He was a good man, a devout man, a family man, a patriot. His origin was in a blue collar family in a blue collar town. He was not an elitist, not condescending, not pretentious.

Yet he rose to the top of a disappointingly elitist, condescending and pretentious profession: the network news media. Russert was truly the uncola. That is what I really liked about the guy.

He was a sports fan like most of us. He was never afraid to let the rest of us see him as he really was, a peek behind the curtain if you will. No show, no image, no self-promotion. A very rare individual in a very distorted profession.

Yet he was admired, liked and respected both inside that profession as well as everywhere else. Why? He was real, authentic, just one of us who had the good fortune (he acknowledged that) to get the opportunity to move up the ladder in a very competitive industry.

How? Another virtue Russert brought to the table: hard work. He apparently learned that from his father and made it a part of his everyday life. Always prepared. Always doing his homework. Never slacking off from his responsibilities.

Additionally, as an author he wrote about fathers and families. The video at this link, IN HIS OWN WORDS, gives us some insight how important his dad and his son were to him. If you have not yet read his second book, Wisdom of Our Fathers: Lessons and Letters from Daughters and Sons (Random House, May 2006), make sure to do so very soon.

The article that follows is classic Russert. It is further illustration of just what kind of person this wonderful man really was in life. He stuck out like a sore thumb in the world of media elites yet he became one of the best ever. His story is a truly American story and as he and his father said on many occasions, "What a country".

Too bad for the rest of us that he is gone.


Russert's Career Advice: Just Do It
By ROBERT COSTA

Sitting in RFK stadium in Washington, D.C., one evening in 2006, I was watching the Philadelphia Phillies lose to the lowly Washington Nationals when I spied Tim Russert going to get a beer.

I had to say hello to my Sunday-morning hero, so I hustled to the concession stand for a soda.

Russert approached, hulking in an orange golf shirt. "Keep grillin' those S.O.B.s," a passing man yelled as Russert stepped into line behind me. He laughed while grabbing a bag of peanuts. I introduced myself as "Bob Costa, a big fan from Notre Dame."

"Notre Dame?" said Russert, smiling. "Didn't we just beat you guys two years ago?" Yes, the Fighting Irish football team had been clobbered in 2004 by Boston College, where his son Luke was attending college.

I told him I was interning at ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
"Why isn't an Irish kid like you working for us?" he asked while tipping the beer guy. "Keep at it," he went on. "You guys over there at ABC are giving us a real run for our money."

At the time, "Meet the Press" led "This Week" by a few million viewers. But Russert's graciousness made me feel for the first time that maybe this journalism thing my mother warned me against falling in love with was not far-fetched after all.

I'd first met Russert that June, while interning for PBS's "Charlie Rose" in New York. He had come to Mr. Rose's oak table to talk about his favorite subject outside politics, his dad, and the release of his book, "Wisdom of Our Fathers." My important duties that day were to get Russert coffee and walk him out of the Bloomberg building after the taping. I told him I'd love to work on "Meet the Press."

"You're being too nice," he said at the time, laughing. "Guys like you should want to host the show." More seriously, he added, "Look, you just have to get out there and do it." Russert took in the swarm of people on Lexington Avenue and asked "Where are you from, son?"

"Bucks County, Pennsylvania," I said. Russert gestured to the people rushing by.
"All of these folks," he said, "don't let them intimidate you. When I first started working for Pat Moynihan, I thought all of these Ivy League guys were ahead of me, that I could never catch up. Then Senator Moynihan took me aside one day, when I told him I didn't think I had it in me to compete in the big leagues, and he said, 'Tim, what they know, you can learn. What you know, they'll never understand.'"

Russert stopped by Notre Dame this April, a month before my graduation, to give the Red Smith Lecture in Journalism. He talked about the need to prepare for every interview. "It is essential that I do what I didn't do when I was in college," he said. "I had been taught that if I read my lesson before class, show up in class on time, review my notes after class, then the exam would be easy.

They were right. I did not do that, but it is what I do now, each and every day."
Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart are often credited for inspiring interest in politics among young Americans. For me, it was Tim Russert. He was an icon with wit and gravitas, who thought that politics should be more than fodder for a hip joke or a clever aside. It was about ideas and choices that mattered.

