Not only will he bring us up to speed on the Alito hearings ,including an interview with Senator Orrin Hatch (R- UT), but he also has breaking news on the Barrett Report!
Stay tuned!
Good Morning!
Good morning, Snowflake! Tony has a great show lined up today!
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) will be on to talk with Tony about the Alito hearings and Tony has breaking news about the Barrett Report.
G'mornin!
Ya can't make this stuff up:
PAPER: Sen. Kennedy was member of all-male club
Wed Jan 11 2006 22:40:10 ET
Conservative activists are eager to point out that Sen Ted Kennedy was on shaky ground accusing the Judge Alito of associating with people opposed to the inclusion of women in private institutions, the WASHINGTON TIMES is fronting on Thursday.
The eight-term senator belonged to an all-male social club -- the Owl -- at Harvard University. The Owl refused to admit women until it was forced to do so during the 1980s, according to records kept by the HARVARD CRIMSON, the student newspaper.
A Kennedy spokeswoman said it was an entirely different matter.
"No one can question Senator Kennedy's commitment to equality, justice and civil rights," said Laura Capps. "What he was part of was a social club, not a radical group pushing a radical agenda."
Anyway, she said, even though women were admitted to the university during Mr. Kennedy's tenure, they weren't fully integrated to the campus until much later.
Developing...
| January 12, 2006
Your Name Is Safe
Read:
|
There's an old saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." It isn't true. Words can hurt us most of all.
In my case the hurtful word was "Skinny-bones," a name I was given in the 4th grade. I chuckle now when I think of it—no one would call me "Skinny-bones" these days. But back then the name wounded me. It became the way I thought of myself.
My father and mother, however, had the grace and wisdom to have given me another name, David—a name that means "beloved" in Hebrew. Despite the taunts I received on the schoolyard, I knew I was loved at home.
Perhaps you were one of those children whom people called names: "Dummy," "Idiot, "Fatso," or some other cruel epithet. Perhaps people still call you names or use your given name with contempt. I believe that God will one day give you a new name, a term of endearment known only by your heavenly Father and you (Revelation 2:17). His voice will convey tenderness, love, and acceptance. Your name is dear to Him.
As a little child once put it, "When someone loves you, the way they say your name is different. Your name is safe in their mouth."
You—and your name—are safe with God. —David Roper
Your name is precious to God.
Thought the old but funny humor below might help pass the time while we the for Tony. [I do not know if the woman was a blond or not, Save.]
Is the Fox feed working today?
Good Morning.
Whoopee, my feed is working and so is my computer...so far anyway. Good morning to all.
Back in the days when magnetic tape was used and commercials were recorded on magnetic tape cartridges, if someone didn't properly erase the previous contents, the playback would have a "woof, woof" under the new recording.
When the happened, we used to joke that the person who made the recording brought their dog Woof, Woof into the studio with them that day.
Barrett Report breaking news on Tony Snow this morning, varm!
Don't know if you have seen this, or whether Tony Has touched on it, but it is a major story not being reported. From Powerline:
Meanwhile, There's A War On
We noted here the mysteriously under-covered story of the three would-be terrorists who were arrested in Italy after vowing to launch an attack on America that would dwarf September 11. A reader sent us a link to this article, which has more:
The mainstream U.S. media outlets have failed to report a major terrorist plot against the U.S. - because it would tend to support President Bush's use of NSA domestic surveillance, according to media watchdog groups.
News of a planned attack masterminded by three Algerians operating out of Italy was widely reported outside the U.S., but went virtually unreported in the American media.
Italian authorities recently announced that they had used wiretaps to uncover the conspiracy to conduct a series of major attacks inside the U.S. Italian Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu said the planned attacks would have targeted stadiums, ships and railway stations, and the terrorists' goal, he said, was to exceed the devastation caused by 9/11.
Italian authorities stepped up their internal surveillance programs after July's terrorist bombings in London. Their domestic wiretaps picked up phone conversations by Algerian Yamine Bouhrama that discussed terrorist attacks in Italy and abroad.
Italian authorities arrested Bouhrama on November 15 and he remains in prison. Authorities later arrested two other men, Achour Rabah and Tartaq Sami, who are believed to be Bouhrama's chief aides in planning the attacks. The arrests were a major coup for Italian anti-terror forces, and the story was carried in most major newspapers from Europe to China.
