Theodore's World

John Walker Lindh, a 20-year-old American from California, was captured while fighting for the Taliban.

John Walker Lindh was sentenced to 20 years in prison as part of an agreement reached in July under which he pled guilty to one count of supplying services to the Taliban and a criminal information charge that he carried a rifle and two hand grenades while fighting against the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance.

As part of the plea deal, the government dropped all other counts in a lengthy criminal indictment, including one of the most serious charges -- conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals. CIA officer Johnny Michael Spann was killed in the Mazar-e Sharif uprising.

John Walker Lindh spent weeks on the USS Bataan, a Navy warship in the North Arabian Sea, being interrogated by U.S. investigators before he was transferred from the ship to a U.S. military post at Kandahar International Airport in Afghanistan. From there, he flew to the United States on January 23

Tom sent me this article, thank you Tom!! I thought you all might like to see it. It is long so I will put most of it here and then the rest at "Continue reading" further below....................................
The Truth about John Walker Lindh
By Robert Young Pelton

John Walker Lindh aka John Walker aka Suleiman Ferris aka Abdul Hamid aka The American Taliban is a person that I will mostly likely to be associated for some time to come. I am sure on my obituary there will be a bombastic note that I was “the journalist who “discovered” Lindh after the battle at Qali Jangi” (the afghans have that dubious honor) Many have told me that Lindh’s story was a big deal back in the States. I will never know, I was in Afghanistan covering combat operations with in the ongoing war against the Taliban for CNN so I will never have the chance to the get the full impact of finding an American professing his love for the Taliban.

To me Lindh was just an unpleasant arrogant kid who preferred to stay with his murdering friends. He was in the fact, the second Irish-American Jihadi I have met and interviewed. The first one was a one-legged psychopath who had been trained in the same camps and had fought in Kashmir, Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya and Liberia gave me his opinion. When I called him to discuss Lindh’s hejira, Aqil Collins simply called Lindh “a pussy”. When I returned from Afghanistan I was quite aware of the outrage he had caused. I only did interviews in which I spoke positively about Lindh in a deliberate effort not to influence his pending case. Privately I warned his lawyers to keep me off the witness stand because I would send their little Johnny to prison. Wisely Lindh copped a plea and I was spared months of inconvenience. Some people wanted a trial to get to the bottom of Lindh’s nefarious activties, among them the grieving family of Mike Spann. Lindh’s plea bargain denied them and the country of that truth finding.

So it was left to me to set the record straight. My decades of travels with jihadis and terrorists, my time with both the Taliban leadership, the Northern Alliance aka the United Front, Dostum’s forces and and based on my time spent during and after talking to the players involved with Qali Jangi leads me to believe that I am uniquely qualified to pass judgment on Lindh and to accurately describe who he was and what he was doing there. Now that Lindh’s father has decided to wrongly blame me for his son’s misery and seek clemency under false pretences, I feel its time to reveal the truth.

Quite simply in my opinion, Lindh was a terrorist, a member of what we call al qaeda and a man who chose to stay with killers even though he was afforded numerous opportunities to separate himself from his murderous associates. Twenty years in jail may be a blessing compared to how many of his friends have been dealt with since.

Frank Lindh cannot be blamed for the emotions behind his need to reinvent history or doing what he can to get his son out of jail. But he is lying. His son did not “love America”, he fought for bin Laden against us, his son is not “honest”, he lied to his parents and others. His son is not a “decent” young man; he trained to be a murderer. His son went to kill strangers in a stranger land. A spiritual quest? What part of grenades and AK 47’s can be described as spiritual? What part of patriotism is eating bin Laden’s food, listening to Usama’s droning hate-filled speeches against America and sitting obediently within strangling distance of our greatest single enemy? To think that the American public is that stupid is an insult. John Walker Lindh was an Arab speaking member of bin Laden’s terror legions. He called it Al Ansar (the correct term) we call them al Qaeda. He was never a member of the Taliban. Why because Lindh only spoke Arabic and English he would have been useless in a combat situation among Pashto or Dari speaking troops. I have seen Taliban ID cards and spent time with bin Laden’s “055 Brigade, “al Ansar” members and al qaeda. Lindh was exactly the person we were trying to kill in Afghanistan and now around the world. An educated, idealistic young Muslim who chose murder of innocent people as his path in life. He is no different that Mohamed Atta, Zarqawi or thousands of other terrorists that come from nice middle class families.

The elder Lindh would have us believe that somehow America supported what Lindh Jr and bin laden did at one time. Pure invention. Osama bin Laden never received any US CIA funding, he channeled Saudi money into what was then called the Office of Services and then into his own ventures. Yes the Taliban were mujahids but their draconian regime and support of bin laden made them pariahs long before Lindh went there. Later in the post Soviet era of Afghanistan the CIA would pay Massoud money to try and kill Bin Laden. Lindh Jr went there to kill the members of Massouds’ fighters. When the war broke out there was no clearer distinction of “with us or against us” than the forces of bin laden and the Taliban against the combined Afghan forces we called “the Northern Alliance. Lindh was on Bin Laden's side against us. Period. End of conversation.

Wild Thing's comment..........
First ....... Thank you Tom for sending this to me.

Give me a freakin break! I have had it up to here with liberal parents and John has that making excuses for their children's behavior. Taliban Johnny was caught red-handed in Afghanistan fighting US troops! He joined a joined a murderous cult and was plotting to murder other American citizens. If I were Bush I would use a request for clemency for a fire starter in one of the White House fireplaces and be done with it. Tell that piece of crap Dad to shove it! If John Walker Lindh had been executed, it would've put a damper on lots of traitor wannabes.

When this happened and they found this traitor, I was emailing on a regular basis several of the Marines that were on the USS Bataan. I was in contact with them before, during and after they took him prisoner. They wrote me of this traitor, of what happened at Kandahar Airport and of many things and their anger at this traitor as well as mine cannot be erased with appeasement and forgiveness. He was NEVER tortured by our troops and you can take that to the bank! He was beyond filthy they told me and yet they treated him according to all the rules for a prisoner. They got him cleaned up and who the heck would relish that job. So when I read that he was tortured it is just more lies from the left. And as for me, I would not care if he was. I am sick of treating these terrorists at any level with any knid of respect. This is NOT a war between another country and ours like WW11. This is WAR against all these Islamic terrorists so IMO no rules should apply.

What is shameful for this nation is the fact that this father spawned a son that turned on his own country and walked hand in hand with the very scum of the earth that caused 9/11! This father should be ashamed but of course he isn't. Instead he pleads, whines and lies and is an enabler to his son and to what his son did.

I agree with Lindh Sr that perhaps his son’s timing sucked. His son's need to run around Afghanistan looking to murder other Muslims would not have been that big a deal pre 9/11. Once he and his Arab jihadi friends heard on their BBC shortwave radio broadcasts that the US was coming…Well only the dumbest or the most resolutely criminal were going to stay for what was going to be a high tech, high ordnance ass whupping. Lindh chose to stay. He watched America’s B52 contrails in the sky, he felt the destruction American bombs dealt his friends and yet he stayed with his terrorist friends. When he fled to Kunduz he again chose to stay with his murdering friends and when a small group of foreign jihadis was chosen for a Hail Mary suicide mission to nearby Mazar i Sharif. Lindh was on board.

What you say? I thought poor Abul Hamid (Lindh Jr’s “jihad” name) was fleeing his evil master and seeking help. No. The group of around 460 jihadis that left Kunduz towards Mazar i Sharif were on their way to link up with Mullah Dadullah (now the leader of the Taliban military) in Balkh (just west of Mazar) and then attack the city while the US and Afghan forces were tied up in Kunduz monitoring the surrender. Yes, thousands of fighters did surrender peacefully but Lindh again chose to associate with a rag tag group of die-hards led by one of bin Laden’s lieutenants; Abdul Aziz, as well as the hardest core terrorists that comprised Saudi, Uzbek, Iraqi, Russian, Sudanese, Yemeni and Pakistani jihadis.

This group was stopped heading west early in the morning and had an armed standoff with afghan and US forces. (Yes Lindh’s group was fully armed during their purported “surrender” and they had no good reason to explain why they not going east towards Pakistan). The stand off was tense until bombers appeared overhead. Dostum drove by on his way to Kunduz and told them to be disarmed and taken to his garrison called Qali Jangi. Lindh during that entire time was within feet of western journalists and US forces and could have simply identified himself as an American. But he chose to stay in the company of killers. Lindh also knew that his cohorts were still secretly armed with pistols, rifles and even grenades tied by shoelaces and dangling around their groin area. A place where they knew Afghans dare not pat down.

The Uzbek terrorists among Lindh’s group were ecstatic. Qali Jangi was where they had trained under the Taliban and the storage rooms of garrison were literally overflowing with weapons confiscated and stored by the Taliban.

Upon arrival one of the Uzbeks immediately killed himself with a grenade while trying to murder what he thought was Dostum. It was Dostum's Intel officer (who survived) and a Hazara general was killed. This event was filmed and once again, despite the presence of western media and the casual atmosphere (prisoners were even being interviewed by CNN and others), Lindh refused to identify himself or ask for help.

