More UN Violations

Unethical UN workers are a bit like cockroaches: when you find one, you know there are sure to be more. The latest UN scandal involves Maurice Strong, the special adviser to Kofi Annan on North Korea, who put his stepdaughter on the UN payroll in violation of UN rules.

Strong, an influential Canadian businessman, is himself under investigation in connection with the U.N. oil-for-food scandal over his ties to a South Korean lobbyist suspected of bribing U.N. officials with Iraqi funds.

Strong last week withdrew from his post as Annan's adviser while the investigation was under way. The stepdaughter, identified as Kristina Mayo, has resigned, U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said.

Another Bogus Bolton Allegation

The allegations against John Bolton are bordering on the ridiculous. First, he was basically too "mean" and therefore, not a good choice for the UN. The new allegation is that he didn't play by the rules of the beauracracy and tried to set up "meetings on his own."

Supposedly John Bolton would try to set up meetings on his foreign trips without properly coordinating with the U.S. embassies abroad. These petty allegations are so ludicrous that they don't even belong in a news story. The official making the claims, A. Elizabeth Jones, then follows her allegations by saying, "...we always gave him permission. But it was a struggle all the time."

Boo hoo, Ms. Jones. It's also a shame that John Bolton didn't use the proper cover sheet on his TPS reports either.

Albright is Not All That Bright

Madeleine Albright, probably one of the weakest secretaries of state the U.S. has had in a while, gave a speech that was supposedly about the rights of women. Unsurprisingly, she criticized the Iraq War, saying that "we had Saddam Hussein in a box." Blah, blah. Her biggest argument seems to be that we weren't "finished" in Afghanistan, so the U.S. should drop every other problem both domestically and internationally until the job is "finished." At least now we know why Albright and the Clinton Administration never got around to addressing problems in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Eastern Europe or Latin America....they weren't finished with the problems in Bosnia. And by Albright's logic, addressing more than one issue at once is simply too difficult.

Maybe Le Madeleine simply forgot how little she had done to promote women's rights in the Middle East. Maybe she never noticed the treatment of women under the Taliban or Iraqi regimes. Perhaps she hasn't seen the recent democratic movements in Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Palestine or Lebanon, none of which would have been possible without Bush's Mideast transformation policy. (I hope she can help us out and tell us how many women were liberated from dictatorships under her watch - I can't seem to remember.)

Then again, Albright was never all that bright.

Volcker and the UN Scandal

Is Volcker working for the UN or working to discover the wrongdoings of the UN? Unfortunately, it becomes more clear every day that it's the former.

Paul Volcker called the chairmen of at least three congressional committees looking into the $64 billion Oil-for-Food program Thursday and told them Congress cannot subpoena the former employees, FOX News has learned. Volcker said the former investigators, who resigned two weeks ago, have diplomatic immunity and therefore cannot be called to testify before their panels.

I am scared that Volcker's panel will be nothing more than a whitewash - and Kofi and his band of UN thieves will be exonerated. Those hoping for convictions (including me) are going to be sorely disappointed.

Former Army Sergeant, Traitor, Given Death

Former Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar, who killed marines by rolling granades into a tent in Iraq, has been sentenced to death. RIP, traitor. May God have mercy on your soul.

Arthur Andersen: Good News and Bad News

The good news for Arthur Andersen is that the Supreme Court seems to be siding with its challenge to the law that led to its collapse. The bad news is that the firm has already been flogged in public and has already been entirely dismantled.

Several justices seemed unsympathetic to the Justice Department's argument that Andersen violated a federal witness-tampering statute when one of its lawyers reminded employees about its document retention policy in October 2001, just before the spreading Enron scandal enveloped Andersen, Enron's accounting firm.

The prosecution of Andersen led to its virtual demise: The firm shrank from 28,000 employees to several hundred. The company was fined $500,000. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict and the jury instruction about the meaning of the law, setting the stage for high court review. No Andersen officials were ever prosecuted for violating securities laws.

Sorry about that, guys. It looks like you did nothing wrong after all. Oh well.

Chalabi Named Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister

Remember Ahmed Chalabi? According to U.S. media, he was a "U.S. puppet" who had absolutely no support from the Iraqi people. Well, it looks like he has some support after all. He was just named to a key Deputy Prime Minister post in Iraq (and his nephew was recently named finance minister).

Quick Notes on Bush's Speech

Never a Winston Churchill as an orator, Bush had a very strong substantive performance tonight. Specifically, on the issues of John Bolton's nomination, judges and social security, Bush was very clear and persuasive. Bush also didn't wobble on the issue of private accounts. Don't believe the media hype - these issues will get through Congress. I think Bush regained the momentum tonight and the Senate needs to follow through.

On his energy policy, I also thought he was strong - I've just always viewed energy as less of a short-term priority.

Overall, very strong from W.

Obstructing More than Judges

Larry Kudlow explains that the Democratic obstructionist strategy is more than just judges.

After blocking the judicial nominees, the Democrats will attempt to obstruct all pro-growth, pro-business legislation that makes it to the Senate. On the energy bill, they could attempt to filibuster any legislated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). They could hold up the budget because they don’t want to extend the president’s tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. If a good asbestos bill comes around, they could obstruct that too. CAFTA and other free-trade opening measures could also be stopped.

It’s already more than judges. Democratic Sen. Max Baucus has a hold on all Treasury Department nominations, including one deputy secretary, two undersecretaries, and three assistant secretaries...

...Why do you think John Bolton is having such a tough time being affirmed for the U.N.? Judges, Treasury, Bolton — they’re all linked.

All the more reason to end obstructionism as soon as possible with the "constitutional option."

A Convicted Terrorist is Free on Bail

What happens to an American traitor convicted by a Virginia jury of inciting terrorists to fight and kill U.S. citizens? Possibly life in prison or worse? Yes, but as Blue State Conservatives points out, Judge Brinkema kindly released Ali Al-Timimi on bail until his sentencing in July. Unbelievable.

Bush vs. Powell

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum explains Powell's recent statements about John Bolton.

...By taking a public stand against Bolton, Powell is also taking a public stand against Bush and Cheney.

Is it possible that Powell did not understand that? No, it is utterly impossible. Powell is joining this fight with eyes wide open – and playing for the very grandest of stakes.

I have mixed feelings about Colin Powell. While he seems like a generally good guy, I believe he's always been much more interested in his own image than in solely serving the President.

A Hypothetical Future

Imagine the following story.
From the Washington Post - June 5, 2007:

Today the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach President Bush after an independent investigation found the Bush Administration to be seriously negligent in its duties to secure the nation's borders despite warnings from the American public and many leading politicians. The investigation was the result of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, in which Al Qaeda detonated a radiological device in New York City.

The investigation revealed that several members of Al Qaeda were found to have entered the U.S. illegally across the Mexico/Arizona border last year. Although many Senators have warned the President about such a possibility, the investigation concluded that the nation simply "was not on war footing" and was ill-prepared to handle the flood of illegal immigrants entering the country. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was also criticized in the report for being too concerned about potential racial profiling and "anti-immigrant" complaints.

Hillary Clinton, leading Democratic candidate for President stated, "I have been saying for two years that we need to establish an orderly and legal immigration process. The president has betrayed us." Other leading senators, including Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, echoed similar statements, saying that "the President's first priority is to secure our borders; in this, President Bush has failed."

Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman project, who was imprisoned last year after the ACLU brought charges against him for harrassing two Mexican immigrants, had no comment on Bush's impeachment. After Simcox's imprisonment, the Minuteman project disbanded and the members went home. This allowed a new flood of illegals to come across the border unabated.
Hillary Clinton has been fighting to pardon Simcox for his duty to his country and bringing attention to the border problem two years ago.

