Saturday, October 29, 2005

Sen. Clinton as a Libby defense witness?

(Welcome visitors from Michelle Malkin. )

The Associated Press is reporting Scotter Libby plans to use the lack-of-memory defense.

In that case, shouldn't he call Senator Hillary Clinton as a defense witness?

For 2 years, she couldn't remember where she had put her law firms records that investigators were seeking.

Then when someone found the records on a table in the White House, the then first lady couldn't think of any way they could have gotten there.

If you don't believe that, ask a liberal friend.

(If you enjoyed this post you may also like: Sulzberger's syndrome and how to avoid it.)

Firzgerald's findings so far

I have a lot or respect for attorney and Powerline blogger John Hinderaker. Here's part of what he's saying about independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation to date:

As to Libby, the indictment is devastating. If the facts alleged are true--and they are evidently based on the testimony of a considerable number of witnesses--they can't be chalked up to inadvertence, misstatement or differing recollections. The indictment alleges that Libby had a number of conversations with various people in the executive branch, from Vice-President Cheney on down, about the fact that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. It alleges further that Libby had conversations with several reporters in which Plame's CIA employment was discussed.

If Rove is not indicted, what we have here is a terrible human tragedy affecting one man, Scooter Libby, but not a serious problem for the administration. On the contrary, it is evident from the indictment itself that administration officials including Dick Cheney, Ari Fleischer, and others followed President Bush's order to cooperate fully with the Plame investigation. But it's premature to conclude that the administration is out of the woods until we find out what, if anything, happens to Rove. In the meantime, Libby is entitled to a presumption of innocence, notwithstanding the grim picture that the indictment paints.
I don't know what will happen next, other than that most of those who thought President Clinton's lying to a grand jury and the American people was no big deal will be telling you Libby's indictment is A VERY BIG DEAL.

Friday, October 28, 2005

Sulzberger's syndrome and how to avoid it.

(Welcome visitors from Mudville Gazette open post. )

According to the Associated Press, New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. acknowledged during a keynote address to the Online News Association that The Times was too slow to correct errors in stories reported by Judith Miller concerning WMD in Iraq.

A question and answer session followed, during which the AP reports:

When asked by a member of the audience whether the Times' credibility had been hurt by what the questioner termed its failure to fire Miller,(Sulzberger) responded, "No, I don't."

He added, however, "There's no question that the Times suffered in the reputation."
Confusing, isn't it?

Sulzberger is saying The Times' credibility has not been hurt by its failure to fire Miller, but there's no question The Times' reputation has suffered.

Poor Sulzberger.

But that's what happens to anyone who regularly reads Paul Krugman columns.

So if you do, stop now. For yourself and those you love.

White House and WaPo: Something in common

Today's Washington Post has a page one story concerning how the Miers came about and then quickly went off the track: Nomination Was Plagued By Missteps From the Start

Naturally, we're given a lot of "inside stuff;" almost all of it from anonymous sources.

Nothing new there.

But the following sentence quoting an anonymous White House source is worth noting for the explanation it offers for the anonymity.

"This thing never got off the launching pad very well," said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because public airing of self-criticism is not encouraged in the White House.
Anonymity "because public airing of self-criticism is not encouraged in the White House."

That explanation doesn't work.

The source isn't airing "self-criticism." The source is criticizing White House management of the nomination process.

So why not a sentence like this:
"This thing never got off the launching pad very well," said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because White House staffers are discouraged from making public criticisms of colleagues just as we're discouraged from publicly criticizing colleagues here at the Post."
That works, doesn't it?

Thursday, October 27, 2005

What makes a good teacher?

Teacher and blogger Betsy Newmark got talking yesterday about how you decide who's a good teacher.

I was reminded of a boy about 10 or 11 I talked with a few years ago. He said his Fifth Grade teacher was "real good."

Why was she "real good?"

"Well, she makes you work hard but you learn a lot in her class," he answered. "And she ain't mean or nothing, but the kids that mess, she gets them."

Take a look at Betsy's post.

And add a comment here about what you think makes a good teacher.

Why I hope it's Judge Priscilla Owen.

(Welcome visitors from Mudville Gazette open post )

I hope President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee is Appellate Court Judge Priscilla Owen.

Legal scholars who believe judges should judge and legislators should legislate say Owen's an outstanding jurist.

Just five months ago, Owen won Senate confirmation for an appellate court seat. Her background was checked then. There'll now be a need for a further background check, but it won't have to be extensive and most likely won't turn up a "smoking gun."

So the case for prompt confirmation hearings and a Senate vote is very strong. With Owen, there's no reason why the hearings and a Senate vote can occur before the Christmas recess.

During the almost four years Senate Democrats denied Owen an up or down nomination vote, they hit her with personal attacks (Remember Sen. Tom Harkin calling her “a wacko?”) and hostile questioning.

