I got home in time last night in time to catch some of Jim LehrerÂ’s interview with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I must say Condi was much better than in other recent interviews IÂ’ve seen. That incident in Sudan the other day seems to have built a fire under her. She appeared relaxed and ready to move forward. Gone was the tired expression and canned answers. She looked refreshed. Pretty good interview especially the subject of GWT. Look out Hillary this may be the first lady President of the USA. SheÂ’s got you beaten by a mile.

When are we going to stop making excuses for the terrorists and saying that somebody is making them do it? No, these are simply evil people who want to kill. And they want to kill in the name of a perverted ideology that really is not Islam, but they somehow want to claim that mantle to say that this is about some kind of grievance. This isn't about some kind of grievance. This is an effort to destroy, rather than to build.

I think IÂ’m in love. You go Condi. She even talks about the Bolton nomination and I detect that she is not Mr. BoltonÂ’s biggest supporter although she does give the polite answer considering her position. There's lots more at the above link.

Well, that's unfortunate and we -- what we can't be is without leadership at the United Nations. I can tell you, Jim, that I'm spending an awful lot of time these days preparing for the high-level meetings that are going to take place in September where all of the world's leaders are going to be here to talk about refreshing the United Nations after 60 years.
The United States needs to be active in that and we have a good team at the UN, but we need our permanent representative to the United Nations.

A quick review of Mr. BoltonÂ’s problems.

Although the split has largely been along party lines, one Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, has joined Democrats in opposing Bolton's nomination.

Ed at Captains Quarters has more.

IÂ’ve got to say IÂ’m with Captain Ed. While Bolton is the right type of person IÂ’m not sure he is the right person for this position. The perception of him is that he is a jerk. I would hate to see all CondiÂ’s hard work ruined by this guy. IÂ’m pretty sure the President will stick with him. So Mr. Bolton should withdraw himself. I donÂ’t think he can or will be productive in that position. For sure abroad people have a bad perception of him. We need a strong personality there but IÂ’m pretty sure he is not it. My party should not waste political capital on this, is a mistake. Mr. Bolton is a loose-loose for my party and for America. A recess appointment will get the President what he wants but will also enforce the bad perceptions that this Casey Jones run we are on created. Maybe Trade him for Roberts would be good. We also have to consider that appointing this guy on a recess appointment will make the Roberts nonination that much harder. Which is more important?

Hat tip Omnipundit:

Actually I started this in the am until events took over.

Posted by: Howie at 01:28 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 556 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, the biggest non-story today still seems to be the Roberts nomination. Although it seems that today even the big media outlets are running out of different ways to say the same thing. What it all boils down to is this:

1. We don't know anything about Roberts. Anything that has been pointed out is been in the context of cases which he has argued. This does not necessarily express his own personal opinions, simply the opinion he was hired to argue.

2. Senate Democrats are looking for ANYTHING that they can use to hold him up or stop him. My initial prediction was that they will try to hold him up for several years so they can screw Bush out of even one Supreme Court nomination. With all the attention that this has garnered, I don't think they'll be able to do that now. And I think they know that as well. For once in their miserable careers, it seems that the press may be working against the Democrats. Whether they want to or not, they are bringing EVERYTHING out in the open. If you remember, the first thing the deplorable Dems attempted was an attack on Roberts' wife for being part of a Christian organization (or some such nonsense), but with the negative attention that garnered almost immediately, that seems to have been dropped like a hot potato. And now the gasbag Kennedy is being all but ignored in his latest attack.

According to Kennedy, Roberts' commitment to civil rights may be questionable. Of course to bring up an accusation like that Kennedy must have evidence, right? Let's take a look.

Aides to Mr. Kennedy distributed documents from the Justice Department in the Reagan administration that show Mr. Roberts expressing criticism of an extension of the voting rights act, support for a court ruling narrowing the civil rights requirements on colleges, and doubts about a law to combat discrimination in housing.

Now I'm not familiar with the three instances stated above, but I do know that a lot of the laws that are written to help minorities tend to have the opposite effect. They keep minorities from being able to advance as they should and continue segregation whether intended or not. If those are the kinds of laws being referred to, then it's no wonder he argued against them. And even if they aren't, the things that he argued during his stint with the Regan administration reflect the views of the Regan administration and not necessarily Roberts' own views. Kennedy's attempt at using this to smear Roberts is weak at best and simply shows how desperate he is to find ANYTHING to disqualify Roberts simply because he is a Bush pick. Interestingly enough, the mainstream press seems to hold the same opinion, although they don't come right out and say it. The above story in the New York Times, which is amazingly non-partisan, and another small story on the AP wire that doesn't even go into as much detail as the NYT story are the only two that I find this morning to even mention it.

Of course Kennedy isn't the only despicable Dem attempting to hold back Roberts. According to the same NYT article, Boxer and Clinton are leading the cry to disqualify him because a) he's not a woman and b) he might take away their precious "right" to kill their children.

And of course the women aren't alone. Senator (traitor) Durbin had this to say:

WASHINGTON, July 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reported today in an LA Times op-ed that Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill) asked Judge John Roberts last week "what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral."

Which is just about the stupidest question I've EVER heard. Are you seriously trying to tell me that every judge on the bench agrees with every law on the books? Can you really say that with a straight face? If so, then why do we have dissenting opinions written on almost every decision put forth by the Supreme Court? Let me fill you in on a little secret, Durbin (and all the rest of you mamby-pamby liberals). Everyone believes something. Even if you don't have faith, you have a sense of right and wrong. And whether you want to admit it or not, all of your decisions are based on that sense of right and wrong. They HAVE to be. Where else would you get a base for making any sort of decision? By attempting to force me to accept things that go against my value system, such as abortion, you are doing the exact same thing that you are so afraid Christians are going to do to you. Do you know what the word for that is? Let's try hypocrite. That's right, you're a bunch of lying, sorry hypocrites.

