GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Liberals score a win against Libby

I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was found guilty this week on two counts of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice—all surrounding his role in the non-leak of non-covert CIA employee Valerie Plame’s identity. Libby was acquitted of a single count of lying to the FBI but still faces up to three years in prison on the other counts. His attorneys have vowed to appeal, and there is the hope of a presidential pardon, but the damage has already been done both to Libby’s reputation and to any ideas that we might have about the concept of justice in our nation’s capital.

The Libby verdict is an immense victory for anti-war liberals, whose unremitting hatred of the Bush administration trumps any respect for the rule of law or American jurisprudence. Several respected Washington journalists, including Robert Novak, in whose column Plame’s identity was first revealed, testified under oath that Libby did not divulge her name to them. Yet this is the solitary conviction won by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald during his three-year campaign to nail someone—anyone—and to account for his monumental waste of time and tax dollars. Since her desk job at the CIA’s Langley headquarters did not qualify as undercover, the “outing” of Plame was not a crime, except in the fevered imaginations of rabid Bush-haters.

Joseph Wilson, Plame’s camera-hogging husband, zealously aided and abetted by the MSM, turned a non-story into a four-year feeding frenzy that led to Libby’s conviction. Wilson’s make-work fact-finding trip to Niger in 2002 for information about Saddam Hussein’s pursuit of yellow-cake uranium started this whole affair, and he claims the outing of his wife was revenge for his subsequent stance against the administration on Iraq. Predictably, this conspiracy theory received much more media attention than his discredited report. Wilson is now pursuing a civil suit against Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, whom Wilson once hoped to see “frog-marched” in handcuffs out of the White House. It will be some time before this suit moves forward, and we will be following it closely, but, certainly, its main purpose is to keep this story in the news as long as possible in order to inflict ever more damage to the White House and the Republican Party.

If the administration came out on the losing end of the Libby verdict, so too did the media. In jailing Judith Miller, Fitzgerald set a dangerous precedent about the price reporters may now pay for not revealing their sources. Thanks to this trial, in the future, journalists may find it difficult to draw out information from Washington insiders. Nevertheless, the liberal media are too busy celebrating the blow to the Bush White House to realize the simultaneous and more lasting blow to the First Amendment. They now draw an erroneous link between Libby’s conviction and the dogma that Bush lied about the reasons for going into Iraq. In fact, though Wilson’s Mitty-esque mission to Niger had nothing to do with our decision to topple Saddam Hussein, we must never underestimate the liberal media’s power and willingness to distort the facts—and shamelessly to prop up partisan liars like Joe Wilson.

Lastly, in the eyes of liberals, former National Security Advisor Sandy “Socks” Berger was merely “confused” and simply didn’t realize he was violating national security by stealing and destroying confidential documents on numerous occasions. They see Bill Clinton’s impeachment as a vast right-wing conspiracy, because the lies he told under oath were of a personal nature that any “normal” individual would tell. Then there’s Marc Rich, indicted in federal court in 1983 on tax evasion amounting to $48 million, not to mention trafficking in illegal oil deals with Tehran during the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. Thanks to one of those infamous 11th-hour Clinton pardons, Rich is doing his time at a mansion in the Swiss Alps. For liberals, justice is clearly a fluid concept that works best when it assails their enemies while protecting their allies.

Democrats continue assault on national security

Democrats squeezed a lot of mileage out of the Iraq issue in 2006, winning majority control in Congress and promising to end our involvement by any means necessary. However, now that they have the helm, House and Senate leaders are finding it difficult even to craft a consensus among their own coalition. This week, the Out of Iraq Caucus, which constitutes a third of House Democrats, urged a timeline for U.S. withdrawal that would last no longer than the end of 2007. Their plan makes no consideration for the impact that the troop surge will have on Iraqi security, and they appear to exhibit no concern whatsoever about what will happen to Iraq, or even the United States, after a summary withdrawal from that country.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently admitted that John Murtha’s slow bleed of American military resources is a non-starter, and she’s attempting to craft legislation that is less obviously an appeasement to America’s enemies. The Democrat leadership’s latest brainchild calls for President Bush to set a date for U.S. withdrawal if the Iraq government does not meet certain benchmarks. Restrictions would also be placed on the President’s ability to command the military, which he could set aside providing he publicly stated his reasons for doing so. This plan is merely another way to usurp the constitutional power of the executive and still calls for congressional micromanagement of the war, which is something Democrats have been trying to do since January.