Russert saw politics as a vital and enjoyable discourse on America's future – a future to be greeted with vigor, not cynicism. Debate livened Russert's show, and he told us at Notre Dame to challenge ourselves to think critically about what we saw and read. "It is not enough to confirm your political views by only accessing and reading outfits that reinforce your views but do not challenge them," he said.

Russert will be remembered for his remarkable career. But I'll remember him as the famous journalist who gave counsel to an intern, and who told me to "get out there and do it."

Mr. Costa is a Robert L. Bartley Fellow at the Journal's editorial page.

URL for this article:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121358081155576223.html
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

How can you tell if someone is truly on the far left of the political spectrum? Their sense of humor.

One of two circumstances exist for leftists. Either they have no sense of humor, cannot take or make a joke and find life around them anything but funny. Or the humor they attempt is so warped and infantile that it is impossible to believe that it came from a mature adult human being.

Those on the left think it is funny to advocate the assassination of leaders they do not agree with, make comments about race if they are attacking a black person not on their side of the political divide or demean the spouses and children of those they hate.

Hate is the key word. Real humor is not motivated by hate yet the far left brand of humor is anchored in deep and abiding hate. It is a sick and twisted usage of one of the more positive attributes of human nature.

Below is an example from the world headquarters of the far left, San Francisco. The concept has some humor to it but the fact that action is being taken to make it a reality goes way past the humor line and ventures far into hate territory. Viewed from the outside looking in it is clearly a hateful and childish exercise that will ultimately bring further shame and embarrassment to the City by the Bay.

Ironically, for most San Franciscans and for most all of the rest of the nation, this is really just standard operating procedure. Or as they like to say in the military, this is SNAFU.


An Honor That Bush Is Unlikely to Embrace
By JESSE McKINLEY

SAN FRANCISCO — Reagan has his highways. Lincoln has his memorial. Washington has the capital (and a state, too). But President Bush may soon be the sole president to have a memorial named after him that you can contribute to from the bathroom.

From the Department of Damned-With-Faint-Praise, a group going by the regal-sounding name of the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is planning to ask voters here to change the name of a prize-winning water treatment plant on the shoreline to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.
The plan, naturally hatched in a bar, would place a vote on the November ballot to provide “an appropriate honor for a truly unique president.”

Supporters say that they have plenty of signatures to qualify the initiative and that the renaming would fit in a long and proud American tradition of poking political figures in the eye.

“Most politicians tend to be narcissistic and egomaniacs,” said Brian McConnell, an organizer who regularly suits up as Uncle Sam to solicit signatures. “So it is important for satirists to help define their history rather than letting them define their own history.”

Not surprisingly, those Republicans in a city that voted 83 percent Democratic in 2004 are not thrilled with the idea. Howard Epstein, chairman of the ever-outnumbered San Francisco Republican Party, called the initiative “an abuse of process.”

“You got a bunch of guys drunk who came up with an idea,” Mr. Epstein said, “and want to put on the ballot as a big joke without regard to the city’s governance or cost.”

The renaming would take effect on Jan. 20, when the new president is sworn in. And regardless of the measure’s outcome, supporters plan to commemorate the inaugural with a synchronized flush of hundreds of thousands of San Francisco toilets, an action that would send a flood of water toward the plant, now called the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant.

“It’s a way of doing something physical that’s mentally freeing,” said Stacey Reineccius, 45, a software consultant and entrepreneur who supports the plan.
“It’s a weird thing, but it’s true.”

Taken from (surprise): The New York Times

The beauty of this great nation is we not only tolerate, we invite those like Chris Satullo to tell the rest of us what they think. That, of course, leaves us the opportunity to tear apart intellectually dishonest arguments motivated by cheap political pandering. So it is with CS.

What follows is his rather weak attempt to demean America on the occasion of her annual birthday celebration. My commentary can be seen in [BRACKETED BOLD CAPS] throughout this piece. His email is listed at the end should you feel the need to let him know your thoughts as well.

Have fun!

Chris Satullo: A not-so-glorious Fourth
U.S. atrocities are unworthy of our heritage.

