March 17, 2005

Democrats threaten shutdown

Democrats yesterday said they will halt all Senate business except essential operations and national defense if Republicans use the "nuclear option" to unclog President Bush's judicial nominees.
[...]
 "Senator Reid is not only fighting against the Constitution, but basic fairness and common sense," he [Sen. Coburn, R-OK] said. "I don't know many people in Oklahoma, or any part of the country, who believe a majority of 100 equals 60 instead of 51."
[...]
 Sean Rushton, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice, called the Reid press conference an elaborate ritual -- "kabuki theater for wealthy, liberal, Democratic financial supporters" who want to see Democrats stand up to Republicans.
[Love this description: hilarious and apt!--Jen]
He said making good on their threat would be "political suicide."
[That's never stopped them before--thank God!]
    
"Smart Democrats want the Republicans to take the filibuster away from them," Mr. Rushton said. "They know judicial filibusters are hurting them politically."
    
Mr. Coburn added,"Senator Reid's threat may inspire the Michael Moore wing of his party, but it will anger and confuse mainstream Americans."

I think they're just using idle threats, too, but even if they aren't, we're ready to "suffer" a shutdown to get our judges confirmed the normal way!
This Dem use (really abuse) of the cloture/filibuster has got to end!
Remember, voters, that the Dimocrat Senators did this in wartime (even if they said they'd attend to matters of "national defense"), but remember, above all, that they pulled this childish stunt at any time at all come Nov. 2006 and Nov. 2008.

March 16, 2005

Boris Johnson, the Member of Parliament and editor of The Spectator, writes from Baghdad about the importance of today:
Even the bombs couldn't spoil this day

[...]...
However many mortar bombs they fired at the convention centre in Baghdad, they totally failed to disrupt the event. For days we had been told to expect fireworks; and in the end the terrorists fizzled.

There took place yesterday morning on the banks of the muddy Tigris a ceremony that was in many ways beautiful and moving, and deeply consoling for anguished souls like me who voted for a controversial war. Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, Assyrians, you name it: speaker after speaker stood up to hail the birth of a new democracy in the Middle East. Surrounded by vast sprays of plastic gladioli, reminiscent of a banqueting hall in Ceausescu's Romania, the party leaders celebrated a free Iraq.
[Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!]

There were smooth émigré businessmen, returned in the search of power, and ancient caramel-coloured Bedouin in traditional headgear. There were angry Kurds, who insisted that every syllable be translated in their language, with all the passion of a Plaid Cymru man on a speeding charge, and above all there were the men of God. One man, a key figure in the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, began with the words, "We praise Allah and thank him that he has accomplished the ambitions of the people", and ended with: "You are the best lord and the creator of our destiny and we praise you lord of the world, peace be upon you." In between, he attributed almost everything to the beneficence of Allah, foreign, domestic, monetary, fiscal.

And as the many Shias on his list gave tongue in response, and answered his Koranic invocations, we could see the difficulties ahead. First they have to form a government, which will be difficult enough, with the Kurds and the Shias jockeying for possession of the oilfields of Kirkuk, and then, before August 15, they must draw up a constitution. There is a risk that the Shi'ites will try to grab the steering wheel, and turn Iraq into an Iran-style theocracy, complete with restrictions on female education. Then there is the continuing risk to the security of every person in this room, the fury of the rejectionists and insurgents who make so much of Iraq a no-go area for foreigners and democratic politicians.

Yesterday the Italian government of Silvio Berlusconi - formerly a fervent supporter of the war - announced that it was pulling the 3,000 Italians out, in response to the killing of an Italian security operative at the hands of American troops.I think that is sad and regrettable. Something very remarkable is happening in Baghdad, and whatever the rights and wrongs of the war, those of us who were involved in it should stay until this nascent democracy is safe.
[...]
...As it happens, Mr Berlusconi was wrong in his whole handling of the rescue of Giuliana Sgrena. By paying a huge ransom to the kidnappers, he merely added incentive to the nutcases to kidnap others; he raised the risks for the hundreds of British, among others, who are struggling to help rebuild the country.
[Berlusconi has also announced that his country (meaning himself, personally) will no longer pay such ransoms, but you couldn't fault them if the killers didn't quite believe him.]

