Tea Parties Love Palin - Split on 2012 Nominations

The overwhelming consensus among Tea Party goers is, they love Sarah Palin but haven't made up their minds about a Republican nominee. That's exactly where I am. For the most part, I like what Palin is doing. She is a strong voice and we need her out there, whether we agree with her all the time or not. By the time we get closer to the end of 2010, we'll know a lot more about Sarah's idea of conservatism.

Mentioned in this article by Tea Partiers are the usuals: Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Fred Thompson, Palin and even Scott Brown and Dick Cheney. In my perfect world, Dick Cheney is my pick. Since that is not going to happen, I hope we have others looking at the future of this country and planning to put their ideas on the table.

Betsy McCaughey Fred Thomspon Health Care (Video)

Seniors, gird your loins. Listen as Betsy McCaughey tell Fred Thomson how the Obama health care bill, beginning on page 425 through 430, provides a new benefit to Seniors. Will you look forward to "required" counseling on how to "cut your life short," forego antibiotics, hydration and nutrition? There is much more in this video. Every AARP member needs to listen to Fred and Betsy:

Betsy McCaughey - Fred Thompson (video) Ms. McCaughey mentions Rahm Emanuel's brother, Ezekiel Emanuel. Ezekiel is a doctor and he has all 4 of President Obama's ears. Ezekiel believes that the elderly need to give up their health care for the younger and healthier. He is an advisor to Obama and has direct access to the White House. Read his exact quotes here.

Fred Thompson and CAIR

Cross Posted from Wake up America, thanks Maggie for letting me share this with your readers. Hat Tip to our contributor and blog writer Snooper from Freedom Ain't Free and Take our country back blogs for the link to Thompson's words about CAIR. First off, you might notice we have done a few pieces on Fred Thompson, as well as being part of a blogroll for Fred and having a contribute button on the left sidebar. The only way to decide whether or not to endorse him when the time comes is to listen to what he has to say, check his voting record and when the times comes, make the decision, so as I hear and watch him, I bring his words to you also because in 2008, you also will be making the decision of who to vote for. First, lets look at what Thompson had to say about CAIR, then I am going to show you CAIR's extensive history as well as the documented proof of his terror ties.

I've talked before about the Council on American-Islamic Relations -- most recently because it filed that lawsuit against Americans who reported suspicious behavior by Muslims on a U.S. Airways flight. Better known just as CAIR, the lobbying group has come under a lot of scrutiny lately for its connections to terror-supporting groups. This time, though, The Washington Times has uncovered some very good news about the group. For years, CAIR has claimed to represent millions of American Muslims. In fact, they claim to represent more Muslim in American than ... there are in America. This has alarmed Americans in general as the group often seems to be more aligned with our enemies than us -- which isn't surprising as it spun off from a group funded by Hamas. As you know, Hamas has been waging a terrorist war against Israel and calls for its total destruction. It also promises to see America destroyed. Nowadays, Hamas is busy murdering its Palestinian political rivals. Even with this history, and CAIR's conspicuous failure to condemn Hamas by name, it has been treated as if represents Muslim Americans by our own government. The good news is that the financial support CAIR claims to have among American Muslims is a myth. We know this because The Washington Times got hold of the group's IRS tax records. CAIR's dues-paying membership has shrunk 90 percent since 9/11 -- from 29,000 in 2000 to only 1,700 last year. CAIR's annual income from dues plunged from $733,000 to $59,000. Clearly, America's Muslims are not supporting this group -- and I'm happy to hear about it. Of course, every silver lining seems to have a cloud; and this cloud is that CAIR's spending is running about $3 million a year. They’ve opened 25 new chapters in major cities across the country even as their dues shrank to a pittance. The question is; who’s funding CAIR? CAIR's not saying. The New York Times earlier this year reported that the backing is from "wealthy Persian Gulf governments" including the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Obviously, we have a bigger problem here than the one with CAIR.

One of the things I am beginning to appreciate about Fred Thompson is he says what needs to be said without regard to "political correctness". Everyone is so damn scared to speak the truth if it might offend someone that too much is being left unsaid. That is dangerous and unacceptable. Our Previous post, written by Snooper talks a bit about the Muslim Brotherhood and Keith Ellison and I am going to expand on that a bit. NOW, a little history abut CAIR and Keith Ellison's links to CAIR, previously shown to you here.