Working hand in hand with House Democrats, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) introduced legislation in the Senate to bar President Bush from attacking Iran without the express permission of Congress. Iran, thirsty for nukes and seeking to become the pre-eminent power in the Middle East, needs no clearer signal about the lack of American resolve than a law preventing our President from protecting our soldiers and our overseas interests. Webb cited the need to continue putting diplomatic pressure on Iran, but somehow he must not realize that diplomatic pressure is meaningless if the threat of force is taken off the table, particularly in dealing with theocratic militants. Webb’s miscalculation, and the miscalculation of his colleagues in the House, will cost us dearly if their proposals become policy.

Black vote up for grabs

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama celebrated the 42nd anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” march in Selma, Alabama, last weekend, beginning what is sure to be a vigorous fight for the black vote in 2008. Appearing in the same town, but not together, both Clinton and Obama laid claim to the legacy of the civil-rights movement: Clinton as the wife of our “first black president,” and Obama as the descendant of both slaves and slave owners.

Their appearance roughly coincided with the surprise resignation of Bruce Gordon as president of the NAACP. Gordon spent 19 turbulent months as head of the largest and most powerful civil-rights group, where he was often at odds with the board about the future direction of the organization. Gordon wanted the NAACP to become more involved in social services, while longtime board members wanted it to remain solely a social-justice organization. The NAACP has been diminishing in power in recent years, with shrinking membership and revenue and a scandal that forced former president Kweisi Mfume to step down over allegations that he gave raises and promotions to former girlfriends. Next, the decision to support Clinton or Obama is set to throw the NAACP into even more internal chaos.

McCain and Kennedy craft immigration reform in secret

Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Teddy Kennedy (D-MA) are working on their much-touted immigration-reform bill in secret, and their Senate colleagues are not happy. According to Arlen Specter (R-PA), Kennedy has broken a promise to consult with other senators on the bill, and there is sincere worry that the reform package is being written in secret because it contains elements that will make it a non-starter with both Republicans and Democrats. In other words, it contains an amnesty provision.

Granting amnesty to illegal aliens already living in the United States is a monumentally bad idea, because it rewards breaking the law and will send a signal to millions of potential illegals that they can cross the border with impunity. We would expect this sort of bleeding-heart behavior from Kennedy, since Martha’s Vineyard is a long way from Mexico, but McCain (supposedly) is courting a conservative presidential vote that is decidedly anti-amnesty. If the bill he co-sponsors does call for a true amnesty program, or maybe even a more tenable guest worker program, he can say good-bye to any realistic shot at the Republican nomination.

New & notable Legislation

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) withdrew a proposal that would have made it a crime to publish or disclose classified information relating to U.S. actions against terrorism. Now he is reintroducing an alternative piece of legislation that would penalize employees of the House or Senate or other authorized personnel who knowingly disclose classified information that is contained in a report to Congress. It’s only because of the total lack of concern for American safety by organizations like the New York Times and Washington Post that we need to address this issue. There was a time when such unthinkable breaches of security were dealt with swiftly and severely. Now, we hand out Pulitzers for it.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) is introducing the Photo Identification Security Act, which would require banks to use only “secure forms of identification” in opening credit-card accounts for individuals. The proposed legislation comes in response to the announcement of Bank of America that the financial company is testing a credit program for illegal aliens that accepts non-U.S. guaranteed forms of ID, such as the matricula consular card, which anyone can get—even you!

