Mark A. Kilmer (the weblog)

TacJammer tells Ted Koppel what he thinks — “BITE ME” — and lists the names Ted should have listed: those who were slaughtered on 9-11.

They have been listed on TV, at least in part, but that was done long after there were people still dying on September 11. Our troops are still in danger in Iraq.

Courtesy of Erick Erickson at Confessions of a Political Junkie — who has been dreaming that this would be so — I’ve learned the great news that candidate JF Kerry has told BET News that the Reverend Al Sharpton is invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention in Boston this July. [BET press release]

On Rev. Al Sharpton as a Speaker at the DNC …

Kerry: “I hope so. Sure … That’s my call … If he wants to do it, he can do it … Let me just say to you … if he wants to do it, I’d like him to do it. I think he’d do a terrific job. I think he’ll add something … there’s no plea necessary. It’s my invitation.”

On Rev. Sharpton’s Impact on the Presidential Campaign Season …

Kerry: ” … He certainly earned the right to be part of this process, and I think he can be very, very helpful in motivating people, in helping to register people.”

And, by the way, Howard Dean fancies himself the next Oprah.

The latest column by Jan Ireland, Score Pat Tillman American Hero, Rene Gonzalez Cowardly America Hater, is live on the Rightsided Newsletter web site:

Words so often reveal more than the writer intends, and truth can find its way out of the craftiest planted propaganda.

Puerto Rico and the University of Massachusetts were shamed yesterday when their lamentable son Rene Gonzalez sought to wound America as it grieves for football great turned elite Army Ranger Pat Tillman.

Racism and envy were part of the reason Gonzalez called Tillman a “pendejo” (idiot) and a “Rambo” soldier who deserved to die. But the biggest reason of all was the personal cowardice of America hater Rene Gonzalez. [MORE]

Al Gore and other investors purchased Newsworld International from Vivendi Universal, the struggling French media giant, and plans to turn it into a public affairs and entertainment outlet for the 18-34 demographic.

Al Gore says he’s not targeting the nation’s most popular cable news network, the FOX News Channel, despite rumors to the contrary.

“This is not going to be a liberal network, or a Democratic network in any way, shape, or form,'’ the former vice president said.

Is there a wink we’re missing?

There are a few that claim that while the FOX News Channel claims to be “fair and balanced,” they wink when the say it. It’s not true, the claim goes.

Gore no doubt buys into this sloppy line of thinking, so he might be thinking along the lines of: “Well, if Murdoch and Ailes can claim to be fair and balanced, so can the Al Gore News Network!” (NOTE: I invented the name for the new network; what he actually calls it is his business.)

After watching Gore on the stump for the past several years, I cannot imagine the man reserving his fiery vitriol from certain aspects of his life. Unless he is a brilliant actor and genius compartimentalizer, which would make his political life an ingenious fraud.

Ted Koppel has decided to use his ABC new infotainment show Nightline to recite the names of the 532+ K.I.A. in the Iraq war and reconstruction effort. Sinclair broadcasting, which eight ABC stations, is not going to air it. From the Sinclair web site:

The ABC Television Network announced on Tuesday that the Friday, April 30 edition of “Nightline” will consist entirely of Ted Koppel reading aloud the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq. Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show, the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq. [emphasis in orig]

[ . . . [
We understand that our decision in this matter may be questioned by some. Before you judge our decision, however, we would ask that you first question Mr. Koppel as to why he chose to read the names of 523 troops killed in combat in Iraq, rather than the names of the thousands of private citizens killed in terrorist attacks since and including the events of September 11, 2001. In his answer, we believe you will find the real motivation behind his action scheduled for this Friday. Unfortunately, we may never know for sure because Mr. Koppel has refused repeated requests from Sinclair’s News Central news organization to comment on this Friday’s program.

Fair enough. Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) — who chairs the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which oversees the FCC, which controls Sinclair’s ability to broadcast — sent a letter to Sinclair Chairman and CEO David Smith, saying, in part:

There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided attempt to prevent your viewers from completely appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their behalf by Americans serving in Iraq. War is an awful, but sometimes necessary business. Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war’s terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves.

Smith replied, in part:

It is “Nightline’s” failure to present the entire story, however, to which Sinclair objects. “Nightline” is not reporting news; it is doing nothing more than making a political statement. In simply reading the names of our fallen heroes, this program has adopted a strategy employed by numerous anti-war demonstrators who wish to focus attention solely on the cost of war. In fact, lest there be any doubt about “Nightline’s” motivation, both Mr. Koppel and “Nightline’s” executive producer have acknowledged that tonight’s episode was influenced by the Life Magazine article listing the names of dead soldiers in Vietnam, which article was widely credited with furthering the opposition to the Vietnam war and with creating a backlash of public opinion against the members of the U.S. military who had proudly served in that conflict

In closing, I would like to quote for you the words of Captain Kate Blaise of the U.S. Military. Captain Blaise served in Iraq as a member of the 101st Airborne Division and suffered the loss of her husband Mike who was killed while also serving in Iraq. In commenting on exactly the type of practice which “Nightline” intends to employ, Captain Blaise had this to say:

“I was watching the news, watching this anti-war demonstration and they were reading off names of soldiers who had fallen in Iraq and they read off my husband’s name. That made me very angry because he very strongly believed in what he was doing and they were using his name for a purpose that he would not have approved of.”