Jump forward to today now. Does everybody remember the Flying Imam incident? Where six Imams were removed from a plane for acting suspiciously, praying loudy (which is what CAIR focused on), asking for seat belt extensions and then placing them at their feet instead of using them, speaking in a manner than when translated showed complete anti-American, Pro Saddam Hussein rhetoric and placing themselves in a seating arrangement exactly like the 9/11 terrorists did before those fateful crashes. Ellison also took part in "Community Night" with Imam Siraj Wahhaj, and Imam Dr. Omar Shahin. This was “for Imams to meet and interact with community members.” Some of the participants of this meeting became involved in the Flying Imams controversy after being removed from an Arizona bound plane for concerning behavior. Ellison became involved in this controversy shortly after it erupted when he attempted to arrange a meeting between parties including US Airways executives, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and other legislators and community members. Questions about Shahin surfaced in July 2005, when author and terrorism investigator Steven Emerson, author of "Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the U.S.," mentioned him in testimony before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee investigating the financing of terrorists. Emerson identified Shahin as a fundraiser for KindHearts, a Toledo-based Muslim charity that has been a subject of federal scrutiny for suspected links to terror-related groups in the Mideast. Emerson also noted Shahin's work as an imam for the Islamic Center of Tucson, which, he said, "has an extensive history of terror links." Okay, so lets give Ellison the benefit of doubt once again and chalk his connection with Shahnin and the Nation of Islam up to coincedence or bad judgment. [...] Since its founding in 1994, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its employees have combined, conspired, and agreed with third parties, including, but not limited to, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”), and foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to provide material support to known terrorist organizations, to advance the Hamas agenda, and to propagate radical Islam. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and certain of its officers, directors, and employees, have acted in support of, and in furtherance of, this conspiracy. Senior CAIR employee Randall Todd Royer, a/k/a “Ismail” Royer, pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for participating in a network of militant jihadists centered in Northern Virginia. He admitted to aiding and abetting three persons who sought training in a terrorist camp in Pakistan for the purpose of waging jihad against American troops in Afghanistan. Royer’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed with CAIR. CAIR's Director of Community Relations, Bassem Khafagi , was arrested by the United States due to his ties with a terror-financing front group. Khafagi pled guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt. Khafagi’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed by CAIR. On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas, a founder of the Holy Land Foundation, and a brother-in-law of Musa Abu Marzook , was arrested by the United States and charged with, among other things, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist organization, conspiracy and money laundering. Ghassan Elashi committed his crimes while working at CAIR, and was found Guilty. CAIR Board Member Imam Siraj Wahaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing, has called for replacing the American government with an Islamic caliphate, and warned that America will crumble unless it accepts Islam. Consistent with Hamas ideology, CAIR has served as a conduit for the distribution of materials and funds from foreign nationals to groups and institutions within the United States for the purpose of promoting radical Islam and Hamas ideology, and attacked Islamic clerics and scholars who reject radical Islam and the Hamas agenda. Siraj Wahaj and Omar Shahin were both part of that "community night" that Ellison took part in. Both also involved with the incident on the plane and all three involved with CAIR. Yet another coincedence? OK, sure...lets call that a coincedence too, shall we? Now we have two separate controversial events that happened after that "community night" meeting. One the flying Imams, then we have Ellison deciding to use the Koran for his swearing in, at a time when our country is at war with extremists that are using the Koran in a perverted way to justify killing innocent people. Another coincedence? You decide. What about Ellison's "association" with CAIR? The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was an ardent supporter of Ellison’s 2006 campaign, a fact that caused some controversy (see below). Two days after the 2006 election, CAIR announced Ellison would be a keynote speaker at their annual banquet in Virginia less than two weeks later. According to a CAIR press release, this would be Ellison's first major post-election address. On November 13, 2006 the Star Tribune reported Ellison said he “would not be the keynote speaker at the annual banquet for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)”. Acknowledging that “His appearance had already been announced by CAIR…Ellison said it [the apparently mistaken announcement] was the result of a ‘natural, normal miscommunication.’” Though Ellison was not able to attend the event in person he sent a videotaped address. Now, to be fair, Ellison's associations with the Nation of Islam and CAIR could just be very bad judgment, his timing with his controversial decision to use the Koran at his swearing in ceremony could also be chalked up to bad judgement. But everything together, the connection to the Imams that were removed from the plane, the CAIR invovement, the Nation of Islam involvement, the fact that two VERY controversial incidents happened after that "community night" meeting and the fact that all of the above had some form of involvement with CAIR, all together has to make one stop and say hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ok, bad judgment at the very least. That isn't the only time Ellison has shown bad judgment though, nope, not at all. We then have his campaign finance violations: Campaign finance has also been an issue for Ellison. In early 2006, the Minnesota State Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board reprimanded Ellison for unreported contributions, discrepancies in cash balances, and misclassified disbursements. These transgressions occurred in the years 2002-2004. In 2005 when the board tried to get more information about the problems in Ellison's reports, they got no response from Ellison or his treasurer (his wife Kim). When the board heard nothing, they opened the investigation. Ellison was subpoenaed and fined. The board has also fined Ellison numerous times for late filings, been sued twice by the attorney general, and has been warned many times for absent or incomplete disclosure. (Source) Ellison also failed to pay all or part of his income taxes five separate years between 1992 and 2000, forcing the state and Internal Revenue Service to put liens on his home. He later paid in excess of $18,000. This man certainly has his fair share of bad judgment doesn't he? An awful lot of coincedences too. There is much, much more out there, available at our fingertips, just by using the search engine. Makes one wonder why everyone is so quiet about this man.....are they scared that it may not be "politically correct" to bring up issues about this man, simply because he is a Muslim? Have we become so PC that justified questions are not asked simply because of a mans religion? If this was a non-Muslim politician, Democrat OR Republican, would these things NOT have become major stumbling blocks to their career? Legitimate questions all....anyone have any answers?

Anyone at all? Didn't think so. In a related article today, we have a Muslim women telling us a few things that offend her, and it isn't what you would expect so please read the whole piece, I am only showing excerpts.(Emphasis will be mine)

GROWING up in Vancouver, I attended an Islamic school every Saturday. There, I learned that Jews can't be trusted because they worship "moolah, not Allah", meaning money, not God. According to my teacher, every last Jew is consumed with business. But looking around my neighbourhood, I noticed that most of the new business signs featured Asian languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Hindi, Punjabi and plenty of Urdu. Not Hebrew, Urdu, which is spoken throughout Pakistan. That reality check made me ask: What if my religious school isn't educating me? What if it's indoctrinating me? I'm reminded of this question thanks to the news that Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses and 10 other works of fiction, will be knighted by the Queen. On Monday, Pakistan's religious affairs minister said that because Rushdie had blasphemed Islam with provocative literature, it was understandable that angry Muslims would commit suicide bombings over his knighthood. Members of parliament, as well as the Pakistani Government, amplified the condemnation of Britain, feeding cries of offence to Muslim sensibilities from Europe to Asia. As a Muslim, you better believe I'm offended - by these absurd reactions.

She then goes on to list things that offend her:

I'm offended that it is not the first time honours from the West have met with vitriol and violence. In 1979, Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam became the first Muslim to win the Nobel Prize in science. He began his acceptance speech with a verse from the Koran. Salam's country ought to have celebrated him. Instead, rioters tried to prevent him from re-entering the country. Parliament even declared him a non-Muslim because he belonged to a religious minority. His name continues to be controversial, invoked by state authorities in hushed tones. I'm offended that every year, there are more women killed in Pakistan for allegedly violating their family's honour than there are detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Muslims have rightly denounced the mistreatment of Gitmo prisoners. But where's our outrage over the murder of many more Muslims at the hands of our own? I'm offended that in April, mullahs at an extreme mosque in Pakistan issued a fatwa against hugging. The country's female tourism minister had embraced - or, depending on the account you follow, accepted a congratulatory pat from - her skydiving instructor after she successfully jumped in a French fundraiser for the victims of the 2005 Pakistan earthquake. Clerics announced her act of touching another man to be "a great sin" and demanded she be fired. I'm offended by their fatwa proclaiming that women should stay at home and remain covered at all times. I'm offended that they've bullied music store owners and video vendors into closing up shop. I'm offended that the Government tiptoes around their craziness because these clerics threaten suicide attacks if confronted. I'm offended that on Sunday, at least 35 Muslims in Kabul were blown to bits by other Muslims and on Tuesday, 80 more in Baghdad by Islamic "insurgents", with no official statement from Pakistan to deplore these assaults on fellow believers. I'm offended that amid the internecine carnage, a professed atheist named Salman Rushdie tops the to-do list. Above all, I'm offended that so many other Muslims are not offended enough to demonstrate widely against God's self-appointed ambassadors. We complain to the world that Islam is being exploited by fundamentalists, yet when reckoning with the opportunity to resist their clamour en masse, we fall curiously silent. In a battle between flaming fundamentalists and mute moderates, who do you think is going to win?