By Chris Satullo
Inquirer Columnist

Put the fireworks in storage. [NOT HAPPENING]

Cancel the parade. [TOO LATE: STORY OF YOUR LIFE]

Tuck the soaring speeches in a drawer for another time. [ACTUALLY I CAN GO WITH THIS ONE]

This year, America doesn't deserve to celebrate its birthday. This Fourth of July should be a day of quiet and atonement. [ON THE CONTRARY WE SHOULD ENJOY THE FACT THAT MILLIONS IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ WILL BE CELEBRATING RIGHT ALONG WITH US BECAUSE OF THE EFFORT WE HAVE MADE ON THEIR BEHALF]

For we have sinned. [ALL MEN ARE SINNERS, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS YOU]

We have failed to pay attention. We've settled for lame excuses. We've spit on the memory of those who did that brave, brave thing in Philadelphia 232 years ago. [CLEARLY, EVEN THOUGHT YOU WORK IN PHILLY YOU DON'T KNOW A WHOLE LOT ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY WENT ON AMONGST THOSE GATHERED THERE TO RISK LIFE AND FORTUNE]

The America those men founded should never torture a prisoner. [YOU MEAN THOSE SLAVE HOLDERS. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW THEIR SLAVES WERE TREATED?]

The America they founded should never imprison people for years without charge or hearing. [HOW ABOUT ENSLAVE FOR A LIFETIME?]

The America they founded should never ship prisoners to foreign lands, knowing their new jailers might torture them. [HOW ABOUT SHIP FOREIGN SLAVES TO OUR SHORES, KILLING THOUSANDS IN THE PASSAGE AND DUMPING THEM OVERBOARD?]

Such abuses once were committed by the arrogant crowns of Europe, spawning rebellion. [SUCH ABUSES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED THROUGHOUT HISTORY. READ MAN'S INHUMANITY TO MAN. YOU NEED TO GET A REAL WORLD HANDLE ON HUMAN NATURE, INCLUDING WHAT MODERN DAY TERRORISTS ARE DOING TO INNOCENT NONCOMBATANTS]

Today, our nation does such things in the name of our safety. Petrified, unwilling to take the risks that love of liberty demands, we close our eyes. [FYI, WE TRIED THE CRIMINAL COURT ROUTE DURING THE CLINTON YEARS AND IT LED TO 911]

We have done such things, on orders from the Oval Office. We have done them, without general outrage or shame. [BUNK! CONGRESS WAS AS MUCH A PART OF THE PROCESS AS VIRTUALLY ANY OTHER PLAYER]

Abu Ghraib. Guantanamo. CIA secret prisons. "Rendition" of prisoners to foreign torture chambers. [NO ATTACKS ON THE HOMELAND. AQI LOSES THE FIGHT IN IRAQ. TERRORISM AROUND THE GLOBE CONTINUES TO DIMINISH. BIN LADEN AND AQI MASSIVELY DISCREDITED IN THE EYES OF MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE]

It's not enough that we had good reason to be scared. [OR THAT 3,000 INNOCENT AMERICANS WERE SLAUGHTERED WHILE AT WORK?]

The men huddled long ago in Philadelphia had better reason. A British fleet floated off the Jersey coast, full of hands eager to hang them from the nearest lampposts. [DO YOUR BEST TO REMEMBER THAT THE BRITISH WERE THE WORLD POWER WITH THE CONVENTIONAL FORCES. THE AMERICANS WERE ESSENTIALLY THE INSURGENTS]

Yet they pledged their lives and sacred honor - no idle vow - to defend the "inalienable rights" of men. Inalienable - what does that signify? It means rights that belong to each person, simply by virtue of being human. Rights that can never be taken away, no matter what evil a person might do or might intend.
Surely one of those is the right not to be tortured. Surely that is a piece of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." [AS YOU KNOW, NO ONE WAS SYSTEMATICALLY TORTURED ALA JOHN MCCAIN IN NAM. SOME INDIVIDUAL GUARDS GOT CARRIED AWAY AND HAVE BEEN PUNISHED. ALSO NOTE THAT NO WHERE IN THE DECLARATION OR THE CONSTITUTION DID THE FOUNDERS ADDRESS FOREIGN TERRORISTS. THEY SPOKE OF THEIR AMERICAN RIGHTS FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FELLOW COLONISTS]

