

The versatility of Days Inn doesn't stop there, though. Once the affair has ended, it's a terrific place to patch things up with the ol' ball and chain:

He and his wife went to the West Side Days Inn when they were trying to rekindle the romance in their marriage, he said.

They did so after a marriage counselor he used recommended they introduce "new and exciting things" into their relationship, Paterson said, and so they could be alone and away from their children.

New and exciting indeed. Here's a view of a typical room at Days Inn:

The effect of this endorsement on the highly competitive mid-priced hotel market remains to be seen, though, as Holiday Inn Express has the endorsement of former Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee:

Days Inn is part of Wyndham Worldwide (stock symbol - WYN) which closed at $19.25 (-1.42) yesterday. Holiday Inn Express is part of the UK-based IHG, and is currently trading at 746.00p (+10.00p). dontgointothelight.com is not publishing this post as a stock recommendation.

And the two Republican Representatives on the house page board have resigned out of frustration over the lack of leadership from the Democrats:

WASHINGTON - Two Republican House members resigned Thursday from the board supervising teenage pages, accusing a Democratic official of failing to inform them about sexual and criminal activity by at least four youngsters.

The board's Democratic chairman supported the Republicans, blaming House Clerk Lorraine Miller — the day-to-day administrator of the page program — for failing to immediately notify Page Board members of all the inappropriate conduct.

Miller, appointed by the House Democratic leadership, said she followed a zero-tolerance policy toward the teenagers, who were expelled and sent home. But she did not directly respond to the accusation that she was lax in telling the board what had happened.

The Representatives that resigned from the page board were Reps. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida and Shelly Moore Capito of West Virginia, both Republicans.

Brown-Waite wrote a scathing letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., charging that she "learned nothing from the lessons of the Mark Foley scandal."

The Florida congresswoman said four pages have been dismissed this year "for serious criminal acts and for inappropriate sexual indiscretions." A House Republican official said the criminal activity involved shoplifting. The official could not be quoted by name because he wasn't authorized to comment on the issue.

Besides blaming Pelosi, Brown-Waite said Miller, the House clerk, was "slow to share information with members of the board.

"In at least one vitally important incident, we were intentionally kept in the dark about dismissals for more than a week, and were only given the details after personally confronting the clerk with rumors we had heard," Brown-Waite wrote.

The Page Board chairman, Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., said in a statement said, "The board was not satisfied with the manner and timeliness in which it was informed of these actions. Therefore, in our Page Board meeting of Nov. 9, 2007, the board unanimously agreed that the clerk of the House should immediately and simultaneously inform all members in cases where pages were dismissed from the program. Indeed, that was the case in the most recent incident."

Pelosi has promised an investigation:

"The House Page Board must undertake an immediate and thorough review of the adequacy of the supervision and security at the Page dorm. As a mother and a grandmother, nothing is more important to me than the safety and security of our House pages."

She needs an investigation, all right. It should, however, concentrate on the lack of leadership that continues to allow this program to be a mess. Specifically, the House Clerk, Lorraine Miller needs to be looked at regarding her unwillingness to inform the Republican members of the page board about serious incidents. When the safety and welfare of children entrusted to the government is at stake, there's no place for the kind of petty partisanship that Ms. Miller seems to have displayed. Someone with the kind of judgment that would even consider such partisan differences when dealing with the security and safety of these kids should be relieved of any responsibilities regarding the page program in addition to disciplinary action.

And Pelosi needs to beg the two Republicans to return - the balancing of political parties on the board was a good idea, and must be restored quickly.

At least they're telling us in advance where they're going to do it:

NEW ORLEANS, Nov. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- More than 4,000 ACORN members, volunteers and canvassers wearing red T-shirts will blanket 20 cities, reaching hundreds of thousand of residents of low-income neighborhoods across the nation Tuesday in a massive get-out-the-vote effort. Raising the minimum wage is a key issue in four states: Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, and Ohio.

In Ohio, ACORN's get-out-the-vote campaign workers will have knocked on 900,000 doors in Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo, Dayton and Akron by the end of the campaign.

To help ensure fair elections, ACORN will work with Project Vote, the NAACP and other organizations that will monitor polling locations in minority neighborhoods in five states: Maryland, Ohio, Missouri, Michigan and Colorado. Voting rights lawyers and advocates will help identify and solve problems such as voter intimidation by partisan challengers, improper ID requests and machine glitches. Staff attorneys will respond with advice and, if appropriate, litigation to problems reported from advocates, volunteers and voters.

"To help ensure fair elections..." Good thing I'm not drinking milk - I'd have sprayed the monitor! Anyway, keep an eye out for the red shirts - at least we'll be able to identify these Democratic Party sponsored election fraud specialists.

Oh, this part was especially funny:

IN MARYLAND, ACORN will help monitor 75 precincts in Baltimore City as part of a program organized by the NAACP. The precincts were chosen because they had a high concentration of recently registered voters whose information the state was unable to verify. ACORN, Project Vote, and the Advancement Project reached a settlement with the State of Maryland that established procedures allowing these individuals to vote.

Recently registered and unverifiable, eh? Wonder where those came from?

As comical as it sounds, though, this is deadly serious stuff. Changing the makeup of government should be based on the will of the American people - not bogus folks ACORN made up, not non-citizens, not dead people.

Let's hope that there's plenty of folks watching ACORN tomorrow.

Hey CREW, if you folks are still into attacking churches, how's about checking this out?

NASHVILLE -- In his race for U.S. Senate, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D) has been outspent by millions, and his image has been battered by a barrage of negative ads, including the now-infamous spot with a blonde floozy that has been pulled off the air. Several polls show him trailing.

But being an underdog has its own righteous appeal, and the campaign used that status yesterday not only to rally voters but as evidence that God had looked with favor upon the Democratic campaign.

The fact that they are still in the race despite the odds, Ford told an African American crowd at Mount Zion Baptist Church here, was evidence that "we got something else at work."

"I think the congressman said something wise -- we got another manager in this race," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told the group.

(crickets chirping)

um, guys?

(crickets chirping)

I thought so.

The Johnstown Tribune-Democrat weighed in yesterday with their thoughts on the Murtha - Irey Congressional race, and it's not pretty (H/T Irey campaign). Unlike the NYT editorial endorsing Lamont, this one actually talks about the candidate they endorse - and they have little nice to say about him besides approving of his "cut and run" war stance. Emphasis added:

On his famous love for pork:

While we endorse the local congressman in his re-election bid, we fear the spending spree that might result from a shift in power...

On his smearing of the troops, which has made him very unpopular with the military:

We would also urge Murtha to sit down with area veterans who clearly have different views on the Iraq conflict than he does.

On his alignment with the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party:

We are frightened by Murtha’s willingness to align himself with California Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Clearly, Murtha is hoping that relationship paves the way for his ascension to a position of higher power in the House. But we don’t believe our region’s values match well with Pelosi’s, and we don’t see much good coming for the 12th district – even if the relationship benefits the congressman.

Beyond that, Murtha has endeared himself to liberals on both coasts – raising money for his allies in California, New England and elsewhere. We hope he can keep these “friends” and their spending ways in check if the Democrats retake the House.

They even acknowlege how corrupt he is, hoping he can restrain his urges:

But we urge him to remain faithful to his fiscally and socially conservative western Pennsylvania roots – even if it costs him in personal gain and national influence.

Read the whole editorial. It's painfully clear what the Tribune-Democrat is saying here - "Murtha sucks, but vote for him anyway 'cause he's a Democrat."

The Tribune-Democrat's editorial staff has surely reached new lows when their bias toward the left causes them to endorse a candidate whom they acknowlege is unsuitable in most ways. Do they really believe the voters in Johnstown are dense enough to buy it?

Update: Those troops that Murtha rushes to condemn have a few thoughts about cutting and running (H/T Captain's Quarters). The Tribune-Democrat is right, the troops simply don't agree with Murtha.

Gateway Pundit has the latest on the voter fraud in St. Louis. Should this turn out to be widespread, imagine the effect next tuesday. "Culture of corruption", indeed.

Ken Mehlman needs to update his list.

Which reminds me, I've been meaning to add Gateway Pundit to the blogroll. There - that's it!

This comes up every election - the agreement made with the Dems promising not to notice voter fraud unless it happens right in front of a poll-watcher's nose:

That consent decree prohibits the RNC from engaging in, assisting in or participating in any "ballot security program," other than "normal poll watch functions," "unless the program (including the method and timing of any challenges resulting from the program) has been determined by this Court to comply with the provisions of the Consent Order and applicable law." Applications by the RNC "for determination of ballot security programs by the Court shall be made following 20 days notice to the DNC which notice shall include a description of the program to be undertaken, the purpose(s) to be served and the reasons why the program complies with the Consent Order and applicable law."

At this point, it is too late for the RNC to comply with the 20 day deadline for notifying the DNC of any intended application to the Court for approval of any ballot security program. We assume, therefore, that the RNC does not intend to apply to the Court for approval of any such program, and that you intend to respect both the letter and the spirit of the law. For that reason, we also assume that the RNC will refrain from engaging in, assisting in or participating in any "ballot security program" carried out by anyone, including the RNC itself, its state or local parties, Republican candidates or allied organizations such as the Republican National Lawyers Association or National Republican Senatorial Committee.

It doesn't matter 25 years after the fact why there's a consent decree - it's what the Dems use it for here and now. And if a Republican sees voter fraud outside the scope of the decree, the Dems will use the decree to prevent any consequences.

It's comical that Howard would issue this letter decades after its relevance ended when in much more recent times, he and his party have blocked (or attempted to block) every single proposal to stem voter fraud. And illegal immigrants, imaginary people, and the dead are voting in droves, mostly for Democrats.

No, I guess it really isn't comical, is it?

Of course, we know where they aren't:

Jack Carter has tried to reach out to Nevada voters who the Carters say 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry ignored. He talks openly about his Baptist faith, and appeared last weekend with his father at a black church in Las Vegas.

But it's okay when they do it....

One of the left's most repugnant figures is Michael Rogers. He's the sleaze who's been claiming to have a list of gay Republicans he intends to expose. The rest of the left seems to at least privately applaud his disgusting campaign - as long as it helps the cause, right, guys?

Outing a few minor staffers has been greeted by collective snores, I guess he's decided to up the ante with a little guilt by association. Press release here.

Anyway, the pond was left uncovered for a brief time today as Rogers set his sights on none other than Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican Party. Apparently in Michael Roger's world, if you have a gay friend, you must be gay yourself:

Today, I challenge to James Dobson to ask Ken directly: Are you a member of the so-called "homosexual lifestyle" and do you expect my followers to support you at the polls?

Rogers seem to forget an itty bitty fact - Ken Mehlman isn't running for office, and Dobson's "followers" won't see Ken's name on any ballot. Oh, and there's also a very lame video there with nothing to support his innuendo. Zzzzzzzzzz.

I'm waiting for his claim that President Bush is gay cause he knows Dick Cheney's daughter. What a pathetic loser.

Yes, CREW gave me a visit. I didn't believe it at first, so I emailed CREW through their contact page and received confirmation that the comment was genuine. I'll have to admit to being very surprised - I'm not usually kind in my posts about CREW.

I posted a few days ago about CREW's complaint to the DOJ concerning Curt Weldon. A comment was posted by Naomi Seligman Steiner, CREW's Deputy Director, taking issue with what I posted. Here's her comment:

In response to your wrongful assertion, CREW did recieve the e-mails as they appear. They were redacted upon receipt. CREW did not edit them in any way.

Naomi Seligman Steiner
CREW

The statement challenged by Ms. Stein was this sentence following the images of the emails:

"All of the dark line redacting was CREW's doing, I smudged out a few names they left in place."

I wrote this to explain the two visually different types of editing done on the images - the heavy black lines vs the smudging I added. No other point was intended by the statement. However, I should have worded it differently. CREW's letter to the DOJ states that the emails were provided to them in pre-redacted form:

"Although the emails CREW received were heavily redacted, we have been able to authenticate them."