Terrified and outnumbered by the false surrender the Afghan guards (there were only about 100 guards for the 460 prisoners) pushed the killers down into the basement of a fortified schoolhouse until they could be searched in the morning. That night in the cramped five-room basement there was an angry and desperate argument among the prisoners. The Saudis and Uzbeks planned an attack; they just needed a diversion to get to the weapons stored a few yards from the pink schoolhouse. The Pakistanis wanted to just surrender and go home. According to the survivors I interviewed, Lindh was an Arab speaking al qaeda member and had full knowledge of this discussion and he has yet to admit which path he was going to choose. Some insist that Lindh was among the main proponents of this violent action. I was not in that basement so I don’t know what happened. What I do know is that Lindh’s actions the next day would provide the damning answer.

The next morning two CIA officers went to Qali Jangi to interview the prisoners. Mike Spann and Dave Tyson arrived in separate vehicles. Tyson spoke a number of languages but Spann only spoke English. The prisoners were brought up one at a time. They were searched, bound with their turbans and then marched into lines inside the southern courtyard. Spann walked up and down the lines of prisoners. He asked an Iraqi mechanic who spoke English if there were any other prisoners who spoke English. The Iraqi pointed out the “Irishman”. Lindh had been told to say he was Irish in the camps to avoid problems. Spann had Lindh brought over away from the main group and put out a blanket for him. Spann and Tyson tried to talk to Lindh. Mike even calls him "Irish". Away from his peers Lindh just stares down. Mike pleads with Lindh to talk. Lindh remains hostile and silent.

Spann and Tyson play a clumsy game of “good cop, bad cop”. But one thing is clear; they offer Lindh a way out. Lindh is alone with two of his fellow countrymen with full knowledge of the violence that is about to happen. He says nothing. If there was ever one moment that will define one man and damn another this was it. Lindh is put back into the lineup and Mike Spann will die in the next few minutes as Uzbeks rush up from the basement, yelling Allahhuakbar detonate hidden grenades. The fighting begins. Lindh has once again has been given a clear choice between right and wrong and once again. He makes that clear choice again.

It is not know what Lindh and his fellow terrorists did for the next few days while fighting raged and Mike Spann’s still body lay there. Two Ak 47 bullet holes through his head. One straight down and one from left to right. When the afghan Commander Fakir used pleading, threats, then finally flame, explosions and flooding, to roust the killers, the first person that came up to negotiate on behalf of the jihadis was John Walker Lindh. The same murderous group that had shot and killed a clearly identified elderly Red Cross worker who went down to look for bodies a week earlier.

I had asked Dostum to bring me the prisoners. I wanted to interview and meet these men. At around midnight after Lindh and his 85 friends surrendered, two open trucks showed up filled with shivering, screaming jihadis. One truck load was unloaded in front of me. I photographed and talked to the men while a group of Special Forces soldiers watched from a distance, their guns at the ready. This was not the first false surrender they had suffered. One truck was full of moaning and crying men. Way in the back sat John Walker Lindh. He slowly hides from view in my series of photographs. Once he had a chance to identify himself and surrender but he chose to stay in the company of killers

A few minutes later Dostum’s cameraman runs into the living room and says there is an American. He shows me an image of Lindh repeating his name” John” on his Panasonic camera. My first impression is that whoever this American is, he needs help. Fast. I ask the Special Forces medic if he will bring his medical bag and come with me. We jump into a truck and I along with my cameraman and some SF team members go into the triage room. The doctor is whacking Lindh on the head trying to talk to him. I motion for the doctor to back off and ask if I can ask the questions. I clearly identify myself to Lindh as working for CNN. Lindh Sr forgets that all my initial questions are about his son’s health and if he wanted to contact his loved ones. Lindh Jr repeatedly states that he is not. I moved him to a private room so the medic can examine him properly. Downstairs the doctors hate these people. They have just murdered their compatriots in cold blood there will be no pity for the men left downstairs. They are all now dead or in Gitmo. Lindh will be the lucky one.

Upstairs Lindh and despite our attempts to improve his condition, he was yet again rude, arrogant and unhelpful. I still press him for someone to contact. He refuses. He is being given gentle medical care by a US medic who was busy killing his murderous friends a few days earlier. There is a myth that morphine somehow forces Lindh to talk. But his statements (some of them true and some of them false) begin well before and are consistent until I turn off my camera and tell him to sleep. I clearly identify to Lindh when he is given morphine (happy juice) and I ask no leading questions. My interest is simply understand who is he is and how he got there. In fact the reason Lindh talks to me is because he senses that I know about jihad, Muslims and his cause. He even asks me if I am a Muslim. I know jihadis and I know jihad. On tape I ask him if it is Ok for Muslims to kill other Muslims. He brushes me off saying the Koran deals with this. Finally I ask him what he thinks of his condition and decisions. He is unrepentant.

Despite his attitude and affections. I gave Lindh tea and cookies and once again ask him if he wants to contact his parents. He refuses. Finally I let him sleep and decide to take him home with me for his own safety. One of the special forces men, fresh from three weeks in combat, gave up his room so that Lindh could sleep in his bed.

The next morning he is taken to the Turkish School, rested, attended to and dressed in a clean pair of pajamas and out of my control. I know what happened to Lindh after that because I met some of the Marines that did it. He could have suffered much worse.

For an entire month I called Lindh’s parents and lawyers to provide the details of his capture and events surrounding the uprising. They refuse to call me back but his mother had time to chastise a gossip columnist for criticizing her relationship with her lawyer. During Lindh’s 15 minutes of fame, I respect my responsibility as a working journalist for CNN and do nothing that would influence his case. Despite my dark knowledge I tell his lawyers to keep me out of it. They play games and still I refuse. They smear me in pubic as an agent of the government and harass me in private. The waste $64,000 or CNN’s money and work the media to present me as a greedy story hungry freelance. I have made no additional money from Lindh’s story and never will. Now that Lindh’s father is now blaming me for his “exculpatory” interview and has restarted the negative spin. The gloves are off. The truth will prevail.

I don’t think about the evening of December 1 2001 that much. I continue to cover conflict and the actors within but on a recent motorcycle trip from the east coast to the west coast, I found myself passing through Victorville close to where "Johnny Taliban" is staying. The cold dirty wind and high mountain air reminded me of Afghanistan. I thought about Lindh, felt the air on my face and wondered how lucky Lindh is to be still alive. A privilege that Mike Spann, a real hero and American patriot will never have due to John Walker Lindh’s duplicity.

So for Mike’s sake, don't let John Lindh's PR and legal campaign change the fact that his son was the exactly the kind of person that fly aircraft into buildings, blow up American troops in Iraq and kill innocent Muslims on their "spiritual journey" to paradise. He was and is a terrorist.

To hell with John Walker Lindh and his murderous ilk. They have done nothing to advance the cause of Muslims and they have caused a world of heartbreak in their arrogant pursuit of senseless death. To support Lindh Sr’s naïve view of his son and his actions furthers that dark vision.

Posted by Wild Thing at 10:27 AM | Comments (12)

January 30, 2006

Bill Clinton’s $5K Handshake ~ Good Grief!

NewsMax
Sunday, Jan. 29, 2006 9:42 a.m. EST

Washed up baseball players can still make a killing by autographing baseballs for their old fans. For ex-president Bill Clinton, it's even easier to cash in on his political celebrity.

Mr. Clinton will be charging $5,000 a piece to New Zealand businessmen who want to spend an hour in his presence when he travels to Auckland next month.

Reports the New Zealand Herald:

"A small group can book an hour with the former president for $5000 a head and for that they will get a handshake and a photograph and a chance to mingle with the only Democratic president the win two terms in the last 60 years."

Mr. Clinton is offering a volume discount for groups of 50 or more - who will pay a mere $150,000 [$3,000 a head] for the honor of basking in his aura.

Clinton's handshake fee is in addition the $2,400 cost of attending the one-day business forum. [$1,895 if tickets purchased before Jan. 31.)

Other speakers include former Disney Corp. CEO Michael Eisner and Carly Fiorina, who used to run Hewlett Packard.

Mr. Eisner and Ms. Fiorina will apparently be shaking hands at no extra cost.

Wild Thing's comment......
Thank you Chrys soooo much for this darling doll graphic I love it.Chrys has a wonderful blog called Pettifog.

There is nothing about Bill Clinton that should be worth $5K or 5 cents.

Posted by Wild Thing at 01:47 AM | Comments (8)

Hamas Demands Israel Change Its Flag

(IsraelNN.com) Hamas spokesman Mahmoud Zahar issued a demand Sunday evening that Israel remove the stripes from its flag.

"Israel must remove the two blue stripes from its national flag", Zahar said. "The stripes are symbols of occupation – they signify Israel's borders, stretching from the River Euphrates to the River Nile."

The Hamas official's comments followed Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz's assessment at the weekly Cabinet meeting that the newly elected terror group was "acting responsibly so far."

Zahar also told CNN's Late Edition that the world should not be asking Hamas to recognize Israel, but rather demanding that the Jewish State recognize that Muslims are the "owners of the land."

Wild Thing comment.......
What is next ? Will they be demanding that all Israelis must undergo surgery to remove the Jewish gene from their DNA? The rag-heads are sure getting uppity!! Keep talking Hamas....tick tick tick

Israel’s national flag is a blue Star of David set between two blue stripes was designed to resemble a Jewish prayer shawl which traditionally has stripes. So even that the terrorists have to lie about what the meaning is of the blue strips.

