California Conservative

Apparently the NY Times didn’t cause enough trouble exposing classified information in the WOT to everyone including the enemy. They now want to disclose even more.

The New York Times sued the US Defense Department demanding that it hand over documents about the National Security Agency’s domestic spying program.

The Times wants a list of documents including all internal memos and e-mails about the program of monitoring phone calls without court approval. It also seeks the names of the people or groups identified by it.

AJ Strata notes:

One cannot wonder about the timing of this act with the ongoing investigation into the NSA leak and indicators the NY Times’ source is one or two high profile Democrat Senators. This act is a monumental waste of money. Even if they do find a rubberstamp liberal judge at a low level to give this case some life it will not survive. It is an idiotic move - unless it is some kind of lame diversion attempt.

David McCraw, a lawyer for the Times, acknowledged that the list of documents sought was lengthy but that the Pentagon failed to assert there were “unusual circumstances,” a provision of the law that would grant the Pentagon extra time to respond.

The Defense Department, which was sued as the parent agency of the NSA, did not immediately respond to the suit.

McCraw said there was “no connection” between the Justice Department probe and the Times’ lawsuit.

“This is an important story that our reporters are continuing to pursue and of the ways to do that is through the Freedom of Information Act,” McCraw said.

Indeed, one can not wonder about the timing.

In other NY Times garbage, Barry Posen argues that we can live with a nuclear Iran. One also has to wonder, who’s side the NY Times is on.

UPDATE:
Michelle Malkin: “Letter Of The Morning”

Cross-posted from Stop The ACLU

I’d like to thank Lores Rizkalla for inviting me on her Just a Woman radio show Sunday night to talk about the Dubai Ports World fiasco. Lores was a most gracious host and I thoroughly enjoyed getting interviewed by Lores. Follow this link to listen to the interview. I was on for two segments so they’re broken down into two parts.

As I listened to the first hour’s callers, it was obvious that most of the callers were strongly opposed to the deal. I’m glad that I listened to these callers because most, though not all, of their worries were legitimate worries. Because I’d researched these issues this past week, I think I helped bring a comfort level to more of the listeners.

One thing that Lores and I strongly agreed on is that the Bush Administration did a miserable job handling this story. As I told Lores in an email this afternoon, what’s most frustrating to me is that this issue wouldn’t be such a wide split (Last I’d heard, it was a 62-17 split) had the Bush communications team done a better job of educating people as quickly as possible.

One other thing that became apparent during the interview is that Lores’ interviewing style was far less confrontational than the WH press corps, which I think is a far better interviewing technique.

I strongly recommend that everyone make time to listen to Lores’ show. You won’t be disappointed. (Follow this link to listen to the live audio stream.)

Cross-post at LetFreedomRing

Abou al-Farouq, a Syrian who financed and coordinated groups working for Iraq’s most wanted terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was captured Monday.

Acting on a tip from residents, members of the Interior Ministry’s Wolf Brigade captured al-Farouq with five other followers of al-Zarqawi near Bakr, about 100 miles west of Baghdad, the ministry officer said.

What’s most interesting to me is the absense of American troops in this capture. “Residents” gave al-Farouq up and Iraq’s Wolf Brigade brought al-Farouq and five followers to justice in a raid.

If that isn’t enough positive news, here’s more:

“That crisis is over,” U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad declared. “I think the country came to the brink of a civil war, but the Iraqis decided that they didn’t want to go down that path, and came together,” the ambassador told CNN. “Clearly the terrorists who plotted that attack wanted to provoke a civil war. It looked quite dangerous in the initial 48 hours, but I believe that the Iraqis decided to come together.”