This is the creed of July 4: No matter what it costs us, no matter how it scares us, no matter how foolish it seems to a cynical world, America should stand up for human rights. [WHERE CAN I FIND SUCH PAP IN THE DECLARATION? CAN'T, IT DOES NOT EXIST OTHER THAN IN YOUR IMAGINATION]

No, not even the brave men who picked up a quill, dipped it in ink and signed the parchment that summer day in Philadelphia lived up perfectly to the creed. But they did something extraordinary, founding a new nation upon a vow to oppose all the evil habits of tyranny. [BEST PARAGRAPH IN THIS PIECE]

That is why history still honors them. [HISTORY DOES BUT STRANGELY YOU DO NOT]

But what will history think of us, of how we responded to our great challenge? Sept. 11 was a hideous evil, a grievous wound. Yet, truth told, it has not summoned our better angels as often as our worst. [GEE, AND WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN DURING THE CIVIL WAR OR FDR DURING WORLD WAR II?)

We have betrayed the July 4 creed. We trample the vows we make, hand to heart. [THIS IS SIMPLY A SICK AND TWISTED CLAIM, UNSUPPORTED BY ANYTHING APPROACHING FACT OR EVIDENCE]

Don't imagine that only the torturers hand bears the guilt. The guilt reaches deep inside our Capitol, and beyond that - to us. [THE ONLY GUILT HERE IS YOURS: FOR WRITING FICTION AND CLAIMING TO REPRESENT THE FOUNDERS]

Our silence is complicit. In our name, innocents were jailed, humans tortured, our Constitution mangled. And we said so little. [PURE HYPERBOLE]

We can't claim not to have known. The best among us raised the alarm. Heroes in uniform, judges in robes, they opposed the perverse logic of an administration drenched in fear, drunk on power. [THOSE WHO RAISED THE "ALARM" WERE THE EXTREMISTS ON THE FAR LEFT AND THEIR ANARCHIST SUPPORTERS, ALL OF WHOM HAD A DEEP AND ABIDING HATRED FOR GEORGE BUSH LONG BEFORE 911. THAT HATE HAS ONLY FESTERED WITH TIME]

But did we heed them? Hardly. Barely . . . [FORTUNATELY MOST PEOPLE ARE SMARTER THAN THAT AND ARE WILLING TO LIVE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF HISTORY, NOT YOUR PABLUM. IT IS GOOD HOWEVER THAT YOU ARE ON THE RECORD FOR POSTERITY]

We were so busy. Soccer practice at 6. A credit card balance to fret. The final vote on Idol. [REALLY NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR DAILY SCHEDULE]

We left it to those in power to keep our precious selves from harm. Whatever it took. [MOST IMPORTANTLY, OUR "PRECIOUS SELVES" HAVE IN FACT NOT BEEN HARMED BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENTS AGGRESSIVE PURSUIT OF TERRORIST CRIMINALS]

We took the coward's way. [WELL, YOU FINALLY GOT TO THE TRUTH ABOUT YOURSELF]

The world sees this, even if we are too dim to grasp it. We've lost respect. We've shamed the memory of Jefferson, Adams and Franklin. [YO, WE ARE CURRENTLY THE MOST POPULAR NATION ON THE PLANET, MORE SO THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER TIME IN OUR HISTORY. READ THE STUDIES AND THE POLLS FOR THE TRUTH. YOUR FICTION IS ENTIRE UNSUBSTANTIATED.]