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) re-introduced the Capital Gains Inflation Relief Act (H.R. 1261), which would index for inflation the cost basis used in calculating the capital-gains tax (and thus end this tax on inflation).

From the “Profiles in Cowardice” files, the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800), which removes the secret-ballot option from union members, passed in the House, 241-185. If this legislative abomination somehow makes it past the Senate, the President will most certainly veto it.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Nuclear arsenal set for revamp

Seeking to upgrade and modernize the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal, the National Nuclear Security Administration announced last Friday that it has selected a new nuclear-warhead design developed by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), it would initially be deployed on the Navy’s submarine-launched missiles. Over the next year, a Livermore/Navy team will put together a cost estimate, and engineering and production plans, which would then be presented to Congress for approval. Naturally, any talk of modernizing U.S. forces, whether nuclear or conventional, is guaranteed to generate howls of outrage from the usual suspects, and the RRW is no exception.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), always an opponent of new nuclear weapons and a member of the Senate subcommittee that funds U.S. nuclear activities, has stated that she is “100 percent opposed” to building the RRW. Displaying her usual moral equivalency, she questions how the world would view U.S. efforts at developing a new nuclear weapon at the same time we are pushing Iran, North Korea and other countries to drop their nuclear programs. Memo to Sen. Feinstein: There is a vast difference between free and totalitarian states, and your job is to uphold the Constitution, not world opinion.

The China syndrome

No, not that syndrome, Ms. Fonda—we’re talking about China’s obsessive compulsion to “take back” Taiwan. The latest iteration on this old saw arrived Sunday, with China’s announcement of the largest jump in its military spending in five years—17.8 percent—to $45 billion. According to military experts, however, even that number is likely understated by as much as a factor of four.

Discontent with a mere space arms race inaugurated by January’s ASAT test, China is taking even more assertive steps to ensure that the U.S. understands the costs of intervening to protect Taiwan from attack. China has been aggressively pursuing parity with the U.S. for more than a decade, primarily by using its newfound “free market” economy as an engine to power upgrades to its war machine. China deflects criticism of its buildup by pointing to the facts that its budget represents only a fraction of that of the U.S. and that its numbers of troops are steadily declining.

Unlike the U.S., however, China has increased military spending by double-digit percentages almost every year for the past 15 years, and the decline in troop strength is simply an acknowledgment of modern military history: Technology almost always prevails over “strength-in-numbers” strategies. China’s plus-up also includes five strategic nuclear subs as well as several advanced nuclear attack subs. Fortunately for the PRC, America has a seemingly unlimited supply of gullible lemmings who believe China is conducting this massive buildup for peaceful, defensive purposes only. They’re called Democrats.

Iranian missile threat reassessed, still looming

After an initial period of quiet, Iran’s recent launch of a sub-orbital rocket is starting to catch people’s attention and concern. In January, a top Iranian lawmaker said Iran had manufactured a space-launch vehicle, and Western speculation originally centered on a near-term satellite launch to orbit rather than a sub-orbital flight, leading some to speculate that Tehran’s announcement on 25 February of a sub-orbital flight was actually a failed orbital-launch attempt. Some are now reassessing that conclusion and are focusing instead on the possibility that the launch was actually a test of various long-range ballistic-missile technologies, including the testing of warhead-re-entry techniques and targeting.

Coupled with Tehran’s continuing quest for nuclear weapons, this is a worrisome development. Tehran says that its space program is for peaceful purposes, naturally, but even should that be true, it would still be cause for concern, as there is very little difference between a space-launch vehicle and an ICBM. Once a country can launch a satellite, it can conceivably hit any place on Earth. Missile defense, anyone?

Walter Reed debacle addressed

The merry-go-round at Walter Reed Army Medical Center hit the news hard this week, after the story broke about its deplorable conditions and medical treatment. Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey and Walter Reed commanding officer Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman were fired, as well as Weightman’s replacement, Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, who also headed Walter Reed from 2002-2004. Further changes have been promised. Vice President Dick Cheney emphatically said, “There will be no excuses, only action, and the federal bureaucracy will not slow that action down. We’re going to fix the problems at Walter Reed, period.” Unfortunately, most of the activity on the part of “shocked” congressmen has been a race to the nearest microphone for a politically expedient sound bite. In all likelihood, more, not less, red tape will be the result.