My apologies to CREW for the error, and the original post has been corrected.

The remainder of the post stays as is - please note that no other portions of the post were challenged in any way.

Well, they're at it again - a second October surprise for Curt Weldon. This hasn't shown up yet in the usual places, so this is from CREW's press release:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Earlier today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) violated the law by threatening those who made contributions to his political opponent Joe Sestak with retribution.

CREW received two emails describing Rep. Weldon's efforts. The first, sent to Mr. Sestak on June 29, 2006, described a "hit list" compiled by someone on Rep. Weldon's staff identifying people in the national security field who had made contributions to Mr. Sestak. The email indicates that a retired Navy flag officer reported that Rep. Weldon said something to the effect of "If they don't think there will be retribution before or after the election, they're kidding themselves." A second email, sent on July 21, 2006 states that Rep. Weldon had his staff contact Navy personnel to get information on Mr. Sestak.

Here are the emails, from CREW's blog:

All of the dark line redacting was CREW's doing already present in the documents I downloaded from CREW (They received them in pre-redacted condition). I smudged out a few names they left in place. (see this post for explanation of the change.)

I really like Curt Weldon. He's done a fine job for his district. But if this turns out to be genuine, it doesn't look good. Not being a lawyer, I can't say whether any of this would amount to any more than that. Of course, if it turns out that Weldon actually committed a crime, I'll applaud as he leaves office.

Also, notice that once again, CREW is admitting that they have hip-pocketed evidence of a crime (so they say) for several months in order to use it for political advantage. This time, apparently, with the assistance and knowlege of Sestak's campaign.

A few folks have predicted that these tactics will backlash against the Dems. I hope so. CREW (and their accomplices in the Sestak campaign) gets no points for their behavior here. Either they hid a crime for 3-4 months for political convenience, or it's a vile smear launched late enough into the campaign so that an investigation wouldn't be complete to clear Weldon before the election.

CREW and the Democrats have attained a new low in politics. These tactics should be enough alone to show the American public how unsuited to lead the Democratic Party really is.

And the Democrats are outraged. How do we know they are outraged? Because they leaked it:

A conference call to the committee's nine Democrats on Wednesday to inform them of the aide's suspension prompted outrage, said two congressional officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal committee business.

The officials said that the National Intelligence Estimate was marked "secret," rather than "top secret" or another more restrictive classification. As a result, thousands of people would have had access to it, including the intelligence, armed services and international relations committees of the House.

While I'm encouraged that some effort is being made to determine the sources of the leaks, this story is near zero for me. Why? 'Cause there is nothing but suspicion here so far. The Democrats correctly state that a large number of people have access to the NIE, and we don't know if the staffer ordered the report for someone else or for himself.

What I still don't get is why Congress ignores the press (and their role) in all of this. Classified information requires controls and boundaries. Once it crosses outside of those boundaries, it's no longer classified information - it's stolen classified information. One would think the government could leverage this to compell reporters to reveal the leakers as part of a criminal investigation, since receiving stolen goods is a crime. Until we do, the leaks will never stop. And while the left may think it's cute to leak classified data for political purposes, the fact is that it harms our country when they do so.

So until I see someone being prosecuted, I'm going to have to assume that this staffer suspension (along with all of the promises of investigation for past leaks) is simply intended to be eyewash - red meat for the base.

For me, though, it's a flavorless meal that leaves me not just unsatified, but starving.

A press release this morning from Harry Reid:

To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor

Contact: The Office of Sen. Harry Reid, 702-388-5020

News Advisory:

WHO:

-- Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

-- Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco

-- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

-- Citibank

-- Nevada State Bank

-- ACORN Housing

WHAT: Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, (FHLBank San Francisco) will co-host a homebuyer fair to increase first-time homebuyers in the Las Vegas valley. The fair will include English and Spanish language workshops to provide valuable information that will help first- time homebuyers.

Participants will learn how to qualify for home loans, repair their credit, and access up to $25,000 in down payment assistance. The fair is a collaborative effort of the FHLBank San Francisco in partnership with financial services and housing community leaders to increase first-time homebuyers through education and access to affordable housing programs. Since 1990, the FHLBank San Francisco has awarded more than $12 million to 55 affordable housing projects in Nevada to increase the supply of affordable housing. The event is free and open to the public. Activities for children will also be available.

WHEN: Saturday, Oct. 21 (Light lunch will be provided to program participants) 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. (Doors will open at 9:30 a.m.)

WHERE: Advance Technology Academy, 2501 Vegas Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89106

Makes sense to me. After all, he's an expert on creative real estate strategies!

Thanks, AllahPundit! Welcome, Hot Air readers!

This time in Kansas:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) today asked for an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigation into the activities surrounding the reelection efforts of Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline.

During the week of September 12, 2006 several Kansas-based news organizations published an internal campaign memorandum authored by Attorney General Kline that detailed his efforts to recruit churches to aid his reelection efforts. The memorandum includes several activities that may constitute illegal support of the Kline campaign by Kansas churches.

Kline identified Light of the World and Wanamaker Woods Nazarene, both in Topeka, and an unspecified Basehor-Linwood church as churches that had agreed to help disseminate his campaign literature. Redistributing partisan campaign literature is a violation of tax laws that forbid churches and other public charities from intervening in elections.

Three guesses which party Kline belongs to - and the first two don't count. Don't Democrats ever step into churches, Melanie?

Via AP/Yahoo:

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley will reveal to the Archdiocese of Miami the name of the Roman Catholic clergyman he says abused him as a teenager, Foley's civil attorney said Tuesday.

"It's going to be very clear in the coming days that it is a fact as opposed to any possible allegations that it was a fantasy or something made up for political purposes," attorney Gerald Richman said.

Who the hell cares? It doesn't erase what he did. And he's not going to get his seat back. In the event he faces some charges out of all this (either civil or criminal), it's probably not going to help him there, either. I can't possibly imagine what he thinks these announcements will gain for him. Simply asinine.

John Conyers has released a new book, based on his "Constitution in Crisis" report. From the press release:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A report by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers and the Democratic staff, "George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution", is now available in book form, with an introduction by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, is a former CIA agent, outed and harassed by the Administration, and a Foreword by Congressman Conyers.

Having an introduction by "Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, is a former CIA agent, outed and harassed by the Administration", gives an appropriately delusional beginning to a tome that promises to be full of delusion and deception. I'm sure Conyers and his partners in this saw the news last month on Plamegate. To continue this nutty tinfoil hat stuff when even the NYT now concedes that there wasn't a coordinated outing from the White House of Valerie Plame, places Rep. Conyers outside the mainstream of sane and rational thought. Don't expect the rest of the book to reverse that trend.

But it's not just his thoughts at play here. The press release claims the book is based on "A report by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers and the Democratic staff". It isn't even that. This report started, as I said above, as a document titled "Constitution in Crisis", a 350 page document you can download here. Written by him and his staff? Maybe partially, but the real credit belongs to a bunch even more delusional and ill-informed than Rep. Conyers (Screen cap here):

Much of the research in this report is a product of the input and hard work of DailyKos, Huffington Post and Conyersblog readers over the last six months (the help with my "timeline project" was particularly useful). I also am so grateful to progressive talk radio hosts and listeners, who have refused to allow the American people to forget the nation was deceived into war.

Get it? Conyers goes past the the arguably nutty Kos and Arianna and shoots staight for their readers. Yup - when you really need info about classified documents and intelligence practices, no better source than the comment threads of Kos and HuffPo. And every single loony BDS theory is in there - from the venerable "BushLied" meme, to the notion that the terrorist surveilance program tapped "millions" of American's domestic calls. Each and every one has been thoroughly disproven countless times, so I won't rehash them here. Consider the source, folks. It was mostly researched not by a respected investigatory agency, but by the readers of the Daily Kos.

This basic document, with the addition of some scary sounding mischaracterizations of the terrorist surveilance program, forms the new book. I'd like to get some tips from Rep. Conyers - usually when I try to get the foil that tight, it rips.

Conyers believes this material forms the justification for his oft-stated desire to impeach President Bush. And if the Democrats get control of the House, he's made no secret of the fact that he intends to utilize his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee for that exact purpose.

All based on the fever-swamp conspiracy theories of the readers of Daily Kos and the Huffington Post.

More later (maybe) when my lunch digests a little more...

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has been using campaign donations instead of his personal money to pay Christmas bonuses for the support staff at the Ritz-Carlton where he lives in an upscale condominium. Federal election law bars candidates from converting political donations for personal use.

Questioned about the campaign expenditures by The Associated Press, Reid's office said Monday his lawyers had approved them but he nonetheless was personally reimbursing his campaign for the $3,300 he had directed to the staff holiday fund at his residence.

Reid also announced he was amending his ethics reports to Congress to more fully account for a Las Vegas land deal, highlighted in an AP story last week, that allowed him to collect $1.1 million in 2004 for property he hadn't personally owned in three years.

A pattern emerging?

Looks like there really is an investigation:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal agents on Monday searched the home of U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon's daughter, an FBI spokeswoman said, amid reports the Pennsylvania Republican used his influence to help his lobbyist daughter win contracts.

As is customary, the FBI didn't divulge what they were looking for. And they also searched the home of an associate:

Debbie Weierman, a spokeswoman for the FBI's Washington field office, said agents also went to the home of a local Republican activist who is close to Weldon.

According to newspaper reports, law enforcement officials are investigating whether Weldon used his influence to help his daughter obtain lobbying contracts of significant value with foreign clients.

Weierman would not provide details on what federal agents were looking for at Karen Weldon's Philadelphia home or the Springfield, Pennsylvania, house of Charles Sexton.

The Philadelphia Inquirer and other newspapers reported that federal agents removed several boxes from the homes of Weldon's daughter and Sexton.

Weierman also would not confirm that the FBI's investigation was related to Rep. Weldon, saying the "affidavits are sealed."

How much ya wanna bet the party of "innocent until proven guilty" will lay off this story until the investigation is complete?

I glad you asked - they won't, since they may be up to their hips in the story. From the Philly Inquirer:

At an event earlier today at Philadelphia International Airport to discuss airport noise, Weldon said the investigation was politically motivated - blaming a complaint filed by Melanie Sloan, director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

"She is the only one I know of who went to the Justice Department and asked for an investigation," Weldon said. "I know that because I have her letter."

He added, "I haven't helped get my daughter anything."

Weldon, who is involved in a tight race for reelection, has said that he has done nothing wrong.

The $1 million contract under investigation was first reported in 2004 by the Los Angeles Times. Sources said the FBI and Justice Department investigation was based on the Times story.

The Inquirer reported in 2004 that Weldon had lobbied federal officials on behalf of Itera, the huge and controversial Russian natural gas company. Weldon also complained to Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, about Itera's treatment by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.

Itera paid $500,000 to Karen Weldon and Sexton's firm. The contract was signed Sept. 30, 2002, six days after the congressman helped arrange a dinner at the Library of Congress to honor Itera and Igor Makarov, the firm's chief executive officer.

About noon today, a group of 17 protesters arrived outside Weldon's district office in Upper Darby, carrying signs and the kind of foam hands usually seen at sporting events to proclaim "Number One." But these rose-colored hands said "Caught Red-Handed."

"This is the first time I've come out and done something like this," said Judy Voet of Rose Valley. "This Congress is just so corrupt."

Most of the protesters were Democrats, but they said they were not involved in the campaign of Weldon's opponent, Joe Sestak, and they included at least one Republican, Chuck Ries of Havertown.

"I don't know what to believe anymore, they lie so much," said Ries, holding a sign linking Weldon to current and former Republican colleagues Tom DeLay, Mark Foley and Bob Ney - all of whom have been embroiled in career-ending scandals.