Read the rest... Moderate Muslims are our friends and I have shown multiple instances where Moderate Muslims have stepped up, risking their very lives, to speak out against the radical extremists that have hijacked their faith for murder and suicide bombings and killing innocent men, women and children. More need to do so though and we cannot let "political correctness" stop us from speaking the truth for fear that we "may" offend someone. That type of mindset is what will get us killed. A MUST READ piece from Debbie at Right Truth called "Some turning against Israel - is the answer a healthy dose of neutron bombs?". Go. Read. It is well worth the time.

Fred Thompson Smacks Baghdad Reid Around

Cross Posted from Wake up America We have taken Harry "Baghdad" Reid to task over his comments about the Iraq being lost and his idiocy in calling General Pace "incompetent" when Reid himself has proven time and again that HE is the incompetent one, or saying that General Petraeus, who has his boots on the ground in Iraq, "out of touch", but Fred Thompson has just weighed in on Harry Boy's words and it is worth the look. From the Fred Thompson Report:

Well, you've heard by now that Senate leader Harry Reid insulted one of this country's brightest military minds, Marine Corps General Peter Pace -- calling him "incompetent." Let me take a few moments to put this in context.

First, Harry Reid voted for the war, like a majority of our legislators. America decided as a nation to free Iraq and the region from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. I have friends, both Democrat and Republican, who questioned the decision at the time, but the Republic made a commitment based on constitutional and democratic procedures. So they are now a hundred percent committed to moving forward in a way that’s best for our country. None of them, by the way, believe surrendering to the forces of terror in Iraq is what's best for our country.

Harry Reid, though, has taken a different route. He made his statement about General Pace on a conference call with fringe elements of the blogosphere who think we're the bad guys. This is a place where even those who think the 9/11 attacks were an inside job find a home.

And why shouldn't they think that? Reid has led the attack on the administration, with Nancy Pelosi, charging it lied and tricked America into supporting the war. Ignoring multiple hearings and investigations into pre-war intelligence findings that have debunked this paranoid myth, they accuse an entire administration of conspiracy to trick us into a war.

I suppose that's easier for some than admitting that they've flip flopped -- but the fact that Reid says this sinister Republican plot is going to help him elect more Democrats ought to be raising a few flags. Saying General Pace is incompetent doesn't even rank near the top of his bizarre statements.

How could anyone possibly believe, as Reid charges, that our commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, is out of touch with what's going on. Surely someone in Reid's position would know that Petraeus is briefed daily on all aspects of Iraq -- from civil to military. Surely he has to know that Petraeus is a true warrior scholar who literally wrote the Army's book on counterinsurgency warfare.

But Reid's comments are not meant for logical analysis. He proclaimed the war lost some time ago, and the surge as a failure even before the additional troops were on the ground. The problem is that every one of Reid's comments I've noted here has also been reported gleefully by Al Jazeera and other anti-American media. Whether he means to or not, he’s encouraging our enemies to believe that they are winning the critical war of will.

Well said Fred and although I have not made up my mind on who I will be voting for in 2008, if the vote were held today, Fred Thompson would have my vote. [Update] Now is as good a time as any to sign up with "I'm With Fred", so head on over, it takes about 10 seconds. .

Senator Fred Thompson's Statement on the Clinton Impeachment

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/1336221014061479780

In an interview this past week with Sean Hannity, Fred Thompson explained his split vote in the Bill Clinton impeachment trial: he voted "guilty" on obstructing justice and "not guilty" on perjury.

On February 12, 1999, Thompson entered his "closed-door impeachment statement," which can be found on many sites on the web, but I've linked to AustralianPolitics.com, because the text is easier to read. This statement is long...very long. Much of it restates the charges and the history behind the charges.

As an aside from me, it seems that President Clinton's escapade with Monica Lewinsky should have been viewed as an opportunity for blackmail. Lewinsky could have been anyone, could have had sinister motives, could have put our President and this country in great danger. If reports are true, think of Yassar Arafat, biding his time in the Rose Garden as he awaited Monica's departure and Bill's summons. Had Arafat known, could he have used the information to gain support for Palestinian endeavors? Far-fetched? Maybe not.

Follows the factors Thompson considered to arrive at his "not guilty" vote on charges of perjury. All inset text is taken directly from Thompson's statement as printed in AustralianPolitics.com, where you can read the entire statement.

He took issue with:

Several crimes or categories of crimes (the exact number cannot be determined from reading the article) are charged in this one article. The perjurious statements are not described, nor are their dates. In
large part, this article charges that the President committed perjury because he denied prior perjury.

The reason for rules against charging several offenses in one article is clear. A group of senators as few as seventeen could conclude that the President was guilty of one offense in the article, and a group of other senators could conclude that the President was guilty of another offense in the article and so on. This could result in the President being found guilty on one article without two-thirds of the senators ever agreeing upon a single offense that the President committed.

Never has the Senate considered articles that are simultaneously omnibus, vague, and based upon `one or more' of the charges being proved.

Compounding this problem, the individual items alleged in the article are vague

The articles pending against President Clinton are unique. Never has the Senate considered articles that are simultaneously omnibus, vague, and based upon `one or more' of the charges being proved.

Articles of impeachment henceforth should not permit conviction based upon `one or more' findings of guilt. They should list specific conduct, preferably in separate articles. Removal of elected or appointed government officials, especially a president, should occur only when the public can be sure that the process has been appropriate. Articles such as those before the Senate in this case do not further that goal. The Senate should amend Rule XXIII to permit impeachment articles to be divided, so as to eliminate any incentive for the House to adopt duplicitous articles of impeachment.