Efforts to provide water, sewers and electricity are already being hampered by the need for every Western worker to be accompanied by his or her own private security detail, composed of hugely competent Ulstermen
[Survivors of Britain's war with the IRA, I suppose.--Jen]
with shades and pistols on their thighs. The security problems are not only frightening; they are frighteningly expensive. We need Western troops to remain here until the Iraqis are capable of fighting the terrorists themselves. The day may not be far off, but in the meantime I did not meet a single person here who wanted us to leave - far from it - or who regretted the change we have brought about.

Having started this operation, whatever its faults, we have a moral duty to help see it through. If that means sending more British troops to make up for the Italian deficiency, we may have to do it - and there would be many brave Brits in Iraq who would agree.

God bless you, Mr. Johnson, and long live Free Iraq!
Hope you can get a majority of Parliament and your fellow British citizens to agree with you.
This is England at its finest, talking about their "moral duties" and meaning it seriously and sincerely.
Sir Winston Churchill would be proud.
And I'm glad to see British politicians going to the war zone to see for themselves as our own Senators and Congresspersons have been doing.
Although it was underplayed by the MSM (which they always do with "good news" from Iraq) and not as visually exciting as the purple fingers of Voting Day, today's convening of the Iraqi Parliament was another big milestone for Free Iraq and for a Free Middle East.
And, as with January 30, it was marked by a few bombings and some deaths and injuries, but overall, the "terrorists fizzled" and failed to stop "Freedom on the March" in the Middle East.
Allah--or more accurately God--be praised!

Senate Approves Drilling in Alaska Refuge

A closely divided Senate voted Wednesday to approve oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, a major victory for President Bush and a stinging defeat for environmentalists who have fought the idea for decades.
[...for no good reason!--Jen]

By a 51-49 vote, the Senate put a refuge drilling provision in next year's budget, depriving opponents of the chance to use a filibuster to try to block it. Filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome, have been used to defeat drilling proposals in the past.
[Whatsa matter Kerry, Rodham-Clintoon, Kennedy, Reid, et al?
Were you guys out in the hall when the voting procedure came up or did you chicken out?]

"This project will keep our economy growing by creating jobs and ensuring that businesses can expand," Bush said in a statement. "And it will make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, eventually by up to a million barrels of oil a day."

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who has fought for 24 years to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil companies, acknowledged it still could be "a long process" before a final drilling measure clears Congress. Lawmakers must agree on the final budget, something they failed to do last year, or Wednesday's vote would have been for naught.

Also, the House did not include an Arctic refuge measure in its budget, a difference that will have to be worked out in future negotiations.

Nevertheless, the Senate made clear by Wednesday's vote that a majority now supports tapping what is believed to be 10.4 billions or more of barrels of oil within the refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Two years ago, a similar attempt to use the budget process to open the refuge failed by three votes.

But that was before Republicans last November expanded their majority, adding a number of GOP senators who favor drilling. Only seven Republicans, all moderates,
[All RINO pretenders, they mean!--Jen]
bucked their party Wednesday and voted with most Democrats against opening the refuge.

Environmentalists said while the vote was disappointing, they haven't given up the fight. "It only strengthens our resolve to protect America's most pristine national wildlife refuge for our children's future," said Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation.
[How our "children" will get up to the wilderness of Alaska to frolic with the caribou is another matter!]
[...]
The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to the oil. In 1980, Congress said the oil could be developed, but only if lawmakers specifically authorized the Interior Department to sell oil leases. Repeatedly Congress has failed to do so.

Environmentalists for years have fought such development, contending it would lead to a spider web of drilling platforms, pipelines and roads that would adversely impact the calving grounds of caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the refuge's coastal plain.
[According to some who would know, the animals and wildlife in Alaska love the Alaskan pipeline that's already in place and cuddle up to it for warmth in the frigid winters!]

"The fact is it's going to be destructive," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said during debate on an amendment that would have stripped the drilling language from the budget measure. Democrats fell two votes short of the 51 needed.
[Just like John Kerry fell short of the votes needed to not be a proven loser!]

