Psst! Thought Miguel Estrada's Hispanic? Well, think Again.
Tommy Daschle, first-rate political mastermind who engineered the Democrats' lost of the Senate last November, isn't about to let petty things as democracy and majority rule get in the way of keeping Miguel Estrada, Bush's nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, off the bench. He's vowing to tie up the Senate in endless filibusters, if that's what it takes to block confirmation.
Estrada's quaint views on the Constitution -- he believes in upholding it -- are bad enough, say Democrats, but that's not the worst part. To Sen. Patrick Leahy, wonderful life-long champion of minorities and diversity, the most deplorable thing about Mr. Estrada is the fact that, well, he's a minority who, er, isn't minority enough! Don't let Estrada's dark skin tone fool ya, says lilly white Leahy, he's a phony-baloney. Underneath that "Latino" exterior, this guy's really a white man, probably a Klansman, even.
How does Leahy know? Simple: Mr. Estrada doesn't fit the mold. Want a smoking gun? Just check out his resume: The 41 year-old Estrada is a graduate of Harvard Law School, clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, is partner in the D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; he's received the highest, "Well-Qualified" rating from the American Bar Association and he's argued no less than 15 cases before the highest court in the land.
Point being? He's smart, has brains, the dude's a self-made man, for crying out loud! Therefore, Estrada couldn't possibly be hispanic, since, as every good liberal knows, all hispanics and blacks are stupid, just as all whites are racists. Genuine people of color are always feeble-minded dim-wits. To be minority is to be slow, dopey, uneducated, simple minded.
"That's why these retardo yo-yos need affirmative action -- since they don't have the smarts to compete with the master race," an aid to Sen. Bobby Byrd (D-KKK) told me last night.
Powell's tour-de-force: The fallout
World reaction to Sec. Powell's presentation Wednesday at the U.N. has been fast and furious. Powell methodically laid out a damning, open-and-shut indictment of Saddam, complete with de-classified satellite photos of chemical munitions bunkers, reams of audiotapes of intercepted phone conversations, extensive informants statements, etc. -- as well as efforts by Baghdad to block the testimony of scientists and denial of U-2 overflight rights.
The heroic French -- brave, courageous, ballsy, dauntless as ever -- were shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that someone as honest and trustworthy as Saddam, till now an outstanding model world citizen, would stoop to this kind of thing.
The Butcher-of-Baghdad, lying to inspectors? Say it ain't so, Saddam!
Yes, the French were really, really, really mad. So mad, in fact, they threatened to pass another U.N. resolution! And this time they really, really mean it, too. Er, and if Saddam still doesn't get the message? What if he still misbehaves? Another U.N. resolution, then! And we'll really, really, really, really mean it, that time! That'll show him not to mess with spineless, pusillanimous poltroons at the good-for-nothing U.N. ever again.
Russia and China, like France, noted that the failure of the inspections regime so far points up to the fact that we need more of 'em. One good failure deserves another, right? Of course! We at the U.N. are firmly committed to excellency in failure, providing the very best possible material to your favorite late night comedians.
"Let us double, let us triple the number of [clueless] inspectors," pleaded the valorous French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.
"We refuse to think that war is inevitable," fearless president Jacques Chirac said, proudly waving a white flag, crouching. Surrender? Now you're talking.
Reaction at home? Democrats accused the administration of not funding the weapons inspections program adequately.
"That's the reason why inspections haven't worked," said one top Democrat, furious that Bush has deliberately starved the program to create a pretext for war.
Could Powell have been lying, could the evidence have been faked? Democrats concede Powell was probably telling the truth, but the case had not been to made to justify taking that momentous step, i.e., removing a sitting president from office, namely, president Saddam Hussein.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Alice-n-wonderland) urged Bush to back off the war talk. Taking questions from reporters at a press briefing Thursday, she allowed as that Saddam might not be the kind of guy you'd take home to mother, but "before we put our uniformed men and women in the hands of a demon," we should give inspections more time.
Asked if calling Bush a 'demon' wasn't taking things too far, she shot back: 'Demon isn't strong enough! Ever heard of Enron?! Harken energy?! His links to Halliburton?!'
Democrats also accused the President of being a frickin' peacenik.
"The President should stop downplaying this threat, start paying more attention to it," screamed Tommy Daschle. Sen. John F. Kerry, at a committee hearing, blasted the administration for cowardly taking the military option off the table and having a "fuzzy policy." Sen. Barbara Boxer slammed what she called a policy of "designed neglect."
Okay, now I'm confused: Are Democrats FOR or AGAINST war on Iraq?
Oops, wait a minute, wrong country -- it's North Korea they were griping about, not Iraq.
So, the Democrat position is clear as a whistle: Bush, give inspections more time, don't rush things, drag this out longer, give Saddam more time, stay bogged down with Saddam a little longer, and oh, by the way, what's the hold-up? Why the heck are you taking so long with Iraq? Why are you dragging things out when you have North Korea to deal with?
Hurry up. Don't rush things. Move on. Stay engaged. Drag things out. Don't drag things out. Stop threatening Iraq. Threaten North Korea. Get off the war-footing. Get on the war-footing. Back down. Don't back down. Containment works. Containment doesn't work.
Now do you see why Democrats have such enormous credibility on foreign policy? /sarcasm.
By the way, Bush's 'Games-Over' statement yesterday wasn't an ultimatum.
Bush wasn't threatening action IF Saddam didn't do this or that.
Saddam has, as Bush noted, already chosen his course of defiance.
So..Game's Over. Anyway, that's...
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"