CREW (the same bunch behind the Foley October surprise), according to Rep. Weldon, might have engineered this one as well. Weldon mentions Melanie Sloan, director of CREW. Here's video with her admitting to filing the complaint 2 1/2 years ago from CNN:

She doesn't claim to have been active on this since, however. In the video, they report that Rep. Weldon provided documentation to the Ethics committee at the time and was cleared.

A few things stand out to me from the above stories:

1. It appears that the McClatchy story over the weekend forced the FBI to start speaking publically about their actions. This shores up my suspicion that the folks who leaked this have hampered the investigation, whoever it is deserves a little attention from the FBI as well.

2. The protesters showed up pretty fast after the warrents were issued, didn't they? All prepared with props, no less.

3. CREW filed the complaint 2 1/2 years ago, and the CNN piece suggests that the investigation is around six months old. I simply don't buy that the FBI waited 2 years to begin this. Someone pressed them, CREW is the most likely source. Six months ago they would have been working the Foley complaint as well and forming their Fall election strategy.

4. CNN headlined this pretty quick as well, didn't they?

As I said before, if Weldon is dirty, I'll be first in line to wave goodbye. This post and the previous ones are about the disgusting election season tactics. In the Foley case they may have endangered young folks by holding on to information until maximum political effect could be achieved. In this case, they may have jeopardized an investigation and obstructed justice in order to score some cheap political points.

Update: Allahpundit weighed in earlier this afternoon:

It’s true, CREW did contact the DOJ about Weldon’s possible influence peddling — two and a half years ago. The case suddenly and mysteriously got hot again this past Friday, though, with Weldon currently in a dead heat with Democratic opponent Joe Sestak.

Which is suspicious. But not as suspicious as the fact that there’s enough probable cause here to justify six federal search warrants.

I dealt with the time issue above. But I see the search warrants as desperation to salvage a case that was compromised by the McClatchy story on Saturday exposing an investigation that the FBI wanted to keep confidential. As I believe is fair in any such case, it's best to wait until the justice system does its job before assuming guilt or innocence.

He does take a nice shot at Ms. Sloan, though.

Previous:
Weldon in trouble?
Weldon "investigation" story picked up by AP

A terrific column about the Harry Reid real estate scandal by Ed Morrissey (of Captain's Quarters fame): Reid's Smelly Windfall.

Yesterday I wrote about left-wing McClatchy Newspapers pushing the story of an alleged FBI investigation of Representative Curt Weldon regarding some business dealings of his daughter. Today the story is getting drawn into the mainstream news cycle:

WASHINGTON - The FBI is investigating whether Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., used his influence to secure lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, two people familiar with the inquiry said Saturday.

The story contains all the elements that we've come to expect from the left when any issue is used by them for political gain - shadowy informants and Democratic party knowledge of a supposedly secret investigation pre-dating the leak to the media:

...They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the criminal investigation.

...This account cited two individuals with specific knowledge of the existence of the investigation; they declined to be identified because of the confidentiality of criminal investigations.

...Over the last few days, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has mailed fliers to voters in Weldon's district accusing Karen Weldon of getting help from her father on lobbying projects.

Well, it's not confidential now, is it?

As I said yesterday, if Rep. Weldon has done something wrong, I'll be the first to wave goodbye. No room in my party for that kind of shenanigans. Unlike the left, though, I prefer that the FBI come to the right conclusion in their investigation. Depending on the reason they kept it confidential, that goal no longer be attainable. Obstructing justice for political gain - is this the kind of political party you want in power?

That said, the actions of the left in this matter are disgusting. The investigation was apparently secret enough so that Weldon's office wasn't informed, and now it has been compromised by the left for political gain. The fact that leakers went to the DCCC prior to approaching the media shows all you need to know. Presumably the two "people familiar with the investigation" approached the DCCC and the media for the most cynical of reasons - It had become evident to them that the investigation would not be complete in time for the election. So a decision was made to sacrifice the FBI's sleuthing in favor of politics.

Truly vile.

Update: A reader (name withheld by request) points out correctly that Weldon has been accused by the left over his daughter's contracts for a couple of years, and the story is not new. However, the FBI's involvement, along with the apparent interferance in that investigation by left operatives/sympathizers, is new and newsworthy. It's ironic that the left claims to stand for accountability when the leak and opportunistic use of it may actually prevent that accountability that they pretend to want.

I had to read it twice, as this is the most dramatic departure from established Democratic Party patterns that I've ever seen:

BATON ROUGE, La. - The Louisiana Democratic Party turned down eight-term U.S. Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record) on Saturday and endorsed state Rep. Karen Carter, one of a dozen challengers who emerged after Jefferson became the target of a federal bribery investigation.

The State Central Committee's 69-53 vote, at a special meeting to decide whom to endorse in Louisiana's open primaries Nov. 7, was the first time in recent memory that an incumbent had failed to win the state party's endorsement.

Of course, he still has endorsements of labor and local Dem committees. Still, it's a start. Color me shocked. Maybe the left is starting to look inward a little.

Sigh - another October surprise. I don't know yet what to make of this, as Weldon's office say's there's no investigation. Still, it could be that the FBI simply hasn't told Weldon yet, as the story implies:

FBI investigates Rep. Curt Weldon:

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is investigating whether Republican Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania traded his political influence for lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, according to sources with direct knowledge of the inquiry.

The FBI, which opened an investigation in recent months, has formally referred the matter to the department's Public Integrity Section for additional scrutiny. At issue are Weldon's efforts between 2002 and 2004 to aid two Russian companies and two Serbian brothers with ties to strongman Slobodan Milosevic, a federal law enforcement official said.

The Russian companies and a Serbian foundation run by the brothers' family each hired a firm co-owned by Weldon's daughter, Karen, for fees totaling nearly $1 million a year, public records show.

The race between Weldon and Joe Sestak, his Democrat challenger, is yet another very tight race. This brings the timing of the article, along with the leaks from what is apparently an investigation so confidential that the FBI saw fit not to notify Weldon about it, into question. That is, if there really is an investigation:

Word of the inquiry, which has been closely held within the Justice Department and the FBI, comes from two individuals with specific knowledge of the existence of the investigation. They both declined to be identified because of the confidentiality of criminal investigations.

Spokesmen for the FBI and the Justice Department declined to confirm or deny that an inquiry is under way.

William Canfield, a lawyer who represented Weldon when a Los Angeles Times report prompted the House ethics committee to briefly explore the issue two years ago, said the congressman is unaware of a Justice Department investigation and is confident that none exists.

"Is there is an inquiry going on in the Justice Department?" Canfield asked. "The answer is no. . . . Curt knows nothing about this, his chief of staff knows nothing about it and I know nothing about it. I think we would have heard about it."

Canfield said Weldon, a 10-term House member who's vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and active in U.S. foreign affairs, dismissed the report as "crazy" while campaigning for reelection in a tight contest in Philadelphia's southwestern suburbs.

But McClatchy Newspapers' sources said the FBI only over the last few months obtained evidence suggesting that the congressman may have broken the law. One of the sources, a federal law enforcement official, said that Weldon had not yet been told about the inquiry.

The official said that the FBI recently sought the assistance of federal prosecutors in pressuring an unidentified person to provide evidence about the 59-year-old congressman. The attempt to "squeeze" this individual appeared to be an early step, the two sources said.

It is uncertain whether the current investigation will blossom into a full-blown inquiry that will result in criminal charges being filed. It is possible at this stage of the investigation that nothing will come of it. But the FBI typically does not seek the involvement of the Justice Department unless it finds substance to the evidence it has gathered.

I'll be keeping an eye on this and update if anything more develops. At the very least, this is the pattern for the Dems at election time - the timing, the (likely) illegal leaks, the anonymous sources to a sympathetic lefty news agency all fit. Another October surprise.

Of course, there's also the chance that Curt Weldon has indeed done something wrong. If so, I'll be the first to wave goodbye.

Update: Here's a story from William Bender of the Delaware County Times:

A glossy Democratic mailer has been circulating the district all week about how U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon allegedly used his political influence to steer lucrative contracts to his daughter. Today, McClatchy Newspapers is expected to publish a report that could further diminish Weldon’s chances of holding on to his seat in what will likely be the closest 7th District election since 1984.

It appears the local Democratic Party knew about this before McClatchy Newspapers saw fit to inform the public - far enough in advance to have glossy mailers published and mailed. Question the timing.

I guess AP had to run it before someone else did. Dingy Harry adds to the stench of corruption he excreted while accepting money from Abramoff:

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.

In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

Captain Ed is on the story with some spot on commentary:

Hilariously, this appears just days after James Webb tried smearing George Allen with a pseudoscandal over stock options that Allen disclosed and never exercised, meaning that he never cleared a dime from the options. Now we have the Democratic caucus leader dodging disclosures and failing to disclose $800,000 in profits from a project on which he partnered with a lawyer suspected of connections to organized crime and a bribery scandal.

Organized crime? My, our filthy little hatemonger has been busy, hasn't he?

Of course, some will be tempted to call for Reid's resignation. No, no, no, no, and no. The right thing to do is call for a complete investigation. We on the right should not sink to the opportunistic low that the power greedy left demonstrated regarding Hastert recently.

It's the right thing to do after all.

The headline of this story drips of it:

Rove avoids being charged in CIA leak case

The text of the article says that the "ruthless" Rove "escaped" being charged. In her disappointment over the cancellation of Fitzmas, Jennifer Loven (the author of the piece) also makes this odd claim:

Still, the White House has not emerged entirely from the cloud of the CIA leak investigation. Cheney and Rove, along with other past and present administration aides, have been identified as possible witnesses when Libby goes on trial, probably in January.

If you're Rove, just being a witness at a trial is apparently a negative.

I recommend counselling.

Heard on the radio on the way to work, here's the confirmation...

Breaking - via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won't be charged with any crimes in the investigation into leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday.

Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of one of President Bush's closest advisers. Rove testified five times before a grand jury.

Fitzgerald has already secured a criminal indictment against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove," Luskin said in a statement.

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation," Luskin said. "We believe the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

Fitzgerald called Luskin late Monday afternoon to tell him he would not be seeking charges against Rove. Rove had just gotten on a plane, so his lawyer and spokesman did not reach him until he had landed in Manchester, N.H., where he was to give a speech to state GOP officials.

Looks like lumps of coal in the fitzmas stockings. After all the praise the left heaped on Fitzgerald after the Scooter Libby indictment, it will be fun to see how they twist and turn to create conspiracy theories over this latest news.

This also blows yet another big hole in the left's "culture of corruption" meme - which has already been a disaster for them as their own laundry is none too clean. I expect the "culture of continuous accusation" to continue to no avail. Fact is, they have nothing else to offer.

Added: It'll take a lot of scrubbing to get all the egg off of Jason Leopold's face (H/T Jeff Goldstein)

Update (9:34am EST): Howard Dean is in serious denial:

"He doesn't belong in the White House. If the president valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago," said Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, speaking Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show. "So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but it's not very good news for America."

Update (9:50am EST): From the comment swamps at Huffington Post, where the crazed ones are in shock and disbelief, and are starting to pose conspiracy theories:

Fitzgerald may not have enough to prosecute him on perjury but the man still outed a CIA agent during a time of war and should be fired.

"All the time , money and fake investigation and "The Fitz" caves in to the White House pressure.

Just because they couldn't catch him this time does not mean he is not a dangerous man to the entire United States.

There is no God

He wasn't "cleared". He just wasn't indicted.

This is great news for the white trash assholes who still think this government is doing a helluva job. Dance your victory dance today. Keep up your white trash adulation of Rush and Ann Coulter. Enjoy the party.

At some point down the road there will be a nasty revolution when the masses begn to realize that us faggots and our marriage rights don't really mean much when the GOP has turned us into a total fascist state.

Enjoy the celebration today, Koolaid drinkers. But the party won't last forever. And this very evil man, Mr Rove, will one day get his reward.