Kerry and other drilling opponents argued that more oil would be saved than ANWR could produce if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels.
[And this intellectual moron and East Coast egghead wonders why he didn't win the White House...
Actually, President Bush has also endorsed and supported programs promoting conservation, energy efficiency and renewable fuels.]

Drilling supporters countered that the refuge's oil can be pumped while still protecting the environment and wildlife.

Modern technology, drilling techniques and environmental restrictions would dramatically limit the industrial footprint that would be left on the tundra and protect wildlife, said Murkowski. "We know we've got to do it right. ... It's a fragile environment."

One GOP senator after another argued that with foreign imports accounting for more than half of the oil the country uses, every available barrel should be pursued. The Alaska refuge represents the largest potential onshore oil find in the country, they said.

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist."
[Has it occurred to the Dems like Cantwell that we'd be enjoying the use of this oil now if her party hadn't blocked us from using ANWAR for the last 25 years!!
ARGH!]

Cantwell and other Democrats accused Republicans of trying "an end run" by attaching the refuge provisions to the budget, saying the question of drilling in an ecologically pristine refuge — a "special place" as many environmentalists called it — should be debated as separate legislation or as part of a broad energy bill.

"It's the only way around the filibuster," countered Stevens, defending the use of the budget process. He said that approach is justified for issues that have special importance such as getting at ANWR's oil, something he characterized as a matter of "national security."

Notice the language of Al-Presseera: "getting at ANWAR's oil"... sounds like a sex maniac groping at a buxom girl!
I'm delighted that this passed the Senate!
I think we'll see the price of oil drop quite a bit, even if we may not be using ANWAR crude for a decade.
I hear they're dancing in the streets in Alaska, too, at the prospect of those new jobs that will be created and so much more money flowing into our 49th state when this gets going!
(And to think it was once called "Seward's Folly" for which the U.S. paid a mere $8,000,000!)
Note, also, that we got this through the Senate sans filibuster, so how's about doing the same with those judicial confirmations next?

Bush: Wolfowitz to Be 'Strong' World Bank Chief

President Bush said on Wednesday Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz would make a "strong president" of the World Bank, calling him "a compassionate, decent man."
[...]
Wolfowitz is a deeply controversial figure in Europe because of his role in designing and promoting the Iraq war.
[...which has worked on all fronts, I have to add!--Jen]
He has also been a frequent target of criticism from congressional Democrats for what they called his "rosy" assessments of the Iraq war. Before the invasion, he assured Congress: "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
[I think he's right about this, too; it's just that the Dimocrats are defining "soon" differently than Wolfie.
'Course their life's work is moving the goalposts for the Bush Administration.--J.T.]

The selection follows Bush's controversial decision to nominate John Bolton, another leading administration hawk, to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Too funny!
You have to wonder if President Bush doesn't do this on purpose to watch the Dems turn into howler monkeys! (which they did!)
Now, they can't decide if they'll pitch a fit over Wolfowitz or Bolton and they're even carping about Karen Hughes's nomination.
And for this job, the Left would have settled for U2's Bono, who probably knows a lot about rock, but doesn't know Jack squat about world economies and their financing!
Check out Al Guardian's version of this story:
Bush picks Wolfowitz to head World Bank

"Mr [John] Snow [US treasury secretary] knows that the reaction from the board was unfavourable," Reuters quoted one source as saying. "Mr Wolfowitz's nomination today tells us the US couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks."
[Well, uh, YES! That's about right!--Jen]

Wolfowitz, one of the leading hawks in the Iraq war, is a very unlikely choice to lead the World Bank, although he would not be the first Pentagon figure to be president of the world's leading development institution.

Robert McNamara, the US secretary of defence when America sank into the Vietnam quagmire, was president of the World Bank from 1968 to 1981.
[That's quite a long time...
Notice McNamara gets no "points" from the peacenik Left for his recanting his hawkishness regarding Vietnam in recent years.]
[...]