In prior impeachments charging false statements, the House has always delineated the date and substance of the false statement. Indeed, in every impeachment proceeding since Judge Pickering in 1803, articles of impeachment exhibited by the House have included allegations of specific misconduct.

Never has the Senate voted for conviction on an article that charged an individual with `one or more' improper actions.

Unfortunately, instead of following precedent, the House in the case before us deviated from previous practice.

The Senate also has never been asked to convict someone for conduct that formed the basis for an article of impeachment that was rejected by the House. Although in a literal sense, no such article is before the Senate, in a practical sense that is the situation. The House failed to pass an article of impeachment against President Clinton that accused him of, on January 17, 1998, `willfully provid[ing] perjurious, false, and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge...

The House claims that the President's statement in his grand jury testimony that he intended to be unhelpful but truthful in his deposition, and that he did not violate the law in his deposition, amount to perjury in the grand jury if a single statement in his deposition was perjurious. However, the President did not broadly reaffirm the truth of all his deposition testimony. Indeed, before the grand jury, the President revised many statements he had made in the Jones deposition.

On the three specific counts of Grand Jury Perjury:

...The first is his testimony concerning `the details and nature of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee.' The President admitted in the grand jury that he had an inappropriate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

To be sure, President Clinton contended that the relationship began in 1996, rather than 1995. The House managers note that this is significant because Ms. Lewinsky was an intern in 1995. The House also points out that the President admitted inappropriate conduct `on certain occasions,' when, in reality, there were eleven such occasions, and that he had `occasional' telephone encounters with Ms. Lewinsky when there were at least seventeen that contained sexual banter. I do think that these statements constitute perjury. They were false, were made willfully, and were material. Something that happens seventeen times in a year does not occur `occasionally.' Given the sensitivity of Ms. Lewinsky's status as an intern, I believe that the President deliberately told the grand jury that his relationship with her began in 1996, when she no longer had that status. Finally, the statement is material because it concerns a matter that the grand jury was investigating as part of its work: the nature of the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. For these reasons, the statement was perjurious.

The President's statement to the grand jury that he regretted that what began as a friendship changed into an inappropriate sexual relationship was also knowingly false, since the two engaged in sexual relations twice on the same day that they first spoke. Thus, the statement was made to deceive, and given that it related to a subject of the grand jury's inquiry, it was material. Therefore, I agree that this statement also constitutes perjury, so that the first item of Article I has been proved. The second item charged in Article I addresses statements the President made in the grand jury regarding the truth of his deposition testimony. For the reasons above stated, I consider finding perjury based on an article of impeachment that the House rejected to be questionable.

The third item charged in Article I concerns grand jury testimony involving `false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action.' Before the grand jury, President Clinton testified that he was `not even sure I paid attention to what he [Mr. Bennett] was saying' when his attorney represented to the court that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit stated that there was no sex of any kind between her and the President. As a factual matter, given the videotape that shows the President concentrating very carefully on his attorney's words and the great importance that he placed on that affidavit and its filing in time, this statement's characterization of the President's attention was certainly false. However, the President said that he `was not even sure" that he was paying attention. It is possible, although unlikely, that he was not sure in August that he was paying attention to that specific statement in January. That would make the statement literally true and thus, by definition, not perjurious. And in any event, I cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that his statement was perjurious. Indeed, the real issue is whether President Clinton used the affidavit to obstruct justice: whether he actually was paying attention to his unsuspecting attorney when the affidavit was actually used to obstruct justice is of questionable materiality.

The fourth item of the perjury allegations in Article I concerns `his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.' The first set of facts under this category evidently concerns President Clinton's statements to Ms. Currie on January 18, 1998, which he described as having been made to refresh his recollection. The President's stated reason for making these statements to Ms. Currie was false. He knew that they were not true, and the President knew that Ms. Currie could not testify to their truthfulness. Thus, his statement of purported purpose for making them, as communicated to the grand jury, was made willfully, with the intent to deceive the grand jury. They were material as well, since they went to the issue of whether he had committed a federal crime. They thus constitute perjury.

The second set of facts at issue in item four of Article I apparently concerns whether the President truthfully told the grand jury that when the subject of the subpoenaed gifts arose at his December 28, 1997 meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, he told her `if they asked her for the gifts, she'd have to give them whatever she had, that that's what the law was.' Although Ms. Lewinsky never testified that the President said this to her, she once indicated that it sounded familiar. Thus, I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the President lied when he testified that he made this statement.

The third set of facts in item four of Article I addresses alleged lies that he made to the grand jury concerning the truth of statements that he made to White House aides. Before the grand jury, the President stated that he had told his aides that he did not have sex with Ms. Lewinsky as he defined it, and that he told them `things that were true about this relationship.' In reality, the President told them false statements, such as a broader denial of sexual activity than that defined as even he had defined it, and that Ms. Lewinsky was a stalker who came on to him, but whom he rebuffed. The President's statements to the grand jury in this regard were false, and were intended to deceive the grand jury about a federal crime of obstruction of justice through the telling of false statements to persons he knew might become witnesses before that grand jury, and therefore committed perjury.

So, some statements were perjurious and some were not:

I conclude that the statements concerning Betty Currie, and the statements concerning what he told his aides do constitute perjury. I also find that the President committed perjury with respect to item one of Article I with respect to his statements that he and Ms. Lewinsky's relationship began as a friendship, that it started in 1996, and that he had `occasional' encounters with her. These are the only examples of grand jury perjury that I believe have been proved in the entirety of Article I. The question then is whether these examples of perjury warrant removal of the President for the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Fred's conclusion and reasons for voting to acquit President Clinton:

Is removal appropriate when the President lied to the grand jury that he denied to his aides that he had engaged in sex only as he had defined it, when in fact he had denied engaging in oral sex? Is removal warranted because the President stated that his relationship began as a friendship in the wrong year and actually encompassed more telephone encounters than could truthfully be described as `occasional'? To ask the question is to answer it. In my opinion, these statements, while wrong and perhaps indictable after the President leaves office, do not justify removal of the President from office.

And Thompson's comment on his decision:

In no way does my conclusion ratify the White House lawyers' view that private conduct never rises to impeachable offenses...It simply recognizes how the principles the Founding Fathers established apply to these facts.

Culling-down Thompson thoughts on the matter of "High Crimes and Misdeameanors," and specifically the charges against President Clinton, Thompson says:

I believe that the founders did not intend to make our job easy. They provided no list of offenses.