These were off the first couple of pages, nearly 200 comments have been posted.

This is a very unhappy day for the left.

Update (5:00pm EST): Even Kos is displeased with Leopold:

...I hope this serves a lesson to all of you who link to crap internet sources like Jason Leopold merely because they write what you want to hear.

Sweet.

Today's Washington Post has the first instance of the accused in the Haditha incident speaking out. It's not a direct interview - the Marine's version of events is related through his attorney:

Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. The Marine said there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield.

"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," said Neal A. Puckett, who represents Wuterich in the ongoing investigations into the incident. "He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."

It's a long article with lots of detail, too much to quote here. But the alleged coverup is addressed as well:

After clearing the second house, Puckett said, Wuterich immediately got on the radio and reported the "collateral damage." When the company radio operator asked him to estimate how many civilians had been killed, he said he thought it was about 12 to 15.

McConnell, the company commander, "knew the number was high" and reported it to the battalion executive officer, a major, according to McDermott, his lawyer. McConnell also said that a Marine intelligence team investigated the civilian deaths and reported their findings to senior Marine commanders, the lawyer said.

Wuterich told his attorney that he never reported that the civilians in the houses were killed by the bomb blast and maintains that he never tried to obscure the fact that civilians had been killed in the raids. Whether Wuterich gave false information to his superiors is the focus of one of the military investigations. He said the platoon leader, who was on the scene, never expressed concern about the unit's actions and never tried to hide them.

I've been relatively silent about the investigation thus far. It's been obvious since the story broke that there were details not coming out in the press or in the irresponsible and opportunistic statements from politicians and pundits.

But the Post article should serve to remind us that there numerous voices to be heard. The insistance by some that this event equates to My Lai on the sparsest of data from a bias source serves no one, especially the individuals being accused. Our system of justice requires the presumption of innocence - it's truly unfortunate that as we've seen before, so many lack respect for that simple concept.

The Post should be commended for bringing the other side of the story to us. I hope that the rest of the media picks up the Marines' account defending their experiences in Haditha and gives them the same prominence given to less credible accounts of our troops' behaviour in Iraq.

There's a certain segment of the left where hypocrisy reigns unchecked. There's really no reconciliation of "support the troops by bringing them home" and complaints of our "worn-out, stressed-out, missionless troops in Iraq" who commit "everyday, unheralded horrors perpetrated on innocent Iraqi civilians". Any attempt to concatenate these conflicting views results in a logic-defying mess. More balanced coverage in the media at-large of Haditha won't change the minds of these people, nor will it affect Murtha and other politicians who have abused their public voice and the troops for political gain.

Nonetheless, the Marines and the American people are entitled to a fair accounting. And that's certainly not too much to ask of the news industry, is it?

Hey, wasn't Karl Rove supposed to be indicted this last week? Hmmm?

Think those sources that got it wrong will be outed as promised? You'd think it would be here if they were, but alas, no cigar...

Fitzmas seems to come nearly every week, but all the liberals ever get is a lump of coal in their stocking.

To those on the right - Happy Holidays!

Update: What exactly does a "partial apology" mean?

The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.

"Too far out in front of the news cycle"? Ouch.

The identity of the leaker was divulged after my post from last night as one Mary McCarthy. While I actually need sleep in order to function, fortunately there are bloggers who don't. A good example is Curt at Flopping Aces who has 10 updates about the different small details about Ms. McCarthy that are coming out. Much of the speculation is about connections between McCarthy and prominent administration officials during the Clinton years and campaign donations to Kerry and the Dems.

I refuse to get caught up in too much of this. Politics tends to be very tribal, and some of these connections will likely turn out to be a natural manifestation of that. Time will tell. However, the hints that there will be more leakers taken to task is heartening and an indication that this is becoming a much bigger and more interesting story. Other good reading on the CIA firing is at A.J. Strata, who also functions well without sleep. A.J. points out that the left is crying foul over the firing.

The hinge-less side of the blogosphere is being predictable in the wake of the news from yesterday. Some examples:

FireDogLake: "the campaign against whistleblowers has just begun."

The "poor, innocent whistleblower as a target" meme seem to be the predominant view on the left. Considering this somewhat distorted view of justice, it's a very good thing indeed that we don't treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter as they would wish.

Glenn Greenwald: "This has nothing to do with national security or with safeguarding classified information. It is about punishment, vengeance, and deterrence..."

It should be no surprise that Glenn has an aversion to punishment - he endorsed a guest poster on his blog who feels that the drug dealer who wants to sell crack to your children should be let out of prison because prisons are, well - bad. I still can't figure out how he reconciles that view with his support of the lunatic-fringe idea of scrapping article III of the constitution in favor of having guilt assigned by legislative decree. I guess it depends on who you like...

Nearly all on the left have tried to draw the comparison with the declassification of historical data to dispute Joe Wilson's lies. None will admit that there is a significant difference between declassifying historical background data and leaking details of ongoing operations to keep Americans safe.

The award for hinge-lessness goes to Larisa Alexandrovna, who writes:

Imagine for a moment that during WWII, a German whistleblower was privy to plans for the building of concentration camps and made those plans known to the world. Imagine if this person also provided information that the German leadership, under the sadistic madness of Adolph Hitler, was abducting countless innocents who where then transported to undisclosed locations, never to be heard from again.

If that person risked everything for neither fame nor money in order to get this information out, would you - as a German citizen of that time - have considered them a national security threat, in violation of the law, a criminal? Or would you have wanted to know what was being done in your name? What is national security in this context?

The intellectual and moral disfunction displayed here is stunning. Of course none of the bleaters of the "whitleblower" meme have any excuse for selectively ignoring another story from yesterday that exposes their hate-based fantasies as fabrication.

I expect lots more in the coming days. The talking heads shows on Sunday should be especially interesting.

Update: Tom Maguire and Ace have some good reading as well.

Update 2: It appears that Flopping Aces is down - it's not a bad link.

Don Surber has uncovered a possible plot to rid the planet of cocoa merchants.

Where's the press on this? Why isn't Greta covering this night after night after night after...

Oh, the humanity.

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - The CIA has fired an employee for leaking classified information to the news media, an agency official said Friday. A federal criminal investigation has also been opened.

I suppose more details will come out soon enough, but the article contained a hint:

A second law enforcement official confirmed there was a criminal investigation under way and said the CIA officer had provided information that contributed to a Washington Post story last year saying there were secret U.S. prisons in Eastern Europe.

I wonder if the investigation will net any of the fired employee's accomplices?

This story is likely to grow.

Others posting about this:

Protein Wisdom
Wizbang
A.J. Strata
Ed Morrissey
Powerline (John)
Powerline (Paul)

Related:

Little Green Footballs: EU Finds No Evidence of Illegal CIA Action

The Deputy Press Secretary for Homeland Security is accused of having some creepy internet social habits:

MIAMI - The deputy press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was charged with using a computer to seduce a child after authorities said he struck up sexual conversations with an undercover detective posing as a 14-year-old girl.

Brian J. Doyle, 55, who is the fourth-ranking official in the department's public affairs office, was expected to be placed on administrative leave Wednesday.

Authorities said they arrested Doyle on Tuesday at his Silver Spring, Md., home as he was online with the "girl." The undercover detective had called Doyle at work and said she got a Web camera, as he had asked her to do, and wanted to test it out, said Carrie Rodgers, Polk County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman.

From the detail in the story, it looks like they've got him cold. If so, then he's a sicko who deserves everything the court can toss at him.

Equally sick is the way the moonbats are taking the news. Read the comments to the post here. I'm sure we'll see plenty more examples as folks wake up to this story.

Update: As predicted. Here's a few samples:

21. Freaking sick. Really. I get no pleasure out of this, but yet again we were right. All republicans are like this. Sick nut jobs. (Comment by Alex — April 4, 2006 @ 11:10 pm)

42. I am not shocked at all by this nor would I be shocked to learn that others like:Cheney,Rummy,Condi,Turd Blossom,Delay and wife have thier own personal corral of live asian boys at Shrubs ranch in Crawford. I would have included King George in this but we all know he has a withered dyke fetish(Condi,Miers,Laura and Momma barb) (Comment by Vance — April 4, 2006 @ 11:59 pm)

52. Kill All Republicans and conservatives, now! Better yet, let’s dust off and nuke this shithole from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure. (Comment by Corporal Hicks — April 5, 2006 @ 12:55 am)

And at Huffington Post:

Nothing but scum, criminals, perverts and sociopaths in this administration and circle of friends.

Nice going Bush- appoint a pedophile for homeland security. What were his qualifications for the job? Kiddie porn king for the GOP?

By: realitychick on April 05, 2006 at 09:30am

What is the big deal? Whites are notorious when it comes to killing their family members and sexing kids.

By: BlackMan32 on April 05, 2006 at 09:57am

Apparently she has leprosy.

Oh, yeah - she has some points in the above-linked article, but misses much more than she gets.

The good points? Those who knew Abramoff and are denying it are making a mistake. Knowing someone, even being friends of someone who's breaking the law doesn't make one a party to it. Kenneth Lay surely had friends who were unaware of his day to day activities at Enron, and just knowing him shouldn't be a crime. The mistake that Arianna makes is in the assumption that distancing themselves somehow makes Republicans party to Abramoff's crimes.

The number of politicians benefitting from Abramoff-related money is large enough to suggest to any with common sense that some of these politicians probably did engage in influence peddling. If proven, this group should be punished. But common sense also tells us that many of these beneficiaries would have voted the way they did on bills whether they got the donations or not, and some may have been swayed by persuasive arguments and the money didn't factor in their decisions. The problem is sorting out who is who, and I'm not sure if it's even possible to do so.

So Abramoff is bitter that he's been abandoned by folks who used to dine with him? Welcome to politics, Jack. But considering how he lied to and swindled the tribes he represented, Arianna and the rest of the left would be hypocritical if they suddenly believe everything he says about his former running crowd in DC, especially after they've been telling us for over a year how evil he is. I suspect that much of what Jack says now will be spin or unprovable accusations from a man who stands to benefit from a reduced sentence for "spilling the beans".

But how to sort it out - Abramoff was a Republican, and it should be no surprise that he would donate (or steer donations) to the party he supports. In fact, it should be expected of him, even if he had not committed any crime. On the other hand, donating to (or steering donations to) the opposition is far more suspect. Why would anyone help their political opposition unless there were something to be gained? Why do the Dems not see this? Why aren't they asking Harry Reid the hard questions about the $66,000 he received?

Why, Arianna? Hmmm?

After characterizing Abramoff as a "corrupt insider looking for a reduced sentence", should I expect you to take any future accusations from him with the grain of salt they deserve? Will you consider the source and give whichever Republican Abramoff next accuses the benefit of the doubt he deserves?

Or will I see a post from you taking his next "revelation" as gospel because it's about a Republican...

Oh, and please get better soon, dear.

Linked with WizBang

This quote from this morning's NSA hearings is one of the most shamelessly dishonest I've heard from the Democrats:

Sen. Patrick Leahy: "My concern is for peaceful Quakers who are being spied upon, and other law-abiding Americans and babies and nuns who are placed on terrorist watch lists..."

I guess that sets the tone for today, doesn't it? The Dems appear to want to top their performance in the Alito confirmation hearing.

Dick gave the Democrat radio address Saturday. The transcipt of his address can be found here, and audio can be found here. I didn't hear it live, but took an interest after I ran across the transcript. It contains a few things the media didn't include in their coverage.

Here are a few excerpts, in no particular order:

"Instead of a reliable Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors, we have a complicated mess that wastes tens of billions of dollars on giveaways to pharmaceutical companies and big insurance companies."

The polticians giving these addresses should be required to give their voting record on topics they wish to discuss. It would shut them up in many cases - for example, would Dick be railing on this program if he had to disclose the fact that he voted for it?