I’ve heard the theory that McCain enjoys tweaking the President, a notion which he dismisses, and this seems to be evidence of that. Sinclair owns no stations in Arizona, so McCain should not have interfered in a business decision by Sinclair Broadcasting. That a chairman of the committee overseeing the FCC would so such a thing is disgusting and reprehensible. The government is neither empowered nor does it belong anywhere near such things. The rest of this matter is trivial.

Like Koppel’s motivation. He might be protesting the war by taking the ridiculous step of listing the dead before the action is finished. He might also be trying to gather attention for his infotainment show. (I haven’t seen his ratings.) Either way, he is dishonoring the dead. His show began as a nice little thing with news of our hostages in Iran in 1980. I do not know why he is still on the air.

Sinclair is a private company.

People, including Koppel, have a right to protest the war, even to dishonor the dead. I have a right to note what they are doing. Sinclair has a right not to air his stunt. John McCain has no right or power to use his elected position to bully a private corporation.

This stuff from the French wire AFP is always stimulating.

A new Ipsos-Reid survey conducted for the CTV , the remnants of the government-owned Canadian television system, and the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper had concluded that 83-percent of Canadians responded in agreement to a statement that President Bush “is not necessarily a friend of Canada and doesn’t really know anything when it comes to Canadian issues.” The French translated the Canadian reaction to that statement as: “[m]ore than eight in 10 Canadians harbour [sic] a strong dislike for President George W. Bush.” It cannot be thusly translated, but the French are getting sloppy with the strong dislike they harbor.

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin is meeting with President Bush as I type, trying to undo the damage do to the U.S.-Canada relationship by former Canadian PM Jean Chretient. To be certain, Martin opposed the war; the difference is that he does not fear or hate the United States.

And that’s my honest analysis.

Ambassador Joe Wilson’s novel, The Politics of Truth: A Diplomat’s memoir, was due out today. The NYTimes the damned thing today. You can read that by clicking on the cover, here:

He promised that he would disclose the name of the person in the White House who leaked his CIA operative wife’s name, Valerie Plame, to columnist Robert Novak and according to the AP, he names three of them: Cheney Chief of Staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the NSC’s Elliott Abrams, and Karl Rove:

“The workup on me that turned up the information on Valerie was shared with Karl Rove, who then circulated it in administration and neoconservative circles,” Wilson writes.

White House Press Secretary Scott McLellan had previously ruled all three men out as possible sources.

Wilson’s motivation? Book sales, of course, but he wants to “frog-march” the Bush Administration out of the White House. He runs with Rand Beers and Dick Clarke, and has spoken at MoveOn.org events. He’s one of the mini-assassins of the organized ABB crowd.

We’ll find out soon enough if it contains anything new or interesting.

On Wednesday night, CBSNews.com, on one of the infotainment shows (60 Minutes II, aired photographs of Iraq prisoners being put in goofy poses by their US military guards at the Abu Ghraib prison. As a CBSNews.com story relates, former CIA Bureau Chief Bob Baer told Dan Rather

“I visited Abu Ghraib a couple of days after it was liberated. It was the most awful sight I’ve ever seen. I said, ‘If there’s ever a reason to get rid of Saddam Hussein, it’s because of Abu Ghraib,’” says Baer. “There were bodies that were eaten by dogs, torture. You know, electrodes coming out of the walls. It was an awful place.”

Now prisoners are made to assume goofy and humiliating poses.

At the White House, from Reuters:

“We cannot tolerate it and the military is taking strong action against the individuals responsible for these despicable acts,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

According to the Associated Press, Army Reserve Staff Sergeant Chip Frederick, one of those implicated in the humiliation, told his family in an e-mail that “[w]e’ve had a very high rate with our styles of getting them to break; they usually end up breaking within hours.” Barely authorized psychological warfare?

Britain’s lefty broadsheet Guardian Unlimited Friday complains about the lack of coverage this has received but argued that the photographs “could prove a tipping point in the war in Iraq.”

Just like the Sixteen Words, Dick Clarke’s book tour testimony, and Valerie Plame-gate could destroy the President. Yeah.

We have some overly enthusiastic soldiers who conducted themselves in a way contrary to the code observed by U.S. servicemen. Punish them and avoid hyperbole. It may be reprehensible, but it is most certainly not barbaric.