Posted by Wild Thing at 01:05 AM | Comments (4)

Can Cindy Sheehan Be Denied Entry Back Into The U.S.?...PLEASE

In this photo released by Venezuela's Miraflores Press, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez embraces visiting U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan, left, whose son was killed in Iraq, and Elma Beatriz Rosado, the widow of slain Puerto Rican nationalist Filiberto Ojeda Rios during his national broadcast 'Hello President' in Caracas, Venezuela, Sunday, Jan. 29, 2006. All three joined in condemning the government of U.S. President George W. Bush

Sheehan's trip was paid for by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Thousands of international activists have gathered in Caracas for the sixth World Social Forum, to protest against war, U.S. economic policies and of course meet other low lifes!

Posted by Wild Thing at 12:52 AM | Comments (6)

Hershey, PA Must Just Love Mayor Ray Nagin or Not

Please CLICK
image above to hear the Ray Nagin song

In New Orleans, outside City Hall, Mayor Ray Nagin called for “black people … to come together. It’s time for us to rebuild New Orleans — the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans ... a majority African American city.”

Nagin further commented that “It’s the way God wants it to be. You can’t have New Orleans no other way.” While he was in the process of reading the Almighty’s mind, he added, “Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it’s destroyed and put stress on this country.” And he added, “Surely he doesn’t approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses."

Posted by Wild Thing at 12:17 AM | Comments (2)

January 29, 2006

Is Dean On Our Payroll Or What?

From NewsMax
Sunday, Jan. 29, 2006 10:56 a.m. EST

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Sunday that Democrats who took money from Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff and who did something on behalf of those tribes have "a big problem."

Dean made the statement apparently unaware that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has reportedly done exactly that.

Under questioning by "Fox News Sunday's" Chris Wallace, Dean claimed that Democrats did no favors for Abramoff's Indian tribe clients:

"Nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff," the top Democrat insisted. "No Democrat delivered anything and there's no accusation and no investigation that any Democrat ever delivered anything to Jack Abramoff. And that's not true of the Republicans."

But Wallace countered: "So if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?"
Dean's response: "That's a big problem. And those Democrats are in trouble. And they should be in trouble."

In November 2005 the Associated Press reported that Senate Minority Leader Reid had accepted tens of thousands of dollars from an Abramoff client, the Coushatta Indian tribe, after interceding with Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton over a casino dispute with a rival tribe.

Reid "sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002," the AP said. "The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004."

Questioned about the donations in December by "Fox News Sunday's" Wallace, Reid immediately turned testy.

Wild Thing's comment...........
ROTFLMAO. Open mouth, insert foot once again. YEEEEEHAAAAAAW
Remember his rant last week.....Not ONE RED DIME went to Democrats!"
It was a classic moment watching Dean back track and try to deny something he said within seconds of making the statement. Please let this loud mouthed cretin appear more often.

Here Howard, Lunch is on me............... haha

Posted by Wild Thing at 11:57 AM | Comments (11)

Carter calls for funding Palestinians

From the Jerusalem Post

A day after Hamas swept to an upset victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, former US President Jimmy Carter on Thursday said that Wednesday's voting had been orderly and fair.

"The elections were completely honest, completely fair, completely safe and without violence," the former president said.

Carter, who led an 85-member international observer team from around the world organized by the 'National Democratic Institute' in partnership with 'The Carter Center,' urged the international community to directly or indirectly fund the new Palestinian Government even though it will be led by an internationally-declared foreign terror organization.

"The Palestinian Government is destitute, and in desperate financial straits. I hope that support for the new government will be forthcoming," Carter said at a Jerusalem press conference.

He added that if international law barred donor countries from directly funding a Hamas-led government than the US and the EU should bypass the Palestinian Authority and provide the "much-needed" money to the Palestinians via non-governmental channels such as UN agencies.

"Regardless of the government, I would hope that potential donors find alternative means to be generous to the Palestinian people [even] if the donor decides to bypass the Palestinian government completely," Carter said, stressing that his main concern was to avert the "suffering" of the Palestinian people, which he said could lead to a new cycle of violence.

He noted that the heavily funded Palestinian Government would run out of money at the end of next month.

Hamas, the largest and most powerful of the Palestinian terror organizations, which advocates Israel's destruction, has carried out scores of bombings over the last five years of Palestinian violence, attacks which have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians.

Earlier Thursday, Israeli statesman Shimon Peres had opined in a radio interview that international aid to a Hamas-led government would likely be terminated.

The former Democratic president's comments came as US President Bush said that Hamas cannot be a partner for Middle East peacemaking without renouncing violence, reiterating that the United States will not deal with Palestinian leaders who do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

Carter, who has long supported the participation of Hamas in the Palestinian elections, voiced the hope that the Islamic terror group would act "responsibly" now that it had won the elections.

"My hope is that as Hamas assumes a major role in the next government, whatever that might be, it will take a position on international standards of responsibility," he said at the news conference, held at an east Jerusalem hotel.

Wild Thing comment.........
Every time Carter or Clinton mouth off, it takes me hours and hours to try to make myself feel this is America, the America I grew up in and LOVE! A draft dodger was actually a President of America the most powerful country in the world. Then add in all the crimes he did. and all the gates. And Carter continues to get away with all he says against America and Israel. They are both a disgrace to being a human being, to being an American.

The 85-member election observers team, which was led by Carter, former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Blidt former Albanian President Rexhep Meidani and former Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio, included political and civic leaders from 22 countries around the world.

"It is now up to the elected leaders and representatives to construct genuinely democratic institutions and processes that will bring the peace and prosperity that the Palestinian people deserve, within a free and independent state," the group said in a preliminary report on the parliamentary elections issued Thursday.

"It is universally accepted that democratic elections and democratic governance are about employing peaceful means to achieve political goals," the report stated.

Posted by Wild Thing at 11:08 AM | Comments (8)

January 28, 2006

Colombia Busts Ring Linked to al-Qaida

Colombia Busts Ring Linked to al-Qaida
from Breitbart.com
Jan 26 11:22 PM US/Eastern
By JOSHUA GOODMAN
Associated Press Writer

BOGOTA, Colombia

Colombia has dismantled a false passport ring with links to al-Qaida and Hamas militants, the acting attorney general said Thursday after authorities led dozens of simultaneous raids across five cities.

The gang allegedly supplied an unknown number of citizens from Pakistan, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt and other countries with false passports and Colombian nationality without them ever stepping foot in the country, the attorney general's office said in a written statement.

The counterfeited passports were then used to facilitate their entry into the United States and Europe.

Nineteen people were arrested in Thursday's raids, carried out in collaboration with U.S. authorities, the attorney general's office said. Officials at the U.S. Embassy in Bogota were not immediately available for contact.

An undisclosed number of those arrested are wanted for working with al-Qaida, the international terrorist organization headed by Osama Bin Laden, and the militant Palestinian group Hamas, said acting Attorney General Jorge Armando Otalora.

"We confirm that some of the arrestees are wanted for extradition for collaborating with terrorist groups al-Qaida and Hamas," Otalora told RCN television.

Four were Jordanian citizens were among those arrested, said Manuel Saenz, head of foreign immigration for the DAS secret police, on Caracol television. And eight are being sought by the United States for extradition, Otalora said.

The group apparently penetrated Colombia's federal bureaucracy and secret police. Three DAS officials and an employee of the national registry were among the arrested.

Saenz also said the group provided false passports for Spain, Portugal and Germany and other countries.

Authorities first suspected the existence of a criminal gang in 2002, when three Iraqi citizens were captured entering Colombia on false Israeli passports, the attorney general's statement said.

Following those arrests, the attorney general ordered wiretaps and an undercover investigation that led to the arrest of two Jordanian nationals, Jamal Abdel Mutte Hassan and Zaben Sultan Othman Yousef, who acquired Colombian citizenship illegally.

Both have since been convicted and are serving prison terms of eight years and 19 months respectively.

In Jan. 2004, two more suspected members, Amin Omar Said Ahmad and Karim Bahige Kharfan, were captured in Bogota and later extradited to the United States, where they were convicted of laundering more than $200 million.

Colombian authorities then went on high alert, and with the help of their U.S. counterparts, began to covertly trail and film suspects to unveil a criminal network.

The eight wanted by a U.S. Federal court in Florida on charges of abetting illegal immigration rings and collaborating with terrorist groups include one Jordanian national, Jalal Saadat Moheisen, and a DAS detective, Edilson Ramirez Gamboa.

The raids were carried out in the Colombian capital of Bogota and four other Colombian cities.

Authorities didn't say if any Colombian terrorist groups were involved.

There are three illegal, armed groups in Colombia that are on a U.S. list of terrorist organizations, and President Alvaro Uribe has occasionally warned that their existence fosters more violence.

In a speech in late 2004 to the United Nations in New York, Uribe said Colombia needs "the total commitment of the international community against terrorism in Colombia. The terrorism in one country feeds and strengthens terrorist networks throughout the world."

U.S. officials have long feared al-Qaida could take advantage of corrupt government officials and weak institutions to launch an attack from south of the border.

Much of the focus in South America, however, has fallen on the large Muslim community in Paraguay along the porous border with Argentina and Brazil.

Authorities believe as much as $100 million a year flows out of the region, with large portions diverted to Islamic militants linked to Hezbollah and Hamas.

Posted by Wild Thing at 01:54 AM | Comments (5)

Sheehan to Feinstein: Filibuster Alito, Or I'll Run Against You

.