And all for a scam. The water boarding, the snarling dogs, the theft of sleep - all the diabolical tricks haven't made us safer. They may have averted this plot or that. But they've spawned new enemies by the thousands, made the jihadist rants ring true to so many ears. [PAY ATTENTION NOW CHRIS: TERRORISM IS ON THE DECLINE AROUND THE WORLD FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES]

So put out no flags. [ACTUALLY THE FLAG IS ALREADY OUT EARLY]

Sing no patriotic hymns. [OK: BUT ONLY BECAUSE I'M A LOUSY SINGER. I WILL HOWEVER LOUDLY PLAY AND CLOSELY WATCH THE NATIONAL CELEBRATION ON THE MALL AND ALL THE MUSIC ASSOCIATED THEREWITH]

We deserve no Fourth this year. [BELIEVE IT OR NOT EVEN YOU DESERVE A 4TH SINCE YOU ARE FREE TO STATE YOUR FOOLISHNESS IS THIS GREATEST NATION IN HISTORY]

Let us atone, in quiet and humility. Let us spend the day truly studying the example of our Founders. May we earn a new birth of courage before our nation's birthday next rolls around. [NICE TRY TO WAX ELOQUENT. NOW GO TO YOUR ROOM AND STAND IN THE CORNER UNTIL YOU PROMISE NOT TO MAKE THIS STUFF UP ANYMORE!]

To comment, e-mail csatullo@phillynews.com.

Listen to those in the far left echo chamber and it would seem that the United States is the most hated and criticised nation on the planet if not in history. For the left it is really all about hating Bush so much that the remainder of the six billion humans on earth must certainly agree.

We hear endlessly about how wildly popular we used to be but, alas, now it is different. Didn't any of them ever read 'The Ugly American'? Or is it that when reality does not match their opinion, then reality simply does not exist. Ignore the facts because they contradict the scenario that has been fashioned out of thin air about the evil Bush and his dastardly sidekick Cheney.

At least the left is consistent in that sense: they never let the facts interfere with their fiction. The story below addresses the popularity of America in Asia, including among the Chinese. But ignore it. It flies in the face of the story invented and believed by the far left.


Asia ♥ America

America bashing is good sport in Asia. From anti-U.S. beef protests in South Korea to anti-CNN campaigns in China this year, it sometimes seems like the world's most liberal democracy isn't wanted in the region.

Not so fast. A poll released last week by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the East Asia Institute in Seoul shows that Asians embrace America's presence. Of the five Asian countries where polling was conducted – China, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and Indonesia – a majority of respondents in four view U.S. influence in Asia as "positive" or "very positive." (Indonesia was the outlier.) The 6,000 respondents were polled between January and February.

America is also viewed positively for its economic influence. A majority of respondents said their country's economy was influenced "by American ideas on the benefits of free markets and open competition." In China, a whopping 71.2% of respondents said their country was somewhat or very influenced by these ideals. A full 66.5% of Chinese polled said an Asian free trade area should include the U.S.

But America's influence in Asia is being challenged by China's rise. A majority of respondents in all countries – save Indonesia – see China as the future "leader" of the region. (Even 68.2% of Americans agreed with that statement.) But most respondents in Japan, South Korea and Indonesia said they were somewhat or very uncomfortable with that scenario.

Polls aren't exact measures of public sentiment. But they do at least provide a barometer of which way the wind is blowing. On that measure, China has a long way to go before it unseats America's pre-eminence in the region.

URL for this article:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121425351205297799.html
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

First: follow the obvious logic for a moment. Today's lawyers will spin, mislead, misdirect, fake out and even occasionally outright lie in an all out effort to protect their client and win whatever litigation is involved. Even though it is a gross simplification, the phrase to keep in mind is "Lawyers are liars". It is native to their "honorable" profession. After all, they are helping others (for an often massive fee).

Step two: a significant majority of politicians are lawyers or are trained in the law, especially on the national level. They believe they are helping others as well but what we have in reality is a "political class" dedicated to perpetuating and protecting their positions at the public trough. In the process they receive massive contributions from special interest and identity groups all the while pulling down a fat salary that they set for themselves (wouldn't you like that kind of job) and a benefits-retirement package that is an amazing pay out (by any private sector standard) while they are in office and forever after.

Conclusion: like lawyers, politicians are liars but even more so. They tend to go well beyond spin in that they change direction and position regularly, often based upon the direction of public opinion or the interests of whatever group they are addressing. They even go so far as to take the exact opposite positions when speaking to groups with opposing interests. What a trustworthy crowd they are and what a sordid record they set.