"U.S. terror attacks foiled," read the headline in England's Sunday Times. In France, a headline from Agence France Presse proclaimed, "Three Algerians arrested in Italy over plot targeting U.S."
Curiously, what was deemed worthy of a worldwide media blitz abroad was virtually ignored by the U.S. media, and conservative media watchdog groups are saying that is no accident.
"My impression is that the major media want to use the NSA story to try and impeach the president," says Cliff Kincaid, editor of the Accuracy in Media Report published by the grassroots Accuracy in Media organization.
"If you remind people that terrorists actually are planning to kill us, that tends to support the case made by President Bush. They will ignore any issue that shows that this kind of [wiretapping] tactic can work in the war on terror."
The Associated Press version of the story did not disclose that the men planned to target the U.S. Nor did it report that the evidence against the suspects was gathered via a wiretapping surveillance operation.
Furthermore, only one American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, is known to have published the story that the AP distributed. It ran on page A-6 under the headline "Italy Charges 3 Algerians." The Inquirer report also made no mention of the plot to target the U.S. - although foreign publications included this information in the headlines and lead sentences of their stories. Nor did it advise readers that domestic wiretaps played a key role in nabbing the suspected terrorists.
One obvious question media critics are now raising: Did the American media intentionally ignore an important story because it didn't fit into their agenda of attacking President George Bush for using wiretapping to spy on potential terrorists in the U.S.?
"It's clear to me," says AIM's Kincaid, "that they're trying their best to make this NSA program to be an impeachable offense, saying it is directed at ordinary Americans. That's why they keep referring to this as a 'program of spying on Americans' - whereas the president keeps pointing out it's a program designed to uncover al-Qaida operations on American soil."
President Bush did a town hall-type appearance in Louisville, Kentucky today. He was unbelievably good, as was the audience. You can read it all here. Please, please do. Here are a few excerpts, but they can't begin to capture the sincerity and the compelling logic that President Bush put forward.
I vowed that we'd find those killers and bring them to justice. And that's what we're doing. We're on the hunt for an enemy that still lurks. I know, because I'm briefed on a daily basis about the threats that face the United States of America. And my duty is to assess this world the way it is, not the way we'd like it to be. And there's a danger that lurks -- and there's a danger that lurks because we face an enemy which cannot stand freedom. ***
And so we took action. We took action because the Taliban refused to expel al Qaeda. And we took action because when an American President says something, he better mean it. In order to be able to keep the peace, in order to be able to have credibility in this world, when we speak, we better mean what we say. And I meant what we said. And we sent some brave souls into Afghanistan to liberate that country from the Taliban. ***
You know, when I was growing up, or other baby boomers here were growing up, we felt safe because we had these vast oceans that could protect us from harm's way. September the 11th changed all that. And so I vowed that we would take threats seriously. If we saw a threat, we would take threats seriously before they fully materialized. And I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein.
I understand that the intelligence didn't turn out the way a lot of the world thought it would be. And that was disappointing, and we've done something about it. We've reformed our intelligence services. But Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of the United States. He was on the nations that sponsor terror list for a reason. I didn't put him on the list; previous Presidents put him on the list. And the reason why is because he was sponsoring terrorism. He was shooting at our airplanes. He had attacked his own people with chemical weapons. I mean, the guy was a threat. ***
We gave the opportunity to Saddam Hussein to open his country up. It was his choice. He chose war, and he got war. And he's not in power, and the world is better off for it. (Applause.)
[Things in Iraq] are good. I'm confident we'll succeed. And it's tough, though. The enemy has got one weapon -- I repeat to you -- and that's to shake our will. I just want to tell you, whether you agree with me, or not, they're not going to shake my will. We're doing the right thing. (Applause.)
You hear a lot of talk about troop levels. I'd just like to give you my thinking on troop levels. I know a lot of people want our troops to come home -- I do, too. But I don't want us to come home without achieving the victory. (Applause.) We owe that to the mothers and fathers and husbands and wives who have lost a loved one. That's what I feel. I feel strongly that we cannot let the sacrifice -- (applause) -- we can't let their sacrifice go in vain.
I told you I've got good confidence in these generals and the people who report to them. These are honest, honorable, decent, very capable, smart people, and they'll decide the troop levels. They hear from me: Victory. And I say to them: What do you need to achieve victory? (Applause.)