.

CNSNews
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
January 27, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan has threatened to run for Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) seat unless Feinstein filibusters Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

Sheehan, who was in Caracas, Venezuela Friday attending the World Social Forum, heard that several Democrats planned to filibuster Alito but that Feinstein, who is up for re-election in November, announced that she will vote against Alito but would not filibuster the nomination.

"I'm appalled that Diane Feinstein wouldn't recognize how dangerous Alito's nomination is to upholding the values of our constitution and restricting the usurpation of presidential powers, for which I've already paid the ultimate price," Sheehan said in a statement.

Sheehan became a national figure representing the anti-war movement after her son Casey was killed in Iraq and she stood vigil outside President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch last summer demanding to speak face-to-face with Bush about her son's death.

Sheehan claimed Alito has "an extensive paper trail documenting the right-wing political agenda that he has actively advanced, not only as a high-ranking official in the Reagan Administration, but also as a judge."

She accused Alito of trying to restrict Congress' power and supporting "efforts to curtail privacy rights, including not only privacy from government surveillance and arbitrary arrest, but also other constitutional rights based on privacy, such as reproductive liberty for women."

Sheehan is scheduled to return from Venezuela on Monday and will travel to the nation's capital to take part in an alternative State of the Union event.

And what do you suppose is her alternative State of the Union event???

DC - CODEPINK DC and special guests Cindy Sheehan, Ann Wright and others will be getting started a little early with a surprise action at the Mott House. Afterwards we'll head over to Bus Boys & Poets to watch the State of the Union Address. Join us for a fun action and evening - we'll be out 'til closing.

People's State of the Union Action
Time: 3pm
Location: Mott House / 122 Maryland Ave., NE
(Equal distance from both Union Station and Capitol South Metro stations).
Confirmed Speakers:
Cindy Sheehan, Malik Rahim, Ann Wright, John Cavanaugh and more!

State of the Union Party
Date: January 31st
Time: 8pm
Location: Bus Boys & Poets

.

Now wait it gets even better............

Senator Feinstein to Vote NO on Cloture ( will vote YES on Filibuster)
From her website.......

Senator Feinstein to Vote No on Cloture for the Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today announced that she will vote no on cloture regarding the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

“Based on a very long and thoughtful analysis of the record and transcript, which I tried to indicate in my floor statement yesterday, I’ve decided that I will vote no on cloture.”

.

Bwa..hahahahahahahahahahaha

This is all just hilarious! I am having way too much fun.

Posted by Wild Thing at 12:47 AM | Comments (8)

January 27, 2006

NEW Video from RNC: "The PATRIOT Act: Connecting The Dots"

Remember when Harry Reid said..........."Senator Harry Reid (D-NV): “We Killed The PATRIOT Act.”

Here's what Reid is proud of: Trying to kill a vital law that breaks down the wall between intelligence and law enforcement, and makes it easier to prevent and detect attacks on America. Reid's boast shows how reckless the Democrats have become when it comes to safeguarding America.

Here is The RNC replies! tah dah!

RNC Releases New Television Ad On Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid's Obstruction Of The PATRIOT Act Entitled, "The PATRIOT Act: Connecting The Dots"

WASHINGTON – The Republican National Committee today unveiled a new television advertisement targeting the Harry Reid-led Democrat obstruction of the PATRIOT Act. The advertisement, entitled “The PATRIOT Act: Connecting The Dots,” will begin airing on national cable and local Las Vegas television stations this weekend. The ad will also be emailed to Republican grassroots supporters and is available for viewing now at www.GOP.com

Republican National Committee / 60 Advertisement

"The ad will also appear on national cable TV, and in Reid's home state of Nevada. When Democrats brag about undermining an important part of the War on Terror, we hold them accountable."

“The PATRIOT Act: Connecting The Dots”..........
....at GOP.com

Posted by Wild Thing at 01:47 PM

Great Video's Of Our Troops

.

Theodore's World is happy to bring you some video's from and by the troops. Just click on the titles to see each one.

Video's.... Bomb Saddam Die Terrorists Die Magic F-18 Ride Air Strike~Bitchin Ambush

The video titled "Ambush" is from
the front seat on a road in Baghdad
known as "Ambush Alley" where our troops
have come under repeated attacks.

The clip shows grenades exploding in front of
a private security vehicle and return gunfire is heard
in response to the attack. A still photograph,
taken after the attack, shows the damage to the vehicle,
operated by Blackwater USA, the private security outfit
hired by the State Department for such security detail missions.

SUV damaged in Baghdad ambush

These private security teams protect and
escort civilian leaders, such as Secretary of
State  and other members of the
State Department team.

In this case, a military escort is also
provided and leads the civilian car back
to the safety of the Green Zone.

Blackwater USA uses armored SUVs and
heavily armed bodyguards.

A total of four grenades explode in this video.
The gunfire heard is largely from U.S. military
forces providing cover for the escape.

YA special thanks to TomR, Sparks and LindaSOG for some of the Video's.

Posted by Wild Thing at 03:05 AM | Comments (5)

Allah FUBAR!

.

.

Hamas chief Abdel al-Aziz Rantisi - who was killed by Israeli defense forces in Apri 2004l - took part in a Gaza rally in support of the Iraqi insurgency. Amid chants of "Death to America" and the burning of American flags by onlookers, Rantisi called on Iraqis to "strike and burn" U.S. troops, and "teach them the lessons of suicide actions."

Rantisi also wrote a 2003 article, published on a Hamas Web site, titled "Why Shouldn't We Attack the United States?" In the piece, Rantisi stated that, for Hamas, attacking America was not only "a moral and national duty - but above all, a religious one."

"There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiative, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility." -from Article 13, Peaceful Solutions "Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Quran its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah it most sublime belief." -Article 8, the Motto of Hamas

.

Senior Hamas official Mushir al-Masri has said that Hamas will not negotiate with Israel -- nor will it recognize Israel.

From the Jerusalem Post....Hamas's charter: The martyrs' oath:

"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious...The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised...

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times...

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: 'The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him...'

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: 'The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him...'

.

Hamas attacks Israel, it is the official government of the Palestinian people. It is no longer some rogue element hiding among the people. It is the people. Governments physically attacking other governments is an act of war. Israel will be justified in treating it as such.

President George W. Bush says the United States will not deal with Palestinian leaders who dispute Israel's right to exist. U.S. President George W. Bush said Wednesday that the United States would not deal with Hamas until the radical Palestinian Islamist group renounces its position for calling for the destruction of Israel.

YNetNews.com...........

Hamas: Bush won't dictate to us
Group spokesman tells Ynet Palestinians back Hamas positions on resistance to occupation, says group does not accept dictates from America. United State President George W. Bush's insistence on disarming Hamas constitutes a "blatant interference in Palestinian affairs," Hamas spokesman Sheikh Yasser Mansour told Ynet in an interview Thursday morning.
"We completely reject and do not accept Bush's remarks regarding disarming us," Mansour said. "Nobody can force us to disarm."
Q: Will you disarm, as is expected of a governing party and as President Bush demanded tonight?
"The question of arms is related to the occupation and we do not accept dictates from Bush or from anyone else. The arms, like everything else, are at the service of the Palestinian people and we won't give in to this blatant interference from Bush, whose remarks are not new, and were always against the Palestinians and their interests."

.

Canada's Prime minister-designate Stephen Harper , who is to be sworn in Feb. 6, suggested today that his Conservative government won't accept Hamas as long as it continues to support terrorism and call for the destruction of Israel.

.

Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, said that the victory of the Islamic militant group Hamas in Palestinian legislative elections was a "very, very, very bad result."

.

Condi Rice,Well, there is an election to take place. And we have a policy that comes from a reality of what Hamas is and Hamas has done. The election will take place. It is going to be a Palestinian election with the Palestinians setting the rules for how that election takes place. And we'll respect that."......................HUH? Respect and Hamas in the same sentence????
More from Condi............"The Palestinian people have apparently voted for change but we believe that their aspirations for peace and a peaceful life remain unchanged."..............Condi can we talk? The Palestinian people" voted for Hamas. That's not a vote for "peace."

.

Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu told the Likud faction in the Knesset Thursday,

"Before our very eyes, Hamastan has been established, the step-child of Iran and the Taliban. It's in firing range of our airport, our highways and cities. This has to be a day of soul searching because the writing was on the wall. The policy of giving land for free gave a prize to terror and a winning card for Hamas.

"How are Olmert and Peres getting ready for this challenge? They are moving the fence 500 meters closer to the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway (Beit Iksa). They gave more land to the Hamas state. Any land given to Hamas will give more of a front to fire upon us.

"This is a new and dangerous situation. Sharon said he wouldn't let Palestinians in Jerusalem vote. Olmert let them."

.

Daniel Pipes has an excellent article..."Don't deal with terrorists"

.

.

Jerusalem Post’s editor David Horovitz has written:

Some may seek comfort in the belief that an ascent to government could prompt a greater sense of responsibility, a move to moderation. But Hamas's intolerance is based on a perceived religious imperative. No believing Muslim, in the Hamas conception, can be reconciled to Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East. To deny that, for Hamas, is blasphemy. And that is the ideology to which the Palestinian people, for whatever reason and by their own free hand, have just tied their fate. That is the guiding ideology with which Israel and the West will now have to grapple.

.