Which brings us to the piece that follows regarding that candidate for change, the one that will lead us away from politics as usual and take us to the land of political nirvana, Barak Obama.

He promised and promised that he would NEVER be beholden to big money, special interests and big donors by following the route of public financing of his purer than snow campaign. Certainly interest groups like unions, educators and trial lawyers would be on no influence in his campaign. Of course you understand he is a lawyer. Which tells us all we need to know about this candidate. He will spin, mislead, misdirect, fake out and, yes, lie to protect himself and win the election.

Principle be damned. Truth be damned. Honesty be damned. Whatever it takes to lead the "flock" over the cliff. Show him the money: just win baby!


Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election
Ed OKeefe, ABC News

In a web video to supporters -- "the people who built this movement from the bottom up" -- Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so."We've made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election," Obama says in the video, blaming it on the need to combat Republicans, saying "we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations."

In November 2007, Obama answered "Yes" to Common Cause when asked "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"Obama wrote: "In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."Not so "aggressively," according to the McCain campaign, which argues that Obama did not discuss this or try to negotiate at all with the McCain campaign, despite writing that he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

The Obama campaign disputes this. Obama campaign counsel Bob Bauer met with McCain campaign counsel Trevor Potter and, according to Obama spox Bill Burton, Potter "immediately made it clear there was no basis for further discussion," that they weren't interested in any sort of agreement. "McCain and the RNC had spent months raising and spending money for the general election, and their basic attitude was 'You'll catch up,'" Burton says, suggesting that the Republicans were also turning a blind eye to the activities of 527s.

In April Obama seemed to be preparing an argument to opt out, as we noted at the time. "We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful," Obama said at the time.

Today he said something similar, telling supporters, "Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you’ve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we’ve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans. ...You’ve already changed the way campaigns are funded because you know that’s the only way we can truly change how Washington works."

Obama said, "I’m asking you to try to do something that’s never been done before. Declare our independence from a broken system, and run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far."

Declaring independence from a "broken system" by breaking a promise. Obama hopes you'll care more about the former than the latter.

Taken from: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-to-break.html

The hate America far left in California, the nation and the world has to be wildly upset (they do not get mildly upset) with the LAT about the accompanying article. After all, it denies one of the great hard left causes, namely "Bush Lied".

• Most all of the Senate lefty's saw, believed and spoke in support of the intelligence evidence of WMD at the same time as Bush. Of course most all of them changed their position as soon as they understood the winds of public opinion as the fight in Iraq grew more unpopular. Like typical politicians, they pandered on both sides of the fence when it was convenient to do so. So much for principle. For them it's all about 'just get reelected baby'.
• The 'we were misled' argument is purely laughable and not worth dignifying with any further comment.
• Consider that it was the supposed "neocons" here in the U.S. that drove us to war on false pretenses. But what about the U.K.? It was Labor, that's right the liberals, that supposedly drove the Birts to war on false pretenses. Both ends of the political spectrum? What's going on? Easy answer: the party in power has the responsibility to protect their respective nations and proceed on the truth as they know it to be. And so they did with lefty support in America and righty support in Britain. Then came the changes in public opinion and the left in this country along with the conservatives in England changed directions in order to gain political advantage. None of it had anything to do with the facts.

Thus the LAT article is so painfully truthful for the left. Someday we will all get to the point where these political games will be viewed for what they are: silly and dishonest.

From the Los Angeles Times

Bush never lied to us about Iraq
The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

"When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments."

The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11."

Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

"I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop communist aggression in Southeast Asia," Romney elaborated in that infamous 1967 interview. That was an intellectually justifiable view then, just as it is intellectually justifiable for erstwhile Iraq war supporters to say -- given the way it's turned out -- that they don't think the effort has been worth it. But predicating such a reversal on the unsubstantiated allegation that one was lied to is cowardly and dishonest.

A journalist who accompanied Romney on his 1965 foray to Vietnam remarked that if the governor had indeed been brainwashed, it was not because of American propaganda but because he had "brought so light a load to the laundromat." Given the similarity between Romney's explanation and the protestations of Democrats 40 years later, one wonders why the news media aren't saying the same thing today.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.