Lost in the press coverage of Walter Reed is the scandalous triumph of socialized medicine over acceptable clinical-treatment standards and the Hippocratic Oath. Delayed or ignored patient care, holes in walls and the prevalence of black mold in patient rooms are the results of bureaucracy, and bureaucracy is the hallmark of the socialized medicine that Democrats are so eager to impose on us. Americans should thus think long and hard about the Walter Reed debacle before casting their lot with the Democrats’ free-lunch siren song of “health care for everyone.”

Army facing chaplain shortage

Their motto is “Courageous in Spirit, Compassionate in Service.” Yet, according to recent reports, the United States Army Chaplain Corps faces approximately 520 vacancies—the greatest in its history—with most in the Reserve and National Guard. In light of the shortage, the Army’s commitment to providing a chaplain to our troops in harm’s way has meant more frequent deployment for soldier-ministers. Despite two years of record-breaking recruitment, the shortage persists.

According to Chaplain Lt. Col Ran Dolinger, spokesman for the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains, recruiting chaplains for the reserves is difficult, as many churches are reluctant to relinquish their leaders, whether for one weekend a month or for extended deployment. As our men and women in uniform persevere in the face of danger, the need for chaplains remains urgent. “When I see the atrocities of man toward man,” Dolinger notes, “it shows me the need for God.”

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

President Bush tours Latin America

In an effort to get back in touch with our southern neighbors, President Bush will visit five Latin American countries over the next few days: Brazil, Uruguay, Guatemala, Columbia and Mexico. The President hopes to communicate with this excursion that the United States does indeed care about Latin America’s economic and political well being. He also needs to take Hugo Chavez down a peg or two by demonstrating that the U.S. can provide a much more stable atmosphere for economic cooperation and mutual growth.

Over the last couple of years, as Chavez has consolidated his power in Venezuela, he has doled out billions of dollars in aid to other South American countries in an attempt to buy support for his Bolivarian revolution. Despite the wealth that Venezuelan oil revenue has generated, he cannot afford to be throwing money around indefinitely. The strain is just beginning to show on the Venezuelan economy, and it is likely to increase as high-level corruption takes its toll. In the meantime, however, Chavez has been filling a hegemonic gap left by the U.S., which has been too preoccupied with events in the Middle East and Asia to pay attention to what is happening in its own back yard. To make the President’s trip rockier than it would be otherwise, Chavez is planning a series of anti-U.S. demonstrations in various South American cities.

President Bush will be packing a host of initiatives to fight poverty and the drug trade, as well as foster democratic institutions and lay the groundwork for a new round of trade agreements—provided he’s not stripped of his trade promotion authority by Democrats in Congress. The anti-free trade wing is looking to stop future deals in their tracks by insisting on strict labor reforms and environmental protocols that many of these countries simply cannot afford to enact. Thanks to the hold that organized labor has on Democrats, we are in danger of negotiating ourselves right out of the international marketplace. As that happens, countries like Venezuela will be able to run roughshod over a shrinking sphere of American economic influence.

Big Labor payback could jeopardize security

In a nearly party-line 51-46 vote, the Senate this week voted to table an amendment to a bill adopting the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations that would have stripped collective-bargaining rights for federal airport screeners. “It’s outrageous that some politicians want to protect union bosses more than they want to protect Americans from terrorist attacks,” said sponsor Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC).

Homeland Security officials also argued that the unionization of screeners could curtail the flexibility needed to respond in the event of a crisis. Noted Secretary Michael Chertoff, “I’m not going to negotiate our national security… Marines don’t collectively bargain over whether they [go to] Anbar province or Baghdad.” Transportation Security head Kip Hawley also testified that costs associated with collective bargaining could run up to $160 million.