Wild Thing's comment..........
This tip toeing around the world's worst terrorist organization winning an election next door to our ally has got to stop. Palestinian's voted for terror not peace. Should al Qaida and the Taliban be given the freedom to campaign?
Hell no!
The words "Democracy" and "Hamas" should not be used in the same sentence...ever. If we have to resort to using the word "Democracy" when referring to these recent elections, that's just sad -- it's not Democracy; it's Tyranny, it's Terrorism.
What is next now from the terrorists huggers..........Jimmy Carter's "Habitat for Hamas" project perhaps? The victory of Hamas is an absolute endorsement of terrorism, it cannot be explained otherwise.

The hate runs deep, it is in their DNA and it is passed down to their children and their grandchildren.

.

.

Prayers for Israel and Prayers for America

.

...Please visit these blogs on the subject as well:
* AbbaGav
* Anti-Idiotarian
* My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
* Something....And Half of Something
* One Jerusalem

.

If you like please continue on to read President Bush's Press Conference.......................

Press Conference of the President
January 26,2006

10:15 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Sorry to interrupt. (Laughter.) Thank you all very much. I look forward to answering some of your questions here in a minute. I'm also looking forward to going up to Capitol Hill next Tuesday to give my State of the Union address. I thought it probably best not to practice my speech in front of you here, so you'll pay attention to it when I deliver it. But I do want to give you some thoughts about what I'm thinking about.

First, I recognize we live in a momentous time. For those of you watching, we seem to have a mechanical flaw. (Laughter.)

Q That was an accident, right?

THE PRESIDENT: Are you wearing your helmets?

Q It's that renovation project.

THE PRESIDENT: Exactly. (Laughter.) I'll take it up with the First Lady. (Laughter.)

I'm going to remind people we're living in historic times, and that we have a chance to make decisions today that will help shape the direction of events for years to come. I'm going to continue to talk about an optimistic agenda that will keep -- that will remind folks we've got a responsibility to lead. We've got a responsibility to lead to promote freedom and a responsibility to continue to put policies in place that will let us be a leader when it comes to the economy in the world.

I recognize this is an election year, but I believe that we can work together to achieve results. In other words, I think we can set aside the partisanship that inevitably will come with an election year, and get some stuff done. And that's what I'm going to call Congress to do.

We've got -- must work together to protect our nation's security. I'm going to continue do everything within my authority to protect the American people. We're going to stay on the offense in the war against terror. We'll hunt down the enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere. We'll continue our terrorist surveillance program against al Qaeda. Congress must reauthorize the Patriot Act so that our law enforcement and intelligence and homeland security officers have the tools they need to route the terrorists -- terrorists who could be planning and plotting within our borders. And we'll do all this and at the same time protect the civil liberties of our people.

We're going to continue to lead the cause of freedom in the world. The only way to defeat a dark ideology is through the hopeful vision of human liberty.

Here at home, we're also -- we've got great opportunities. And to seize those opportunities, we have got to lead. Our economy is growing, it is strong. This economy has created millions of new jobs, yet it's an economy that is changing rapidly. And we live in a competitive world. And so policies must be put in place to recognize the competition of the global economy and prepare our people to be able to continue to compete so America can continue to lead.

Of course, we'll talk about fiscal policy in my State of the Union, talking about the Congress to be wise about how we spend the people's money and to make the tax cuts permanent.

I will talk about initiatives to make sure our health care and education and energy recognizes the realities of the world in which we live today and anticipates the problems of the world tomorrow so that we can remain competitive.

I will talk about the values that are important for our country. I'm going to remind people we show the character and compassion of America by taking focused action to confront disease and to help devastated areas of our country that have been -- areas that have been devastated by natural disasters, and ensure that medical research is conducted in a manner that recognizes the dignity of every human life.

I look forward to the speech, I really do. As you can imagine, it's an interesting experience to walk out there and not only talk to members of Congress, but as importantly, talk to the American people.

I'm also looking forward to the Senate finishing its business on the confirmation of Sam Alito. He's a man of character and he's a man of integrity. He understands that the role of a judge is to interpret the law. He understands the role of a judge is not to advance a personal or political agenda. Yesterday I had an interesting experience standing with his law clerks, and I could -- started reading the notes that, of course, were adequately prepared for me, and the first person said he's a Democrat who supports Alito; the second person was a person who voted Green that supported Alito; the third a left-leaning woman Democrat who supported Alito; the fourth person I talked about was somebody who worked in the John Kerry campaign who supported Alito. I was wondering, where are all those Republican clerks.

My point is, is that he has broad support from people who know him, people from both political parties, because he's a decent man who has got a lot of experience and he deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. I was interested in Ed Rendell's comments -- he's the Governor of Pennsylvania. He was the former Chairman of the Democrat National Committee. He did not like the way the debate was headed. He believed that Sam Alito should be confirmed. And so do I. The Senate needs to give him an up or down vote as quickly as possible.

Listen, thank you all for giving me a chance to share some thoughts with you. I'd be glad to answer some questions, starting with you, Terry.

Q Mr. President, is Mideast peacemaking dead with Hamas' big election victory? And do you rule out dealing with the Palestinians if Hamas is the majority party?

THE PRESIDENT: Peace is never dead, because people want peace. I believe -- and that's why I articulated a two-state solution early in my administration, so that -- as a vision for people to work toward, a solution that recognized that democracy yields peace. And the best hope for peace in the Middle East is two democracies living side-by-side.

So the Palestinians had an election yesterday, and the results of which remind me about the power of democracy. You see, when you give people the vote, you give people a chance to express themselves at the polls -- and if they're unhappy with the status quo, they'll let you know. That's the great thing about democracy, it provides a look into society.

And yesterday the turnout was significant, as I understand it. And there was a peaceful process as people went to the polls, and that's positive. But what was also positive is, is that it's a wake-up call to the leadership. Obviously, people were not happy with the status quo. The people are demanding honest government. The people want services. They want to be able to raise their children in an environment in which they can get a decent education and they can find health care.

And so the elections should open the eyes of the old guard there in the Palestinian territories. I like the competition of ideas. I like people who have to go out and say, vote for me, and here's what I'm going to do. There's something healthy about a system that does that. And so the elections yesterday were very interesting.

On the other hand, I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you can't be a partner in peace if you have a -- if your party has got an armed wing. The elections just took place. We will watch very carefully about the formation of the government. But I will continue to remind people about what I just said, that if your platform is the destruction of Israel, it means you're not a partner in peace. And we're interested in peace.

I talked to Condi twice this morning. She called President Abbas. She also is going to have a conference call today about the Quartet -- with the Quartet, about how to keep the process on the road to peace.

Steve.

Q If I can follow up, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Are you cautioning Prime Minister Abbas not to resign? And --

THE PRESIDENT: We'd like him to stay in power. I mean, we'd like to stay in office. He is in power, we'd like him to stay in office. Sorry to interrupt. I knew this was a two-part question, so I tried to head it off.

Q Will this affect aid to the Palestinians? Will you be able to work with Hamas if they're -- assuming they take on a large share of the government?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I made it very clear that the United States does not support political parties that want to destroy our ally, Israel, and that people must renounce that part of their platform. But the government hasn't formed yet. They're beginning to talk about how to form the government. And your question on Abbas was a good one. And our message to him was, we would hope he would stay in office and work to move the process forward.

Again, I remind people, the elections -- democracy is -- can open up the world's eyes to reality by listening to people. And the elections -- the election process is healthy for society, in my judgment. In other words, it's -- one way to figure out how to address the needs of the people is to let them express themselves at the ballot box. And that's exactly what happened yesterday. And you'll hear a lot of people saying, well, aren't we surprised at the outcome, or this, that, or the other.

If there is corruption, I'm not surprised that people say, let's get rid of corruption. If government hadn't been responsive, I'm not the least bit surprised that people said, I want government to be responsive.

And so that was an interesting day yesterday in the -- as we're watching liberty begin to spread across the Middle East.

Let's see here. Yes, David.

Q Mr. President, good morning. I have a different question, but I'd like to pin you down on this point about Hamas because I don't think you've completely answered it. Are you ruling out dealing with a Palestinian government comprised, in part, of Hamas?

THE PRESIDENT: Dave, they don't have a government yet, so you're asking me to speculate on what the government will look like. I have made it very clear, however, that a political party that articulates the destruction of Israel as part of its platform is a party with which we will not deal.

Q Okay, can I --

THE PRESIDENT: No, it's --

Q But, sir, I'm sorry --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's unfair to the other people.

Q No, I'm just -- I'm just following up --

THE PRESIDENT: You're trying to hoard. (Laughter.)

Q I'm not trying -- I have a question about New Orleans, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: This is -- I agree with you. I can see the expressions on your colleagues' faces that it's --

Q Well, I hope it will be worth your time. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: They don't think so. (Laughter.)

Q The administration has rejected a local plan to rebuild New Orleans, and your administrator down there, Don Powell, said that the focus for federal money should be to rebuild for those 20,000 homeowners who were outside the flood plain. Critics, local officials say that that ignores so many people in New Orleans, the poorest of the poor, the hardest hit areas, people who didn't have flood insurance or didn't expect the levees to break. And they feel, sir, that this is a certain betrayal of your promise that New Orleans would rise again. So why did you reject it? And do you think that the people of New Orleans have to expect that there is a limit for the extent to which the city can be rebuilt?