Today we are faced with an unprecedented situation. The President engaged in inappropriate personal conduct. It had nothing to do with his official duties, but it did involve a federal employee under his supervision, government time and government facilities. In an attempt to conceal and cover up that activity, he lied, misled and helped conceal evidence both physical and testimonial in a court proceeding. In doing so he elicited the help of other government employees. Therefore, the subject matter was essentially private, but the forum, a United States court, became public. One side says that he `only lied about sex,' and it had nothing to do with his official duties, therefore, it `clearly does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.' The other side says that any perjury and any obstruction of justice `clearly does rise to the level of an impeachable offense.' I do not think that either position is consistent with history or proper analysis.

It is extremely important that we refrain from latching onto a definition of `high crimes and misdemeanors' simply because it leads us inexorably to a conclusion which we may desire. Clearly, a President's offense or offenses must be serious and/or have serious consequences. Also, while they do not have to be crimes, my own opinion is that in most cases they will be crimes. They must be crimes against the state, but we cannot adopt an unreasonable restriction of that term. The President does not have to order tanks to move on the J. Edgar Hoover building. Offenses against the state can include activity which will undermine our governmental institutions. How can we say that bribing a judge to effect an outcome in a law suit involving a President's purely personal conduct constitutes an impeachable offense, but say that insinuating perjury into that same law suit to effect the same outcome is clearly not impeachable? And while it is true that the founders meant to cover `public' behavior, I believe they also meant to cover behavior that has a negative effect on the public if it is of sufficient gravity. Furthermore, if the President's conduct poses a threat and danger to a country, that certainly is a legitimate (though not exclusive) consideration. If that same conduct serves to undermine the President's credibility and moral authority, that could also pose a danger to the country and is similarly a legitimate consideration. And, again his conduct does not necessarily have to deal with his office. In the Constitution, a named offense is bribery (treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors), and bribery itself does not necessarily have to do with the President's official capacity, if the President is making the bribe.

Article End
Posted by Maggie

Trackposted to Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, Azamatterofact, Allie Is Wired, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson, President Bill Clinton, Clinton Impeachment, Fred Thompson Statement on Clinton Impeachment, Grand Jury Perjury

Fred Thompson Answers Important Questions on Hannity and Colmes

Sean Hannity interviewed Fred Thompson on Hannity and Colmes tonight. Here's the highlights, as my jottings reflect. Please note, with one exception, the absence of quotation marks. I am not attempting to quote Hannity or Thompson word-for-word. I believe the following is a fair representation of portions of the interview. Portions of the interview are not included here. On priorities, Hannity asks: What are among the first things you would do if elected? From Thompson: 1) Explain to the American people what I believe the significance of the War on Terror to be, and what we need to do about it. 2) Reform the tax code. Keep taxes low. We are bankrupting our social programs. On Iran, Hannity asks: Would you do a preemptive strike on Iran, wiping out the nuclear facilities, if you knew Iran had the capability to strike others. From Thompson: "Yes." Iran could fold under its own weight. Our communications capabilities, that is, getting information into the country to the people, is poor. If every Iranian had a computer, it would be a free country today On Scooter Libbey, Hannity asked: What is your opinion of the charges and conviction? From Thompson: A shocking injustice [against Libbey].The CIA, the Justice Department and the Special Council helped perpetuate an injustice for their own end. Hannity asked: Would you pardon Scooter Libbey? From Thompson: Absolutely I would. On Bill Clinton's impeachment, Hannity asked: Why did you vote against conviction? From Thompson: I split my vote according to what I believed to be my duty. I voted to convict on obstruction of justice, and not to convict on charges of perjury. I went back to the Founder's intent and believe they did not consider this an impeachable offense. Thompson's new website: I'm With Fred Posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson, Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity, War on Terror, Iran, Tax Reform, I'm With Fred,

Are Thompson's Bloggers Being Locked from Their Google Blogs?

Hello Maggie Readers, This is Faultline USA posting here with an important message for all who post on Blogger. Please read this because it could happen to you. Are Thompson’s Bloggers Being Locked from Their Google Blogs? On Friday, June 1, 2007 three conservative political blogs were locked from making new posts because the Google spam robot “suspected” they were SPAM blogs. These bloggers will have to wait until Google finds a real human to review their blogs before unlocking their blogs. What do these three blogs have in common??? They are all actively supporting Fred Thompson. Maybe it’s just a coincidence that out of an estimated 70 million blogs worldwide a handful of connected conservative bloggers just happened to get locked out of posting on their Google blogs on the same day. . . Or maybe it’s not such a coincidence at all? Before we get all sentimental about our free Google Blogs and the difficulty poor Google is having fighting spam blogs, let’s not be so quick to give Google a free pass. I have no way of knowing just how many blogs are locked every day by Google, but a blog search Sunday showed that very few locked bloggers have managed to get the word out through other blogs. So I visited the Blogger Help Group and found just a few bloggers (less than a handful this weekend) claiming they had been locked out. Hummm???? Now a spam blogger (Splogger) is not likely to even notice that they’ve been locked out but a real blogger is bound to have plenty of righteous indignation – enough to start crying foul very loudly. So what are we to make of this??? Let’s look at how Google is fighting Spam on blogs. They are using three measures to shut down spam: (1) Automated spam classifying algorithms (or robots), (2) extra word verification, and (3) Flag as Objectionable. Please do take note of the last measure – Flag as Objectionable. This is how a “community” of bloggers can actually shut down a blog just because they don’t like the political content. Google is deliberately vague on what constitutes “potentially offensive” content and leaves it up to the “community at large.” It doesn’t take a mental giant to figure out just how easy it would be for a political “community” to target specific Google blogs for some political sabotage and dirty tricks. All they have to do is to point each "community" member to the targeted Google blogs and tell them to click on the Flag Blog at the top of the blog’s page Navigation bar. Let’s see what Google actually says about Flag Blog. . . “When a person visiting a blog clicks the "Flag?" button in the Blogger Navbar, it means they believe the content of the blog may be potentially offensive or illegal. We track the number of times a blog has been flagged as objectionable and use this information to determine what action is needed. This feature allows the blogging community as a whole to identify content they deem objectionable. Have you read The Wisdom of Crowds? It's sort of like that.” Now who would dream of doing such a dastardly thing??? Please note that I have no proof that such a plot has been hatched, but where there’s smoke . . . According to Elephant Biz “DailyKos, the Left's online Bible, sees Thompson as the likely nominee, so you can understand why they're shooting at him. I would have thought they might not stoop to slander and lies this early in the race.” Here are the blogs we know of so far that have been locked from new posting by Google. 1. DeMediacratic Nation has a sidebar bllogroll for Fred Thompson 2. Insight on Freedom has a petition to draft Fred Thompson for President. Fighting fire with fire, Insight on Freedom has a new site The Longstreet Option . Additionall Longstreet has just started a WordPress blog Harricane Alley 3. Faultline USA has a sidebar blogroll for Fred Thompson Any Google blogger who suddenly finds themselves locked out please contact fautltineusa(at)yahoo(dot)com A big Thank You to Wake up America and DeMediacratic Nation at WordPress for cross-posting this article. Article End Posted by Faultline USA Pinged by Countdown button pushed on Israel's destruction from Right Truth. Excerpt: Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never fails to take opportunities to speak out against Israel. In the latest spew, he gives credit to Lebanon and the Palestinians: "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated yesterday that Lebanon and Palestine had pressed a "... Linked by War Memorial Destroyed: Help Needed from Wake up America. Excerpt: In Beeville Texas a war memorial honoring veterans killed in four separate wars, was destroyed. Technorati tags: Fred Thompson Google spam prevention