With the Big Labor-supported portion intact, President Bush is expected to veto the bill. Already 36 GOP senators and 146 House Republicans have pledged their vote against any veto-override attempt.

Mexican truckers set to cross the border

In 60 days, the Bush administration is set to launch a pilot program to let Mexican trucks and drivers enter the U.S. unfettered. Mexican trucks are already allowed 35 miles within U.S. borders; at that point their cargo must be transferred to a U.S.-licensed truck and driver. For years this practice has raised the costs of bringing imported goods to market—a price consumers pay. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (which, unlike a certain climate treaty, was actually ratified by Congress), the U.S. agreed to permit free cross-border trucking by 2000. It is now 2007—past time for the U.S. to live up to its commitments or, alternatively, revise its status under NAFTA. It’s as simple as the rule of law—but opposition to the program is strong and growing.

The Teamsters Union and pro-union Democrats are up in arms over the so-called dangers posed by Mexican trucks and Mexican drivers on American roads, despite the fact that Mexican trucking accidents are statistically comparable (and actually a little less) than accidents involving U.S. trucks and drivers. Add to this a few anti-immigration Republicans who, despite the fact that these drivers would be here legally, oppose the program on security and immigration-related grounds.

Whether they know it or not, these security-minded opponents of the program are close to the mark. However, the security issue isn’t simply container traffic from Mexico, but container traffic period. Though comprehensive container screening has proven infeasible, it is fortunate that the same test trials underway to improve container security in U.S. ports should be more or less applicable to cross-border, land-based container traffic, too.

At The Patriot, we realize there are unsafe Mexican trucks and drivers. However, we think liberals should be proud that we’re satisfying John Kerry’s “global test” by complying with our real-world treaty commitments. We stand by this position. After all, these trucks will permit Wal-Mart to cut costs even more—thereby permitting even more Americans to escape poverty and become free-market conservative.

Moving toward energy independence

From the frontiers of energy science, estimates about the demise of oil reserves have proven, again, to be drastically incorrect. In 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated recoverable resources of conventional oil at about 2.3 trillion barrels beyond what has already been produced. That estimate was recently revised to 3.8 trillion barrels, because oil companies are applying steam-flooding technology to mature oilfields to increase output dramatically and extract far more oil than the fields were thought to contain.

Good news, but not enough for energy independence from the Middle East. However, new private-sector research in alternative-fuel technology may help to bridge that gap. So say researchers with the University of Missouri-Columbia and Midwest Research Institute in Kansas City, who have developed a new means of transporting natural gas that has proven adaptable to the average car. Unlike ethanol-based alternative fuels, the use of cheap and easily retrievable natural gas as an alternative to petroleum has been stalled by the creation of an efficient means of storage, not excessive costs in production.

Specifically, the Midwest research team has developed a corncob-based carbon “sponge” to store alternative fuels such as natural gas and methane. The sponge meets engineering-density requirements necessary for crafting them into any desired shape, and a test vehicle (a pickup truck, at that!) using the technology has been operating in Missouri for the last six months. For the first time, alternative fuels may occupy the same space in a vehicle as today’s gas tanks.

CULTURE

Maybe Coulter does need rehab

“I’m so ashamed, I can’t stop laughing.” That was the response of conservative columnist Ann Coulter to the haranguing she received from her remarks about John “Breck Girl” Edwards at last week’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference. Addressing the CPAC crowd last Friday, Coulter chimed, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘fgot,’ so I—so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.” Since then, however, she has refused to retreat, telling one interviewer, “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

As if living down to Coulter’s expectations, the Edwards campaign wasted no time conscripting the remark as a fundraising tool, asking visitors to the campaign’s website: “Can you help us raise $100,000 in ‘Coulter Cash’ this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry?”

