January 9, 2007
Jan 09 00:37 Poetic Justice Jan 09 01:06 New Candidate For Uof M Football Job Jan 09 03:15 Dems Playing Politics With the War Jan 09 03:39 US Gunship Hits Al Qa'ida Hard In Africa Jan 09 09:00 Chavez to Nationalize 'Strategic' Sectors Jan 09 10:37 Murtha to Bush: "I Won't Let You Win This War" Jan 09 11:39 Oil Prices Keep Dropping
Prior Years: 2006
Poetic Justice
According to this Newsweek article, the CIA is preventing Valerie Plame from writing about her time as a "nonofficial cover" officer (or NOC). As you might expect, she's whining about that:
But in what could be a precursor to a separate legal battle, Plame recently hired a lawyer to challenge the CIA Publications Review Board, which must clear writings by former employees. The panel refused Plame permission to even mention that she worked for the CIA because she served as a "nonofficial cover" officer (or NOC) posing as a private businesswoman, according to an adviser to Plame, who asked not to be identified discussing a sensitive issue. "She believes this will effectively gut the book," said the adviser. Larry Johnson, a former colleague, said the agency's action seems punitive, given that other ex-CIA undercover officers have published books. But even Plame's friends acknowledge that few NOCs have done so. CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said the panel was still having "ongoing" talks with Plame to resolve the dispute. "The sole yardstick," he said, is that books "contain no classified information." A spokesman for Simon & Schuster, Plame's publisher, declined to comment.It wasn't that long ago that Amb. Joe Wilson whined about how she was outed and that this was making America less secure and that he wanted Karl Rove frogmarched out of the White House. Now, Mrs. Wilson is upset that she can't spill her guts about her time as a NOC in a best-selling biography.
How can we say that Scooter Libby should be imprisoned for mentioning Mrs. Wilson's name but that it's fine for Mrs. Wilson to talk about highly classified information in a book?
At the end of the day, I think what will happen is that Libby will be acquitted and that Mrs. Wilson's book deal with Simon & Schuster will be canceled because they thought they were buying juicy secrets about the CIA, not a boring biography about a self-important government employee.
I also found it delicious that Michael Isikoff, the man who co-authored a book about the Wilsons with David Corn, is the reporter who wrote this article.
Posted Tuesday, January 9, 2007 12:38 AM
No comments.
New Candidate For Uof M Football Job
Several coaches have already announced that they're interested in coaching next year's U of M football team, as I've written about here. Now, however, a truly great candidate has stepped forward. His name is Lane Kiffin.
If that name sounds familiar to Vikings fans, that's because his dad, Monte Kiffin, once was the Vikings defensive coordinator before following Tony Dungy to Tampa. Monte Kiffin was the architect of Tampa's dominant defense that eventually helped them win a Super Bowl championship.
Here's what Lane Kiffin brings to the table as the Gophers' coach:
Kiffin, 31, just completed his sixth season at USC where he has both the offensive coordinator and recruiting coordinator titles. He has worked with some of the top offensive talent in college football in recent years, including Heisman Trophy winners Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush.Call me crazy but he sounds like the ideal candidate to coach the Gophers. He's got the pedigree of being a top recruiter. He's been the offensive coordinator of the best offense in college football of the past 5 years. He's worked with, and recruited, 2 of the last 3 Heisman trophy winners. You'd have to think that he'd elevate the Gophers into the top tier of the Big Ten.
He's also known as a dogged recruiter, which he said he would make a priority if hired.
"Recruiting is all about hard work," he said. "It's about doing your own evaluation and studying film and maybe having to get on a bunch of planes to go see kids. There is no reason Minnesota can't compete for kids."
After all, it's not like the Gophers don't have a solid nucleus of offensive players. It's likely that Walker Lee Ashley, a former all-state defensive lineman from Minnesota, who was redshirted by USC this season, would follow Kiffin here, improving a Gopher defense that needs upgrading. I'd suspect that he'd be able to recruit all of the best players in Minnesota while still grabbing some top out-state talent, too.
Another bonus would be his putting the electricity back into Gopher football so that they'd actually fill up the new on-campus stadium when it opens. If there's anything that's clear, it's that Minnesotans love football with a passion. There's no reason to believe that Kiffin couldn't tap into that passion while making the Gophers a very attractive product for fans & players.
Posted Tuesday, January 9, 2007 1:06 AM
No comments.