The latest column by Dennis Campbell, Candidate Reaffirms his Support of Slavery, is live on the Rightsided Newsletter site:

WASHINGTON - We caught up with Sen. John Kerry as he prepared to debate fellow Democrat Stephen Douglas for the right to challenge likely Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election.

We wanted to clarify Sen. Kerry’s position on slavery, the most divisive issue in American politics. Republicans will campaign on a strong anti-slavery platform, while Democrats are equally staunch in their support of the “peculiar institution.”

Yesterday at a noontime rally, Sen. Kerry defended the rights of slaveholders in the face of
mounting criticism from Christian clergy, who call slavery immoral and an affront to Christianity. [MORE]

A little bar will open to the left of your screen when you visit the page with the column. Close it. It’s harmless but useless, someone’s “bright idea.”

The school will be 200 miles northeast of Denver, but Nancy’s nixed the name. It’s not their name to use, and his name remains private for such purposes for as long as the President or Mrs. Reagan lives.

Good Morning! Last night, a good friend stationed with us USAF at the Ali Al Salam Air Base wrote me (on his distribution list) apologizing for a virus he might have inadvertently passed around:

“Go figure, we spend zillions of dollars and have Anti Virus software running all the time but this crap slips through.

I tried to be reassuring:

Think of it this way. For all the trouble which can be caused by computer viruses and Iraqi insurgents, they don’t get air support. - Mark

It’s true.

That’s an interesting assertion made by Daniel W. Drezner, whom we might know from his exactly eponymous weblog, in Thursday’s TNR.com.

The operative graph [link]:

Ordinarily, presidents are rewarded for doing their jobs well. In Bush’s case, however, quiet in Iraq would allow Americans to focus on their pocketbooks. While the economy–and Bush’s approval numbers on the issue–have rebounded from lows, the president remains far weaker on domestic issues than on international affairs. Democrats can still claim that Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a decline in the number of jobs. The latest Gallup poll shows a 54 percent disapproval rating on Bush’s handling of the economy. Bush’s best hope for reelection is for the electorate to focus on his leadership abilities–and one way for that to happen is for there to be trouble in Iraq.

I’m afraid not, though it does make sense. If he is going by the worn tradition that Republicans poll worse than Dems on the economy, that is a part of the conventional wisdom which he earlier suggests might not be operative this cycle.

If the economy continues to rally, his concomitant numbers will rise. As far as the Dems pointing to the total job loss for the entire administration — “Herbert Hoover, maaaan” — that argument is already flat on its face. Kerry harps, Pelosi spits, but with an job creation like the nation is currently experiences, and 9-11 and the bursting of Clinton’s bubble on which to blame the previous losses, the President will be fine.

The argument that the President needs things to go poorly in Iraq so that he can demonstrate his leadership ability is also, I think, faulty. Remember, if things do go poorly in Iraq, candidate JF Kerry and his allies can more forcefully use the dread Q-Word: QUAGMIRE. They can sing the Vietnam song, and few voters are going to wait for the nuance.

If the President can successfully give Iraq to the Iraqis and the economy says strong, he has the election in the bag. (He may anyway, should the Democrats go through with nominating JF Kerry.) The President can then score his leadership points through the war on terror and maybe — this one is sweet, in a perverse way — forming some global alliances to wave in JF Kerry’s face.

Life ain’t so bad. We don’t have to lose an arm to win.

The latest column by Justin Darr, Liberals are Unpatriotic, is live on the Rightsided Newsletter web site:

There they go again. Another Liberal has decided that loud must somehow equal right. This time Hillary Clinton has decided to join the ranks of Al Gore and Howard Dean by screaming herself into a hysterical frenzy at a pro-abortion rally. Other than making America finally understand why Bill looked outside his marriage for companionship, Hillary’s tirade about how she is tired of Republicans calling Liberals “unpatriotic” makes no sense. No Republican has called the Democrats unpatriotic. They have questioned the Liberals dedication to national defense, their commitment to the War on Terror, and the motivations for their Socialist policies, but not their patriotism. Liberals may want to blame the Republicans for their public perception of Anti-Americanism, but the Democrats actually are having a problem with common sense. [MORE]

To be fair, the 9-11 Commission appeared behind the President and Vice President this morning, rather than them appearing before the commission. In the Oval Office, with all that the power the room implies, the commissioners had a “conversation” with the President.

From his remarks afterward:

I want to thank the Chairman and Vice-Chairman for bringing the commission here and giving us a chance to share views on different subjects. And they had a lot of good questions. I’m glad I did it. I’m glad I took the time. This is an important commission, and it’s important that they ask the questions they ask so that they can help make recommendations necessary to better protect our homeland. It was — I enjoyed it.

Do not forget that just a month ago, the press had the Dick Clarke book tour appearance crushing is chances at reelection. That did not work out, so they determined that Condoleezza Rice’s testimony would make or break his reelection chances.