Throughout it all, Owen was civil, informed and articulate. She'll do very well during confirmation hearings, however partisan they become.

When nominated for the appellate court, the American Bar Association awarded Owen its highest recommendation for federal judicial nominees, Well Qualified. The vote by the ABA’s nomination review committee was unanimous.

It’s very probable the ABA would again find Owen Well Qualified, something that will carry weight with a great many Americans. If the ABA doesn't, it will have to convince an awful lot of people it hasn't morphed into just another left-leaning advocacy group

The case for not nominating Owen can be stated in one sentence: Her nomination will be fiercely opposed by almost all Senate Democrats, and their allies in MSM news organizations and liberal and leftist advocacy groups.

That’s true. But given Owen's outstanding record, it’s no reason not to nominate her, especially as any other similarly well qualified nominee will also be fiercely opposed by those same people.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, let Owen's opponents do their worst; as long as her supporters do their best, she'll be confirmed.

No doubt the vote will be close. But a win is a win, and for Presidents, winning close votes usually adds to their power to lead.

When President Bush took office in Jan. 2001, many doubted he could effectively lead given the close and disputed 2000 election. But in April 2001, Bush won a 53 – 47 Senate vote that assured passage of his $1.35 trillion tax cut. Thereafter, no one doubted he could lead, save those who'll forever wave “the Florida shirt.”

With Owen as his nominee, the President can soon and with confidence present to the American people an outstanding jurist he first helped vet and then place on the appellate court bench. That can only be good for him and the country.

You can "vote" for Owen in an online poll at Reasoned Audacity. You'll have to "write her in" because it appears that as of 10/28 Reasoned Audacity "election officials" have yet to place Owen's name and photo on "the ballot."

But don't be discouraged. "Vote" Owen and keep your fingers crossed.

The general was a Pope

Recall yesterday I asked if anyone knew the name of the Civil War Union general who, upon taking a command promised. "I'll have my headquarters in the saddle."

Well, JinC's most faithful reader, Anonymous, and history teacher and blogger Betsy Newmark have identified him as John Pope.

Pope's biographical sketch at includes this:

In bombastic fashion he declared his headquarters would be in the saddle. This led to a quip that he didn't know his headquarters from his hindquarters.
You can read more about Pope here.

Now, can we tie the "hindquarters" remark to Lincoln? I've heard he said he was concerned to have a general whose "headquarters are in his hindquarters."

I don't have a Lincoln biography in the house, and won't get to the library until Sunday.

In the meantime, can anyone find a source that cites Lincoln as having made the "hindquarters" remark?

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Sen. Clinton won't like this one bit

(Welcome visitors from Mudville Gazette open post )

With a hat tip to the Media Research Center, blogger Scott Pierce at Right in Raleigh reminds us that in 2000 independent counsel Robert Ray determined then first lady Hillary Clinton gave false testimony when questioned before a grand jury about the 1993 White House travel office firings that occurred as President Clinton took office.

Scott tells us how the networks reported on Clinton's false testimony (That's Hillary's false testimony, folks, not Bill's). Scott adds:

If the current special prosecutor offers a similar bottom line verdict on Rove or Libby, it's not a stretch to suggest the networks would be at the front of the liberal lynch mob insisting that they lose their jobs. But five years ago they snoozed when they learned about Hillary Clinton's false testimony.
Take a look at the post, and maybe clip and save it. You can show it to your liberal friends in the next few days or in '08.

No blogging until this evening. Then plenty


Busy day today.

But I'll be posting this evening including a response to another email I received from the Senior Editor of The Gallup Poll and comment on how Raleigh's News & Observer reported the remarks of the Raleigh racist Kamau Kambon, who's now advocating genocide.

Please come back tonight after 8 PM Eastern.



Can you name the general?

I'm trying to recall the name of the Civil War Union general who, upon taking command of an Army, announced he wouldn't be one of those stay safe in camp generals.

He'd be up front with the troops. "I'll have my headquarters in the saddle," is the way he put it.

When President Lincoln heard of the remark, he told an aide it worried him to have a general whose "headquarters are in his hindquarters."

Can anyone identify the general and cite a source?

Monday, October 24, 2005

He may be "down," but he sure is "up."

The Florida Masochist has been hit by Wilma and may by now have lost power. But I doubt he's lost his sense of humor.

This morning, FM put laughter and Al Franken in the same post.

You don't think that can be done?

Then go to FM's If this be treason post. He has part of a David Letterman/Al Franken transcript and then his comment.

I laughed. I think you will to.

Thanks, FM. May things work for you and all the folks in Wilma's path.

Thank you, Anonymous

A while ago I put up a post: Smile or grown?