Peter Bosshard, the policy director of the International Rivers Network, an American NGO, said: "In his career, Wolfowitz has so far not shown any interest in poverty reduction, environmental protection and human rights.
[What complete BULL.
In his position at the Pentagon, Wolfowitz has been actively involved in the economic, cultural and social development of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the march of democracy in the Middle East that has come about as the result of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
As for "environmental protection," the USA under Bush doesn't ascribe to the junk science mentality of the Kyoto Protocol and EUrope needs to get over it!]
His election as World Bank president would most likely exacerbate the current backlash against social and environmental concerns at the World Bank, and would initiate a new era of conflict between the Bank and civil society."
[The sky is always falling to these Chicken Little Leftists, isn't it?
The only way they know to keep power is to maintain people in a state of fear with their threats.]
[...]
This is the second time in as many weeks that Mr Bush has confounded the international community with an unlikely personnel choice for a top international institution. Last week, the president picked John Bolton, another administration hawk, to be the US ambassador to the UN.

Got that?
Bolton and Wolfowitz are both horrible hawks!
But as cyber sleuth Moses Wine found out, the head of the IMF is already "looking forward to working" with Wolfie as the new head of the World Bank:
IMF chief says Wolfowitz has impressive record
I'm sure Wolfowitz will be fine, although I really hate to see him leave the Pentagon.
Go Paul, King of the Evil Neocons...and "neocon" is primarily code for "Jewish."
Be that as it may, the Israelis are already happy with the appointment and they have good reason:

[...]
Wolfowitz's appointment to head the World Bank will have significance for Israel since the World Bank is expected to play a key economic role in Gaza after Israel's withdrawal.
[...]

He is considered a friend of Israel who knows the issues in the Middle East very well. Although widely viewed as a leading hawk in the Bush Administration, he supports a two state solution here and has not demonstrated over the years emotional attachment to the settlement movement.

The World Bank is expected to supervise the implementation of hundreds of million of dollars worth of projects to rebuild Gaza. One official said that Wolfowitz would likely ensure that the Palestinians fulfill strict conditions regarding reform and democratization in order to get the money.
[First, they should have to account for all the millions Arafat tucked away that he got from the World Bank, the EU, UN and the U.S.A. dammit!--Jen]

"He is a no-nonsense administrator who knows what needs to be done in terms of reform and democratization," one senior official said. "The appointment ensures that Bush has a man in an important institution whom he trusts," he said.

The World Bank is also the body that will oversee the channeling of millions of dollars into the Galilee and Negev for development of these regions as well.

As with John Bolton herding those Leftist cats over at the U.N., it sounds like President Bush's choice of Wolfowitz is PERFECT.
He'll not only be able to deal with the Paleostinians, but with other down-and-out thugocracies like Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt and Zimbabwe.

March 14, 2005

Whereas last week's pro-Syria, Hezbollah-ordered rally was virtually all male and any females were covered head-to-toe in chadors, the healthy heterosexual males of the blogosphere are all buzzing about the liberated bosoms of Freedom that have burst forth at today's opposition rally in Lebanon:
Check out the comments at Roger Simon's (always excellent):
Roger L. Simon: Beirut! Beirut! Beirut!
Then, those at Protein Wisdom
("Lebanese chicks are freaking HOT!")
LittleGreenFootballs named the buxom babe shown above the "Lebanese Protestor of the Day!"
And then stay bookmarked to Publius Pundit who has the latest news, pix and even vlogging from the Cedar Revolution.
Next to the widespread sale and love of Barbie dolls (per Steven Den Beste), there's no finer sign of freedom than the public display of women's cleavage, especially in these Muslim countries where under their tyrannical Islamist fundamentalist régimes, exposure of a woman's body can lead to lashings or worse.
And as Roger's commenter "chuck" points out, it's "traditional" for a democratic revolution and quite rightly cites Delacroix's "Liberty Leading the People."
'Course you know the French influence on Lebanon and Syria is pretty strong, but still what a hoot!
(or should I say, "What a Hooters?!")
Go, Lebanese sisters!
It looks like it was a beautiful day in Beirut and certainly a day to get some sun in as many places as possible while you're making a stand for your country's independence and freedom.