Evidently the President answered most of the questions and did so authoritatively. The perception pretty much all around is that it went well, as the opposition has resorted to its fall-back position of continuing to question why the President and VP were questioned together. (I suspect that EJ Dionne will have some other sort of criticism and sniping. I have to credit him with a superior imagination.)

What I hope can happen now, and it can, is that the commission put this circus which began with the public hearings and the Dick Clarke book tour behind them. They took a lot of substantial testimony before that circus, and some afterwards. If they can concentrate on that and eliminate Jamie Gorelick’s fingerprints as much as is possible, this could be productive.

From VOA:

The New York Times-CBS News poll found that 47 percent of those surveyed believe the United States did the right thing in invading Iraq, down from 58 percent in March and 63 percent in December.

The same poll has his general approval rating down and the one for his handling of the war in Iraq down as well.

Take the poll when we’ve finished.

No one took a survey of art lovers to rate Edouard Manet halfway through The Execution of Maxmillion. Wait ’til Saddam’s work is undone.

The new column by Isaiah Z. Sterrett, No Doubt About It: Muslims Can Handle Freedom, is live on the RSN web site:

LAST WEEK I wrote a column in which I argued that liberals have started addressing conservatives as neoconservatives because the word conservativewithout the divisive prefix of neono longer frightens the American public. By labeling the Bush Administration neoconservative, rather than merely conservative, liberals are trying to undo all of the positive steps conservatives have taken to improve our image. [MORE]

In their annual report, the State Department reported that the last year in which there were fewer terrorists incidents than in 2003 was 1969, some twenty years before the fall of the Soviet Union facilitated the rise of modern terrorism.

[Top State Department counterterrorism official, Cofer] Black also said al-Qaida “is no longer the organization it once was. … Most of the group’s senior leadership is dead or in custody, its membership on the run and its capabilities sharply degraded.” He said more 3,400 al-Qaida suspects have been detained worldwide.

The war on global terrorism is being won, and brought together by President Bush using the good will after September 11, the world is winning it.

The French wire AFP reports today:

The president, who initially fiercely opposed the commission’s creation, grudgingly agreed to the session on condition he not be sworn to tell the truth, that Cheney accompany him, and that there be no transcript or recording.

That’s the French, who report:

But a poll published Thursday showed Bush’s approval ratings in a slump, his race with Kerry a dead heat, and highlighted growing doubts about his handling of the war in Iraq.

And former counter-terrorism aides have publicly called into question Bush’s response to the growing threat from Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network after he took office in January 2001.

That’s French analysis, and it’s so misguided that it is almost stunning. But it’s what the French people are led to believe, and the mullahs are saying similar things to their charges in the mideast.

Back to the testimony. Fred Barnes stated earlier this week that the President should not testify at all, that the panel was too discredited. I think the President’s testimony will give the panel some of the credibility it has lost since it kicked of the Dick Clarke Book Tour last month. The circus we saw was only a small portion of the work they did, so if they could put that aside and excise, to the extent possible, Jamie Gorelick’s participation from the final report, they could offer something potentially valuable.

One should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, even if such bathwater is particularly putrid. I hope the President and Mr. Cheney can allow them to get serious again.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) ran a phone ad campaigning pointing fingers and blaming Republican challenger John Thune for starting the negative campaigning.

Daschle did not include a message stating that he approved of the message, as required by federal election law to distinguish for the public between soft and hard money advertising.

Democrats said oops, while Republican called it blatant hypocrisy with Daschle’s initial pledge to run a positive campaign:

“Their hypocrisy is unbelievable,” said Thune’s campaign manager, Dick Wadhams. “It’s either blatant disregard for the law or incompetence.”

How stupid is Daschle’s campaign? Every official political ad, seemingly but Daschle’s, has contained the disclaimer.

The ads were pulled.

John Kerry just finished spreading his message of malaise to enraptured audiences in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, talking not of the current job situation, but of the jobs lost since the burst of the Clinton bubble, especially those in manufacturing.

President Bush heads to Michigan and Ohio next week to talk about the current condition of the economy.

The Democrat is appealing to defeat, while the Republican is reflecting victory.

Meanwhile, the economy grew 4.2% between January and March, as businesses invested money in their infrastructures. Growth was 4.1% in the fourth quarter of 2003, and this is the first time we have had three straight quarters with 4%+ growth in a decade.

But Kerry reports that we are miserable, and he has an half-baked index to “prove” it.

Like most Democrats, Al Gore is not excited about his party’s presidential candidate, JF Kerry.

“I didn’t support John Kerry. President Carter didn’t support John Kerry. President Clinton didn’t support John Kerry,” Gore said. “John Kerry earned the nomination of this party. He won it the hard way.”