I meant: Smile or groan?

A reader and frequent commentator here, Anonymous, tactfully called the error to my attention with this: "groan" - not "grown"

Thank you, Anonymous, for providing the needed correction without the "You think you're so smart. You don't even...."

And please keep commenting.

Hold it! Does commenting have one or two m's?

Do you smile or groan?

Do you usually smile or groan when you read pun headlines such as:

Phone company rings up record profit


Electric rate increase shocks customers

Whichever you do, here's one more from today's online edition of Boston University's student newspaper, The Daily Free Press.

Reporting on a major rowing event on the Charles River, the headline editor gave us:

Rowers make waves

I smiled at that one.

If you have a favorite pun headline, pass it on. If I get enough, I'll put a post up.

Dem mixes religion, money and his election

(Welcome visitors from Michelle Malkin and Mudville Gazette open post)

Democrats and their MSM pals are always complaining about people who mixing religion and politics, right? And they're always complaining about rich people tossing money around to influence elections, right?

Well, not when it's one of their own doing the mixing and tossing.

Michelle Malkin links to an Associated Press story that begins:

New Jersey Sen. Jon Corzine, a former Wall Street executive with a portfolio worth $261 million, has been giving some of his money to black churches, raising questions about whether it's generosity or politics.

The Democrat, who is in a tight race for governor, donated or loaned more than $2.5 million last year to black churches. He has received the endorsement of more than two dozen black ministers.

According to one of the recipients of Corzine's largess, the money has not influenced him or his church's endorsement.
The Rev. Reginald T. Jackson, executive director of the Black Ministers Council and pastor of St. Matthew's AME Church in Orange, N.J., said black ministers have been making personal endorsements of candidates since 1981. The council does not make endorsements.

Jackson's church has received thousands of dollars from Corzine over several years, including a $50,000 loan last year.

In their endorsement of Corzine last month, Jackson said the black ministers chose the Democrat because he "will be a leader of a state at two extremes — at one end the wealthiest state in the nation and at the other end one of the poorest states in the nation."

Where are all the liberals in and out of the media? Don't they have any concern about religion, money and politics being so tightly mixed? Shouldn't they be especially concerned about the mix when it's happening right in their own political house, so to speak?

Where are Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi? They should speak out and condemn what Corzine and the ministers are doing even if doing so upsets the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Miers nomination should be withdrawn

Michelle Malkin is urging bloggers to cast a vote at NZ Bear on the Miers nomination.

I vote withdraw. On Oct. 12 I gave some reasons for withdrawal in this post: We need a White House rescue operation. The case for withdrawal is stronger today than it was then.

I think the White House then and now is just making a bad situation worse.

Below is White House contact information. Do your part to convince folks there that when a ship's been hit by a torpedo, the emergency response pumps are for getting water off the ship, not bringing more on board.

White House contacts:

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461


Are Americans becoming more like Europeans?

(Welcome visitors from Mudville Gazette open post )

They'll always be individual Americans and Europeans who differ greatly one from another. But overall, are we two peoples becoming more alike than different?

Economist and pundit James Glassman thinks we may be. That troubles him.

(W)hen it comes to public policy, Europe has taken a wrong turn. Its welfare state has sapped initiative and driven jobs abroad. Its treatment of immigrants is shameful. Unemployment is in the double digits, health policy is making people sicker, and foreign policy is based on isolationism and moral posturing.

The results are predictable: The countries that use the euro will grow 1.2 percent this year, according to The Economist; the United States will grow 3.5 percent. Similar disparity has prevailed for a decade, and Americans today have a living standard about one-third higher. The notion that Europe will be able to compete with resurgent China and India in the next 30 years is laughable.
Turning from Europe to America, Glassman asks:
Is it inevitable that, as we grow more prosperous, we will become more like Europe - losing initiative, insisting that our governments coddle us? I worry that we are beginning to see the initial signs of just such a turn for the worse.
Initial signs of just such a turn? I think we've been making the turn for decades but I'll save that for another day.

Glassman says to get out of the turn America needs a mix of government policies and personal initiative. Government policies should include increased emphasis on science education, rejection of protectionist trade practices, and a restructuring of corporate taxes so American companies can better compete in international markets.

About personal initiative Glassman believes:
The personal counts more (than government action). America has a choice: more like Europe, or more like Asia. Actually, Asia has become more like America in recent years, so the real choice is whether we want to be complacent Europeans or our hard-working, compassionate, imaginative American selves.
Glassman over generalizes in that last paragraph. Many Europeans are anything but complacent, and many Americans are anything but hard-working, compassionate and imaginative in the constructive sense Glassman means.

Glassman provides a lot of information and a reasoned argument to convince Americans we need to watch where we're going lest we wind up where we didn't want to be.

Please read his column.