Fred Thompson Messages Michael Moore

Trackback URL for this entry: http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/3380398683236931914 Breitbart.tv Exclusive: The confrontation over Cuba continues. Michael Moore has challenged Fred Thompson to a health care debate. At issue Moore's trip to Cuba and Thompson's criticism of that trip. Moore noted Thompson's evident favor for Cuban cigars as a possible violation of the trade embargo. Now, Thompson responds. Cigar in hand. Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam's Blog, Shadowscope, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Colloquium, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, sissunchi, third world county, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Planck's Constant, and thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson, Michael Moore, Cuba, Fidel Castro, Freedom of Speech , Free Press

Fred Thompson - The Search for a True Conservative

For those of us who think Fred Thompson is our man in 2008, we now begin in earnest to confirm what we think we know: Fred Thompson is conservative enough for us.

If you haven't started your "Fred for Prez" dossier yet, here's some research for reflection:

Fred on the Senate record: Serving as a U.S. Senator from Tennessee, December 1994 to January 2003, now out of the senate five years and living a high-profile lifestyle as an actor, attorney, public speaker and lobbyist, a look at his past voting record is a good place to start. On the Issues gives a comprehensive run-down of how Thompson placed his votes. See each vote detailed and categorized.

Fred as a "fiscal conservative," from National Taxpayer's Union with an analysis from Cato @ Liberty. A summary:

During his eight years in the Senate, Thompson had a solid record as a fiscal conservative. The National Taxpayers Union gives him the third highest marks of any candidate (trailing only Paul and Rep. Tom Tancredo). While he sponsored or cosponsored legislation over the course of his career that would have resulted in a net increase in federal spending of $3.1 billion, that is the smallest increase among the contenders. (By comparison, John McCain would have increased spending by $36.9 billion). He generally shared McCain’s opposition to pork barrel spending and earmarks, and voted against the 2002 farm bill. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and has generally been solid in support of tax reduction.

The Cato piece also discusses Thompson's consistent support of entitlement reform, a strong record on free trade with a current position of "control the borders first." Read more here about federalism, gay marriage and McCain-Feingold.

Fred on Israel and Palestine: HatTip to Demediacratic Nation for this... Fred's own words published at National Review Online and also, it appears to be the text of a "Fred" appearance on Paul Harvey's 'The Rest of the Story.' This piece speaks plainly, and I wish I had said it first! Here's a few important points from the text, but be sure to follow the link and read it all :

The Palestinian strategy is to purposely target and kill Israeli civilians. Then, when Israel goes after those launching the attacks, Palestinians claim to be the victims. If Palestinian civilians aren’t hurt in the Israeli attacks, they stage injuries and deaths.

Fred on Free Speech and Pro-Freedom Movements from his Townhall.com column:

There was a time, though, when Americans were on the front lines of pro-freedom movements all over the world. I'm talking about the “surrogate” broadcast network that included Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, often called "the Radios."

When Ronald Reagan was elected, he greatly empowered the private, congressionally funded effort and handpicked the Radios’ top staff to bring freedom to the Soviet Union. Steve Forbes led the group.

Cynics still say that the USSR fell of its own weight, and that President Reagan’s efforts to bring it down were irrelevant, but Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev say differently. Both have said that, without the Radios, the USSR wouldn't have fallen. The Radios were not some bland public relations effort, attracting audiences only with American pop music. They engaged the intellectual and influential populations behind the Iron Curtain with accurate news and smart programming about freedom and democracy.

The Weekly Standard's Stephen F. Hayes, after a four hour interview at Thompson's Virginia home, says:

And by the end of the conversation, two unexpected realities had emerged. If he joins the race for the Republican nomination, and if he campaigns the same way he spoke to me last week, Fred Thompson, a mild-mannered, slow-talking southern gentleman, will run as the politically aggressive conservative that George W. Bush hasn't been for four years. And the actor in the race could well be the most authentic personality in the field.

Read the above, From the Court House to the White House, and then Hayes' follow-up, A Second Helping of Fred with this:

Among many other things, we discussed the surge (he's for it, but thinks it was late and should have been bigger); cutting spending (he faults both the Bush administration and congressional Republicans for their failures); the Democrats' attempt to cut funding for the Iraq War ("tragic"); why he chose not to run for president in 2000 (he didn't want to be a "caretaker president"); his reading habits in college (Russel Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, National Review and, to understand the other side, the New Republic,); his frustrations in the Scooter Libby prosecution with the CIA ("they set this whole thing up") and the Justice Department (the case was brought because of "a breakdown" at DOJ); and which longtime Democrat he contributed to in 2006.

The "Second Helping" goes into detail on Thompson's thoughts on each of the above, including Scooter Libby.