Despite cries from both Democrats and Republicans, the complaints fell on deaf ears within the Bush Administration. The signs were very clear that the American public was calling for reform, but now, regrettably, it's too late. What has been one of the most successful administrations in history will now almost surely be judged harshly by history.

Trouble for US Automakers

As Professor Bainbridge points out, you know it's a tough time for Ford and GM when Toyota's and Honda's chiefs offer a voluntary limit to foreign market share in the U.S.

At the annual motor show in Detroit earlier this year, Toyota President Fujio Cho and Honda Motor Co. Chief Executive Takeo Fukui said Japanese brands' expansion in the United States should not go unchecked, with Fukui volunteering that the combined share should be kept under 40 percent.

The truth is that U.S. auto manufacturers are companies that refuse to adapt its antiquated labor rules to compete globally. Meanwhile, Marxists will continue to argue for additional laws that "protect labor," even as the number of workers "protected" will continue to dwindle.

Iraqi Mole Used in Al Zarqawi Pursuit?

The Fourth Rail explains why Specials Ops Task Force 626 is so close to nabbing Al Zarqawi in Iraq:

The fact that there is someone inside the Zarqawi network is what is startling. Al Qaeda in Iraq appears to have been penetrated, no small feat as al Qaeda is traditionally a very closed and secretive organization, admitting only the most ideologically pure of the Islamists within their ranks.

I think the writing is on the wall for that son of a b****.

More Trash at the NY Times

Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times has shown us his total incompetence again. I’m pretty sure that my writing in the first grade was more logical than Kristof’s writing on his best days. But that’s why he’s working for the Times. Kristof’s premise is that President Clinton had all but solved the North Korean problem and Bush came along to screw it up.

North Korea made one or two nuclear weapons around 1989, during the first Bush administration, but froze its plutonium program under the 1994 "Agreed Framework" with the Clinton administration. North Korea adhered to the freeze on plutonium production, but about 1999, it secretly started on a second nuclear route involving uranium.

Kristof seems to be smoking whatever it is that Times’ writers enjoy so much. Although it’s astonishing that anyone thinks that Kim Jong Il kept his side of the bargain on this deal, let’s assume that Kristof is right and N. Korea only cheated starting in 1999. There’s a slight math problem here – does he expect Bush to have intervened then as governor of Texas?

…Bush refused to negotiate bilaterally, so now we have the worst of both worlds: That uranium program is still in place, and the plutonium program is churning out weapons material as well.

Bilateral negotiations didn’t do a whole lot for Clinton, so I’m not sure why anyone thinks they would work this time around.

But Bush seems frozen in the headlights, unable to take any action at all toward North Korea. American policy now is to hope that Kim has a heart attack.

It sounds like Kristoff doesn’t care if North Korea cheats again. He simply wants to give an appearance that we have done something – even if it means blackmail. Or perhaps Kristof is advocating taking military action against North Korea (right…).

The irony is that Bush's policies toward North Korea have steadily become more reasonable over time. Perhaps by the time he leaves office, he'll finally be willing to negotiate seriously with the North Koreans.

So Bush has become more reasonable over time? Let’s see: Bush advocated 6-party talks when he first learned of North Korea's deception and now he advocates – 6-party talks. Kristof couldn’t cite a single example of change in Bush’s policy because it has not changed (unless you count the change from Colin to Condi, but I highly doubt Kristof would consider Condi “more reasonable.”)

At what point does the NY Times become officially known as fiction?

GOP Getting Outflanked on Immigration

Chris Simcox, a founder of the Minuteman project, appeared on Hannity & Colmes tonight and said that John Kerry is supportive of the border security project. He also said he has meetings set up with Hillary Rodham and Joe Lieberman tomorrow.

If this is true, Republicans need to watch out - they are going to get beat by the Dems on a very important issue to many Americans. I don't know what it will take for Republican leadership to voice support for controlling our borders, but a highly public meeting of Hillary with the Minuteman founder might just be what it takes.

Buzzy Ginsburg vs. Founding Fathers

In an effort to prove that she is truly the weakest link on the Supreme Court, Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg gave a speech earlier this month about defending the use of foreign law in Supreme Court decisions. As National Review points out, her thinking is both flawed, incoherent and contradictory.

First, she attacks the use of originalism (interpreting the Constitution as written) used by Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas by pointing to the Dred Scott decision. That's a little bit like saying that all women are ugly because, well... just take a look at Hillary or Barbara Boxer. She also fails to mention that the dissent in Dred Scott was also written by originalists.

Ginsburg then claims that the Founding Fathers set up a system whereby the people, through its elected representatives, can adapt the laws to changing times. From there she states that it's important that the "judges honor the Framers' intent" to "form a more perfect Union." I think she forgot the purpose of the legislative branch - or maybe she's just confusing it with the judiciary.

Finally, Ginsburg cites two of her opinions in Michigan racial profiling cases that mention United Nations Conventions, one of which was ratified by the U.S. and one that was not ratified. As the National Review points out, she draws no distinction between a treaty ratified by the U.S. vs. one that is unratified. So not only can foreign law help decide U.S. cases, but even proposed laws are important.

Although she is up against some tough competition from Stevens, Breyer and Souter, Buzzy still holds the throne as the weakest link on the Court.

More Government Waste

As if the federal government didn't spend enough on wasteful projects, it has apparently given over $30 million since 1999 to George Soros' foundation, The Open Society Institute.

GOP 2008 Contest

Patrick Ruffini has an interesting poll about a head-to-head matchup between Giuliani-Frist, Giuliani-McCain and Giuliani-Allen.

Of the three matchups, the poll shows only one in which Giuliani loses: to George Allen (R-VA). As I mentioned in a post last week, Allen is the man for '08. I'm trying to think of his weaknesses and I really can't think of anything, except his lack of national recognition right now.

*Update*
Well, it looks like Instapundit readers have changed the poll results - and since I suspect they are much less conservative than many in the GOP, they picked Giuliani in every case. Sorry, but he won't win the nomination.

Who's in Charge Here?

Someone please tell the Democrats (and the Republicans for that matter) that the GOP is in charge of Congress. Based on the Dems' action on Social Security (and judges), I never could have guessed.

Top Democrats said Monday that they won't negotiate any remedy for Social Security's projected funding shortfall until President Bush and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee first take private retirement accounts off the table.

So the only thing that is good about Bush's Social Security proposals is a non-starter with the Left. "Reforming" Social Security now means raising taxes because Dems already said they won't cut benefits. If the GOP gives in, all we get is a larger government program that is still an inefficient waste of money.

Without private accounts, I would rather see no changes to Social Security.

States Still Looking to Tax Internet Sales

Fortunately for U.S. consumers, state taxes on Internet sales are still at least a year or two away. But notice how the issue is covered by the AP.

Across the country, more than $21 billion in sales tax is not being collected, according to a University of Tennessee study.

''Yes, we are losing money and a significant amount of money,'' said Loren Chumley, Tennessee Revenue Department commissioner.

So instead of stating how consumers benefit from increased purchasing power, the article focuses on "lost" revenue from the government. This is the way people in the bizarro world look at taxes (Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry,...). They believe that every dollar that remains in consumers' pockets is "lost" government revenue. Thankfully not everyone in Congress agrees with that attitude.

To GOP: Just Say No

All of a sudden, Democrats are eager to negotiate a deal to allow two (of ten) of Bush's appeals court judicial nominees to get a Senate vote. It only took evidence from Sen. McConnell (R-KY) that Republicans have the votes to bypass Democrats altogether and get all of Bush's nominations confirmed, with or without them. Harry Reid (D-NV) has also backtracked on his proposal to shut down the Senate. Unfortunately, Reid is still dictating terms as if he's in charge:

"I've always said that we'd make sure the Senate went forward, but we're going to do it on our agenda, not their agenda," Reid said.