He claims to have $6.5-million left from his failed 2000 Presidential run. Of that money, he’s giving $1-million each to the DCCC and the DSCC, the party committees which work on winning House and Senate seats respectively.

He’s giving $4-million, he says, to the Democratic National Committee in order to help Kerry’s Presidential effort, simply because the candidate is not President Bush. DNC spending this year is restricted by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, so it will not help Kerry as much as the numbers claim.

No word as to whether he gave the maximum $2,000 to Kerry’s campaign machine. He could also have paid his subordinates, if such he has, to donate $2,000, thus skirting the law and increasing the assistance to Kerry.

Super-secret Dem bratty protestors are seeking to infiltrate the ranks of volunteers for this Summer’s Republican National Convention in NYC.

“I think they don’t understand either just how much of New York City is not prepared to welcome them,” said Amanda Hickman, who described herself as a community gardener from Brooklyn. “I don’t think that has clicked.”

Some aging kid, age 37, has a web site designed to get troublemakers to infiltrate both the RNC and the Democratic National Convention in Boston. The Boston boys are seen as virtually immune, as they already have their volunteers.

We ALMOST got the courts out of the legislative function of redistricting.

After the 2000 census, the Pennsylvania legislature redrew the maps of Congressional districts to reflect the loss of two seats. The Republicans controlled both chambers of the legislature, so the maps were redrawn to reflect the will of the people through their representatives.

That’s my Republican way of saying that they redrew the districts to favor the GOP. The Democrats complained that Pennsylvania voter registration is about evenly split between the two parties so the redistricting should have reflected that.

The Supreme court decided 5-4 in the case of Vieth v. Jubelirer that Commonwealth Senate Pro Tem Bob Jubelirer get his way and the plan stands.

Justice Antonin Scalia — writing for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas — upheld the Pennsylvania redistricting map and wanted to overturn the Court’s 1986 redistricting case of Davis v. Bandemer, 478 US 109 (1986), which allowed the courts to meddle in legislative redistricting. (Rehnquist and O’Conner had dissented in that case.)

The view had only four votes, but Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with them to allow the Pennsylvania redistricting to stand but to keep Davis v. Bendemer.

The ACLU, arguing against the plan, maintained that the Constitution does not allow for such plans which might let a minority of voters to control a majority of Congressional seats. The plan, of course, does not such thing, and the Constitution makes no mention of political parties.

Last week, the SC declined to hear an appeal of Texas’ redistricting plan.

Representative Jim McDermott (R-Washington) was seventeen when President Eisenhower signed the bill into law adding the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. He said he had forgotten and gone back to saying the pledge as he did “in the 6th grade” when explaining why he recited the Pledge for the House of Representative, Tuesday, without those words. But roll the tape, McDermott paused briefly while other members said “under God,” then resumed “with liberty.”

Representative Jeff Sessions is vocally chastising McDermott, who gained the appellation “Jihad Jim” when visiting Baghdad in late 2002. Last December, he said that the capture of Saddam Hussein was politically timed.

It seems to me that the old man is a tad mean-spirited and a bit disconnected with reality. There are people in most groups the size of Congress who cause trouble merely to watch the effects.

He should not lie about his motivation.

I thought it would be nice to Al Jazeera, public access for terrorists.

Something called the Islamic Resistance in Iraq has offered a $15-million reward each for the capture of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, US Commander in Iraq, Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, and his spokesman, Brigadier General Mark Kimmit.

They’re distributing leaflets in Fallujah, and some of the deadenders are no doubt looking for Rummy behind the mosques.

Someone not identified sent a letter and a vial of powder to former President Bill Clinton’s in Harlem. It was not anthrax.

No comment from this end.

The President is not backing down to Schumer or to any of the other liberal Senators on the Judiciary Committee. The President has nominated Brett Kavanaugh to sit on the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Brett Kavanaugh is the White House attorney who helps select the President’s judicial nominees, somr of whom were labeled right wing ideologues, dead on arrival. Ken Kavanaugh was one if Ken Starr’s lead Whitewater attorney.

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and the committee chairman, extolled Mr. Kavanaugh as a graduate of Yale Law School and a law clerk to three judges. Mr. Hatch also said the American Bar Association had rated Mr. Kavanaugh “well qualified” for the judicial post, on the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Hatch said it was wrong of opponents to portray Mr. Kavanaugh as a right-wing ideologue. He has devoted a majority of his career to public service, not ideological causes, Mr. Hatch said.

If Kavanaugh’s nomination tracks like the President’s past “controversial” nominees, there’s an outside chance that he might not get his hearing until next year. Arlen Specter will be chairman of Judiciary.

This little AP piece says it all:

White House — President Bush says Thursday’s appearance before the 9-11 commission will be a “good opportunity” to help in the panel’s work. He says he looks forward to what he terms “the discussion.”

Bush will not be under oath, and there’ll be no recording or transcript, when he and Vice President Cheney are questioned together behind closed doors at the White House.