Fred on "the biggest problem we have today,"...by Robert Novak's Why Fred Thompson published at HumanEvents.com:

"I think the biggest problem we have today is what I believe is the disconnect between Washington, D.C., and the people of the United States. People are looking around at the pork barrel spending and the petty politics, the backbiting. The fighting over all things, large or small, is creating a cynicism among our people." That cynicism, Thompson contends, mandates a different kind of campaign for 2008.

Thompson implied at Stamford that Republicans, along with Democrats, are responsible for making Americans cynical. While so far not spelling this out publicly, he deplores ethical abuses, profligate spending and incompetent management of the Iraq war. He becomes incandescent when considering abysmal CIA and Justice Department performance under the Bush administration. He is enraged by Justice's actions in decisions leading to Scooter Libby's prison sentence.

In his Senate voting record and his public utterances, Thompson is more conservative than Giuliani, McCain or Romney.

Read Novak's entire article as it is serried with Thompson insights.

Fred on the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and God as published in National Review Online - a snippet:

For Americans, these are found in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They include a recognition of God and the fact there are certain rights that come from Him and not the government. They are based upon a respect for the wisdom of the ages, and a belief that human beings are prone to err; that too much power must never rest in too few hands. The result is a system of checks and balances and a separation of powers that flow from our guiding documents and from the rule of law.

Finally, if we want to change or alter these concepts or any provision in the Constitution, we are given a specific method to do that — by Constitutional Amendment.

This is an important article, no matter your political leanings, and should you be of the "living, breathing Constitution" crowd, read it again, and shame on you. On this subject, The American Thinker's Edward L. Daley says:

Many judges these days like to refer to the Constitution of the United States as a "living, breathing document", implying that its text is designed to be flexible. It is not. The Constitution is a set of rules, and like any other set of rules, it is meant to be strict and uncompromising. Of course, the Constitution can be modified through the amendment process, but once ratified, any amendment becomes like the rest of the Constitution: rigid.

On being a Southern candidate," this pithy piece from Mike DeVine, Op-Ed Columnist for The Charlotte Observer, and blogging as Gamecock at RedState.com and Race 4 2008.com - this just a highlight - on complaints about the slow-talking mannerisms of Southerners:

Folks, voters vote on issues, character and leadership. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are all from the South. Bush kills terrorists. The other guys that talk slow appeased them. Bush cut taxes. The others from Dixie raised them. Bush picks good judges.
Clinton put a feminist on the court. Carter lusted in his heart.
Clinton lusted all over the carpet and Bush is faithful to his wife.

There's those rumors about country singer Lori Morgan, and flattering comments about her "ex" boyfriend ("boyfriend" - such a silly word for a man of Thompson's demeanor). More about that later.

This short list is just a few significant comments from and about Fred Thompson. Now, I'm waiting to hear his fix on the McCain-Feingold mess.

Article end.
Posted by Maggie

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/3509808490759062773

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Committees of Correspondence, Mark My Words, stikNstein... has no mercy, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

------------
Maggie's Notebook pinged Sunday Reading List, June 3, 2007 from Right Truth. Excerpt: Here's a selection of articles for your Sunday reading. Enjoy. Hassan Nasrallah is proved right - what will be the consequences? U.S. signaling Gulf states it will withdraw from region by 2009, Villagers with Torches

Pinged by Supreme Court Ruling Brings Split in Antiabortion Movement from blog@MoreWhat. Excerpt: This is exactly the reason I changed my long standing pro-choice position. After deciding it is better to not ban something like abortion because all circumstances cannot be predicted and it may be appropriate for matters other than birth control for dummies, there were limited occasions for review of that stand. Then the situation changed dramatically, at least for me.


Pinged by Global War On Terror Ends from Committees of Correspondence. Excerpt: Does this mean we can now have a VGWOT Day like we had a VE and VJ Day? Not really. Democrats have banned the phrase "global war on terror" from the draft Pentagon budget,

Pinged by The Knucklehead of the Day award Part Three from The Florida Masochist. Excerpt: Our third winner today is Deborah Lynn Hammons of Winter Springs.

Pinged by The Knuckleheads of the Day award Part Two from The Florida Masochist. Excerpt: Our second winner today is Gilberto Cantu and his employer U.S.A. Logistics Carriers of McAllen, Texas.

Pinged by The Knucklehead of the Day award Part Four from The Florida Masochist. Excerpt: Our fourth winner today is Nanda Sudhir Kumar.

Pinged by The Knucklehead of the Day award Part Five from The Florida Masochist. Excerpt: Today's fifth winners are Shane Howard of Lauderhill, Michael Randolph of Miami and their employer Greyhound Bus Lines.

Pinged by Soranos Episode 85 - The Blue Comet from planck's constant Excerpt: Recap of episode 85 - if you haven't seen it yet - do not read further.

Pinged by Al Qaeda Involved in JFK Terror Plot? from A Blog For All. Excerpt: According to the FBI, Shukrijumah appears to have gone to Pakistan, where he's likely joined up with al Qaeda elements. As Allah notes, if they had captured Shukrijumah, it would have been an intel bonanza and tactical victory on par with the capture...

Pinged by The Amnesty That Won't Work from Adam's Blog. Excerpt: Some folks are willing to back amnesty if it will actually solve some of the problems associated with illegal immigration. The Congressional Budget Office is coming out with devestating findings that show the act as close to useless as you can imagin...

Pinged by Once again - if the same effect is seen in two pla from Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker. Excerpt: If the same effect is found to exist in two or more places that are connected by a common factor, then it is likely that the cause of that effect is common to both or all.

Pinged byI Started Shaving when I hit 23 from planck's constant. Excerpt: I suppose you are wondering how long a beard I had when I started shaving at 23? Well there was hardly any beard at all. For some reason I have been blessed with very slow growing hair.

Pinged by In Other Words from Colloquium. Excerpt: Two sisters. Complete opposites. One a Type A personality, obsessing over all the minor details related to having a house guest. Can't you picture her in the kitchen getting all of the food ready, changing the perfectly matched linens and putti...

Pinged by More Straight Dope from Iraq from Diary of the Mad Pigeon. Excerpt: Here's a little something you won't find in the New York Times! - Pigeon~Points From Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno Briefing, Baghdad, Iraq: May 31, 2007 We're well into our third month in Fard al-Qanun, and although we've made some very

Pinged by Attempts To Equate Islam With Terrorism Must Be Rej from of Bullets and Bibles. Excerpt: Why is it, that very few within Islam will speak out against jihad? Generally, when a 'moderate' muslim does speak, it is to say "this is a religion of peace, it has been hijacked by extremists outside of true islam." Mixed messages, always the ...