This is an ideological struggle, as far as I'm concerned, and you defeat an ideology of darkness with an ideology of light and hope. History has proven that democracies yield the peace. If you really look at some of the past struggles where -- in which the United States has been involved, the ultimate outcome, the final product, was peace based upon freedom. Europe is whole, free, and at peace because of democracy. ***
Q I'd like to ask, recently in the media, you've been catching a lot of flak about that National Security Agency thing.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q There's people in our states and there's people that are in D.C. that will take and jeopardize what I feel is our national security and our troops' safety today for partisan advantage, for political advantage. They're starting an investigation in the Justice Department about the -- looking into this, where these leaks came from. Is the Justice Department going to follow through and, if necessary, go after the media to take and get the answers and to shut these leaks up?
THE PRESIDENT: First let me talk about the issue you brought up -- and it's a very serious issue. I did say to the National -- it's called the NSA, National Security Agency, that they should protect America by taking the phone numbers of known al Qaeda and/or affiliates and find out why they're making phone calls into the United States, and vice versa. And I did so because the enemy still wants to hurt us. And it seems like to me that if somebody is talking to al Qaeda, we want to know why.
Now, I -- look, I understand people's concerns about government eavesdropping. And I share those concerns, as well. So obviously I had to make the difficult decision between balancing civil liberties and, on a limited basis -- and I mean limited basis -- try to find out the intention of the enemy. In order to safeguard the civil liberties of the people, we have this program full scrutinized on a regular basis. It's been authorized, reauthorized many times. We got lawyers looking at it from different branches of government.
We have briefed the leadership of the United States Congress, both Republican and Democrat, as well as the leaders of the intelligence committees, both Republicans and Democrats, about the nature of this program. We gave them a chance to express their disapproval or approval of a limited program taking known al Qaeda numbers -- numbers from known al Qaeda people -- and just trying to find out why the phone calls are being made.
I can understand concerns about this program. Before I went forward, I wanted to make sure I had all the legal authority necessary to make this decision as your President. We are a rule -- a country of law. We have a Constitution, which guides the sharing of power. And I take that -- I put that hand on the Bible, and I meant it when I said I'm going to uphold the Constitution. I also mean it when I'm going to protect the American people.
I have the right as the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war to take action necessary to protect the American people. And secondly, the Congress, in the authorization, basically said the President ought to -- in authorization of the use of troops -- ought to protect us. Well, one way to protect us is to understand the nature of the enemy. Part of being able to deal with this kind of enemy in a different kind of war is to understand why they're making decisions they're making inside our country.
There's a lot of investigation, you're right, in Washington -- which is okay. That's part of holding people to account in a democracy. But at one point in time the government got accused of not connecting the dots. You might remember that debate -- we didn't connect the dots. And all of a sudden, we start connecting the dots through the Patriot Act and the NSA decision, and we're being criticized. Now, you know, I got the message early: Why don't you connect dots? And we're going to. (Applause.) And we're going to safeguard the civil liberties of the people. That's what you've got to know. ***
I made a foreign policy decision in the Middle East that said, we can't tolerate the status quo any longer for the sake of inexpensive energy. In other words, there was a period of time when people said, let's just kind of deal with the situation as it is, sometimes tolerating strong men for a economic objective. I changed our foreign policy that said, that attitude of kind of accepting the things the way they are is going to lead to the conditions that will allow the enemy to continue to breed hatred and find suiciders and soldiers in their attempt to do harm.
What I'm telling you is, is that the part of the world where we've started this democracy initiative hasn't known democracy, except for in Israel and Lebanon. So to answer your question, it's going to be the spread of democracy, itself, that shows folks the importance of separation of church and state. And that is why the constitution written in Iraq is an important constitution, because it separates church for the first time in a modern day constitution in Iraq.
The Iraqi example is going to spread. I believe that -- one of the big issues in the Middle East is women's rights, the freedom of women, that they're not treated fairly. (Applause.) And, yet, when you're guaranteed rights under a constitution and people are able to see that life is improving, it will cause others to say, I want the same kind of right.