Ann Coulter is a smart woman—and a businesswoman—so it’s hard to believe that her remarks were anything less than a calculated move. Coulter is also a private citizen and her comments, while bombastic, should not be elevated above those of Donna Brazile (who wasn’t going “to let the white boys win”); Howard Dean (angry because most Republicans “have never made an honest living in their lives”); or Hillary Clinton [Editor’s warning: Graphic content below], who reputedly called Paul Fray, a one-time campaign manager for husband Bill, a “fing Jewish b***d.” In this context, Coulter’s comment seems merely opportunistic, not hate-filled.

Yet, regardless of what others have said, Coulter’s remark was off base simply because of the forum where it was presented. CPAC is to conservatives what Renaissance Weekend is to liberals—a gathering where big ideas can be discussed and developed into policy initiatives. Perhaps Michelle Malkin, who, with The Patriot’s own Mark Alexander, was an award winner at this year’s CPAC, said it best: “Her ‘f*got’ joke was not just a distraction from all the good that was highlighted and represented at the conference. It was the equivalent of a rhetorical fragging—an intentionally tossed verbal grenade that exploded in her own fellow ideological soldiers’ tent.” This fact—that Coulter has single-handedly overshadowed the tremendous accomplishments of the CPAC meeting—is what disturbs us most. Ms. Coulter’s remarks were indeed a slap in the face of the PC crowd, but a slap that would have been more appropriate for the Gridiron Dinner or the Friars Club. Keep it real, Ann.

William & Mary return cross to chapel

In a victory against political correctness, the College of William & Mary is going to return the historic 18-inch gold cross to the Wren Chapel. (For background, read Mark Alexander’s essay “Expelling God from the academy”.) Alumni reacted strongly to the removal of the cross in October last year, mainly by withholding donations, including one $12-million gift. To paraphrase esteemed economist Walter Williams, “Nothing gets an administration’s attention better than the sound of pocketbooks snapping shut.” Indeed, college president Gene Nichol announced the restoration, saying, “This has been a challenging task for the [special presidential] committee, but it has produced a compromise that allows for permanent display of the cross in the chapel, while remaining welcoming to all. I fully embrace it.” We might remind Mr. Nichol that there is no antithesis here—the cross is welcoming to all. As for the “compromise” he spoke of, it allows for the display of “sacred objects of any religious tradition” to be displayed in the chapel. Well, then—everyone gather ‘round for a chorus of “Kumbaya”…

’Climate Crisis Action Day’

Al “Carbon Neutral” Gore may have been heating up the Academy Awards in February, but according to NOAA official climate summary, the average temperature in February was 32.9—almost two degrees cooler than the 20th century average.

On the subject of hot air, a gaggle of “cerebral-neutral” Gorons will be convening in Washington on 20 March for what is billed as a “Climate Crisis Action Day,” where they will be promoting more government regulation of your life and other causes, like “protecting” the Arctic National Wildlife Wasteland from having its vast oil reserves tapped.

If you don’t have time to burn and can’t attend this confab of flower children, you can, with the click of a button, sign an important petition to “Stop Albert Gore and Reject the UN’s Global Warming Treaty.” Gore is re-energizing the movement advocating Kyoto compliance—the biggest UN power-grab in history. We already have more than 75,000 electronic signatures, and we want to deliver 100,000 signatures to the Senate and the White House.

It takes only 20 seconds to sign online, link to: http://PatriotPetitions.US/StopGore

And last…

Speaking of Al Gore, the contradiction between his speech and his action on global warming has sparked criticism—this time from the animal-rights left. Indeed, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has called on Gore to go vegetarian. “The single best thing that any of us can do to for our health, for animals, and for the environment is to go vegetarian,” says PETA President Ingrid Newkirk in a letter to Gore. “The best and easiest way for Mr. Gore to show his critics that he’s truly committed to fighting global warming is to kick his meat habit immediately.” PETA is running with a UN report claiming livestock contribute more greenhouse gases than vehicles, and that going vegan does more for the environment than buying a Toyota Prius. We in our humble shop aren’t sure what to make of all this, but we’re in lock-step agreement that Gore should go easy on the burgers and fries for a while.

Lex et Libertas—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for the editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.)