THE PRESIDENT: The Congress has appropriated $85 billion to help rebuild the Gulf Coast. And that is a good start; it's a strong start; it's a significant commitment to the people whose lives were turned upside down by that -- by those -- by that hurricane.

Secondly, we have said that we look forward to the time when each state develops its recovery plan. I, early on in the process, said it's important for the folks in Mississippi to come forward with a recovery plan. And it's important for New Orleans and the state of Louisiana to work together to develop a state recovery plan. And the reason I said that is because I was aware that folks in Congress will want to spend money based upon a specific strategy. We've got to get comfortable with how to proceed. Those plans haven't -- the plan for Louisiana hasn't come forward yet, and I urge the officials, both state and city, to work together so we can get a sense for how they're going to proceed.

Now, having said that, I recognize there were some early things we needed to do to instill confidence. One of them was to say that we will make the levees stronger and better than before, and study further strengthening of the levees. In other words, I recognize that people needed to be able to say, well, gosh, we can't even get started until we got a commitment from the federal government on the levees.

A lot of the money we're spending is prescribed by law, but we also went a step further and proposed to Congress, and they accepted, the CDGB money so that monies can actually go directly to individual families that need help. We'll continue to work with the folks down there. But I want to remind the people in that part of the world, $85 billion is a lot, and secondly, we were concerned about creating additional federal bureaucracies, which might make it harder to get money to the people.

Q But is there a limit, sir?

Q I have five questions, sir. I hope you'll indulge me. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Two-and-a-half times more --

Q On the NSA eavesdropping program, there seems to be growing momentum in Congress to either modify the existing law or write some new law that would give you the latitude to do this, and at the same time, ensure that people's civil liberties are protected. Would you be resistant to the notion of new laws if Congress were to give you what you need to conduct these operations?

THE PRESIDENT: The terrorist surveillance program is necessary to protect America from attack. I asked the very questions you asked, John, when we first got going. Let me tell you exactly how this happened. Right after September the 11th, I said to the people, what can we do -- can we do more -- "the people" being the operators, a guy like Mike Hayden -- can we do more to protect the people? There's going to be a lot of investigation and a lot of discussion about connecting dots and we have a responsibility to protect the people, so let's make sure we connect the dots. And so he came forward with this program. In other words, it wasn't designed in the White House, it was designed where you expect it to be designed, in the NSA.

Secondly, I said, before we do anything, I want to make sure it's legal. And so we had our lawyers look at it -- and as part of the debate, discussion with the American people as to the legality of the program. There's no doubt in my mind it is legal. And thirdly, will there be safeguards for the -- to safeguard the civil liberties of the American people? There's no doubt in my mind there are safeguards in place to make sure the program focuses on calls coming from outside the United States in, with an al Qaeda -- from a -- with a belief that there's an al Qaeda person making the call to somebody here in the States, or vice versa -- but not domestic calls.

So as I stand here right now I can tell the American people the program is legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary. Now, my concern has always been that in an attempt to try to pass a law on something that's already legal, we'll show the enemy what we're doing. And we have briefed Congress -- members of Congress. We'll continue to do that, but it's important for people to understand that this program is so sensitive and so important, that if information gets out to how it's -- how we do it, or how we operate, it will help the enemy. And so, of course, we'll listen to ideas. But, John, I want to make sure that people understand that if it -- if the attempt to write law makes this program -- is likely to expose the nature of the program, I'll resist it. And I think the American people understand that. Why tell the enemy what we're doing if the program is necessary to protect us from the enemy? And it is. And it's legal. And we'll continue to brief Congress. And we review it a lot, and we review not only at the Justice Department, but with a good legal staff inside NSA.

Yes.

Q What do you hear or your staff hear about releasing of photographs of Jack Abramoff with you, Mr. President? If you say you don't fear anything, tell us why you won't release them?

THE PRESIDENT: She's asking about a person who admitted to wrongdoing and who needs to be prosecuted for that. There is a serious investigation going on, as there should be. The American people have got to have confidence in the -- in the ethics of all branches of government. You're asking about pictures -- I had my picture taken with him, evidently. I've had my picture taken with a lot of people. Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with them or know them very well. I've had my picture taken with you -- (laughter) -- at holiday parties.

My point is, I mean, there's thousands of people that come through and get their pictures taken. I'm also mindful that we live in a world in which those pictures will be used for pure political purposes, and they're not relevant to the investigation.

Q Do you know how many?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't have any idea.

I'm coming your way. Carl.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning. On the subject of Iran, what parameters might the U.S. be willing to accept Iran having a nuclear power program? And to the extent that you've said in the past that the United States supports the Iranian people, would you support expedited legislation, or a move that would send resources to such groups in Iran that might hasten regime change or democratic reform?

THE PRESIDENT: I have made it clear that I believe that the Iranians should have a civilian nuclear program -- power program under these conditions: that the material used to power the plant would be manufactured in Russia, delivered under IEEE -- IAEA inspections -- inspectors to Iran to be used in that plant, the waste of which will be picked up by the Russians and returned to Russia. I think that is a good plan. The Russians came up with the idea, and I support it.

And the reason why I think it makes sense is because I do believe people ought to be able to be allowed to have civilian nuclear power. However, I don't believe non-transparent regimes that threaten the security of the world should be allowed to gain the technologies necessary to make a weapon. And the Iranians have said, we want a weapon.

And it's not in the world's interest that they have a weapon. And so we are working hard to continue the diplomacy necessary to send a focused message to the Iranian government, and that is, your desires for a weapon are unacceptable. Part of that is -- part of that diplomacy was to provide an acceptable alternative to the Iranian desire to have a civilian nuclear power industry.

And secondly, we will support freedom movements all around the world. I constantly talked about today's reformers will be tomorrow's leaders, and therefore, we will work with groups that demand for people to be given the natural rights of men and women, and that right is to live in a free society.

Dana.

Q Mr. President, you talked about Jack Abramoff in the context of pictures, but it may not necessarily just be about pictures. He also had some meetings with some of your staff. So you remember, you ran on the idea of restoring honesty and integrity to the White House. So why are you letting your critics perhaps attack you and paint you with maybe a guilt by association? Why not just throw open your books and say, look, here is --

THE PRESIDENT: There is a serious investigation going on by federal prosecutors, and that's their job. And they will -- if they believe something was done inappropriately in the White House, they'll come and look, and they're welcome to do so. There's a serious investigation that's going on.

Q But, sir, don't you want to tell the American people look, as I promised, this White House isn't for sale and I'm not for sale?

THE PRESIDENT: It's hard for me to say I didn't have pictures with the guy when I did. But I have also had pictures with thousands and thousands of people. I mean, people -- it's part of the job of the President to shake hands and -- with people and smile. (Laughter.) And I do. And the man contributed to my campaigns, but he contributed, either directly or through his clients, to a lot of people in Washington. And this needs to be cleared up so the people have confidence in the system.

Yes, Peter.

Q Mr. President, the U.S. government has spent about $2 million to help promote the Palestinian Authority in the lead-up to this week's elections. I wonder, sir, whether you feel like it's consistent with your push to spread democracy around the world if the U.S. puts its thumb on the scale? Or are there moments when it's okay to compromise that because you want to keep organizations with a terrorist threat out of government?

THE PRESIDENT: I talked to Secretary Rice about the story that you're referring to, and what she told me was, is that this money was part of a USAID package that had been in the pipeline for a while. The -- kind of the allegation or the insinuation that we were funding a political effort just simply isn't the case, as far as I can tell.

Q It was designed to promote the image of the Palestinian Authority among its own people --

THE PRESIDENT: As I say, this money was part of a USAID package. We had -- I proclaimed, I made it very clear that Jim Wolfensohn was going to be in the region with an economic aid package to help the Palestinian people. Our programs are aimed to help the people. And --

Q I'm talking about who gets credit. Part of the thing was there would be no --

THE PRESIDENT: Obviously --

Q Credit would go to the Authority.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, our attempt was to help the Palestinian people through a active USAID program. And you saw the results of the election.

Q Why, then, not disclose the USAID involvement?

THE PRESIDENT: It is disclosed -- you just disclosed it. (Laughter.)

Elisabeth. Are you trying to help the man out there?

Q He's my colleague.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good.

Q Members of your administration have said that the secret eavesdropping program might have prevented the September 11th attacks. But the people who hijacked the planes on September 11th had been in this country for years, having domestic phone calls and emails. So how, specifically, can you say that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Michael Hayden said that because he believes that had we had the capacity to listen to the phone calls from those from San Diego to elsewhere we might have gotten information necessary to prevent the attack. And that's what he was referring to.

Q They were domestic calls --

THE PRESIDENT: No, domestic outside -- we will not listen inside this country. It is a call from al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliates, either from inside the country out, or outside the country in, but not domestically.

Q Can I ask you again, why won't you release the photos of yourself with Jack Abramoff?

THE PRESIDENT: I just answered the question.

Yes.

Q Your explanation on the monitoring program seems to say that when the nation is at war, the President, by definition, can order measures that might not be acceptable or even, perhaps, legal in peacetime. And this seems to sound like something President Nixon once said, which was "when the President does it, then that means it is not illegal," in the areas involving national security. So how do the two differ?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I said yesterday that other Presidents have used the same authority I've had to use technology to protect the American people. Other Presidents -- most Presidents believe that during a time of war, that we can use our authorities under the Constitution to make decisions necessary to protect us.