In addition, Reid wants to name his own judicial candidate. In his mind, the President no longer has the sole power to appoint judges. Now, Reid believes the minority party in the Senate (that is coming off a shellacking in the latest election) should be allowed to replace the President's nominees with its own candidates as a reward for allowing two nominees to receive a vote.

Is anyone else angry that Harry Reid even has the audacity to sugggest this ridiculous proposal, nevermind find a listening audience in Sen. Frist? If Republicans even consider this proposal, they are both crazy and stupid. I would like to think they are a lot smarter.

*Update*
Frist says he's "not interested in deals." Good for him.

What is a Hate Crime?

Call me thick, but I never understood the whole idea of a hate crime. If someone assaults an innocent victim walking down the street, should he receive a more lenient penalty because it was random? Why is it worse if the attacker knows the race or sexual orientation of his victim? Anyway, that's beside the point. Michelle Malkin asks "When is a hate crime not a hate crime?" and posts this story about the double standard of hate crimes.

I think the reason it wasn't considered a "hate crime" at first is the same reason that it's ok to bash Jews and Christians but is forbidden to mention a disaparaging word about Muslims. It's also the reason it's ok for Democrats to talk about God and religion but it is "right wing theocracy" when Republicans do it. (Note the hype over Bill Frist's speech this weekend to a religious group vs. John Kerry's sermon at a church, which went largely unnoticed.) I just haven't figured out why this is the case...

Financial Times Take on a U.S. VAT

The Financial Times had an article the other day endorsing the idea of a value-added tax (VAT) for the U.S. While I would be among the first to sign up for a flat tax in the U.S., I think the FT has its rationale wrong. First, the FT makes the argument that the U.S. needs another tax and it will come in the form of higher corporate taxes or a VAT tax. With the size of our government, I would never subscribe to the theory that we need another tax.

I am among the camp that believes a VAT should only be used as a replacement for existing taxes, not an addition to taxes. And I have zero confidence that this would be the case. The FT contradicts itself in first claiming that the VAT really wouldn't be the "money machine" that conservatives claim, but it then goes on to say that the government-funded welfare programs in Europe were so large that they needed a new way to fund the massive budgets - hence the VAT.

Regardless of the FT's logic, I believe a VAT would be simple, efficient, and would promote savings in the U.S. I would support a VAT wholeheartedly if the government first scraps the rest of the tax code and starts from scratch. And I have a better chance of visiting Mars than that happening.

Democratic Compromise on Judges?

Captain Ed has some thoughts on Joe Biden's latest compromise attempt over judges yesterday once Biden realized Republicans have the votes to end the unprecedented filibuster of judicial nominees. The captain's advice to Frist: don't take the bait.

Proof About Bolton

I guess this seals it for Democrats that Bolton chased his accuser down the hall a decade ago. You can't argue with this proof.

Meanwhile, Bill Kristol writes that the failure to get Bolton confirmed would send a message that anyone who opposes entrenched beauracracies in government better think twice before speaking. Kristol considers it one of the most important nominations since the GOP failure with Robert Bork (whose replacement was a more "acceptable" Anthony Kennedy).

Why Chris Matthews is Nearly Always Wrong

I'm not sure why I bothered watching Chris Matthews this morning; I guess it's the same reason drivers stop to see a car wreck on a highway - you know it looks awful, but you look anyway. The makeup of the show reminded me of why Matthews is always surprised when Bush gets his way and/or Democrats lose another battle. His panel consisted of 4 liberals: Katty Kay, Andrew Sullivan, Howard Fineman and some other lib female (I didn't care enough to get her name).

These...ahem... "experts" discussed a subject about which they know absolutely nothing: Republicans and Republican voters. The big problem is that these guests think and act like uninformed Europeans on American politics: they state their wishes and opinions as fact without providing any real knowledge of the subject. The reason the Euros were "shocked" and "dismayed" when Bush was re-elected is that no one bothered to tell them the truth about American opinion beforehand.

Matthews' panel discussed how Bolton would lose the nomination, Frist has no chance in 2008 because he is "pandering to the theocratic Right" and probably a few other topics on why the GOP is wrong (sorry, but my mind numbs after so much gibberish). The only thing that kept me watching was the joy I will feel when Matthews, et. al, despair about how their "analysis" could have been so wrong when all the panelists were in such complete agreement. If he wants to be right, Matthews needs to stick to a subject which he knows - Democrats - leave the rest to the GOP.

BBC Plants Hecklers at Conservative Meeting

In a style reminiscent of Al-Jazeera, where a news organization feels the necessity to create news rather than report it, the BBC planted three hecklers at a political event hosted by the Tories. The BBC's excuse? Cover it up, CBS style:

Last night, the BBC claimed that the exercise was part of a "completely legitimate programme about the history and art of political heckling" and said that other parties' meetings were being "observed". However, The Telegraph has established that none of Tony Blair's meetings was infiltrated or disrupted in similar fashion.

Hmm...you would expect a little more professionalism from an organization that exists solely because UK taxpayers fund it.

Higher Education: Socialism in Action

If you want to know what happens when the government funds an industry, just look at higher education. For every year since 1982, college tuition fees have risen faster than the overall inflation rate. Richard Vedder, a distinguished professor at Ohio University and adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, explains the main reasons, which result from the socialist factors involved in education.

Vedder notes the lack of coincidence that the government involves itself in the financing of the two American sectors in which prices are rising fastest (college tuition and healthcare). He also discusses the total lack of incentive for colleges to control costs - schools have no desire to improve profitability. As an example, when was the last time you saw a college advertising itself on the basis of a cheaper education than its peers?

Vedder also discusses some of the other "non-market forces" that demonstrate the need for American industry to compete with its peers without subsidies and incentive its employees. Read the whole thing.

John Kerry Getting Jealous

According to the NY Post, John Kerry is furious that some Democratic senators are already endorsing a potential Hillary candidacy in 2008.

The flap was touched off two weeks ago when Clinton spoke at a Minneapolis Democratic dinner and Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) told the cheering crowd that he was introducing "the next great president of the United States."

Two days later, Kerry came over to Dayton on the Senate floor "with daggers in his eyes and said, 'What are you doing endorsing my 2008 presidential opponent?' . . . He was very serious," Dayton told the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Poor guy. He reminds me a little of a puppy that was just hit by a Mack truck and is wincing in pain, ready to be put to sleep.

New Joint Chiefs Chairman is "Mean"

Junkyard Blog says that Bush nominee for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, should be worried about his Senate confirmation. (Hint: he might have yelled at some people - and might have even hurt some marines' feelings.)

For once, I don't think the Democrats will dare to question this Bush nominee with an impeccable service record too harshly.

Russert Moderates Panel with Scalia, Breyer and O'Connor

At a conversation hosted by the National Constitution Center, The National Archives and the Aspen Insitute, Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer and Sandra Day O'Connor gave their thoughts on several topics, including the relevance of foreign law and the increasing politicization of today's courts.

Justice Breyer's statements on the use of foreign law makes me wonder how he ever made it to the Supreme Court. I didn't write down his words verbatim, but Breyer essentially said that a good example of why we should listen to foreign law lies in South Africa. The people in South Africa, after struggling to form a new government and court system, are good, honest and rational people - "just like us" - so we should listen to what they have to say. It was one of the weakest legal arguments I have ever heard. Our founding fathers are probably turning over in their graves. (Remember why we separated from England in the first place Justice Breyer?)