Dems Playing Politics With the War
That's the gist of this Strib article. Here's what I'm basing my opinion on:
Two days before President Bush presents his new Iraq war plan, expected to include a surge in troop levels, Democrats were considering a range of ideas to counter it.Democrats are walking a tightrope with that strategy. Whichever option they choose, they'll be branded as not supporting the troops. Kennedy's legislation should be characterized as the Senate usurping the role of the Commander-in-Chief. There's no legal basis for the President having to get Congressional approval twice for the same war. Kennedy will argue that the military battle was a separate war from the sectarian violence that we're dealing with now. I'd doubt that many people will agree with that opinion.
Democrats repeated a pledge Monday not to stop funds for troops now in Iraq, but they said possible actions include cutting money for a troop buildup.
In the most aggressive of the new tactics, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said he will introduce legislation today that requires Bush to get new congressional authority before sending more troops to Iraq. The bill is the first proposal in the Senate that would prohibit paying for an increase in troops over their level on Jan. 1.
This also puts the Democrats in the position of having to explain why they won't support the troops that the Commander-In-Chief wants to put in there. They'd also have to justify cutting off funding for contractors supplying private security forces. They wouldn't just say that they're cutting off funding for Halliburton. They'd have to explain why private security personnel who are helping in the rebuilding aren't being funded.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., have left little doubt that Congress would take steps to block the plan if Bush insisted on adding troops. But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the only thing Democrats can realistically do "is to cut off money for the troops," a move he called "highly unlikely."Sen. McConnell might get surprised by Reid and Pelosi. They've done some really stupid things in the past that seemed like political suicide, like attempting to filibuster the Patriot Act into non-existence. Remember Harry bragging that they'd killed the Patriot Act? It seemed like political suicide then but he obviously didn't pay a political price for that dangerous stunt. Sen. Reid might be thinking "Why not go 2 for 2"?
After all, thinking that Democrats make logical decisions is a fool's game.
Posted Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:16 AM
No comments.
US Gunship Hits Al Qa'ida Hard In Africa
If this report by CBS's national security correspondent David Martin is right, then we've just had a major military victory in East Africa. Here's what he's reporting:
A U.S. Air Force gunship has conducted a strike against suspected members of al Qaeda in Somalia, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports exclusively. The targets included the senior al Qaeda leader in East Africa and an al Qaeda operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa, Martin reports. Those terror attacks killed more than 200 people.That's great news. Eliminating high-ranking al Qa'ida operatives and planners can't help but put a smile on everyone's face. It should also serve as a major morale boost to the troops who've been hunting these terrorists. Congratulations are definitely in order.
---------------
The gunship flew from its base in Djibouti down to the southern tip of Somalia, Martin reports, where the al Qaeda operatives had fled after being chased out of the capital of Mogadishu by Ethiopian troops backed by the United States.
---------------
If the attack got the operatives it was aimed at, reports Martin, it would deal a major blow to al Qaeda in East Africa.
That isn't the only good news in this CBS report:
Meanwhile, a jungle hideout used by Islamic militants that is believed to be an al Qaeda base was on the verge of falling to Ethiopian and Somali troops, the defense minister said Monday.Ethiopian troops have had al Qa'ida on the run for awhile now so this isn't a huge surprise. Rather, it's simply welcome news, which we can always use more of.
Posted Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:40 AM
No comments.
Chavez to Nationalize 'Strategic' Sectors
That headline essentially says that Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez plans on turning Venezuela into a socialist nation. This past Sunday, Joe Kennedy told us to "Warm up to Chavez. I don't know about you but I've always had trouble warming up to socialist nations. Now we find out that Chavez wants to socialize two major industries in Venezuela.
President Hugo Chavez announced plans yesterday to nationalize Venezuela's electrical and telecommunications companies, pledging to create a socialist state in a bold move with echoes of Fidel Castro's Cuban revolution.Let's hope that Republicans will take this opportunity to ridicule Democrats, who railed against Republicans controlling the Executive and Legislative branches. Now they're on record, via Joe Kennedy and Bill Delahunt, as supporting an oppressive socialist nation. Are they for the pure thuggery used by Chavez to turn a democracy into a dictatorship? After all, he'll soon have the power to "legislate by presidential decree." What that essentially means is that he'll be able to do away with free elections.
"We're moving toward a socialist republic of Venezuela, and that requires a deep reform of our national constitution," Mr. Chavez said in a televised address after swearing in his new Cabinet. "We are in an existential moment of Venezuelan life. We're heading toward socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it."
Mr. Chavez, who will be sworn in tomorrow to a third term that runs through 2013, also said he wanted a constitutional amendment to eliminate the autonomy of the Central Bank and would soon ask the National Assembly, solidly controlled by his allies, to give him greater powers to legislate by presidential decree.