Secondly, in this case, there is an act passed by Congress in 2001 which said that I must have the power to conduct this war using the incidents of war. In other words, we believe there's a constitutional power granted to Presidents, as well as, this case, a statutory power. And I'm intending to use that power -- Congress says, go ahead and conduct the war, we're not going to tell you how to do it. And part of winning this war on terror is to understand the nature of the enemy and to find out where they are so we can protect the American people.

There's going to be -- there will be a constitution -- there will be a legal debate about whether or not I have the authority to do this; I'm absolutely convinced I do. Our Attorney General has been out describing why. And I'm going to continue using my authority. That's what the American people expect.

Yes, Mark.

Q Mr. President, the Pentagon recently studied U.S. forces overseas and concluded that, between Iraq and Afghanistan, that the military was very seriously over-extended. Then Secretary Rumsfeld told us yesterday, well, that's really not what the study concluded. But this morning General Casey told us, in Iraq, U.S. forces there are stretched. Who's right here?

THE PRESIDENT: I haven't seen General Casey's comments, his specific comments. I will tell you this; that after five years of war, there is a need to make sure that our troops are balanced properly, that threats are met with capability. And that's why we're transforming our military. The things I look for are the following: morale, retention, and recruitment. And retention is high, recruitment is meeting goals, and people are feeling strong about the mission, Mark. But I also recognize that we've got to make sure that our military is transformed. And that's what's taking place right now -- we're transforming the United States Army so that capabilities and the threats are better aligned.

And I'll give -- go ahead.

Q It's not over-extended then?

THE PRESIDENT: The question is whether or not we can win victory in Iraq. Our troops will have what they -- I mean, our commanders will have the troops necessary to do that. The question is, can we help the peace in a place like the Far East? Absolutely.

And let me use the Far East as an example of what I'm talking about. There was some 30,000 troops on the South Korean peninsula. As you might remember, we reduced the amount of manpower, replaced it with technology. A lot of people -- some people at the time said, well, wait a minute, they're lessening their commitment to peace and security in the Far East by moving people out. I made the case that, no, what we're doing is replacing manpower -- we're transforming our military presence in South Korea to be able to meet the threats of the 21st century. And that's what you're seeing all throughout our military.

And so this is a time where we've been in theater for -- been in this war against terror for five years, and at the same time, transforming. And I think if you look at what our commanders are saying, and what are people like Pete Schoomaker are saying is that this transformation is going to make it more likely America will be able to continue in the out-years of doing what we need to do to keep the peace.

Yes, Holly.

Q Mr. President, do you think you need to be more aggressive with vetoing or at least threatening to veto more spending bills this year? I mean, every year you say, I want Congress to show spending restraint; this is important for our budget and our economy. But do you think they're doing enough? Do you need to be more aggressive --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I do think they are when they meet our budget targets. And here's the way -- let me finish, please. Here's the way it works: We sit down and say, here's what we'd like you to do. We'd like you to reduce non-security discretionary spending. We present a budget target, and they meet them. They have met those targets.

And I -- and I am pleased that I've got a working relationship with the Speaker and Leader Frist and other members of Congress to help meet those targets.

Go ahead, you've got a follow-up?

Q So, essentially, then, you think everything is going fine with the budget and there's no need to use a veto or anything like that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm fully prepared to use a veto if they overspend. They've got a chance now to continue to show the American people that they're willing to be -- have fiscal discipline by voting on the reconciliation package in the House of Representatives. We've still got a lot of work to do, don't get me wrong. And I'll present a -- in the process of laying out a budget that will continue to eliminate programs that don't work or that are duplicative in nature, one that says we can cut our deficit in half by 2009 and make sure the American people still get their tax relief.

We don't need to be running up the taxes right now, in my judgment. And I think it is -- you know, people say, well, let's raise the taxes and balance the budget -- that's not how it works; they're going to raise your taxes, and they're going to continue to expand the government. And I understand that.

Now, in terms of how they spend the money, once they meet the budget targets, that's going to be an interesting discussion on Capitol Hill. That's about this business about earmarks and people making special deals in the budget. And they need to -- there needs to be earmark reform. And we look forward to working with responsible members on the Hill about earmark reform.

Yes.

Q Mr. President, last year your administration imposed a package of economic sanctions on North Korea. Now North Korea says it will not come back to the table in the nuclear talks unless those sanctions go. South Korea is warning of a dispute on the issue. Would you consider removing them, suspending them, making some gesture to get North Korea back to the negotiation table?

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I think what you're referring to is the fact that we're trying -- that we are cutting off the transfer of monies generated by illicit activities. When somebody is counterfeiting our money, we want to stop them from doing that. And so we are aggressively saying to the North Koreans, just -- don't counterfeit our money. And we are working with others to prevent them from illicit activities. That's different from economic sanctions.

Q Fair enough.

THE PRESIDENT: And, no, we think it's very important for the North Koreans to come back to the table. There's a six-party talk framework that is hopeful and positive for them. It requires them to make some difficult decisions, and, of course, one of them is to get rid of their nuclear arsenal. But we're more than willing to -- and want the six-party talks to continue forward. I think the framework is a framework that can eventually yield to a peaceful settlement of the issue. But the other issue is one that I just wanted to make sure I clarify for you why we're doing what we're doing.

Jonathan.

Q You see this as completely separate then, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I think --

Q There's no room to suspend them or --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, if somebody is cheating on us, we need to stop it. I mean, the American people -- if we know people are counterfeiting our money, they expect the government to act. And there is no compromise when it comes to, you know, "Hey, come back to the table so you can counterfeit our money; just counterfeit 20s and not 100s, or whatever it is?" I mean, no. We are going to uphold the law and protect the currency of the American people.

Jonathan.

Q Stepping back from the immediate NSA debate that's going on right now, Vice President Cheney recently said that the White House is reasserting its executive power. Is the NSA program part of that effort? And what do you say to Democrats who charge that you are abusing your constitutional authority?

THE PRESIDENT: I would say that there has been a historical debate between the executive branch and the legislative branch as to who's got what power. And I don't view it as a contest with the legislative branch. Maybe they view it as a contest with the executive; I just don't. I view it -- I view the decisions I've made, particularly when it comes to national security, as necessary decisions to protect the American people. That's how -- that's the lens on which I analyze things, Jonathan. And I understand we're at war with an enemy that wants to hit us again. Osama bin Laden made that clear the other day, and I take his words very seriously. And I also take my responsibility to protect the American people very seriously.

And so we're going to do what is necessary, within the Constitution and within the law, and at the same time guaranteeing people's civil liberties, to protect the people. And that's how I look at this debate. Now, there's all kinds of people taking a step back and saying well, this is this, this is that. And I recognize throughout history, people -- there have been a debate about legislative power and executive power. Part of the questions asked here today kind of reflect that debate.

I'm going to leave that to the lawyers. I believe I've been hired by the people to do my job, and that's to protect the people, and that's what I'm going to do, mindful of my authorities within the Constitution, mindful of our need to make sure that we stay within the law, and mindful of the need to protect the civil liberties of the people.

Q Mr. President, though -- this is a direct follow up to that -- the FISA law was implemented in 1978 in part because of revelations that the National Security Agency was spying domestically. What is wrong with that law if you feel you have to circumvent it and, as you just admitted, expand presidential power?

THE PRESIDENT: May I -- if I might, you said that I have to circumvent it. There -- wait a minute. That's a -- there's something -- it's like saying, you know, you're breaking the law. I'm not. See, that's what you've got to understand. I am upholding my duty, and at the same time, doing so under the law and with the Constitution behind me. That's just very important for you to understand.

Secondly, the FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world. And FISA is still an important tool. It's an important tool. And we still use that tool. But also -- and we -- look -- I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do.

And so that's why I made the decision I made. And you know, "circumventing" is a loaded word, and I refuse to accept it, because I believe what I'm doing is legally right.

Bob.

Q There are going to be hearings on Capitol Hill starting February 6th regarding --

THE PRESIDENT: Regarding that point, right. And Al Gonzales has recently given a speech laying out the administrative position, and I'm sure you analyzed it carefully.

Deans.

Q Sir, you said a few minutes ago the United States needs to continue to lead in the cause of freedom around the world, and yet in recent weeks, a couple of groups -- Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International -- have criticized the U.S. handling of terrorist suspects. They say that has undermined the U.S. voice as a champion of human rights, and even, perhaps, undercut a generation of progress in human rights. And my question, sir, is how do you -- how do you respond to that?

THE PRESIDENT: I haven't seen the report, but if they're saying we tortured people, they're wrong. Period.

Q Could you call on your Texas straight talk and make a clear and unambiguous statement today that no American will be allowed to torture another human being anywhere in the world at any time --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. No American will be allowed to torture another human being anywhere in the world. And I signed the appropriations bill with the McCain amendment attached on because that's the way it is. I know some have said, well, why did he put a qualifier in there? And one reason why presidents put qualifiers in is to protect the prerogative of the executive branch. You see, what we're always doing is making sure that we make it clear that the executive branch has got certain responsibilities. Conducting war is a responsibility in the executive branch, not the legislative branch.

But make no mistake about it, the McCain amendment is an amendment we strongly support and will make sure it's fully effective.

Let's see, Richard.

Q Mr. President, you mentioned earlier that this is an election year. Republicans [sic] are expressing great confidence that they're going to be able to take --

THE PRESIDENT: Who are?