Pinged by Amnesia International from Woman Honor Thyself. Excerpt:
From Amnesty International’s site: “Download Isreal as printable pdf file.” Oh.. by the way, Amensty Int..um………..It’s ISRAEL.

Linked by World at War: In Depth Part Two from A Few Shiny Pebbles. Excerpt: This is Part Two of a multi-part consideration of the World at War. In “World at War: In Depth Part One”, I pointed out my belief that we are engaged in an ideological World War being fought by several ideologies against each other,

Linked by The Search for a True Conservative from Tailrank. Excerpt: Senator from Tennessee, December 1994 to January 2003, now out of the senate five years and living a high-profile lifestyle as an actor, attorney, public speaker and lobbyist, a look at his past voting record is a good place to start. On the Issues gives a comprehensive run-down of how Thompson placed

Linked by Not Your Father's Football Team from The Conservative Cat. Excerpt: For the past two Saturdays Bruce and Peg-Eye Nate have been traveling to Chicago's North Side to watch the Chicago Force play football. The Force play in a small, school-style stadium, where the fans sit close to the action...

Linked by A True Story from Pet's Garden Blog. Excerpt: I am going to tell you a true story. It was very very late winter in Montana cold and snowy Frigid.
The tractors with engine heaters wouldn’t start.
Get the idea. Cold, 40 below or better, but still the stock had to be fed. Calving checks went out every hour, new born calves would freeze in this weather so new babies






















Technorati Tags:
Fred Thompson, Fred Thompson for President

The US, UN, Iran and 2008

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com

The following is certainly an oversimplified appraisal. But the order of the news reports lent itself to an almost automatic response. The events themselves may have played out somewhat differently. At least as far as timing is concerned. But nevertheless there chronological publishing times may be in proper order. The point is this.

We all know that Iran was on President Bush's 'D' list. They were not likely to get invited to any parties. And if you are old enough to remember the dagger in the heart of Jimmy Carter's Administration or had some history classes in school, you are familiar with 444 days worth of agony suffered by Americans at the hands of Iranian hospitality.

Then there was the Reagan Administration basking in the glory of the return of the American hostages and later the Iran-Contra scandal and I'm getting crazy just thinking about it. That is over twenty-five years ago and the process has not improved. It appears more complicated than the simple explanation that every country is looking out for their own agenda and benefit.

With the Memorial Day concluding earlier this week, thoughts of WWII and the greatest generation did not escape most Americans. Citizens of many other countries are sure to have been reminded also. When I think of our country's contribution to winning that war alongside so many other allied nations, another striking reminder enters my thoughts.

At the end of WWII the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations whose stated mission was to intervene in conflicts between nations and avoid future wars. It almost seems as though human beings were finally getting it right. Instead of a period of time of peaceful activity followed by the totally impractical practice of armed conflict, we would solve our differences in an organized group to eliminate the need for death and destruction in enormous quantities.

Let's review the latest success of this noble endeavor. As stated earlier, the sequence of the following reports is assumed to be relatively chronological.

Iraq's Sadr blasts US-Iranian meeting

BAGHDAD, May 30 (UPI) -- Among those who blasted the meeting is Iranian-backed Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, who said in a statement Wednesday that the U.S.-Iranian talks in Baghdad Monday constituted "interference in Iraqi affairs."

So the first thing that happens is the cleric known as Sadr throws his two cents worth in 'dissin' the meeting. One man who has done everything he can to cause more bloodshed in Iraq is complaining about a meeting between the US and Iran. Could be so simple as he doesn't want anything solved for it ups his value as a 'somebody' in Iraq.

Talking With Our Enemies Is Smart Policy

The Moderate Voice - By Jeb Koogler. The recent meeting between American and Iranian officials in Baghdad effectively brings to an end the Bush administration’s use of ‘enforced ...

Then we have another opinion apparently applauding an approach that differs from the typical 'cowboy George' routine that one could characterize as shoot now, ask questions later or the old Teddy Roosevelt adage of walk softly and carry a big stick. This second philosophy has a tendency of provoking more attitude from hostile foes and delay the desired victory outcome.

Iran official rules out halting enrichment ahead of nuclear talks ...

International Herald Tribune, France - In another sign of defiance, hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that Iran has become so strong that no adversary can defeat it. ...

Which of course prompted the response above from the Iranians as well as another one bragging about no one would be crazy enough to challenge the great and powerful Iranian military. Ok, where did we here that Mother of all wars speech before. Yo, yo, Prez AJ, over powering the Iraqi forces was not a problem. Keeping the nutcases contained has presented a problem, but foreign armies, not a big deal. Does he have that little man syndrome?

Diplomats: West rejected Iran nuke concession

MSNBC - In another sign of defiance, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that his country’s military has become so strong that no adversary would risk an ...

And the tennis ball lands in the other court and we have renewed talk about regime change. So the long delayed question is where the hell is the United Nations, again, and why does it even exist anymore. Not like their weren't plenty of reasons to ask for it to be dissolved before.

Getting Serious About Iran: For Regime Change

Commentary, NY - To the contrary, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the recently elected president, announced that the Islamic Republic was reneging on its suspension agreement and ...

Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe Iran, Russia and new nukes, India talking more nukes, US shielding EU and the circus just keeps coming to town. Is no other country the least bit interested in taking one more shot at using the UN for what it was designed for? I am sure anyone reading this may feel compelled to complain about my suggestions. Consider that the UN is useless and it probably needs to be dissolved. But now would be a great time to give that 'body' one last chance to actually do something useful. There are major players involved in dealing with the current generation of conflict and resolution. There is no better time to get everyone involved and in a position to make the UN work before it is entirely abandoned. Even a loser is worth one more try. As long as the cards are on the table and every one knows how to play.

In the words of Larry the Cable Guy, 'get her done'. If it flops, get rid of it.

Thompson on the Run

Town Hall, DC - At an event for the Electronic Data Systems Corp. on April 27, he said he supported helping Iranians overthrow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government. ...

Heading into the 2008 elections, it would be nice to resolve some of the world's issues since no one knows who will be in the White House and the example above is not ready for nonsense by his statements. That may apply to one or more other candidates but some would be a definite disadvantage in that regard.