"The litany of corruption today in Washington reaches the highest levels you can imagine: from the White House, to Congress, to the well-appointed corporate suites on K Street.

"Now, neither Democrats nor Republicans have a monopoly on virtue. The leadership that brought us to this moment, though, is undeniable. For the last five years, Republicans have enjoyed almost total control of the federal government. This nearly unprecedented concentration of power has produced, sadly, a culture of corruption that is preventing government from dealing with the real needs of our nation.

Disclosure would have been useful here as well. Sen. Durbin recieved ~$8,000 in Abramoff-related money. And because it was tainted, gave it away (plus an extra 3 grand) to a charity. It still frustrates me that so many are giving this "tainted" money to charity. Why not give it back to the donors? Is it a fear that doing so would give the same appearance of impropriety that keeping it does? If you rob a bank, and give the money to a church, does it really wash away your guilt? Note - I'm not suggesting that Dick or anyone else stole the money - it's just an easily relatable analogy.

Dick also mentions that "neither Democrats nor Republicans have a monopoly on virtue". Is this an ad lib or did it pass muster with party leadership? For the last couple of weeks, Pelosi, Dean, Reid, et al have been saying that the Abramoff scandal is a purely Republican one, using primarily as their reasoning that Democrats didn't get personal donations from Abramoff. It's a fundamentally flawed argument - the donations by Abramoff's clients (made on Jack's directive) inherently have a higher "taint" level than the relatively smaller personal donations. The Democrats are in this up to their necks, same as the Republicans. But the Dems think they smell blood in the water, even though many are simply catching the scent of their own hands.

It should not be lost on anyone that the new Democratic plan for reform is anything but an attempt to pre-empt the announcement the week before of work to begin on a Republican plan:

"When the President delivers his annual State of the Union address at the end of the month, I hope he will join us, on a bipartisan basis, in reforming the way Washington does business."

I predict that even if the resulting plans are nearly identical, failure of the Republicans to favor the Democrat plan will result in cries of "foul" from the Dems - after all, bipartisanship almost never means working with the other party - it means them working with you.

"neither Democrats nor Republicans have a monopoly on virtue" - could this be the beginning of a softening of tone for the Democrats? If so, I haven't seen it yet from any other Dem. The alternative is that Durbin is trying to distance himself from his own party. Either would be a dramatic development - the Democrats have made so much political hay about this that it would be a stunning admission. Durbin breaking ranks would serve to highlight future division in the ranks.

Either way, wire brushes and lye soap won't remove the stains. Being honest about the issue won't either, but in the long run would be entirely more healthy - for both parties. And maybe in time the stains will fade.

This from CNS is speculative but interesting:

Having ascended to the national stage as one of the most vocal critics of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha has long downplayed the controversy and the bitterness surrounding the two Purple Hearts he was awarded for military service in Vietnam.

Murtha is a retired marine and was the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress. Since 1967, there have been at least three different accounts of the injuries that purportedly earned Murtha his Purple Hearts. Those accounts also appear to conflict with the limited military records that are available, and Murtha has thus far refused to release his own military records.

A Cybercast News Service investigation also reveals that one of Murtha's former Democratic congressional colleagues and a fellow decorated Vietnam veteran, Don Bailey of Pennsylvania, alleges that Murtha admitted during an emotional conversation on the floor of the U.S. House in the early 1980s that he did not deserve his Purple Hearts.

"[Murtha] is putting himself forward as some combat veteran with serious wounds and he's using that and it's dishonest and it's wrong," Bailey told Cybercast News Service on Jan. 9. Murtha served in the Marines on active duty and in the reserves from 1952 until his retirement as a colonel in 1990. He volunteered for service in Vietnam and was a First Marine Regiment intelligence officer in 1966 and 1967.

You'd think after the beating he's taken over the cut and run statements, Murtha would want to keep this issue from causing even more damage.

Of course, his medals could very well be legit. Rep Murtha, why not end the speculation by releasing your complete military record? All it takes is one simple form - after you get done, you can give lessons to John Kerry...

Update (12:15 PM EST): Ya gotta admit the folks at CNS know how to stir the pot - now they have the Washington Post on their trail - duck, guys! The WaPo quotes Nancy Pelosi, who predictably and breathlessly says:

"The Swift Boat-like attacks on an American hero, Congressman Jack Murtha, are despicable and have no place in politics."

Since we all know the Swift Boat crowd was never effectively disputed, Nancy must be telling us the CNS story is true. Although her contention that truth is despicable and has no place in politics is a little over the top...

Update 2 (1:19 PM EST): Ed Morrissey throws down on CNS' story:

If someone wants to attack John Murtha's policy statements, there's ample room for criticism there. If people have issues with his defeatism, then they should specifically call Murtha out for that. Let's not get into denigrating a former Marine's commendations when he has not abused them himself for political purposes, especially when he has such a long record of honorable military service.

As I said in the comments - Murtha has made his own bed politically by his statements made in this century. There's no need to go back fifty years for irrelevant stuff.

Also, here's Murtha's response, from of all places, the Huffington Post (thanks, Cap'n Ed):

"Questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, which is that our brave men and women in uniform are dying and being injured every day in the middle of a civil war that can be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves."

"I volunteered for a year's duty in Vietnam. I was out in the field almost every single day. We took heavy casualties in my regiment the year that I was there. In my fitness reports, I was rated No. 1. My record is clear."

Update 3 (2:00 PM EST): Greyhawk weighs in as well:

Let me be clear: attacks on Murtha's Vietnam record are pointless. Murtha's latest statements against the success of US troops in Iraq speak for themselves; his current behavior renders his past insignificant. Democrats, grown tired of waiting for an attack on Murtha's war record from the Right, have created their own. He's painted as a victim now - of "right wing chickenhawk" contempt for real war heroes. But those serious about standing up to the current John Murtha would be well advised to let his fellow Democrats and the mainstream media keep this war "unilateral".

From Howard Dean on today's CNN’s Late Edition via press release:

“There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money and we’ve looked through all of the F.E.C. reports to make sure that’s true…I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people, and now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.”

Why then, Howie, are they all scrambling to give all the tainted money away?

Of course I've been following the story - Michelle Malkin, as usual, has been an invaluable addition to the news feeds and television reporting. I've stayed out of posting on it, with the exception of this about the reason for the sudden urgency at the New York Times.

It's not that I'm disinterested. Far from it. But I'm not a lawyer, or a constitutional scholar. I'm just a humble teacher. And the conversation very quickly centered on the legal aspects of the issue, and little else. So I've held back.

Now, the talking heads are starting to repeat themselves, and the media is turning to the more emotional aspects of the story. Case in point, Barbara Boxer's inquiry of legal scholars about whether the President has committed an impeachable offense:

"On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today."

"...Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible."

I'm not going to fisk this, even though she deserves it. Others will no doubt do so. No, I only quoted Sen. Boxer to illustrate the tone that I expect to spead over the next few weeks as the Dems take up their limp, non-violent swords over this, the latest battle cry from the BDS afflicted. Maybe I'll dismantle it later. Right now, I'm writing this to express my view.

It's mentioned frequently by politicians and pundits that we live in a nation of laws. Although it's stupid of them to repeat this so much (most other nations have laws too), it's also true. Laws represent boundaries - much the same as the fence that many of you had to restrict your movements as a toddler, or the edge of your yard (along with your Mother's voice) if you had no fence.

It appears from the discussions on the talking head circuit that there are indeed some gray areas here. If the President exploits those gray areas to further the mission of national security, I'm for it.

As the President of the United States, I expect George Bush to respect and follow our laws. But as the man responsible for protecting our country (which includes my family), I expect him to be bold enough to test the absolute limits of those laws. Bush gets no award for being a shrinking violet in my view. I expect him to walk all the way to the edge of the yard, not slow down or stop when 5 or 10 feet away. If there are gray areas, I expect him to occasionally stick his toes over that gray area - if it saves American lives, it's worth the risk.

Actually, I don't expect it. I demand it. There's just too much at stake.

As for the gray areas - If the laws weren't sufficiently clear, the President doesn't deserve impeachment for testing them. Rather than arbitrarily draw a fresh line where politicians and scholars alike couldn't agree on before, then apply it to the President after the fact, Congress needs to take a look at the ambiguity of it's own product. And take corrective action.

And as for those who have known about this for months, took no action, and now express shock over the President's "illegal" actions (like Reid, Rockefeller, Pelosi, etc.)- I'm sure there's a legal term for someone who witnesses a "crime" and does nothing (which would have continued had their inaction not been exposed). If they want to press the issue, I hope someone makes room for them in the hearing schedule. At the low altitude table.

Via AP/Yahoo:

"This Congress has done very little oversight," Reid, D-Nev., said on "Fox News Sunday." "There should be an investigation and hearings."

Reid acknowledged that he was briefed by the administration about the surveillance program "a couple of months ago."

Of course, when he learned about this a couple of months ago, he asked for hearings then. Didn't he?

Two weeks ago, I posted about Sen. Dorgan's dirty hands in the Abramoff scandal and how it affects his role in the investigation. Here's the latest via AP

Sen. Dorgan Returns Tribes' Donations

WASHINGTON - The top Democrat on the Senate committee investigating Jack Abramoff's Indian lobbying is returning $67,000 in donations in response to Associated Press reports that he collected tribal money around the time he took actions favorable to those of Abramoff clients.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., said Tuesday that while he never met Abramoff and didn't take any actions at the lobbyist's behest, he nonetheless wants to return the money to avoid any appearance that tribal money was directed to him by the controversial lobbyist.

"Even though those contributions were legal and fully reported as required by law, I will not knowingly keep even one dollar in contributions if there is even a remote possibility that they could have been the result of any action Mr. Abramoff might have taken," the senator said.

A question for Sen. Dorgan - if all the other politicians give their donations back, does that give them a pass in your investigation? After all, what's good for the goose...

Via AP/Yahoo:

DETROIT - A former associate in trial attorney Geoffrey Fieger's firm said Friday that he and his wife each gave $2,000 to Democrat John Edwards' 2004 presidential campaign on the promise that they would be reimbursed by the firm.

Fieger is a regular on Fox News - mostly on Greta's On The Record. He's famous for something else, though:

Fieger, best known for defending assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian, is running for Michigan attorney general. On Wednesday, FBI and IRS agents raided his offices in suburban Detroit, taking payroll and other financial documents, as well as ticket stubs for an Edwards fund-raiser and other campaign materials.

Now do keep in mind that this is still in the investigative stage - but it doesn't look good for Fieger so far:

Fourteen people listing Fieger's firm as their employer gave money to candidates in the 2004 presidential election. All of them gave to Edwards, according to a search of Political Money Line, a nonpartisan campaign finance tracking system. All of them — including a building manager and a courier supervisor — gave $2,000, the maximum individual contribution allowed in that campaign under federal law.

That's a whole office full of coincidence, isn't it? Probably what attracted them all was Edwards stance on campaign finance reform. Oh, and as a bonus, here's a quote from Geoffrey's statement announcing his current run for attorney general (all caps his idea, not mine):

THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE DESERVE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO CAN’T BE BOUGHT AND WHO IS NOT FOR SALE TO CORPORATE MONEY OR CRONYISM.

But being bought or sold by other Democrats - that's different, right?

disenfranchise:

Via AP/Yahoo:

Illinois Lawmaker Convicted of Fraud

CHICAGO - A state lawmaker who didn't live in the district she represents was found guilty of using fake addresses on re-election paperwork and voter registration cards, and must resign.

Rep. Patricia Bailey was found guilty Tuesday of election fraud and perjury after a one-day trial.

"You never had a heat, electric, a telephone, a cable bill," Cook County Judge Diane Gordon-Cannon told the Chicago Democrat. "You never lived for 30 minutes inside your district."