Q The Democrats, I mean, they're expressing --

THE PRESIDENT: We already have the Congress. (Laughter.)

Q They say that they can use issues such as corruption and the war in Iraq and high energy prices against Republicans and against you. How much do you plan to go out and campaign --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm looking forward on the campaign, but I'm also looking forward to reminding people we have a responsibility to get some things done. And that's part of what the State of the Union is going to be about, but, no, I'm looking forward to getting out there. I've got one more off-year campaign in me as a sitting President, and I'm looking forward to it, Richard. As you know, I like to get out and tell people what's on my mind, explain to people we're a party with ideas, we know how to lead, that -- remind people of the stakes in the world in which we live, and that we have a plan to deal with them.

And we've got a good record here in Washington, D.C., and I'm looking forward to talking about the economy, for example. That seems like a debate worthwhile having -- not only what we have done to make sure that we've overcome a lot of hurdles, but how to make sure policies are put in place that this economic growth continues, and remind people we've added a lot of jobs since April of 2003, that the economy is pretty strong this year given the fact -- in spite of the fact there was high energy prices and storms. I look forward to debating people whether or not we ought to raise their taxes. I don't believe we should. Matter of fact, I think raising taxes will hurt the economy. And that's a debate I look forward to having with the people as we get closer to the 2006 elections.

And so, look, I don't blame people for saying, I'm confident about the elections. Can you imagine right here at the election year saying, I'm not very confident about the elections? (Laughter.) No wonder the Democrats are saying that.

But we've got a record, and a good one. And that's what I intend to campaign on, and explain to people why I've made the decisions I've made, and why they're necessary to protect the American people, and why they've been necessary to keep this economy strong, and why the policies we've got will keep this economy strong in the future. And this election is about peace and prosperity. And I intend to get out there and campaign.

Abril -- April.

Q Yes, Mr. President. Good morning.

THE PRESIDENT: You're going to have to speak loudly because somebody took your seat. Your name was on my seating chart, and you're not sitting down.

Q Isn't that a shame?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I mean, look, you're probably going to blame it on me. (Laughter.)

Q I'm going to let you pass that time.

THE PRESIDENT: Just trying to rattle you before you get going.

Q I know. Mr. President, as you're saying Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath is one of your top priorities.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Why is it that this administration is not allowing the senior -- your senior staff that you conversated [sic] with prior to Hurricane Katrina, during and after, to testify, to interview or talk with congressional leaders? And why not push Michael Brown, who is now a private citizen, to go before them, as he is what many are calling a linchpin to the whole issue?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me make sure you have the facts. We have given 15,000 pages of White House documents to the investigators, congressional investigators; some -- I think it's 600,000 pages, administrative documents. We have sent a fellow named Rapuano to talk about -- he's a White House staffer -- to talk to the committee. There have been a lot of interviews. There have been public testimony.

As a matter of fact, we are so concerned about this that we've started our own investigation to make sure that lessons -- that we understand the lessons learned from this. This is a problem we want to investigate thoroughly so we know how to better respond on behalf of the American people.

And so we're fully cooperative with the members of the House in -- of the Senate, and we'll do so without giving away my ability to get sound advice from people on my staff. You see, April, here's -- and this is an issue that comes up all the time, and you might -- we've had several discussions like this since I've been the President. If people give me advice and they're forced to disclose that advice, it means the next time an issue comes up I might not be able to get unvarnished advice from my advisors. And that's just the way it works. But we've given thousands of pages of documents over for people to analyze.

Q Does that include Michael Brown?

THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me?

Q Does that include Michael Brown?

THE PRESIDENT: People who give me advice, it will have a chilling effect on future advisors if the precedent is such that when they give me advice that it's going to be subject to scrutiny.

Now, we've analyzed -- we've given out all kinds of pages of documents for people, and we're cooperating with the investigators. And that's important for the American people to know. What's also important is we want to know how we can do a better job. And so we're having a lessons-learned investigation, led by Fran Townsend. And -- anyway, we need to know.

Let's see here -- yes, Mark.

Q Sir, back on lobbying. Never mind about the photographs, but can you say whether --

THE PRESIDENT: It's easy for a radio guy to say. (Laughter.)

Q Can you say, sir, whether you were lobbied by Jack Abramoff or other lobbyists, and what your policy is about lobbyists meeting with senior staff?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I, frankly, don't even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don't know him. And this investigation will -- needs to look into all aspects of his influence on Capitol Hill, and if there's some in the White House, I'm sure they're going to come and knock on the door. But I -- I can't say I didn't ever meet him, but I meet a lot of people. And evidently, he was just like you were the other day, at a holiday party -- came in, put -- the grip-and-grin, they click the picture and off he goes. And that's just -- I take thousands of -- I mean, somebody told me I maybe take over 9,000 pictures this holiday season. And he obviously went to fundraisers, but I've never sat down with him and had a discussion with the guy.

Q Do you meet with lobbyists?

THE PRESIDENT: I try not to. Have I ever met with one? Never having met with one is a -- if I ever say that, sure enough, you'll go find somebody. But, no, I don't have them come in.

Now, when, for example, people are helping on issues -- like on promoting trade -- you bet, we bring them in and I say, thank you for promoting CAFTA; or, thanks for working on the vote; or, thanks for helping on tax relief. That may be -- if you consider that a meeting, the answer is, yes, I'm sure I have, in a roomful of people as we either thank people for success in policy or thank people for going out of their way to get a piece of legislation passed on the Hill.

Listen, thank you all very much. Looking forward to Tuesday evening -- I hope you are, as well. Thank you.

END 11:01 A.M. EST

Posted by Wild Thing at 01:44 AM | Comments (13)

January 26, 2006

Sen. John Kerry Calls For a Filibuster of Samuel Alito's Nomination

Kerry calling for a filibuster.......

CNN....................
WASHINGTON (CNN) --

Sen. John Kerry has decided to support a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, CNN's Congressional Correspondent Ed Henry reported Thursday.

Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, Henry said.

He announced his decision Wednesday to a group of Democratic senators, urging they join him, Henry said. Kerry also has the support of his fellow Massachusetts senator, Democrat Edward Kennedy.

Some senior Democrats said they are worried that the move could backfire.

Republicans need 60 votes to overturn a filibuster.

Senior White House officials said the move makes the Democrats look bad, and Republicans already have enough votes to overcome any filibuster attempt.

The posters at the Democratic Underground are orgasmic............

The Democratic Underground is threatning anyone that wants to be president in 2008 and does not have the balls to filibuster they will not support..this must be why Lurch is in a panic mode! hahaha too funny.

For those that can stand it, I couldn't.......here is the entire BS from Kerry at HIS site.....................

Then there is this....................

Democatic Sen. Johnson to Back Alito Jan 26 11:05 AM US/Eastern Democatic Sen. Johnson to Back Alito
Jan 26 11:05 AM US/Eastern
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito picked up his second Democratic supporter on Thursday, with Tim Johnson of South Dakota announcing he will vote for the conservative judge to become the nation's 110th justice.

Johnson joins fellow Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska as the only members of their party to announce Senate support for the conservative judge. Fifty-one Republicans are supporting Alito, guaranteeing his confirmation as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who throughout her years on the high court often has been a key fifth vote on contentious social issues including abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty.

WASHINGTON

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito picked up his second Democratic supporter on Thursday, with Tim Johnson of South Dakota announcing he will vote for the conservative judge to become the nation's 110th justice.

Johnson joins fellow Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska as the only members of their party to announce Senate support for the conservative judge.

Fifty-one Republicans are supporting Alito, guaranteeing his confirmation as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who throughout her years on the high court often has been a key fifth vote on contentious social issues including abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty.

.

* Michelle Malkin
* STOP the ACLU

Posted by Wild Thing at 05:08 PM | Comments (6)

Helen Thomas Babbles On and On and On.....

President Bush today again avoided taking a question from White House doyenne Helen Thomas during his 45-minute press conference, even though he took questions from every reporter around her front-row, center seat.

"He's a coward," Thomas said afterward. "He's supposed to be this macho guy. He'll take on Osama bin Laden, but he won't take me on."

Thomas, who worked as the UPI White House reporter for 57 years and is now a columnist, raised her hand every time the president was concluding an answer to a reporter's question, but he never called on her.

She had a few questions in mind, though. "I wanted to ask about Iraq: 'You said you didn't go in for oil or for Israel or for WMDs. So why did you go in?' "

She also had another question at the ready, just in case, this one about the president's contention that a 28-year-old wiretapping law known as FISA is out of date, which prompted him to order the National Security Agency to conduct a secret electronic surveillance program that Democrats contend is illegal.

"You keep saying it's a 1978 law, but the Constitution 200 years old. Is that out of date, too?"

Afterward, Thomas sat sullenly in her chair in the White House press work area, huddled in her leopard-print winter coat.

But as she left, she made a prediction: "He came on to my turf. I'll bet the next press conference will be in Room 450 of the EEOB," a theater-style room in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, where she would not be in the front row.

Wild Thing comment.........
Now wait a dog gone minute here....... "He won't take me on?" Hey Helen why would be want to. He is the President. Hellooooo Helen! Maybe he was afraid he would turn to stone if he looked directly at her.

"He came on to my turf." Actually Helen you are on the people's turf.

Just chill out Helen and remember the good ole days with Clinton............