On the increasing politicization of the confirmation process, Scalia said that when he was confirmed in 1986, he passed the Senate unanimously, despite the fact that his "originalist" views were well known. But as judges increasingly decide for themselves how the Constitution "evolves" to today's standards rather than simply interpreting what the document says, the law can mean whatever the judges want it to mean. Thus, politicians are encouraged to find judges who agree with their own views rather than find judges who can interpret the law.

It's definitely worth listening to, although because it's an hour long, there are some quality problems listening online. You can find it here at www.Cspan.org by searching the audio archives.

Rising and Falling Stocks for 2008

In the spirit of the NFL Draft this weekend (let's go Belichick!), Jayson at Polipundit offers his views about the rising and falling stocks for the GOP in 2008. First, the falling stars:

1) McCain
2) Bill Frist
3) Rick Santorum
4) Rudy Giuliani

Then, the rising stars: none.

I actually have a couple of rising stars, but the one I am throwing my full support behind is George Allen (R-VA). Granted, he has very little national recognition, but he would be a fantastic candidate. Anyone who sees him on television notices how personable and telegenic he is - and his conservative credentials are impeccable. Allen was formerly a very successful southern governor who helped grow the Virginia economy through low taxes and reduced regulation. I believe he would also likely appeal to independents as a down-to-earth and likeable guy.

The GOP is Fighting Itself

While it's too early to say that the GOP is in self-destruct mode, the early warning signs are not good. First, you have GOP governors proposing tax increases in Nevada, Indiana and Colorado against their core principles.

Next and more importantly, there are many who feel that the GOP is betraying its election day promises, specifically regarding the confirmation of judges. As Captain's Quarters explains, Republicans have turned their asset into a liability because of their indecision.

If the Democrats have taught us anything over the past decade, it's that Americans don't vote for politicians who are too wishy-washy to act on what they believe. It's why the Democrats have not won an election in five cycles. The time is now for the GOP to right the ship and show its resolve. President Bush, where are you?

Hate YOUR Job? Consider This...

I'm not sure who does these studies, but you couldn't pay me enough. So quit complaining about your job!

Another Unhappy Anniversary

Babalu Blog remembers Elian Gonzales five years ago today - along with a summary of some of the people who are happy with the results of the whole episode (hint: they are on the left side of the aisle).

Hyde on Clinton's Impeachment

Henry Hyde (R-IL), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment hearings, was interviewed by ABC News political reporter Andy Shaw. The ABC headline is entitled, "Clinton Impeachment was Retaliation for Nixon, Says Retiring Congressman." This is completely bogus.

When listening to the clip, I noticed a couple things. First, Andy Shaw said that the impeachment of Clinton embarrassed Henry Hyde because it brought attention to his "hypocrisy" many years earlier when he participated in an extramarital affair. (Unsurprisingly, Shaw did not mention anything about obstruction of justice.) Second, Shaw commented on Hyde's retirement, saying that some people on Capitol Hill will miss Hyde's gentlemanly style, but not his "rigid ideology." Why is it that only conservatives have "rigid ideologies?" I have never heard a Democrat disparaged for his rigid ideology - more likely, Democrats are praised for "sticking to their principles."

Finally and most importantly, if you haven't heard or read this headline already, the MSM has found its story for the next week. You will hear it over and over again.

Andy Shaw: Was this payback [for Democrats going after Richard Nixon]?

Henry Hyde: I can't say that it wasn't, but I also thought that the Republican Party should stand for something and if we walked away from this, no matter how difficult, we could be accused of shirking our duty, our responsibility.

Shaw concluded that Hyde's comments have vindicated Democrats for what they have been saying for years: that Clinton's impeachement was due to the "vast right wing conspiracy" and not for any of Clinton's actions. He sounded like a giddy schoolboy when he asked rhetorically about the forthcoming commentary from both sides once his story hit the airwaves.

Just another example of shameless MSM apologetics.

Simpsons Friday

Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

Chief Wiggum: Fat Tony is a cancer on this fair city! He is the cancer and I am the ... uh ... what cures cancer?

Homer: To Start Press Any Key. Where's the ANY key?

Lisa: [reading] "Nuke the whales?" You don't really believe that, do you?
Nelson: I dunno. Gotta nuke something.

Apu: Yes! I am a citizen! Now which way to the welfare office? I'm kidding, I'm kidding, I work, I work.

Chief Wiggum: Mrs. Simpson, I believe your husband is DOA....
Marge: HE'S DEAD?!!
Wiggum: Oh, no, that's DWI. I always get these police terms mixed up.
Women in Police Station: Hi, you said my husband was DWL....

Mr. Burns: You're fired.
Marge: You can't fire me just because I'm married. I'm gonna sue the pants off of you.
Mr. Burns: You don't have to sue me to get my pants off.

Ralph Wiggum: Bushes are nice 'cause they don't have prickers. Unless they do. This one does. Ouch!

Chief Wiggum: This is Papa Bear. Put out an APB for a male suspect, driving a... car of some sort, heading in the direction of, uh, you know, that place that sells chili. Suspect is hatless. Repeat, hatless.

Mr. Burns: So, Smithers, what are you doing this weekend. Something gay, I expect?
Smithers: What?!!
Mr. Burns: You know, light and fancy free! Mothers, lock up your daughters! Smithers is on the town!
Smithers: Oh! Of course.

Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.

Howard Dean: A Child Porn Producer?

No, the headline is not true; it was an intentionally bad joke, designed to mimic what Howard Dean did on Wednesday night in a speech in Minneapolis (sub required, but I've copied the relevant part). In his speech, he accused Rush Limbaugh of snorting cocaine. Limbaugh, once addicted to pain medication, has never taken cocaine and has never been accused of taking cocaine. But that didn't stop Dean from pandering to his audience for a few laughs.

Between a speech he delivered without notes and a question-answer session, Dean regaled an appreciative audience for nearly 90 minutes without once raising his voice, as he did after last year's Iowa primary election. But he did draw howls of laughter by mimicking a drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh. "I'm not very dignified," he said. "But I'm not running for president anymore."

And Democrats like to accuse Republicans of being "mean" and resorting to "name calling." How about slander, Howard?

I'd Love to See What's in this Report

According to the NY Daily News, Senate Democrats are trying to kill a ten-year legal investigation that implicates several Clinton Administration officials for obstruction of justice.

The Democrats, saying that the $21 million investigation by Independent Counsel David Barrett should have ended long ago, succeeded in attaching an amendment to a spending bill Tuesday to cut off his funding by June 1.

But two sources close to the investigation said that if the legislation becomes law, it will thwart Barrett from making public a final report that names senior officials in the Clinton Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service who allegedly buried a tax fraud case involving former cabinet member Henry Cisneros.

The report will allege that Justice Department officials snuffed out a tax case against Cisneros and that the IRS sometimes audited Clinton critics without good cause.

All I know is that if Democrats are trying this hard to kill the report before it comes out in June, there's got to be some damning information in it.

Two of Bush's Judicial Nominees Pass Committee

According to Fox News, two of Bush's judicial nominees, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown passed the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning along party lines and will go to the floor of the Senate for a vote (or filibuster). If they actually get a vote, both nominees will be pass. Both are well-qualified candidates who have been elected by the states of Texas and California. Rogers Brown actually received the highest number of votes of any justice on the California Supreme Court. Yet somehow, according to Democrats, they are both "extremists."

If Democrats decide to filibuster on the Senate floor, I expect Frist to use the constitutional option. This could be it...

Congressman Sees Mideast Tie to OKC Bombing

As I mentioned briefly in my earlier post, Congressman Rohrabacher (R-CA) sees a Mideast tie to the Oklahoma City bombing ten years ago. On Tuesday night, Rohrabacher took to the floor of the House and asked why the FBI ignored strong evidence of a Mideast connection.