Bush says he expects the panel to ask about “what happened leading up to” 9-11 and administration anti-terror efforts in general.

Questioned by reporters as he met with Sweden’s prime minister, the president side-stepped a question about the lack of a transcript. And he wouldn’t say why the White House insisted he appear jointly with Cheney.

The 9-11 Commission was empanelled, according to their web site to “prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks.” Despite the three rings added for the circus when the Dick Clarke book tour kicked off last month, this is not an investigation of wrongdoing. For the President to participate, it should not be a game of political gotcha. This is the President of the United States of America, and despite the antics of Administrations left behind, the job is not that of a male lead in a dark comedy film.

He and the Vice President will be there to describe what happened and what is being done to prevent future attacks. If this effort is to be successful, we can’t have we can’t have pests like EJ Dionne and David Corn dealing faux-indignant to covert what was intended to be a serious effort into a slapstick attempt to shoot substance into flailing campaign.

I am linking to the story from the French wire AFP to prove a broader point.

The United States could get a major victory at the UN Security Council on a new resolution aimed at keeping weapons of mass destruction (WMD) out of the hands of terrorists.

I can write “Working with the international community, President Bush is asking for approval…” What else is new? Our President has always shown internationalists tendencies, short of surrendering sovereignty, even in the face of obstruction.

The French do not report that Great Britain is a co-sponsor of the legislation.

Pakistan, an erstwhile (?) purveyor of nuclear tech through citizen A.Q. Khan, has expressed its concerns that one of the five permanent members of the UNSC could us its permanent veto to exempt itself from the resolution.

From the AFP:

But the measure would still pass with 14 votes in favour on the 15-nation council, even if Pakistan abstains. The United States has called for a vote this week, before Pakistan takes over the Security Council presidency in May.

Hoping to get Islamabad’s support, the United States revised language to make the measure non-retroactive so that Pakistan would not be held accountable for the spread of the technology by its nuclear mastermind A.Q. Khan.

In a way, this is a positive sign. President Bush took a necessary risk when he brought Pakistan into the world community after 9-11, and it is good to see them calculating their interests and behaving responsibly. After all, the United States would not sign off on a resolution proscribing the sale of military secrets to the People’s Republic of China if it were not non-retroactive so that we would not be held accountable for the facilitation of a sale of such secrets by President Clinton.

It has been established that JF Kerry threw/didn’t thrown his/someone else’s medals/ribbons over a fence/onto some stairs to protest the Vietnam War/display his love of country. But he’d sooner suddenly bring up the President’s already-documented service in the Alabama National Guard.

… tick, tick, tick, tick…

Click RIGHT HERE to be directed to the page where you can become a Bush Team Leader, an official part of the campaign. You can also join by donating at the campaign’s SECURE SERVER.

This effort is undersigned by WW founder PoliBundit and the entire cast of Wictory Wednesday bloggers (page a bit to item, to #3).

Let’s see this through.

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter has fended off a Republican primary challenge from the “Republican wing of the Republican Party,” conservative Representative Pat Toomey. Specter had led the race all evening by about a 52% - 48% margin, but the gap narrowed to 51% - 49% by morning.

Specter is a member of the Senate GOP Mod Squad, so called because of their self-proclaimed MODeration, with Maine Republicans Susie Collins and Olympia Snowe, Ohio Senator George Voinovich, and Rhode Island Senator Linc Chafee. (Vermont’s Jim Jeffords was a premier Mod Squadder until he quit the party for a big deal and subsequent anonymity in the Summer of 2001.)

Specter faces Democrat Representative Joe Hoeffel, who makes Philadelphia Representative Chaka Fattah look like a rabid right winger in the Pennsylvania Dem delegation. There should be no problem there, and hopefully the Doomsday scenarios of Specter at Judiciary will prove false.

In another close race, Representative Bill Shuster (PA=9) fended off a GOP primary challenge by Mike DelGrosso to pull off his own 51% - 49% squeaker. There was no real reason for DelGrosso’s challenge, as both candidates were self-proclaimed conservatives, but he was running in a district tickled to have a bona fide primary election after having been represented virtually unopposed by Shuster’s dad for 25 years.

Specter, in proclaiming his victory early this AM, said that the party should put its little squabbles in the past and unify to reelect President Bush. We’ll reelect President Bush despite Specters troublesome governance, but now Pennsylvania has a lame duck old man, possibly the Republicans; answer to Howard Metzenbaum, all but certain to return to Washington. They do not call him Snarlin’ Arlen entirely in jest.

With 43% Statewide, Specter leads Toomey, 52%-48%.

It’s over. The “T,” as we call it — Top and down the middle of the Commonwealth — is not carrying Toomey by the margin he needed.

With 30% Statewide, Specter leads Toomey, 52%-48%. Toomey’s support in the conservative center of the Commonwealth, however, is softer than he had hoped.