And it seems that Durbin isn't alone in his thinking along these lines. According to GOPUSA, the call to ostracize Roberts for being a Catholic is going out from others as well.

Lynn Neary
National Public Radio
7-20-05
"And he is Roman Catholic, and that might affect the way he views an issue like abortion, for instance."

Barbara Walters
ABC Good Morning America
7-20-05
"John Roberts is a Roman Catholic. How important to him is his religion? Do you think it might affect him as a Supreme Court Justice?"

Miles O'Brien
CNN American Morning
7-20-05
"He's, by all accounts, a Roman Catholic who adheres to the tenets of that faith. Do you suspect that he will advocate, when the opportunity comes up, reversing some of the key aspects of Roe v Wade, which provide abortion rights in this country?"

I still don't know anything about Roberts except that judging from what little of his personal life I've been able to see he seems to be a good, faithful man who stands by his convictions. But the way things look now, I'm pretty sure he's going to get confirmed despite the smear and scare tactics of a few extremist liberals. And those same liberals are going to come out on the other side with egg on their face for even attempting their dirty tricks.

Posted by: Drew at 07:48 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1048 words, total size 6 kb.

I know this sounds like a skit from Saturday Night Live, but apparently, it's true. From the Associated Press:

NEW YORK -- Andrea Mitchell said she felt angry and humiliated after Sudanese bodyguards dragged her out of a room Thursday for questioning President Omar el-Bashir about his involvement in the country's violence.

Large, gun-toting guards painfully wrenched the 5-foot-3 Mitchell's arm behind her. She was freed after U.S. officials accompanying Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complained.

"Can you tell us why the violence is continuing?" Mitchell asked, as a Sudanese official said "no, no, no, please."

"Can you tell us why the government is supporting the militias?" she asked.

After getting no reply from el-Bashir, she asked, "Why should Americans believe your promises?"

It was then that she was forcibly removed.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 04:49 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

The announcement has been made that President Bush will reveal his nominee for the Supreme Court at 9pm EDT. My thought is that whoever is selected to go before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a thorough grilling has to be presently puckered, knowing full well that every single wart will be discussed and debated. It will be a professional and personal beating.

That is, except for one person, Dick Cheney. He's the only person that probably needs a couple weeks to unpucker from his recent, reported globally in 30 minutes, proctological exam. It seems that he would be a logical choice since he's been immunized to the personally penetrating process.

So, if President Bush desires to minimize pain in the confirmation process, he'll nominate Dick Cheney. And, what fun there would be.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 03:44 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Thought I would take a few minutes and open for discussion this item. It seems some in Iran are not taking the elections there lying down. Most people expect that since that election the minimal reforms and freedoms there will be reversed. LetÂ’s not forget that in their society speech can get you killed or imprisoned. Here we pretty much get to speak our minds. There dissent can be deadly.

"WASHINGTON - As Tehran University students clashed with police in Iran yesterday during demonstrations demanding the release of political prisoners, President Bush, from Washington, joined the growing movement calling for the release of dissident journalist Akbar Ganji."

Dr Demarche has a good post on the fact that not everyone enjoys the freedom to speak that we have. And it don't come cheap as earlier posts today show.

Also Pejman Yousefzadeh apparently an Iranian national who bloggs thanks President Bush for supporting Akbar Ganji.

For those of you out there who hate our President I ask you one thing. Do you really think the islamofacists would allow you to speak such things about the President of Iran should you find yourself there tomorrow? The fact that you can read my speech is a fairly recent development. Not too many years ago all of our speech would have been below the radar. Silenced by the powers that be to keep us in our place. Now it's as easy as clicking post.

Posted by: Howie at 12:05 PM | Comments (42) | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

Michelle Malkin is at it again with several good topics including my very own Senator DICK Durbin. Gee typing Dick instead of DICK didnÂ’t last long. Michelle has a good story on how left wing hackers used fraud, theft and hacking to attack Protest Warrior as well. And she has added even more this afternoon. Wow. Also itÂ’s quite a coincidence that just yesterday Mr. Durbin replied to my email.

The full text of Senator DurbinÂ’s reply is below my comments. I should have saved my initial email too.

Stop the Bush Bashing. Your efforts to help are a welcome contribution but the continuous Bush bashing works directly against the soldiers you speak so highly of. The war is going on right now and to continue to harp over the conditions in which it was started is counter productive. To support the troops you must also support the Commander in Chief. Work hard for the troops because the war over hearts and minds on the home front is just as important as the war on the ground. They need to know they have our support. The terrorists/baathists think “we the people” will give in. You assist them in that task by dragging up the same old talking points that have been going around and hurting home front morale for months now.

Well now that IÂ’ve done my ranting I would like to thank Mr. Durbin for his reply. IÂ’m nothing if not polite and I appreciate the reply even if I donÂ’t agree with most of it. Still no vote for you from me Mr. Durbin. But youÂ’re getting warmer on a couple points. Cooperation instead of confrontation might do it sir. At least he said he would keep my/our concerns in mind.

Click to read Senator Durbin's reply. My question was simply what was his take on Iraq and what should be do about it.
more...

Posted by: Howie at 04:36 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1233 words, total size 7 kb.