I'm looking for a transcript of his speech and will post it when it's available.

Administrative Update

Just a quick update: it seems that my website is still having problems with Mozilla browser users. Please contact me if you have experienced difficulty using Mozilla in the past 24 hours. Thanks.

Typical from Reuters

John Hawkins has this post that shows the anti-Christian attitude of Reuters. For secularists, this is just "free speech" that expresses a good, honest "difference of opinion."

Another BS Economic Article From WaPo

Ankle Biting Pundits has a great post on the "mono-variablitis" of Washington Post's analysis of its polls. (For those unfamiliar with the term, it's made up and means the over emphasis on a single data point to explain your thesis.) From a single poll question, the Post has divined that American voters are screaming for Bush and Congress to drop everything and start making laws about anything that is economic related. If not, there will be an overthrow of the GOP controlled Congress in the next election cycle. (Nevermind that GDP is still growing at 3%+, unemployment is under 5.5% and interest rates are still quite low - the next Depression is coming...)

The disconnect between pocketbook concerns of ordinary Americans and the preoccupations of their politicians has helped send President Bush's approval ratings on the economy down, while breeding discontent with Congress. The problem has yet to grow into a political wave that could sweep significant numbers of lawmakers from power next year, but both parties face risks if they fail to pivot their attention to economic issues.

Oil-for-food Investigators Resign

It appears that even members of Paul Volcker's own investigative team know that his report is nothing more than a whitewash. Investigators Robert Parton and Miranda Duncan have resigned.

Two senior investigators with the committee probing corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program have resigned in protest, saying they believe a report that cleared Kofi Annan of meddling in the $64 billion operation was too soft on the secretary-general, a panel member confirmed Wednesday.

It looks as though Kofi's investment in the Volcker commission is going to be the best investment he ever made.

NewsMax: "The Used Vacuum Salesman"

Hundred percenter has an interesting post on the spam coming from the Newsmax site being mailed to its users. While I usually subscribe to the policy of "caveat emptor," there are also truth-in-advertising laws to which companies are responsible. And a website operator should have some idea what the spammers are selling.

His post brings up another question for me: how many people bother clicking on some of those Blogads, which seems to be standard fare these days? And all the ads are identical - one can either buy some Iraqi dinars, buy a t-shirt from an attractive female, or perhaps get a subscription to OpinionJournal. (I don't blog for money, so I think advertising just clutters up the site, but even if I did use ads someday - it's time for a little originality, bloggers.)

Just a quick administrative note: it appears that blogger.com is having some problems - right now the Bizblogger home address seems to take you to the blogger.com homepage when using the Mozilla Firefox browser (MS Internet Explorer still works fine). I hope this is just a temporary issue and will be remedied shortly. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Time to Unseat Lincoln Chafee

Lincoln Chafee, a supposed Republican Senator, could be the key vote to derail John Bolton. According to Chafee's spokesman, Stephen Hourahan, the senator is "much less likely" to support Bolton after a wild and uncorroborated claim that Bolton "harrassed" a government contractor on a business matter in 1994. (By the way, this government contractor is a self-described liberal who was a founder of the Dallas chapter of Mothers Opposing Bush.)

Are you kidding me?!? "Harrassed" 10 years ago on a business matter? So now it apparently takes a single objection, true or false, from a former partisan acquaintance to derail any political or judicial nominee. This is character assassination at its worst - and the Dems might get away with it.

If Lincoln Chafee votes against Bolton's confirmation, I am officially supporting his Democratic opponent next election. I don't care if it's Patches Kennedy or Tom Daschle. The GOP is not in a situation where it is going to lose the Senate, so as far as I'm concerned, having Chafee on any Senate committee gives the Democrats an advantage - Chafee needs to lose.

Do Scandanavians Live Better than Americans?

Don Boudreaux has an interesting post that discusses whether Scandanavians, and Europeans in general, actually have a higher standard of living than Americans. In short, the answer is no.

After adjusting the figures for the different purchasing powers of the dollar and euro, the only European country whose economic output per person was greater than the United States average was the tiny tax haven of Luxembourg, which ranked third, just behind Delaware and slightly ahead of Connecticut.

Alternatively, the study found, if the E.U. was treated as a single American state, it would rank fifth from the bottom, topping only Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia and Mississippi.

One More Thing About Bolton

David Asman had a very interesting point on Fox News today about this article in the Washington Post by Dana Milbank last week. The article is related to the John Bolton hearings on his U.N. nomination.

Most Republicans skipped the hearing, leaving Democrats largely unchallenged as they assailed Bolton's knack for making enemies and disparaging the very organization he would serve [emphasis added].

This is the difference between Democrats and Republicans (well, excluding GOP Senators Chafee and Voinovich). While Democrats believe the U.N. ambassador needs to suck up to Kofi Annan and serve the U.N., Republicans know that John Bolton ultimately serves the U.S. - not the U.N. I don't ever want to hear a Democrat again complain that the public believes they are weak on national security. They have that image for a reason.

Soros Five-Year Plan: Spend More

George Soros recently emphasized to a group of 70 millionaires and billionaires the importance of patience and the use of investing in liberal think tanks, media outlets and leadership schools to compete with conservatives.

Georgie is missing one rather large point: the reason conservative radio stations and think tanks work is because they are practically the only avenue conservatives have to get out their ideas. Further, people like those ideas, so they pay attention.

When Democrats already have nearly every media outlet to spread its ideas (or more accurately, lack thereof), it doesn't need a new Moveon.org or Air America.

Sen. Voinovich - The Latest Jellyfish

John Bolton's nomination to the UN was delayed today as Sen. Voinovich (R-OH) decided to cave to Democratic concerns over Bolton's behavior. Nevermind the crazy allegations, since when did Democrats become so concerned with the behavior of anyone?

Inexplicably, Voinovich offered the following for delaying the vote: "I don't feel comfortable voting today," adding that his concern is with "one's interpersonal skills and their relationship with their fellow man."

This is ludicrous. Betsy's Page points out that Chairman Lugar was completely blindsided by the man with no vertebrae:

These three weeks will be filled with drip by drip of any liberal-leaning person who ever worked in State or with Bolton somewhere to see if Bolton ever talked crosswise with them.

UN Oil Scam: Boutros-Ghali Involved?

South Korean businessman Tongsun Park, accused of trying to buy influence in Congress in the 1970s in what became known as the "Koreagate" scandals, is now being accused of taking bribes from Iraq in the U.N. oil-for-food scandal. The criminal complaint against Park last week also listed two unidentified UN officials, fueling speculation that one of them is former Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

Several current and former U.N. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Boutros-Ghali was good friends with Park while he was secretary-general. One said they met during an Asian trip by the U.N. chief who served from 1992 to 1997, and several said they saw Park at U.N. headquarters in New York.

If true, it begs the question: when was the last time we had a UN Secretary General that was not corrupt?

FYI - This is NOT the new pope

Just in case you are not familiar with Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict), this is NOT him. Heh.

The Alternative Pope

As predicted, the media has already tried to diminish the new pope and it is quite ridiculous: he "served in the Nazi army" (despite the fact there was no such thing), he is "too old," "controversial," "divisive," and "polarizing."

Supposedly there are "so many Catholics" out there that wanted someone else to bring reforms. So I'm giving the media what they want - an alternative pope:

Today, April 19, 2005, the Vatican Conclave decided on a new leader - Pope Andrew Sullivan. He was cheered by millions of secularists, atheists, Muslims and media personnel, as well as a few progressive Catholics around the world.