Bailey, 52, first elected in 2002, faces up to five years in prison when sentenced Dec. 21. She wouldn't comment as she left the courtroom.

State law requires her to give up her 6th District House seat on Chicago's South Side, but prosecutors were working to determine whether she had to do so immediately or could wait until she was sentenced.

Bailey also will have to leave her job as a Cook County probation officer. She will be ineligible to hold a government job for five years after her sentence is completed.

Bailey testified that she had been a victim of identity theft and repeated miscommunication about her residence, saying she had intended to move to an address she provided to the state when she filed for re-election.

Robert Sawicki, an assistant executive director of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, outlined six voter registration documents with various addresses Bailey had filed — some just a few days apart — since she first registered to vote in 1995.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan called Bailey's actions "a serious breach of the public trust" and said those who "voted for or considered voting for Ms. Bailey believed that she lived in the 6th District. The fact that she did not is unethical and illegal."

When you fraudulently run for office, and legitimate candidates are pushed aside due to that fraud, you have disenfranchised each and every voter. Period.

In a sudden fit of balance, AP gives us some interesting reporting on the Abramoff Scandal:

Abramoff Tied to Dorgan Donation, Tribe Says

WASHINGTON - New evidence is emerging that the top Democrat on the Senate committee currently investigating Jack Abramoff got political money arranged by the lobbyist back in 2002 shortly after the lawmaker took action favorable to Abramoff's tribal clients.

A lawyer for the Louisiana Coushatta Indians told The Associated Press that Abramoff instructed the tribe to send $5,000 to Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record)'s political group just three weeks after the North Dakota Democrat urged fellow senators to fund a tribal school program Abramoff's clients wanted to use.

The check was one of about five dozen the Coushattas listed in a tribal ledger as being issued on March 6, 2002, to various lawmakers' campaigns and political causes at the instruction of Abramoff, tribal attorney Jimmy Fairchild said Monday.

Many of the recipients were lawmakers who had just written letters to the Bush administration or Congress supportive of Abramoff's tribal causes, documents show.

In Dorgan's case, at issue is $20,000 in donations recieved from tribes represented by Abramoff and the appearance that it was payment for a letter he wrote to the President supporting a tribal school program.

Previously, reporting in this has been focused primarily on Republicans, and the left has made numerous statements about the Republican's involvement while turning a blind eye to their own members caught up in the scandal. As the reporting has shifted toward something more balanced, the left, particularly the DNC, has adopted silence. Considering the aggressiveness of the DNC attacks at the outset of the story, I can't help but surmise that the DNC was blind-sided by the media on this, having been able to depend on the MSM's portward tilt in the past for cover.

In my previous posts, I've commented on the problematic nature of this particular scandal for the Democrats. After all, how can you deride the Republican "culture of corruption" when Harry Reid, Byron Dorgan, Mary Landrieu, and others are part of the same club? Defending their own is equally difficult when by default, they defend Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Roy Blunt and the rest. Not that Dorgan doesn't try, albeit weakly:

Dorgan's staff said Dorgan believes the letter was drafted by Sen. Conrad Burns (news, bio, voting record), R-Mont., who also signed it and got similar donations from Abramoff's clients in the same time frame.

Considering the treatment Republicans received from the DNC over this, I find it curious that Senator Dorgan would use the "he did it, too!" defence.

So far, everyone involved is saying the same thing:

"The suggestion in the story that I may have supported that school construction program because of Jack Abramoff or because of campaign contributions from Indian tribes is clearly and despicably wrong," Dorgan said.

But Dorgan's position as ranking Democrat on the committee charged with investigating the scandal adds another dimension to the story. He denies that it affects his duties, though:

Dorgan's spokesman, Barry E. Piatt, said he believed his boss had pursued the congressional investigation of Abramoff aggressively.

Asked why that investigation hasn't focused more on donations to lawmakers who wrote letters favorable to Abramoff's clients, Piatt said, "They're investigating what appears to be massive fraud, and there's lots of ground to cover and it is still early."

Honestly, folks. If Chuck Grassley was on that committee, what would the Democratic reaction be? And they'd be right. Even if this all turns out to be just a tempest in a teapot, the appearance of suspects conducting their own investigations casts a pall over any resulting conclusions that can't be ignored.

The appearance of impropriety is unmistakable. Senator Dorgan should step aside from the investigation. And if anyone on the Indian Affairs Committee is implicated in the Abramoff scandal, they should join him.

On the other hand, staying on simply reinforces what we've known all along - Democrats are only interested in dealing with corruption when it occurs in someone else's party. And this time it appears that the press is noticing.

You should recall the story earlier this month about the IRS investigating Rev. George Regas and All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena about a sermon titled "What if Jesus were to debate John Kerry and George Bush?"

Now comes another allegation:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) today filed an Internal Revenue Services (IRS) complaint against Focus on the Family, a conservative, non-profit organization led by its founder and chairman James C. Dobson. The complaint asks for the IRS to investigate activities by the group which may violate IRS regulations and require a revocation of its tax-exempt status.

Although barred from electioneering, Dobson has endorsed candidates for political office several times. In early April, 2004, Dobson endorsed Republican Representative Patrick J. Toomey in his race for Senate in Pennsylvania. In addition, it was reported that Dobson actively campaigned during a rally for Rep. Toomey. Other candidates that Dobson reportedly endorsed in 2004 include North Carolina Republican candidate Pat Ballentine for Govenor and Oklahoma Republican candidate Tom Coburn for Senate.

"Mr. Dobson's egregious violations of IRS code demand an investigation into his improper activities that break both the spirit and the letter of IRS law," Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said today.

I don't think this will go very far. Endorsing a candidate as an individual is a far cry from making political speeches disguised as a sermon. But the real question is: Why did CREW make the complaint?

Recently, the IRS has actively pursued investigations against several perceived liberal groups. The IRS targeted the NAACP's chairman Julian Bond for a July 2004 speech in which he criticized the Bush administration's policies on civil rights and the war in Iraq. Additionally, the IRS has threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California because of an antiwar sermon there during the 2004 presidential election. In his sermon "If Jesus Debated Sen. Kerry and President Bush," the Rector Emeritus of the church, George Regas, never encouraged parishoners to vote for one candidate over another, but only to vote their deepest values.

Sloan continued, "The IRS has established a track record of scrutinizing organizations, in particular liberal ones, that have purportedly violated electioneering regulations. We hope that the IRS will fully investigate Focus on the Family activities as vigorously as it has targeted those of progressive organizations."

You know, my four year-old does the same thing.

Via AP/CNN:

SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty Monday to conspiracy and tax charges, admitting taking $2.4 million in bribes in a case that grew from an investigation into the sale of his home to a wide-ranging conspiracy involving payments in cash, vacations and antiques.

Yes, yes, it's terrible. And it's sad to see a Republican in this situation. However, as I've said before about others - if he's guilty, punish him and good riddance. We have too much trouble with bogus accusations to tolerate the real ones.

But that's not why I brought you here. In the same article, about 800 pixels down, is this:

House Ethics rules say that any lawmaker convicted of a felony no longer should vote or participate in committee work.

Should? Please think about that word "should" for a moment. It's okay, I'll wait.

Now - have we just stumbled on to a root problem here?

Update: Head House Moonbat invokes her favorite catchphrase. Is she starting to sound like a trained parrot, or what?

Cindy is now the Mistress of Monuments:

Yes, her fans have erected a monument to Cindy. Lots of folks, including me, have said the Dame of Despair needs a hobby to get her mind off all that hate and delusion. She's obviously not the only one:

The artist who carved the 1,200-pound monument, Ron Teska of Wind Ridge, Pa., drove to Crawford the last week of the protest with the stone slab in the back of his pickup. He spent about 45 hours carving it.

And what would be a day at Camp Moonbat without a few faux tears?

Cindy Sheehan, who staged a 26-day protest outside Bush's ranch in August, cried when she saw the 2-foot-high sandstone marker.

I think she should use it as a keychain fob.

and the ties to top politicians has yet to come to a head. The media, as I've covered here, and here, had been focusing almost exclusively on the Republicans involved. The Democratic Party has gleefully joined in the fray, with press releases and speeches decrying the "Culture of Corruption" on the right while ignoring their own members', most notably Harry Reid's, involvement.

This was a mistake for the Democrats, and I've said so previously:

Will the DNC still be able to maintain their own effrontery, brashly shouting "Culture of Corruption" at conservatives while ignoring the involvement of their own?

Seems to me that this isn't a scandal the Democrats would want to wecome so openly.

The media, I'm pleased to say, is actually starting to mention the Dems in it's coverage. And the DNC's brashness from last week has been replaced by deafening silence as everyone waits for the other shoe to drop.

Here's today's sample of the renewed interest in reporting over at AP (emphasis added):

The lawmakers hailed from both parties, including House Appropriations subcommittee Chairman Charles Taylor, R-N.C., and Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record) of North Dakota, the top Democrat on the Senate committee currently investigating Abramoff.

Seems to me someone needs to recuse himself. The casinos weren't the only lobbying drive by Abramoff. The above example concerns possible quid pro quo for supporting a native American school program:

Most wrote letters that pressed a reluctant Bush administration to renew a program that provided tribes federal money for building schools. Others worked the congressional budget process to ensure it happened, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

And most received donations, ranging from $1,000 to more than $74,000, in the weeks just before or after their intervention. One used Abramoff's restaurant for a fund-raiser a month after a letter.

As a group, they collected more than $440,000 from Abramoff, his firm or his tribal clients between 2001 and 2004, when Abramoff represented the tribes.

Everyone involved has said the donations were just a coincidence:

Lawmakers said their letters had nothing to do with Abramoff and instead were prompted by their desire to keep the government's Indian school building program alive so tribes in their own states might one day benefit. The timing of donations, they said, were a coincidence.

"It really had nothing to do with Jack Abramoff. Senator Dorgan had a personal interest in the program and how it benefits tribes at large and the three affiliated tribes in his state," Dorgan chief of staff Bernie Toon said, echoing comments from many lawmakers.

Now, I'm not feeling disposed to either insularism or guilelessness about this. This kind of thing has been happening since the first politician. And I have zero confidence that it will ever be stopped. There will always be innovators using the loopholes and abiguities of the system in new ways. But insofar as there lurks even the slightest appearance of out and out bribery, this needs to be fully investigated and the appropriate sanctions/prosecutions should be applied.

This is going to continue to pose a pretty problem for the Democrats. Wanting to position themselves as the party of renewed ethics (snicker) prior to mid-term elections, they're going to have a very difficult time distinguishing themselves from the GOP while this current scandal plays out. And if they defend the actions of Reid, Dorgan, and the others, by default they'll be defending the GOP as well.

Strange, though, how the left is suddenly silent about this...

The DNC continues the attacks on Republicans over the Abramoff scandal:

Two of Jack Abramoff's Closest Friends Reunited In Chicago

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Just days after media reports that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Illinois Republican Dennis Hastert, is caught up in one of the worst pay-to-play scandals to ever rock the nation's capital, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman is swooping in to Chicago tonight to raise more special interest money for Hastert. The Associated Press reported last week that Hastert helped indicted Republican super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients after receiving about $103,500 from Abramoff, his lobbying partners and tribal clients between 2001 and 2004. (Associated Press, 11/17/05)

Special interest money, eh? Like what Sen. Mary Landrieu got from the same source?

Democratic National Committee Spokesman Damien LaVera called on Mehlman and Hastert to return Abramoff's money and join Democrats fighting the culture of corruption that Republicans have brought to Washington:

"Instead of going to Chicago to raise even more special interest money for Speaker Hastert, Ken Mehlman ought to be Washington trying to figure out how to return all the money Jack Abramoff raised for President Bush and encouraging Republicans in Washington to end the culture of corruption they have fostered," said LaVera.

Odd that LaVera and the DNC, obviously concerned about corruption, aren't calling for Harry Reid to return the money he got from Abramoff's tribal clients as well. I guess they didn't hear about it yet.