The Dems are seeing a surge by candidate Lyndon LaRouche, but it’s too little/too late.

With 11-percent of the Commonwealth’s precincts reporting — all in the Philadelphia area — Arlen Specter is leading Pat Toomey 53% to 47%. Specter has to pretty much dominate that region, his strong spot, if he is to match what Toomey is expected to do in central and western Pennslvania.

Of course, no totals of votes were given. Turnout was said to be light, and if it was, that also works against Specter.

Okay, the results are coming in from the east of the Commonwealth — Philadelphia, etc. — and Shuster is leading Toomey by eight points. This is the liberal part of the State, of course…

In the Democrat primary, results from the same area, Kerry is leading with 60-percent of the vote. The party’s nominee has to do better than this.

Early, early results.

The Associated Press has published what President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and candidate JF Kerry were doing at the time of the Vietnam war. It’s not an overtly biased account, but it is problematic.

There might be an inaccuracy, though. The AP concludes of Kerry:

Kerry’s three war injuries — all minor — were enough to allow him an early return to stateside duty. After petitioning for honorable discharge six months early in 1969, Kerry ran for a House seat in Massachusetts, but later gave up his bid for the Democratic nomination. He joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War and became its leading spokesman. During a protest in April 1971, Kerry threw his war ribbons over a fence at the Capitol.

Has it been established whether Kerry threw/didn’t throw his/someone else’s medals/ribbons over a fence/onto some stairs?

Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naim deputy U.S. Secretary of Energy Kyle McSlarrow duked it out at a public energy security conference over whether the high price of gasoline was caused by the overregulated and overburdened U.S. refining system or by the high prices of crude oil. The United States, of course, took the Kerry approach and blamed the Saudis and the price.

“There is no general shortage of crude oil in today’s market — supplies are readily available,'’ Naimi said.

Instead, he pointed to “balkanized gasoline markets'’ that required dozens of different gasoline blends to meet local clean air U.S. requirements.

To increase refining capacity in the United States, Saudi Arabia is prepared to spend $70 million to $100 million to obtain environmental and regulatory permits required to build two new U.S. oil refineries, the first such construction in decades.

The last refinery built in the United States, the Lousiana Refining Division, began production for the Marathon Oil Company in Garyville, Louisiana, in 1976.

McSlarrow argued that the high cost of crude oil has taken the incentive to refine from U.S. Companies.

The following is from Alexander’s Gas & Oil Connections - December 6, 2001 [link]:

No new refineries have been built in the US in the past 25 years. And petroleum industry experts say anyone would have to be crazy to launch such an effort — even though present refineries are running at nearly 100 % of capacity and local gasoline shortages are beginning to crop up.

Why does the industry appear to have built its last refinery?

Three reasons: Refineries are not particularly profitable, environmentalists fight planning and construction every step of the way and government red-tape makes the task all but impossible. The last refinery built in the US was in Garyville, Louisiana, and it started up in 1976.

Energy proposed building a refinery near Portsmouth, Virginia, in the late 1970s, environmental groups and local residents fought the plan — and it took almost nine years of battles in court and before federal and state regulators before the company cancelled the project in 1984.

Industry officials estimate the cost of building a new refinery at between $ 2 bn and $ 4 bn — at a time the industry must devote close to $ 20 bn over the next decade to reducing the sulphur content in gasoline and other fuels — and approval could mean having to collect up to 800 different permits. As if those hurdles weren’t enough, the industry’s long-term rate of return on capital is just 5 % — less than could be realized by simply buying US Treasury bonds.

“I’m sure that at some point in the last 20 years someone has considered building a new refinery,” says James Halloran, an energy analyst with National City Corp. “But they quickly came to their senses,” he adds. [note: They claim their source as Investors Business Daily]

I doubt the Treasury Bond analogy is still applicable, but the point has to be taken.

We have a problem, and cheaper crude oil is not going to solve it.

Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and the House Republicans tody outlined their legislative agenda for spring and summer: cutting taxes and slashing regs. It sounded like a campaign promise of good things ahead, but they will be in a position to write and pass actual legislation to do these things.

We’ll figure it out then; as for now, it’s talk…

Ohio is a battleground, almost certainly a must-win for candidate Kerry, where the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports he has nothing.

He has no field offices. No paid staff. And Kerry bumper stickers are harder to spot than faded “Gore-Lieberman” ones.

Cuyahoga County’s Democratic Party headquarters - down the street from the Slovenian National Home in Cleveland, where Kerry appears this afternoon - displays placards in its windows reading, “Elect Dennis Kucinich President.”

By contrast, President Bush’s re-election campaign, which has had the luxury of time and money to get organized here, fills a Columbus office with 12 paid staffers and acres of signs and bumper stickers. The campaign says it has already signed up 24,000 volunteers, ready to pound on doors for the president.