Pope Sullivan promises to bring dramatic change to a Church that is looking for a new direction. While some far-right extremists may be disappointed by the selection, Sullivan will certainly embrace bold and constructive new ideas to the papacy (which will now include his life partner). There will be no more assault on those who choose to participate in gay marriage and abortion.

Sullivan proclaimed, "I am excited. The previous pope mistakenly said that he was God's representative - I want to be the people's representative and really make the Church more modern. I think I understand the will of the West a lot better than past popes. The world has changed, and so too, must God's commandments."

Chris Matthews was delighted - "Finally we have someone who isn't beholden to the arcane rules of the Church and words within the Bible. This is great for secularists and people of all religions - well, except Catholics."

Maureen Dowd was also pleasantly surprised. "It's about time we found someone who doesn't discuss the negative idea of "sin" as much as past popes. I hope he has the guts to remove all symbols of religion around the world, starting with the U.S."

The ACLU espressed joy at the selection of Pope Sullivan. "Sullivan promises to outlaw all Catholics who try to pray anywhere outside their own homes. Finally - one of us!"

PETA wasn't quite sure about the selection: "We're hoping that Sullivan discusses doggie heaven more than past popes; we've really been alienated."

All you MSM types and opponents to Pope Benedict, print out this post - because it is the closest you will get to your desired selection. (For all you who think I was too tough on Sullivan, just read his idiotic post. And Professor Bainbridge's reply.)

Sorry, Liberals: It's Cardinal Ratzinger

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a longtime traditionalist of Catholic doctrine in the mold of John Paul II, has been chosen to be the next pope. Pope Benedict XVI will surely disappoint the liberal elite in the U.S., as well as some of the more "progressive" Cardinals (though I believe they are much fewer in number than the media implies). According to the Telegraph, liberal Cardinal Walter Kaspar "warned against choosing a clone of John Paul II."

I can't wait to hear the MSM's take on the new pope. This is a broadcast I could envision:

"Good evening. This is Wolf Blitzer from CNN. Today a new pope. Many Catholics say that Cardinal Ratzinger, 78, is just a 'stop-gap' or 'interim' pope before it goes in a new direction - a more progressive, welcoming direction (perhaps throwing in some innuendo about how the Bible needs to be 're-interpreted' to suit today's requirements or the necessity to change Catholic doctrine to suit pro-abortion foes).

Other Catholics might be disappointed that the Church didn't choose a black, Latino or minority pope (as if the Church should fill out a quota system). So, I'm getting a lot of mixed emotions among Catholics - a new pope, but missing a real chance for 'reform.' I'm Wolf Blitzer, from the Vatican."

This is entirely theoretical, but let's see how close I am to my prediction.

*Update*
I've just discovered that the London Times recently referred to the new pope as the "panzer cardinal," an allusion to Ratzinger's forced enrollment in the Hitler Youth movement, despite the fact that he deserted at the risk of losing his life and his family was staunchly anti-Nazi. Let's see how often this gets mentioned over the next few days.

Let the character assassination begin.

*Update 2*
I turned the tv to CNN for a total of 5 seconds this evening, just enough to hear Paula Zahn say, "Clearly many Catholics are disappointed with the choice of pope." Ha! She must have been talking about Andrew Sullivan, the self-proclaimed staunch Catholic conservative...

Ron Insana Inverviews President Bush on SS

Tonight CNBC will air a 30-minute interview of President Bush by Ron Insana. Although I saw only a brief clip this morning, Bush has never sounded better on his social security reforms. Although Insana asked a few pointed questions that indicated skepticism due to "stock market volatility," and "transition costs," Bush handled them very well. More importantly, Bush is debunking the transition cost myth by explaining that we already have an unfunded liability of $11 trillion (something the MSM seems more than happy to ignore).

I'll try to catch the whole interview tonight.

The Anti-Japanese Protests in China

Chrenkoff has some good thoughts on the anti-Japanese protests that were undoubtedly planned by the Chinese government. The failure of Japan to issue an apology for its World War II is the canard for the media. The Chinese, like the Japanese, have also ignored history to present a different view to its own citizens.

The true reasons for the government-encouraged protests are quite different and have to do with Japan's recent support fot the U.S.' protection of Taiwan in the event of an attack by China. While the NY Times has a good Q&A on the Chinese-Japanese dispute, I believe it misses one key point.

Japan recently reiterated its claim to the strategically valuable Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands, which are just 6.3 square km in area. There is surely economic value for both fishing and oil, as Japan last week Ok'd a decision to begin drilling around the islands. More importantly, however, the islands are within a key waterway that would prove to be very important to the U.S. in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan.

As Belmont Club notes in a great post, the waterway around the islands would provide for effective China attack submarine capabilities in the event of military attacks. Whoever controls this key area could use the waterway to blockade any shipments to the opposing country and effect the use of naval power.

The US intelligence community has reported that since 2001, the Chinese shipbuilding industry has produced 23 new amphibious assault ships and 13 conventional attack submarines. ... The PLA Navy (PLAN) is rapidly transforming itself from a coastal force into a bluewater naval power with a force modernisation drive that is unprecedented in the post-Cold War era.

Don't be fooled - these protests have nothing to do with a Japanese apology for World War II, despite what the media might say.

Al Jazeera Banned in Iran

It seems that not all countries in the Middle East like Al Jazeera. After accusing the tv station of inflaming violent protests among the nation's Arab minorities, Iran has suspended Al Jazzera's operations inside its country.

The riots are thought to have been sparked by alleged plans - which the government denies - to change the area's ethnic makeup.

Al-Jazeera described the action as "surprising and unjustified".

Mugabe Tells Europe, America to Butt Out

Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, celebrated his 25 years of "independence" by telling Europeans and Americans to "leave Zimbabwe alone."

"Our elections have not needed Anglo-American validation. They are validated by fellow Africans, and friendly countries from the Third World," Mugabe told thousands gathered at a sports stadium for the independence celebrations.

"That is where we get justice, not from Europe neither indeed from America. We never agitate to observe their elections and therefore let them keep away from our affairs," Mugabe said.

As Austin Bay points out, if independence implies stealing elections, ethnic cleansing and confiscating property, then Mugabe has truly brought independence to Zimbabwe. One of the obvious signs of all thug dictators (Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Milsosevic, Castro, Chavez) is to tell other countries to keep out of their affairs.

Decade of Deceit: The Oklahoma City Bombing

During the 9/11 congressional hearings a year ago, there was a common question that the commissioners seemed to enjoy asking: Why was the U.S. not on “war footing” when the 9/11 attack occurred? If the government truly wanted to seek all information regarding intelligence failures leading up to 9/11, the Commission should have asked one of its own members about the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 171 lives (168 plus 3 unborn) a decade ago on April 19, 1995. In one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of the U.S., the federal government purposely avoided investigating incriminating evidence of a plot that pointed directly to Middle East terrorism. The evidence is so extensive and so captivating that I can only hope and suggest that you will read the whole story for yourself.

Reno-Gorelick Justice Department
Shortly after the Murrah Federal Building was bombed a decade ago on April 19, 1995, Jamie Gorelick, then number two at Janet Reno’s Justice Department, appointed Merrick Garland to be the head prosecutor to lead the government investigation. Soon after being named to lead the investigation, Garland notified Oklahoma County district attorney Robert Macy that the Justice Department did not want a local investigation occurring simultaneously. Once this happened, the federal government had complete control over the direction of the investigation.