Yesterday, I posted about the DNC's attacks on Republicans with potential ties to the Abramoff scandal. In concert with the DNC's theme of ignoring the elephant in the living room, the New Yok Times covers the story today:

Corruption Inquiry Threatens to Ensnare Lawmakers

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 - The Justice Department has signaled for the first time in recent weeks that prominent members of Congress could be swept up in the corruption investigation of Jack Abramoff, the former Republican superlobbyist who diverted some of his tens of millions of dollars in fees to provide lavish travel, meals and campaign contributions to the lawmakers whose help he needed most.

The investigation by a federal grand jury, which began more than a year ago, has created alarm on Capitol Hill, especially with the announcement Friday of criminal charges against Michael Scanlon, Mr. Abramoff's former lobbying partner and a former top House aide to Representative Tom DeLay.

The article weighs in at 1254 words, but not one of them is "Reid" or "Landrieu" or "Breaux". In fact, Democrats aren't mentioned anywhere in the article save for this one vague hint:

Scholars who specialize in the history and operations of Congress say that given the brazenness of Mr. Abramoff's lobbying efforts, as measured by the huge fees he charged clients and the extravagant gifts he showered on friends on Capitol Hill, almost all of them Republicans, the investigation could end up costing several lawmakers their careers, if not their freedom.

One really has to wonder - if the worst actually happens and all of the players are indicted, will the NYT acknowlege Harry Reid in its coverage? Will the DNC still be able to maintain their own effrontery, brashly shouting "Culture of Corruption" at conservatives while ignoring the involvement of their own?

Seems to me that this isn't a scandal the Democrats would want to wecome so openly.

Update: Here's another from the NYT today with no mention of Democrats involved (emphasis added):

What may be equally troubling for Republicans is the filing on Friday of a criminal conspiracy charge against a former senior Republican House aide, Michael Scanlon. Mr. Scanlon was once a spokesman for Mr. DeLay and was a partner of Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who is the subject of a federal investigation and had close ties to some House Republicans. The charges hint at potential legal exposure for lawmakers who were wined and dined by the two, adding to Republican ethics cases.

May only be getting worse. After the fire he took last week when he advocated surrendering Iraq to Al-Zarqawi (something even Al-Zarqawi's family wouldn't do), now he may be facing an ethics probe:

Republican lawmakers say that ties between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother’s lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee.

I think the timing isn't good on this, as the left will surely paint it as retribution no matter how valid the reasons for the probe. Considering the cries of "corruption" from the left every time a Republican sneezes and the bloodlust displayed in pursuit of Plamegate, Delay, Frist, etc., it's certainly a cynical paint job, though - a point that hopefully won't be missed by the public.

Even if the ethics allegations are true, it's no more than a pimple on the butt of the damage Murtha's already inflicted on himself.

Check out the rest of the story at NeoCon Central.

Howard Dean, responding to the Murtha controversy, sent a letter to Democrats yesterday defending the former Marine. What's in it is fairly ordinary for this type of communication from Dean, lots and lots of mud-slinging against the Republicans. What's notable is what he doesn't include - there's not a word about what the fuss was really all about. Here's Dean's masterpiece of illusion in its entirety:

Dear Friend,

I want to tell you about John Murtha. He's a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania. He's also a combat veteran and retired Marine Corps colonel.

Murtha spent 37 years in Marine Corps, earned the Bronze Star, two purple hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. And for the last thirty years he's been one of the most respected voices in Congress on military issues -- universally respected by Democrats, Republicans and military brass alike.

Until now.

Republicans have disgraced themselves by viciously attacking John Murtha with such disrespect that not only veterans, but every decent American should be angry.

What did Murtha, a decorated combat veteran, do to draw fire from a White House led by a president and vice president who evaded service in Vietnam? He questioned their management of the war in Iraq. Here's part of what he had to say:

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. ...

"For two and a half years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. ...

"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

Shameless Republicans immediately went on the attack. Dick Cheney, who has said that he had "other priorities" and collected 5 deferments while people like Murtha served in Vietnam, called Murtha's comments "irresponsible" and regretted that "the president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone." The White House spokesman, who has also never worn the uniform, pronounced himself "baffled" that Murtha, who volunteered for two wars, wanted to "surrender to the terrorists". A Republican Congressman said Murtha and others "basically are giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

Shame on them. Every one of us -- right now -- needs to let Jack Murtha know that we respect his service, respect his leadership, and respect his right to speak the truth. This man has spent his life serving us. The very least each one of us can do is let him know that no matter what dishonorable smear campaign Republicans wage we will be there with him.

Send Congressman Murtha a note telling him that you will not be silent while he is attacked:

http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem

I will deliver your message to him personally, along with my own thanks for his service to our country and his continuing courage in the face of threats.

Lies and manipulation characterized the Republican case for war, and lies and manipulation have been the primary weapon against anyone who questions their failed leadership.

First it was Senator Max Cleland, who left limbs in Vietnam, being savagely attacked in 2002. Then John Kerry, who received three purple hearts, being smeared in 2004. The history of this war has shown that Republicans value political posturing more than the service of America's veterans.

Republicans don't want a serious debate about Iraq because they know the American people are simply not with them. They cannot respond to the substance of Murtha's criticism -- or any criticism -- because they are wrong.

Jack Murtha is already fighting back. When told of Cheney's comments he reminded people where Cheney was while he was in Vietnam: "I like guys who got five deferments and have never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

But Jack can't beat this back alone. Show him that Americans know that Republicans should be ashamed of themselves:

http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem

Enough is enough -- we cannot allow another veteran to be smeared by George Bush's cronies.

Thank you for taking a stand.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

What he fails to pass on to the rank and file is the part of Murtha's statement that got everyone riled up - the part about immediate withdrawal:

"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target," said Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats.

"To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."

"I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy."

Not everyone follows the news as closely as the average blogger, and I'm sure that many Democrats had not heard the whole of Murtha's statement, if any of it at all. Obviously Dean was trying to capitalize on it by omitting key facts which would have revealed the true nature of Murtha's "Cut and Run" message.

All this from Howie, who in the letter says:

Lies and manipulation characterized the Republican case for war, and lies and manipulation have been the primary weapon against anyone who questions their failed leadership.

Yet it's Howie using lies and manipulation to sway the voting public once again.

Well, the Femme of Felonious Fake Fatality didn't go to the big house:

They were each ordered to pay $75 in fines and court costs, but Sheehan's lawyer said he plans to appeal the verdict.

No word yet on whether she paid the fine. If she did pay it, doesn't that take away any moral standing to utter the word "liar" about others?

"We weren't demonstrating," Sheehan told reporters after the trial.

Snort. Chuckle. At least U.S. District Magistrate Judge Alan Kay saw right through that crap:

"They were consciously violating the law for publicizing their case," Kay said.

And since the Debutante of Derision loves the limelight so much, she's taking her show on the road again. This time, in Europe!

Hundreds of potential witticisms are swirling around in my head. But this one kinda writes itself.

Here's a press release from yesterday:

Ten-Point Plan For Democrats to Negate 'No Message' Urged by Democratic Strategist Robert Weiner

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Democratic Strategist Robert Weiner, a former Clinton White House public affairs director, has urged Democrats to negate constant criticisms of "no message" with an "Urgent Ten-Point Plan" framing the issues the Party has been stating.

Odd that the Democratic party didn't issue the press release. I guess Weiner's doing a little pro bono work.

Says Weiner: "Democrats do have a clear message -— they have just not stated it in understandable terms. But it can be something like an 'Urgent Ten-Point Plan'

Personally, I think the Democrat's message has been as clear as it's ever been. Let's see what Mr. Weiner's "Urgent Ten-Point Plan" entails:

-- Build International support and funding for a democratic Iraq, unlike the current 90 percent U.S.-funded effort;

Back during the 2004 election, non-coalition governments were adamant that their desire not to participate would remain unchanged if Kerry was elected. Who does Weiner think is gonna chip in - France?

-- Fight al Qaeda where they are rooted, and do not create additional fronts or bypass human rights standards for detainees;

We're already fighting them where they are. I wonder where Mr. Weiner thinks they are? And as we find more terrorists, we should create whatever new fronts necessary to defeat them. That's how you win, Mr. Weiner. And the detainees, as a matter of fact, are getting 5-star treatment compared to what they would give any of us.

-- Protect, don't destroy, Social Security and Medicare;

In other words, pretend there's no problem. Obstruct every attempt to even discuss a fix, much less take action. And whatever you do, don't entertain any ideas about empowering folks with their own future. If they have control over their own future, after all, then they won't need the Democrats.

-- Ensure rapid, competent domestic natural disaster and terror response;

Is he suggesting a change in the Democratic leadership in Louisianna? Granted, Brownie didn't do a good job, but he would have come out smelling like a rose if local governments had not made so many stupid mistakes.

-- Corral the Oil companies, quit subsidizing their obscene profits from high gas prices, and build more refineries as we institute energy independence;

Tax, tax, tax the oil companies. That'll show 'em. And gain independence from foreign oil by blocking any domestic exploration. Yup, good plan. A quick business lesson for Mr. Weiner - when you increase taxes on business, they charge more for their products to make up for it. The Democrat's "plan" for the oil companies will guarantee higher gas prices, disproportionately affecting lower-income folks. So much for being for "working Americans".

-- Nominate moderate Supreme Court appointees;

Clone Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Repeat. Rinse.

-- Balance the newly skyrocketing budget deficit and retool tax cuts to help average Americans;

Tax, tax, tax.

-- Restore the quality of jobs for American workers at home, and reduce foreign outsourcing;

Capitalism is a wonderful thing. As the economy continues to expand, and unemployment continues to decrease, wages and benefits will also increase as the employers have to compete for workers. And it all happens in spite of the government, not because of it. And by the way, if all the jobs are going overseas, then why is the unemployment rate still falling?

-- Promote Ethics in Government and end cronyism’s incompetence;

I suggest Ted Kennedy head up this important cause.

-- Provide honesty to Americans in reasons for any war, and reduce selective use of intelligence with a reminder that the Constitution begins "We the People", not "We with Top Secret Clearances."

Here's a list of folks with security clearances and what they had to say about the war way back when. Of course, now they are saying something different, and it's purely for political gain. Remember, it's "We the People", not "We, the polically opportunistic", or "We, the desparate for power".

If more of the same is all he has to offer, then why is this plan so urgent?

All in all, Mr. Weiner's advice doesn't break any new ground. There's no suggestion for the Dems to change course, just frame it differently for the press and the public. Since they've already been following this plan for several years now, we don't have to listen to the talking points. We can judge their plan by what they have done. And folks, it's not much. Unless you count obstructionism, whining, rewriting history, pandering to special interest groups with communist and socialist ties, and helping the dead to vote...

Update: Added link above. Sorry.

It's beyond spin and into the realm of delusional when you judge the seriousness of a crime by the potential punishment.

I heard the press conference on the radio while driving home from work. Fitzgerald seemed to have the press firmly at bay as they asked questions about matters he is required to keep confidential. On the Libby indictment, he was very articulate and sounded very confident of the charges. And well he should - that's his job. However, Libby also has a story to tell, and as this goes to trial we'll get more information. That is unless he gets a plea bargain.

Also, Fitzgerald was pretty clear that the current grand jury was to be dismissed. While he reserved the right to continue the investigation with other grand juries, it seems to me (as a non-lawyer) that he would have to re-cover considerable ground to do so. This alone tells me that it probably won't happen unless Fitzgerald gets something damning that he doesn't already have.

In the meantime, the left is has become even more delusional. Take for instance, Howard Dean's statement about the indictment (hat tip Polipundit):

"Beyond the evidence that the White House manipulated the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, a group of senior White House officials not only orchestrated efforts to smear a critic of the war, but worked to cover up this smear campaign. In so doing, they ignored the rule of law, endangering our national security and the brave men and women who dedicate their lives to protecting our nation's security. I. Lewis Libby was a part of this internal White House group."