And I loved this question by a small business owner:
Q Hello, Mr. President. You just made a very poignant -- about math and science. I am a -- number one, I'd like to thank you for taking time to be here. I think all of us would reiterate that. I am a business owner and I am living the American Dream, and I would like to personally thank you for having a will that will not be broken. And the men and women of the armed forces that protect the freedoms that we have had and that we oftentimes take for granted and give us this way of life.
The question followed. And, finally:
How old are you?
Q Seven.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. That's good. (Laughter.)
Q How can people help on the war on terror?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's the hardest question I've had all day. (Laughter.)
First of all, I expect there to be an honest debate about Iraq, and welcome it. People can help, however, by making sure the tone of this debate is respectful and is mindful about what messages out of the country can do to the morale of our troops. (Applause.)
I fully expect in a democracy -- I expect and, frankly, welcome the voices of people saying, you know, Mr. President, you shouldn't have made that decision, or, you know, you should have done it a better way. I understand that. What I don't like is when somebody said, he lied. Or, they're in there for oil. Or they're doing it because of Israel. That's the kind of debate that basically says the mission and the sacrifice were based on false premise. It's one thing to have a philosophical difference -- and I can understand people being abhorrent about war. War is terrible. But one way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections, is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way, and the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an enemy.
So that was a good question. Thank you. (Applause.)
Let's see, yes, ma'am. I'm running out of time here. You're paying me a lot of money, and I've got to get back to work. (Laughter.)
Regular readers of this site know that we admire, above all others, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill. President Bush's reference to "victory" as the mandate he gives to his commanders recalls, intentionally, I am sure, Churchill's great speech upon becoming Prime Minister in May 1940--the speech in which he said, "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat." This, though, is the key passage from that speech:
You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
George W. Bush is Churchill's heir in our century.
UPDATE: Tom Joscelyn writes:
The three Algerians arrested in Italy were members of the GSPC, al Qaeda's Algerian affiliate. Thanks to Steve Hayes's reporting, we now know that large numbers of GSPC members - specifically - were trained in Iraq prior to the war. Coincidentally, the GSPC is now one of Europe's most major problems. Plots involving the GSPC have been uncovered in Spain, France, and Italy. Additional members have been arrested in Germany. You would think that European authorities would want to see the documents Steve is talking about.
Tom has an article coming out on this subject soon.
The reviews are in, and they’re not very flattering
Posted by: mcq
Or you could call this a case study on how not to procede if you wish to build popular sentiment toward dumping a Supreme Court nominee. Richard Cohen on Sen. Joe Biden:
The reviews for Biden's first crack at Samuel Alito, the humorless Supreme Court nominee, were murderous. The New York Times had Biden out on Page One — normally a position to kill for — only this time it was not a paean to his considerable merits, but an account of how it took him nearly three minutes of throat-clearing to ask his first question and then took the rest of his allocated 30 minutes just to get in another four. He concluded with about half a minute still left to him — something of a personal best that even he had to acknowledge.
[...]
The Washington Post had a similar account of Biden running off at the mouth. In that piece, Dana Milbank wrote that during Biden's 30-minute round of questioning, he ``spoke about his own Irish-American roots, his 'Grandfather Finnegan,' his son's application to Princeton (he attended the University of Pennsylvania instead, Biden said), a speech the senator gave on the Princeton campus, the fact that Biden is 'not a Princeton fan,' and his views on the eyeglasses of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.''
Robert Novak on Sen. Edward Kennedy:
Edward M. Kennedy, the 73-year-old liberal lion of the Senate, did not so much roar as huff and puff Tuesday, as he faced Judge Samuel Alito. He and other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who had spent weeks preparing for Alito's Supreme Court confirmation hearing seemed to be shooting blanks at President Bush's nominee.
Sen. Kennedy appeared to have lost his fastball in the 19 years since he eviscerated nominee Robert Bork. But Alito is a deceptively more difficult target. While Bork appeared a flamboyant scholar eager to expound his worldview, Alito came over as a cautious lawyer dealing in fine print and footnotes. Republican senators had feared the nominee's uninspiring style would undo him, but they now feel it actually carried the day.
And Sen. Chuck Schumer:
Schumer, at the end of the committee table in seniority, had to spend the entire day Tuesday watching his colleagues shooting blanks before he got his chance to fire the real thing. Schumer was well prepared, with a senatorial third degree of Alito demanding repeatedly to know whether he believed in a constitutional protection of abortion. That question led off a harsh, carefully scripted interrogation of the nominee. It made Chuck Schumer look mean and nasty, but that hardly derailed Sam Alito.