People are telling Kerry he doesn’t have to party ’til after Boston in August.

Things do not look good for the Kerry juggernaut.

What if. Say conservative Representative Pat Toomey upsets incumbent liberal/moderate Senator Arlen Specter in today’s Pennsylvania GOP primary. He would then take on Democrat nominee Joe Hoeffel, whom we can assume Specter would defeat easily, but against whom a nominee Toomey and the Republicans would have to work, expending time, money, and effort.

In his Off to the Races e-mail column today, National Journal’s Charlie Cooks looks at such a scenario.

[M]ost Democrats… argue — and most independents observers agree — that Hoeffel would have an advantage over Toomey if the Allentown Republican knocks off the incumbent in today’s GOP primary.

Apart from the simple fact that the state seems to be trending Democratic, Hoeffel would begin with a strong advantage in the Philadelphia suburbs, including his homebase of Montgomery County, as well as Bucks and Delaware Counties. Historically, this has been Republican territory. But Al Gore won all three counties in the 2000 election and Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell won
them in the 2002 gubernatorial contest.

It seems to whom to be trending Democratic? Sure, Pennsylvania voters elected a Dem governor, Ed Rendell, in 2002, but that was more a contest between a good campaign and a bad one. Toomey should not have the problem against a bland Hoeffel.

Like so many suburban counties outside the South, social and cultural issues are driving many suburban voters away from the Republican Party. This is mirrored in the way those same issues tend to be pushing small town and rural voters away from the Democratic Party.

That may be a decent national observation, but… In Philadelphia, this may possibly be true to an extent, but I doubt it is so in the Pittsburgh area in the west.

The tough question for the Toomey campaign in a general election is this: Where outside of your congressional district will you do better than George W. Bush did in 2000, when he took 46 percent while running as a much less ideological candidate than you are today? Where will Hoeffel do worse than Gore?

Put Bush vrs. Gore 2000 away. This race bears no resemblance to that one save the general party labels. (Hoeffel comes from the left of Gore, and Toomey from the right of President Bush.)

Where in the Commonwealth should the campaigns best allocate their resources? That was Mr. Cook’s larger question, and if I were in Toomey’s campaign, I’d push in the region surrounding the Lehigh Valley and in the West, near Pittsburgh. Hoeffel ought to focus on Philadelphia, its suburbs, Harrisburgh, Erie, urban PA. Or he can go sleep if off in Pennsylvania Dutch country.

In Afghanistan, one Abdullah Shah was convicted of, according to the Associated Press, “killing one wife by pouring boiling water over her body and murdering his infant daughter by bashing her repeatedly against a wall.” He was a nasty guy — read the linked story — and he was executed with a bullet to the head on April 20. It was first reported today.

The execution itself is not the big story, as I see it; more significant is that that it took place at all. The United Nations officially considers the death penalty to be a violation of human rights, and the first post-Taliban government in Afghanistan was set up by our good friend, U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, and Algerian Sunni who brings to mind Henry Kissinger for reasons of the man’s maddening aura.

This means that Lakhdar Brahimi can rightly (for him) say that Lakhdar Brahimi has blood on his hands.

What goes around…

“YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!”

As I noted last night, Kerry’s feeling the heat from the medal/ribbons mine/his thrown/not thrown adventure. He melted down ABC’s Good Morning America, and blogger J.B, Corrigan has the play-by-play HERE. You don’t want to miss it.

We have seen it written that today’s primary race between liberal Republican Arlen Specter and conservative Representative Pat Toomey is about the future of the Party, who is welcome in the Party, universes colliding in a majestic spectacle of magnificent plumes of fire cascading across the splendiferous hegemony of one-size-fits-all political hegemony.

To be decided by the 35% of Pennsylvania Republicans who are motivated to go to the polls, Which opened at 7a. We voted in a fire hall at 8 o’clock, then my wife purchased one of their apple dumplings for $2.50.

“I’m glad it is not raining,” said my wife as we left the building, referring to what the prognosticators had served her the night before, sufficing as a forecast.

I nodded instinctively.

The sun was out, the skies were largely blue, and we had left the polling place ladies chanting: “I think that I shall never see/ A poem lovely as a tree…” They had gone to school when such literature was taught. These days, that poem would be assigned only to establish that it’s okay a man, in fact, to be named “Joyce.” (Never mind that my ancestor died in World War I and was not married to someone named Ken.)

World changers? Nah. But the “conventional wisdom” again seems too myopic. “Toomey can’t beat Joe Hoeffel in November.” It was the thesis of the Specter campaign in the waning days, and it did not work for us. It left me hearing music from another time: 1976, when we were told that Ronald Reagan was too conservative to beat the Democrat nominee.

Reagan did beat that same nominee, albeit four long years later. We, as a nation, had to live through four years of President Carter before we proved the conventional wisdom