Obviously the radio in my car is broken, else I would have heard at least some of what Howard did. Here's one from Nancy Pelosi:

"The criminal indictments of a top White House official mark a sad day for America and another chapter in the Republicans' culture of corruption. At the heart of these indictments was the effort by the Bush Administration to discredit critics of its Iraq policy with reckless disregard for national security and the public trust."

Two extra points to Nancy for working in the now ubiquitous "Culture of Corruption". Of course, whenever Nancy speaks, her buddy Harry Reid can't be far behind:

"This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president."

More disturbing are the comments from John Conyers. As many of you know, he's been lurking in the dark and dangerous halls of the Huffington Post:

"I believe it is imperative that Congress pursue these questions and determine how these charges fit into the entire web of deception, manipulation and obfuscation laid bare by the Downing Street Minutes and Treasongate. As a result, I have directed my staff to conduct a comprehensive investigation and review of the facts concerning not only alleged efforts to misuse the White House to out a CIA operative, but misinformation concerning the run up to the Iraq War, and all legal violations and breaches of trust by the Administration concerning the War."

I know "treasongate" is a popular term in moonbat circles nowadays, but a member of congress shouldn't be so cavalier about using the "T" word. It doesn't apply here. Conyers has been one of the nuttiest thoughout the Plame investigation, wanting to impeach Rove before anyone has determined whether any crime was actually committed. And this is the same Conyers who held a mock impeachment trial of the President earlier this year. If they had awards for the most reckless and delusional political attacks, Conyers would get my vote easily.

But back to Libby. If he did lie to the grand jury, well, that will come out, and he'll get his due. But the feverish and irresponsible treatment of this affair by the left and the media have caused damge to Libby and others that can't be reversed.

From AP/Yahoo:

Prosecutor Seeks DeLay Associates' E-Mails

AUSTIN, Texas - Three indicted associates of Republican U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay are being asked to hand over to a Texas prosecutor all their e-mails from 2002 in an investigation into an alleged campaign finance scheme.

Now remember, I'm not a lawyer, but... Isn't this the kind of basic investigation you do before you charge someone with a crime?

As if we don't have enough scandals already, there's this:

Noe indicted for laundering money to Bush campaign

Not good for us. I hope he really didn't do it, but if he did, send him to jail and good riddance. We're having enough problems with witch hunts and false accusations without having this added to the equation.

Via the Toledo Blade.

I wonder how long before someone on the left ties this to Bush and screeches, "Culture of Corruption?

Evidently, not long.

The liberal media can hardly contain their glee in anticipation of possible indictments in the Valerie Plame affair. For example, here's the front page of today's Philadelphia Daily News:

Don't these people have any dignity at all?

Via AFP/Yahoo:

Senator urges Bush to fire any aide indicted in CIA leak probe

Excerpts from the article:

"I write to encourage you to swiftly and strongly clarify that anyone who is indicted in the ongoing CIA leak investigation will be removed from the White House immediately and until the case is resolved," the New York Democrat wrote in a letter to the president Tuesday.

Independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is nearing the end a nearly two-year long investigation into the leak, and rumors have swirled that among those who might face charges are senior White House Bush advisors Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

With indictments possible at any moment, "it is important that you make this clear ... that your standard will not shift depending on the status of the individual(s) indicted -- whether it is a low-level assistant or the most trusted and high-ranking aide," Schumer wrote.

"Anyone indicted, and thus found likely to have violated the law on a national security issue, should be treated the same and removed from the White House staff."

Chuck and his Democratic contemporaries have had a lot of fun parsing the President's statements on this topic. If the speculation is true and the only indictments issued are for perjury or obstruction (in other words, no indictments for leaks or outings), then no national security issue is involved. Will Chuck stop asking for firings? I bet no. Will anyone in the media call him out on it? Again, I bet no.

Also, It's really become an upside down world when Chuck Schumer writes this to the President:

"Recent press stories have contained some troubling statements from anonymous 'White House allies' attempting to discredit Mr Fitzgerald personally, perhaps in anticipation of coming indictments," Schumer wrote, praising Fitzgerald as "an apolitical 'prosecutors prosecutor,' and beyond reproach."

"I urge you to call on your alleged 'allies' to refrain from attacking either Mr Fitzgerald or his decision, whatever it is."

There's still a chance (albeit small) that Fitzgerald will not indict anyone. If that happens, will Schumer continue to be so kind?

The "collective" is swarming over Kay Bailey Huchison's remarks yesterday on Meet the Press. Some examples from the left-wing blogs:

Kos: "This Sunday we got a preview of the GOP post-Fitzmas spin -- that perjury isn't a crime."

Atrios: "Republicans to Americans: It's Okay to Lie Under Oath in a Criminal Investigation!"

John in DC: "Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has a soft spot in her heart for traitors."

Democratic Underground: "Bat Boy Spotted in DU Comment Area!"

Several on Huffington Post:

Alec Baldwin: "Why are contemporary Republicans so full of shit?"

Trey Ellis: "It’s Only a “Technicality” in a Culture of Corruption"

Robert Schlesinger: "Hutchison didn’t always feel this way."

Interestingly, some right wing blogs have joined the fray. Examples follow:

Michelle Malkin: "...I found Hutchison's pooh-poohing more than a bit disturbing."

BullDogPundit: "A Memo To Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison: Please Shut Up"

John Hawkins: "That is not the sort of behavior Republicans should engage in..."

It bothers me a little to see some of the critisism from the right side. I don't think Sen Hutchison was saying that perjury or obstruction should not be prosecuted. I'm not even sure that she was attacking Fitzgerald directly as some have indicated, although I think she could have been clearer with her remarks.

Controversy over those two issues aside, I do agree with her remarks in general. The left would love to have an indictment on the "outing" of Plame. Given only perjury, they will try to make the charge just as serious in their attacks anyway by dragging in peripheral issues. To them, this is about a wider issue on the war itself, and they will use any straw they can grab.

Look for Sen Hutchison and others who understand this to try and deny them that straw. Yes, perjury should be prosecuted. But put it in perspective. If there was no "outing" of a CIA agent, then perjury should stand alone without any attachment to peripheral issues. That is, unless the left goes unchallenged when they suggest otherwise.

The administration gets a black eye either way. This is about how long it will take to heal.

Perhaps I'm just being hopeful to interpret her remarks this way. Hopefully she'll find an opportunity to clarify her remarks.

From AP/Yahoo:

Hearing Set for DeLay Judge Request

C. W. Duncan, a former state district judge, will hold a hearing Nov. 1 on DeLay's request that Perkins leave the case because he has contributed money to candidates and Democratic causes that oppose DeLay.

And not a moment too soon. The bogus nature of the charges not withstanding, time is a real issue for DeLay.

Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.

"Suggest"? "Appear to differ"? The NYT is normally not cautious or shy when it comes to throwing negatives at this administration. Sounds like the NYT is taking some interpretive license here, and I "suggest" not getting wrapped around the axle on this unless something more substantial comes out.

Also, note that there's no suggestion that Cheney directed Libby to do anything with the information. I don't think the Times would have passed up on even a vague hint in that area.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Howard Dean was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week, and the DNC made a press release from it:

Excerpts of Democratic National Committee Chairman Dean on 'This Week'

Quoting excerpts wouldn't do this justice. Go read the entire moonbatty thing.

This deserves a brutally thorough fisking, but I'm too tired to do it right now. Screamin' Dean manages to sqeeze more dishonesty and hatred into five minutes than most moonbats can in a year. I just wish the mainstream media would give stuff like this the scrutiny it deserves. If the left was subjected to just one or two day's worth of what the right has to endure from the MSM, they would find themselves so unpopular that no amount of dead voters would be enough to get them elected.

Via PoliPundit.

I've been spending way too much time reading, watching and listening about the Plame affair. It's starting to swirl around in my head, all of the speculation, innuendo, bickering between the pundits, and the wholesale concocting of wild, implausible theories all based on leaks and rumors, some obscure, nonsensical, or meaningless. So tonight I'm going to take a break and watch a movie.

Since this is for comfort, I won't risk a new film that may disappoint. Instead, I'm going to watch an old favorite: Murder By Death.

It's nearly 30 years old, but has held up well. A spoof of mystery books and movies based on a Neil Simon play, Murder By Death is about a group of the brightest detectives invited to solve a mystery. They are presented with meaningless, nonsensical and obscure clues, rumors, and innuendo, bicker amongst themselves about who's right on every minor point, accuse each other of vile things, and each concocts wild implausible theories about the crime. In the end, none actually solve the crime, and each is thoroughly discredited. The punch line is that the crime never really happened in spite of all the clues.

Hmm, escape time. Now if you'll excuse me...

It really was a very smart move. Tom DeLay posed for his mug shot sporting a big smile in hopes that the Democrats wouldn't be able to use it in ads.

Some folks simply won't settle for the truth, though. The folks at Cafe Press have decided to abandon good taste in order to lure dollars from the "reality based community".

I won't put the disgusting and slanderous image here. If you really want to see it, go follow the link.

Via JunkYardBlog, one of my favorites!

With the publishing of the latest on the Plame story, the NYT has brought me to this conclusion an the whole affair:

Nobody outside of Fitzgerald and his staff has a clue.

The stories released yesterday were almost universally regarded as raising more questions than they answered. And the blogs were all over the map:

John at Power Line thinks that "In general, Miller's story seems to exonerate "Scooter" Libby".
Hunter at Daily Kos says the Times article "seriously damages Libby", and Judy's article "utterly destroys him"
Arianna is dissapointed as well: "I can safely say that not since Geraldo cracked open Al Capone’s vault has there been a bigger anticlimax or a bigger sham."

What's agreed to by all is that Judy's story is woefully inadequate since it doesn't answer the questions that really matter - was a crime committed, and if so, by whom?

At least we can hope that this will wind up soon, but I'm not optimistic. Fitzgerald will either issue one or more indictments or none at all. Either way, the only beneficiary from this whole mess is the Democratic Party.

If he issues indictments, we'll all have to wait for the trial for the answers. Unless there's a deal, in which case we may get no answers at all. Either way, Democrats use as campaign ammo (and perhaps rightly so). If not, then they'll use anyway, since being accused is good enough to base a smear, as we've seen in the past. Do you think there are many Republicans in DC that haven't had their pictures taken with Libby or Rove? You'll be seeing those pics in the attack ads.

If he issues none, will we get a pamphlet or an encyclopedia for a report? I'll go on my gut and predict that it will be a pamphlet. And the Democrats will still use this as "exhibit C" in their "Culture of Corruption" smear campaign since there won't be much red meat for anyone to dispute them.

In either case, Judy's going to write a book, and others involved will as well. Do you think any of those will be objective?

The only possible silver lining will be that the press has made this issue so confusing and soap opera-like that it won't resonate with many voters.

Hey Kids! Have you heard the new jazz?

It's here. And here. And here. And here. It's called "Culture of Corruption". And it's coming to a speech, interview, or campaign ad near you.

Bonus quiz!! See how many times you can hear the phrase in this video!!!!

Seriously, though, I think this will be remembered as the first real volley of shots fired in the 2006 campaign. Expect lots of ads slinging this broad-stroke smear at every single republican. Even if Tom Delay and Bill Frist are cleared, it won't matter. Just as "innocent until proven guilty" has no meaning to Pelosi, Reid, and the moveon.org crowd now, "cleared" and "not guilty" will be equally meaningless in the future.

Ever watch the TV show "Cops"? So many of the bad guys are shirtless that it's become common to assume that someone without a shirt is up to no good.

The Democrats are are nothing if not predictable. Watch over the next year as they attempt to paint Frist, Delay, and by association, the entire Republican party as shirtless.

And lets pray that they fail.