It's one thing to say that we won't overturn dictatorships. It's another to not speak out against turning a democracy into a dictatorship. Let's see if they're willing to speak out in favor of democracies. It seems to me that we have a right to know whether Democrats believe in democracies in practice or if they just believe in them on a theoretical level. Let's see if their cries of "Power to the people" here in the United States translates into "Power to the Dictator" in foreign matters.
I suspect that we already know the answer to those questions.
The nationalization appeared likely to affect Electricidad de Caracas, owned by Arlington-based AES Corp., and C.A. Nacional Telefonos de Venezuela, known as CANTV, the country's largest publicly traded company.It's time to say good bye to private industries in Venezuela. Don't think for a minute that this is the full extent of Chavez's plans. It's a safe bet that he'll eventually turn Venezuela into a totally socialist nation.
"All of that which was privatized, let it be nationalized," Mr. Chavez said, referring to "all of those sectors in an area so important and strategic for all of us as is electricity."
"The nation should recover its ownership of strategic sectors," he said.
Posted Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:01 AM
Comment 1 by Christi at 09-Jan-07 01:46 PM
It's too bad that the last vote the people of Venezuela made may very well be their last vote.
Murtha to Bush: "I Won't Let You Win This War"
While Jihad Johnny didn't make that specific statement, that's what his latest scheme amounts to. Here's what the WSJ is reporting:
But Mr. Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, believes the November election results show voters want Congress to be more of a check on Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq. His goal is to build bipartisan support by focusing the debate on whether increasing troop levels would be too much of a strain on the military.This is nothing more than a subtle way of limiting the President's military options. They approved the AUMF to wage war in Iraq, which is their Constitutional responsibility. Now, however, they're essentially stepping into the role of Commander-In-Chief, telling the President that they have final say on military policies. That hardly seems like a Legislative Branch prerogative.
Let's also call this for what it is: this is John Murtha's slimy way of saying he won't let the President win the war while pretending to support the troops. As my good friend Leo said,"Murtha supports our troops like an arsonist supports firefighters."
Another 'benefit' for the Democrats is that they can prevent the President from winning in Iraq without cutting funding. Rest assured, this won't sit well with conservatives. Rest assured, this will be the conservatives' rallying cry because we won't settle for anything less than full military and political victory in Iraq.
We shouldn't have to settle for the Vietnamization of Iraq. The debate shouldn't have focused on whether we should "immediately redeploy" to Okinawa. The debate should've been about what should be done to defeat the terrorists while installing a democracy in one of the baddest 'neighborhoods' in the Middle East.
The truth is that John Murtha and like-minded Democrats don't have the steadfastness to win wars. It's like they're deathly afraid of winning militarily when it really matters. In my opinion, they should be ashamed to call themselves Democrats. There are some of us who remember that Democrats used to be hawkish. Today's Democrats, with Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller being the exceptions, are short on hawks but long on ish when it comes to military matters.
There used to be a time when Democrats like JFK, Harry Truman, FDR, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Scoop Jackson and Hubert Humphrey cared about winning wars. There was a time when jackasses like Murtha would've been relegated to the back bench of the Democratic Party.
It's time that more people contacted their representatives and told them that they demand that we win the war in Iraq, that we don't want Democrats to create a new Vietnam through their defeatist policies.
One last thing: I won't tapdance on whether John Murtha is a patriot. He isn't. Forgive me if I don't think it's patriotic to tell our troops that you won't let them win a war.
Posted Tuesday, January 9, 2007 4:40 PM
No comments.
Oil Prices Keep Dropping
Proving once again that Democrats who franticly called for hearings into evil oil companies' price-gouging were far off base, the markets are now responding to a mild, almost non-existent hurricane season and unseasonably mild temperatures. Here's what's happening to oil prices:
LONDON (AP): Oil prices fell about $2 a barrel Tuesday to their lowest levels in 18 months in a market expecting more mild weather and rising inventories in the United States.In other words, prices are dropping faster than you can say "price controls" because inventories are rising and God is supplying warm winter weather in the Northeastern United States.
Temperatures in the U.S. Northeast have been above normal this winter, curbing demand for heating fuels in the world's largest heating oil market.
Market watchers are also looking for a rise in U.S. petroleum inventories in this week's government report.
Light, sweet crude for February delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange dropped $2.04 to $54.05 a barrel in electronic trading by afternoon in Europe. The front-month contract last closed below $54 a barrel in June 2005.
I suspect that inventories are rising because people are choosing to conserve more. Also, it obviously doesn't take as much home heating oil to heat homes in relatively warm temperatures.
I predicted here that I expected to see gas dropping below $2 a gallon within a week in the Twin Cities. Now I'm predicting that those relatively cheap oil prices will extend to St. Cloud soon. We'll see how low it goes.
Posted Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:40 AM
No comments.