Joan Vennochi:
Alito entered the hearing process with the burden of following John Roberts. The previous nominee dazzled the Senate Judiciary Committee during his successful quest to become chief justice. Alito is not as crisp or intimidating. And for the most part, his average-guy demeanor helps him. Alito sounds conversational and knowledgeable as he discusses cases he ruled upon. He also appears human, from the occasional quaver in his Garden State-accented voice to the balding circle of scalp visible when the camera shoots from behind.
His interrogators often sound arrogant and sanctimonious. That doesn't mean questions from Democrats about abortion or the limits on executive power are meritless. But, particularly on Tuesday, they were posed so poorly and loquaciously that Alito won, or at least, never lost a round.
Debra Saunders on Kennedy:
On Wednesday, Kennedy seemed like a crazy man when he suggested that the committee subpoena records relating to Alito and the Princeton alumni club. I know some people who don't buy Alito's "no specific recollection of that organization" answer. For my part, the older I get, the more credible I find it when other people claim lapses of memories.
In the end, this is all about smear. Some Democratic senators, like Dianne Feinstein, are ready to stick to the issues. I respect her questions. Alas, others — like Kennedy — dive deep into the sewer to make Alito look bad. They put what he did or said decades ago under a microscope. If they can't make Alito seem racist or sexist, they dig for some association, no matter how negligible, with a racist/sexist group. If Alito says he wasn't aware of how insidious the group was, he's lying — or, critics intone with knowing cynicism, it's fishy.
Well you get the picture. As Billy Hollis noted in comments to this post:
I never know if the Republicans are lucky or smart. I must say, though, that with both Roberts and Alito, the GOP's "give them enough rope" strategy has worked spectacularly well.
The Democratic Party would have been better off if these gasbags had kept their mouth shut and just let this thing go through. Instead they have managed to look surly, mendicious, and idiotic, all at the same time. Quite a feat.
I think this, given the bipartisan leanings of the particular opinion writers I've included, is pretty much consensus. One wonders if it is possible now for the Democrats on the committee to actually drop the ego and the arrogance and get serious about serious business. In the end, given the theatrics (loved the blowup between Specter and Kennedy which Dale paraphrased), it seems clear that in reality they have nothing with which to credibly stop the Alito nomination from proceding. They're very frustrated about that, and it shows.
For links to entire articles, go to: http://www.qando.net/Default.aspx?tabid=38
At Long Last, They Have No Shame
I left blogger row yesterday reluctantly, just as the outrageous actions of the Democratic caucus on Judiciary hit its nadir. The smear tactics trotted out to derail the nomination of Judge Alito over the past few weeks had hit their nadir when Ted Kennedy demanded a subpoena for the William Rusher papers to determine whether the National Review publisher may have written something about CAP and Alito. Never mind that this was an entirely off-subject line of questioning from the beginning; Alito's own hiring record proved that he has no animus towards equal opportunity for women or minorities, and the Prospect itself had a woman (Laura Ingraham) and a minority (Dinesh D'Souza) as its editors in chief. Never mind that Alito has had decades of dedicated public service with an impeccable record of excellence, including fifteen years on the appellate court. Never mind that he has not been called before Congress to defend himself on charges but for confirmation to move up to the Supreme Court by invitation of the President.
When what should be a simple confirmation process reduces family members to tears, it shows that one party has degenerated into a secular Inquisition. And let me remind you that it was this party that, on more than one occasion, elected a former Klansman to the post of Majority Leader -- a man who as recently as three years ago defended the use of the "n-word".
In fact, most of the Senators from that caucus are responsible for that election of Byrd to his leadership posts.
I would assume that under their definition, Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, and perhaps Schumer are all racists and genocidists. They're certainly tied much closer to those beliefs than Samuel Alito, and I invite them to explain the difference to the American people.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
Kennedy on: Listening to uh uh listening to uh these uh listening to these Senators uh uh these uh these Senators...
[These the are most inarticulate bunch I have ever heard try to speak. Unbelieveable. And they make fun of GW's speech mannerisms.]
Kennedy's at it again.
Dems don't seem to be quite as snarky, but it is early.
Maybe they got the fax about the overnight polls showing them as resembling their emblem -- a$$es.