Thousands of Lebanese opposition protester gather during a demonstration in Martyrs Square, central Beirut, Lebanon, Monday March 14, 2005 with the Mohammed Al Amin Mosque under construction at left. Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese people answered an opposition call for a massive protest to demand a full Syrian troop withdrawal, resignations of security chiefs and an international investigation into the death of former Premier Rafik Hariri. The Mohammed Al Amin Mosque is seen at left
Thousands March Against Syria in Beirut

Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators chanted "Freedom, sovereignty, independence," and waved a sea of Lebanese flags in Beirut on Monday, the biggest anti-Syrian protest yet in the opposition's duel of street rallies with supporters of the Damascus-backed government.
[...]
Later, thousands of red and white balloons were released above the teeming crowd, many of whom wore scarves in the same colors that have come to symbolize the country's anti-Syrian movement in what the U.S. State Department has dubbed the "Cedar Revolution." Brass bands playing patriotic and national folk songs and Lebanon's national anthem were regularly drowned out by deafening chants from the crowd.

Monday's protest easily surpassed a pro-government rally of hundreds of thousands of people last week by the Shiite Muslim militant group Hezbollah. That show of strength forced the opposition to try to regain its momentum.
[And how thrilled I was to see today that they'd done it!--Jen]

While there were no official estimates of the size of the crowd, Lebanon's leading LBC TV station and some police officers estimated it at about 1 million people. The officers refused to speak publicly because it was an opposition rally. An Associated Press estimate by reporters on the scene put the number at much higher than the approximately 500,000 who attended the March 8 pro-Syrian rally.
[...and that one was almost all male.
Furthermore, were those Assad-backers there of their own free choice?
And were they even Lebanese citizens or paid foreigners?]

Syria's military withdrawal continued Monday, with intelligence agents closing two offices in the northern towns of Amyoun and Deir Ammar, on the coastal road between the port of Tripoli and the Syrian border. Intelligence agents also dismantled two checkpoints in the Akkar area. About 50 intelligence agents in all departed for unknown destinations, although it was believed to be northern Syria.

Most intelligence offices, the widely resented arm through which Syria has controlled many aspects of Lebanese life, remained in northern and central Lebanon after Syrian troops moved east, closer to the Syrian border. Last week, intelligence officers left the central towns of Aley and Bhamdoun and headed to Syrian-controlled areas of eastern Lebanon. The redeployment is the first stage of what Damascus says will be a full withdrawal, although it has not given a timetable.
[...]
"They are challenging us, and we are here to show them that we will not accept," said banker Farid Samaha as he joined the demonstration. "We are determined to liberate our country and we will not stop."
[...]
"Syria out, no half measures," read a banner, borrowing from President Bush's description of Damascus' gradual withdrawal from this country of 3.5 million.
[WOW! This means 1/3 of the whole population of the country is out in the streets demanding Freedom!--J.T.]
[...]
It also requires a Lebanese government to be in place to negotiate with Syria on a full troop withdrawal, since Karami is leading a caretaker government and cannot negotiate foreign agreements. A final agreement on a Syrian withdrawal will have to wait for a Cabinet to be formed and approved by Parliament.
[Is it really?
This Al-Presseera reporter is being anal retentive, methinks!
The American colonists didn't wait to set up all these formal institutions of government when we won independence from the English King in 1776!--Jen]

The political process is deadlocked,
[No, it only looks that way if you're Bashar Assad or Hezbollah.]
with the opposition refusing to join any government before their demands are met, and Karami insisting on a "national unity" government. Some opposition members accuse Karami of stalling to kill the chances of holding an election they believe the pro-Syrian camp, which has a majority in the legislature, will lose.

This is exciting!
Stay clicked as History continues to unfold in the land of the fragrant cedars!

People's Daily Online
"I don't think US should be the leader of the world"
From the editor of the paper that led the charge to bring down President Nixon in a bloodless coup... Move over, Dan Rather and Eason Jordan!
I think this man should be put on trial for treason.
There's no excuse for anyone in his position of influence and power to make a statement like this to Communists who are an ambiguous "ally" at best and a potential enemy at worst when we are at war, although it does explain why his paper bashes our country, our President and our military on a daily, page-by-page basis.
Bennett could only have delighted the Chinese with this, where many of their people are struggling to have basic freedoms in a totalitarian, repressive society and who are saber rattling with their moves on Taiwan, their suppression of democracy in Hong Kong and their prodding of warmongering client-state North Korea.
This is unacceptable--Pump up the volume in the blogosphere!
(H/T to Powerline and Lucianne who are blessedly already all over this!)