Despite Gorelick’s claims shortly after the bombing that "We have a lot of very fruitful leads that we're following" and Janet Reno’s promise that “no stone will be left unturned,” the federal prosecution team continually ignored, suppressed and discarded evidence that pointed to unambiguous foreign terrorist links to the bombing. This dereliction of duty helped to cover up Islamic militants’ terrorist war against the U.S., which our nation would not fully understand until September 11, 2001.

On December 23, 1997, Janet Reno had the audacity to state the following: “Two and a half years ago, when the Murrah Building was bombed, FBI Director Louis Freeh and I promised to follow every lead and bring those responsible to justice. Today, that promise has been kept.”

Background on Conspiracy Theories
Just a brief aside: I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t believe FDR allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor or that JFK was killed by the CIA. I’m sure many people hear the term “conspiracy” and don’t want to hear any more. If the 9/11 Commission used the term “conspiracy,” some people still might question whether terrorists were involved in that attack on the U.S. Instead, the 9/11 Commission used the term “plot,” which is a term that implies greater factual evidence and less speculation. Because the evidence pointing to foreign terrorism is so unmistakable, I think it’s necessary to use the term “plot” to describe the Oklahoma City bombing.

Mid-East Terrorist Links to Oklahoma City
The most comprehensive and accurate public source for the evidence of terrorist complicity to the Oklahoma City bombing is Jayna Davis’s The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing. Davis was an Oklahoma television reporter for NBC-affiliate KFOR-TV and was one of the first reporters on the scene after the bombing. Her book is one of the most meticulously researched and most fascinating investigations I have ever read. After reading her book, I have no doubt that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were just two actors in the bombing plot that included Iraqi and other Middle East terrorists. Additionally, I am certain that the FBI was derelict in its duty to investigate the plethora of evidence that Davis offered.

Despite her extensive evidence, the 9/11 Commissioners never even requested that Davis testify during their hearings (or even mention her by name, with the exception of one brief question by commissioner John Lehman). I am perplexed that, with the release of Davis’ book and the government’s focus on terrorism and the causes of 9/11, there has not been a public demand for a full investigation of Oklahoma City. The best explanation I can offer is that despite the popularity of her book, published in 2004, it seems to have been overshadowed by other significant world events, including the situation in Iraq and the election campaigns in the U.S. With the 10-year anniversary of the bombing this week, I truly hope that the story finally gets the attention it deserves.

Summary of Davis’ Work
Jayna Davis compiled the following evidence over the past decade: 1) Twenty-six sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses who implicate specific Arab men acting in collusion with McVeigh and Nichols during various stages of the bombing plot. 2) Classified government intelligence reports that tie Middle Eastern terrorist organizations to the attack. 3) Court documents, public records and statements by law enforcement and intelligence sources that have independently corroborated the eyewitnesses’ testimonies. The findings have been documented through nearly seventy hours of videotaped interviews, recorded phone conversations, and hundreds of pages of transcripts.

Davis’ evidence pointed to a network of foreign terrorists who were complicit in the bombing, including a former Iraqi soldier named Hussain Al-Hussaini who was identified by several independent witnesses as fitting the description of John Doe 2 with McVeigh in the Ryder truck the morning of the bombing.

On several occasions, Davis attempted to present her evidence to the FBI, but was continually refused. In 1997, she met with an FBI agent to surrender all witness statements and hundreds of pages of supporting information that validated critical aspects of their testimonies. The FBI, however, categorically refused to accept the evidence. The DOJ apparently did not want any more “documents for discovery” to turn over to the defense teams.

This is a great summary of Davis' findings.

Expert Thoughts on Jayna Davis’ Work
While I can understand public skepticism about Davis’ work before reading the evidence, there are many very well respected people who have supported the validity of her claims. The following are just a few examples:

James Woolsey, former CIA Director: "When the full stories of these two incidents (1993 WTC Center bombing and 1995 Oklahoma City bombing) are finally told, those who permitted the investigations to stop short will owe big explanations to these two brave women (Middle East expert Laurie Mylroie and journalist Jayna Davis). And the nation will owe them a debt of gratitude."

Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst and deputy director for counterterrorism for the U.S. State Department: “Looking at the Jayna Davis material, what’s clear is that more than Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were involved. Without a doubt, there’s a Middle Eastern tie to the Oklahoma City bombing."

David Schippers, former federal prosecutor and Chief Investigative Counsel for the Clinton impeachment trial: “It is my honest opinion that if the Department of Justice and the federal investigative agencies had not ignored Jayna Davis and instead accepted the mass of creditable evidence compiled by her, indicating direct Middle Eastern involvement in the bombing, the course of future events may have been altered. Had those investigators taken their duties seriously and followed up on the investigation of that information, it is entirely likely that the Twin Towers would still be standing.”

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy: “Thanks to [Jayna Davis] … these facts can no longer be ignored or concealed. And those who Ms. Davis reveals have systematically done both for nearly a decade must be called to account.”

Constantine C. Menges, former special assistant to President George H.W. Bush for National Security Affairs and former national CIA intelligence officer: “[Davis] reveals the facts that the Clinton Administration did not want to confront."

Dan Vogel, retired FBI special agent and former public information officer for the Oklahoma City FBI: “What they [FBI] did was unconscionable. The American people deserved the truth and the Bureau needed to look into this Middle East network here in Oklahoma City. If they had, maybe they would have come upon the network behind the September 11 attacks.”

Col. Patrick Lang, former chief of intelligence for the Defense Intelligence Agency: determined that Hussain Al-Hussaini (Davis’ suspected John Doe 2) was likely a member of the Iraq Republican Guard before being recruited into the elite Iraqi Military Intelligence Service.

William Webster, the former director of both the CIA and the FBI: said that the bombing had “all the hallmarks” of Mideast terror in an interview with the USA Today.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Leonard: upheld all fifty statements of fact and opinion used by Jayna Davis as “undisputed.”

Interesting Pieces of Information
There is so much captivating information on the Oklahoma bombing that I can’t list them all here. However, below are just a few pieces I find particularly interesting:

-The federal grand jury believed that there were more people involved than just Nichols and McVeigh, as evidenced by its indictment, which charged McVeigh, Nichols and “others unknown.”

-When U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch sentenced Terry Nichols to life in prison, he stated his dissatisfaction with the prosecutors’ story: “It would be disappointing for me if the law enforcement agencies of the United States government have quit looking for answers.”

-To this day, the Justice Department has never cleared Hussain Al-Hussaini, the man identified by witnesses as John Doe 2, the third terrorist who appeared in the Ryder truck with Timothy McVeigh. Yet the FBI did exonerate several other innocent men who were falsely named.

-Hussain Al-Hussaini moved to Boston shortly after the Oklahoma bombing to work at Logan International Airport, where he roomed with two former Iraqi soldiers. He quit his job in 1997, stating, “If something were to happen there, I would be a suspect.”

-On April 19, after hearing the first radio broadcasts that Islamic extremists had claimed responsibility for the attack on the Murrah Building, several witnesses watched their Middle Eastern co-workers who worked with Al-Hussaini cheer in excitement and pledge their allegiance to Saddam Hussein, vowing they would “die for Saddam.”

-Ayman Al-Zawahiri (Osama bin Laden’s No.2 man), traveled to Oklahoma City in the spring of 1995, just a few weeks prior to the bombing.

-Steven Emerson, a CNN investigative reporter and producer of the PBS documentary Jihad in America, reported on the radical Islamic conferences held in Oklahoma City in the 1990s: “I actually could have envisioned that I was in Beirut considering who attended.”

-When former FBI Director Louis Freeh was questioned at the 9/11 hearings by Commissioner John Lehman about links between Al Qaeda and Oklahoma City, Freeh responded: “Well, other than that [Davis'] book,…I don’t know of any other (emphasis added) credible source with respect to that kind of link."

-Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism advisor to President Clinton, on Terry Nichols’ bomb-making expertise that was derived from the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group (spinoff of Al Qaeda) in the Philippines: “We do know that Nichols’ bombs did not work before his Philippine stay and were deadly when he returned.” He also confirmed that Nichols was in the same city as Ramzi Yousef (1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind) during Yousef’s visit to the Philippines in 1994.

-Terry Nichols traveled to the Philippines several times from 1990 to 1995, often without his mail-order Philippine bride; he placed over 200 calls to a Philippines dormitory known for housing radical Islamic college students, including 22 phone calls on the day that Ramzi Yousef was captured in Pakistan in 1995.

-Edwin Angeles, co-founder of the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf, insisted to authorities that he had attended a meeting on the island of Mindanao in the Philippines at which Nichols discussed bomb-making with Ramzi Yousef. Angeles was later assassinated in 1998 as he exited a mosque.

-In April 1997 during McVeigh’s trial, the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General sharply criticized the FBI’s Oklahoma City bomb analysis, saying it was “scientifically unsound, not explained in the body of the report and biased in favor of the prosecution.”

-In October 2001 as the U.S. was at war to oust the Taliban in Afghanistan, U.S. soldiers found a guidebook to construct an “Oklahoma-style” bomb on the floor of a Kabul mansion used by bin Laden terrorists.

Terrorism Didn’t Begin on 9/11
Despite the belief among some people that terrorist attacks essentially began on 9/11, terrorism was already taking its form under Al Qaeda and other organizations in the early 1990s. By the time of the Oklahoma bombing, there have already been several terrorist incidents on Americans, including an explosion outside two Yemen hotels in 1992, the killing of Americans in Somalia in 1993 and the World Trade Center attack in 1993. The Oklahoma bombing was then followed by a Saudi Arabian car bombing in 1995, the 1995 failed Bojinka plot in 1995 (to blow up U.S. planes over the Pacific Ocean), the Khobar Towers attack in 1996, the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks.

Experts investigating these attacks have revealed that these attacks take years of planning, financing and organization. However, the Oklahoma bombing supposedly was performed by just two individuals with no outside help. For reasons unknown, the Clinton Administration refused to even consider evidence involving any foreign terrorist involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing. Even today, lawmakers and federal agencies are reluctant to consider reviewing the evidence of the case – perhaps out of fear of a public backlash once Americans realize how badly the Justice Department failed them in the 1990s.

Clinton Law Enforcement Teams Not a Model of Credibility
Before we accept the FBI’s version that the bombing in Oklahoma City was perpetrated solely by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, consider these examples that fail to inspire confidence:

The FBI recently found explosives at the home of Terry Nichols that they somehow “missed” despite extensive visits and searches over the past decade.

Sandy Berger – assistant to the President for National Security affairs in Clinton’s first term, was recently fined for stealing classified documents from the National Archives. As WorldNetDaily reported in 2004, these documents may have shown evidence of Al Qaeda links to Oklahoma City.

John Deutch – CIA Director for Clinton, was found guilty for downloading classified material to unsecured computers at his home and had his security clearance suspended.

Janet Reno – Attorney General for Clinton, showed her incompetence several times, including her actions in the bungled operations at Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas.

Major Questions that Need to be Answered
There are many questions that the government needs to answer regarding the Oklahoma City bombing. However, these are a few questions to begin:

Why has the Justice Department never issued a statement exonerating Hussain Al-Hussaini in the bombing, despite repeated requests to do so?

Why has the FBI never questioned Al-Hussaini about the bombing?

Why did the FBI previously suspect Al-Hussaini’s employer (and who also hired several other Iraqis) of ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization?

Why were the original Cactus Motel registration logs where McVeigh stayed (and was seen by witnesses with Al-Hussaini and other Iraqis) never returned to the motel’s owner? [Note that this is the same motel Mohammed Atta, Marwan Al-Shehhi and Zacarias Moussaoui attempted to stay one month before the 9/11 attacks.]

What happened to the brown Chevy pickup that was seen carrying Middle Eastern suspects from the bomb site?

Why did the FBI flatly refuse to accept mountains of Davis’ evidence that supported foreign terrorist links to the bombing?

What happened to the 22 affidavits with witness statements corroborating Davis’ evidence, which FBI Special Agent Dan Vogel accepted in 1999 but have since been “lost” by the Justice Department?

Motivations for a Federal Cover-up
It became clear within several hours of the bombing that US Federal agencies had been told to suppress any evidence of, or discussion of, any Middle Eastern involvement in the bombing and to direct blame solely at US right-wing militias. The Reno-Gorelick Justice Department acted quickly to suppress any meaningful pursuit of other perpetrators of the bombing.

At the beginning of the investigation, the Clinton Administration blamed radio talk show hosts for instigating right-wing militias to take action against the government. It is quite possible that Clinton wanted to place the blame with conservative political opposition to take the momentum out of the powerful conservative talk-radio programming.

Most likely, the Clinton Administration leadership was anxious to avoid any recognition of Middle Eastern involvement in the bombing because such an event would almost certainly call for a military response against the nations or individuals who helped carry out the attack. Instead, the military response would have to wait another 6 years.

Update: Status of the Investigation
After the release of her book in 2004, Davis again attempted to have the FBI issue a statement exonerating Hussain Al-Hussaini as John Doe 2. The FBI still refuses to do so. While Jayna Davis says that she is still hopeful that there might well be new developments into the investigation in the near future, I’m less sanguine based on history.

While there have been lighthearted attempts to investigate the massive failures of the FBI related to the Oklahoma bombing, most government officials just prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is one member who is confident that hearings will be held in the near future. "My guess is there will be a hearing," he said, but "it would be a few months down the way. It wouldn't be on the 10th anniversary."

Because there are so many people adamant about not allowing a new look at the Oklahoma investigation, I won’t hold my breath. With all the criticism from some leaders about the failure of U.S. intelligence, an investigation that were to find Middle East complicity in Oklahoma would not engender any new confidence in U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

The family members of 9/11 victims got some answers to government failures leading up to the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Unfortunately, neither they nor the family members of the Oklahoma City bombing victims will get the full answers they deserve until the government answers the questions about foreign terrorist involvement on April 19, 1995.

Fox News Report
Just as I finished writing this post, Fox News broadcast a program Sunday night titled The Oklahoma City Bombing: Unanswered Questions. Fox interviewed two FBI agents as the primary basis of its story. Clearly the FBI agents supported their own findings. Still, Danny Coulson, one of the interviewed agents, stated explicitly that he believes there were more people involved that were not prosecuted. However, Fox never interviewed Jayna Davis for its program and instead speculated that the “others unknown” may have been anti-government white supremacists. Overall it was a very disappointing special by Fox News (and conflicted with Bill O’Reilly’s interview of Jayna Davis in 2002).

History Channel Special: "Conspiracy?"
The History Channel is running a special this week on potential conspiracy theories related to the bombing (it originally aired in December 2004). This is a much better special than the Fox program last week. It covers some of the evidence included in Davis' book pointing towards foreign involvement, although it barely scratches the surface in the one-hour special. Importantly, one of the FBI agents who insisted on the government theory of "McVeigh and Nichols alone" did not disprove a single piece of evidence that indicated foreign terrorist involvement. Instead, he focused simply on showing that Nichols and McVeigh were involved. James Woolsey was also interviewed and he had a very important point, stating that prosecutors like clean cases rather than complicated ones and reiterated his belief that we missed the foreign connection. For instance, in the aftermath of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the mastermind was not found until much later.

Contact Rep. Rohrabacher to register your opinion of support for a review of previously ignored evidence in this case.