Our failed Congress, one of the lowest rated in history and the one rated notably lower than George Bush in the polls, is practicing political gamesmanship with the Federal Reserve. What a collective bunch of fools they are.

It seems with the Democrat party it is all about power, winning and control of government. The welfare of the nation, our economic health and vitality and the ability of everyday Americans to comfortably and securely live their lives is much farther down the Democrat priority list and is not to be considered until and unless they have complete control of the levers of power. Unfortunately at that point, as history shows, all will be lost.

The track record of Democrat politicians is clear. Here in California, the Dem party has controlled the State Legislature for decades. This state is economically, educationally, socially and, to an ever increasing degree, economically, in the dumper. Not only that, I live in a city long controlled by the Dem party that has had to declare bankruptcy to stay afloat. By the way, look for a lot more of that to happen.

What happens when Dems are in complete control is in plain sight. In the interest of fairness, the GOP did not prove to be any better when they held control on the national level.

What is the lesson here? Do not put one party in control of government power on any level. It has not worked, it does not work, it will not work. Split power between parties and let them work things out for the benefit of all. Read on about the Fed and you will most certainly get my drift.


Playing politics with the Fed
From The Economist print edition
By refusing to confirm new governors, Congress is putting the world's most important central bank at risk

SMALL, weak and vulnerable: hardly an accurate description of America's central bank. But soon it could be. The Federal Reserve is the world's most important financial institution. Just this week Ben Bernanke, its chairman, demonstrated its influence when a rare comment on the dollar's weakness sent the currency soaring (see article). Yet the Fed's standing is in a potentially parlous state, thanks to political brinkmanship by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

For more than a year, two seats on the Fed's seven-member board of governors have been empty, because the Senate has been unwilling to confirm George Bush's nominees to the job. It has also refused a new term for the Bush-appointed Randall Kroszner, who is hanging on in limbo. On May 28th Rick Mishkin, another governor, said he would depart in August. If the Senate continues to delay, the Fed's board will have only four members—fewer than at any time since at least the 1930s.

No one doubts Mr Bush's candidates are qualified. The hold-up is ideological.

Democrats want to wait until after November's election so that a new president can, as one senator put it, “remake the Fed” by appointing a clutch of new people at once. That is reckless on several counts.

In the short term, the central bank will be starved of talent and leadership at an extremely tricky time. Power in monetary policy will also shift. Like much of the American government, the central bank is an artful balance of federal and local.

The Fed's key policy rate is set by the Federal Open Market Committee. Its voting members consist of the Fed's seven governors and five presidents from the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks. If the Fed's board has only four governors, the regional presidents will be in the majority—contrary to what the Fed's founders intended. Ironically, several of the regional presidents are decidedly hawkish, so the result might be a greater focus on inflation than growth—the opposite of what many Democratic senators are likely to fret about.
The real danger, however, lies further ahead. Mr Bernanke's term as Fed chairman expires in 2010. With lots of governors to appoint at once, and the prospect of a new chairman within two years, the next president will have unprecedented power to reshape the Fed. Governors are appointed for overlapping 14-year terms precisely to avoid this concentration of power.

Independence, schmindependence

That alone is dangerous. It is doubly worrying given the Democrats' seeming insouciance about politicising the Fed. So far the senators' focus has been on consumer protection. They want governors who would have done more to stop predatory subprime lending. But, in the aftermath of the Bear Stearns rescue, the overhaul of financial regulation is likely to be far broader. Wall Street's attempts to wriggle out of that regulation have already begun (see article). The Fed will be central to ensuring that institutions implicitly backed by the state are appropriately regulated: impartiality is crucial.

But the biggest risk lies with monetary policy. Though every American politician pays lip service to the central bank's independence in interest-rate decisions, that independence is more fragile than in other rich countries. The Fed has a dual mandate—to promote full employment and price stability—and no explicit inflation target. With its fuzzier goals, America's central bank is more vulnerable than some others. A set of doveish appointments could soon dissipate the Fed's inflation-fighting credibility. Economic growth is weak and prices are rising uncomfortably fast. Central bankers face difficult decisions. It is no time for politicians to make matters worse.

Copyright © 2008 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group.
All rights reserved.