This was the closest that Iraqis have come to letting a civil war get started and it didn’t happen. Let’s hope that Amb. Khalilzad is right in saying that Iraqis never want to go down that path and that they have come together after this. The positive thing that I took from this weekend were the goodwill gestures by the Sunni and Shi’ite clerics towards each others and their urging calm for their followers. (more…)

According to this Washington Times’ article, the national polling doesn’t look as bad for Republicans as the Agenda Media and the DNC have been crowing about. Let’s take a look at that article:

Most polls say a majority of registered voters would vote Democrat if the congressional elections were held today, but a new independent polling analysis now finds that Republicans could lead among people who actually vote. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll reported last week that the Democrats led Republicans among registered voters in the generic congressional survey by 50 percent to 43 percent, a seven-point margin that could give Democrats enough victories to take control of the House, if their supporters participate in November’s elections.
But a deeper analysis of these numbers by David W. Moore for the Gallup Poll said, “It is likely many voters will not do so” because turnout among registered voters tends to be lower than that among “likely voters” who say they plan to vote and usually do. In his analysis, Mr. Moore writes that Gallup’s “experience over the past two midterm elections, in 1998 and 2002, suggests that the [registered voters] numbers tend to overstate the Democratic margin by about 10? (sp) percentage points. Given that Democrats currently lead by seven points, that could mean that among people who will definitely vote, Republicans actually lead by three to four points,” he said.

As I’ve written about numerous times, the best way for a conservative to view polls is with a hefty bit of skepticism. This article shows why. Who cares how the general public feels in terms of campaigns if they won’t show up and vote? It’s a totally useless statistic, like the right track/wrong track numbers. The truth is that I ignore all right track/wrong track polling totals unless they’re really dramatic. (more…)

This morning, I wrote “A special investigation to determine the legality of the NSA intercept is a facade.” That’s still how I feel. Today, though, the White House weighed in on the issue:

The White House on Monday rejected the call by more than a dozen House Democrats for a special counsel to investigate the Bush administration’s eavesdropping program. President Bush’s spokesman Scott McClellan said those Democrats should instead spend their time investigating the source of the unauthorized disclosure of the classified program, which “has given the enemy some of our playbook.” “I really don’t think there’s any basis for a special counsel,” McClellan also said.

I love that last shot because it shows that the White House isn’t taking the WH press corps’ guff anymore. They aren’t just slipping the questions, which is what McClellan did during the Cheney debacle. They’re hitting back and with good reason.

The truth is that the WH press corps is mostly the PR machine for Congressional Democrats, meaning that slapping the WH press corps is essentially the same as slapping the Congressional Democrats.

As I said earlier, the only way to put a final stamp of approval on this issue is when the Supreme Court rules in the President’s favor on this issue, which is precisely what I’d expect the opinion to be. After all, all prior precedents have said exactly that.

The Democrats see “ample precedent” for a special counsel, citing the Justice Department’s appointment of U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Oddly enough, the ‘Fitzgerald Precedent’ is undergoing tight scrutiny on constitutional grounds. There’s a question as to whether his appointment was valid since he wasn’t approved by Congress or appointed by the Executive branch. That’s the threshhold established by the Constitution. I understand that that’s just a motion but it’s got some merit to it. If the defense wins that motion hearing, then the case will be dismissed since the ruling would mean that Fitzgerald wasn’t legally authorized to conduct an investigation.

Cross-post at LetFreedomRing

Can you guess which side liberals are taking?

In a lengthy analysis, the S.F. Chronicle reports: “A proposal to build a double set of steel walls with floodlights, surveillance cameras and motion detectors along one-third of the U.S.-Mexican border heads to the Senate next month after winning overwhelming support in the House.”

The wall would be intended to prevent illegal immigrants and potential terrorists from hiking across the southern border into the United States. It would run along five segments of the 1,952-mile border that now experience the most illegal crossings.

The plan already has roiled diplomatic relations with Mexico. Leaders in American border communities are saying it will damage local economies and the environment. And immigration experts say that — at a cost of at least $2.2 billion — the 700-mile wall would be an expensive boondoggle.

The December House vote of 260-159 is the strongest endorsement yet for building a wall, which Rep. Duncan Hunter, a San Diego County Republican, has been pushing for two decades as a tactic against illegal immigration. Support for the wall was even stronger than for the bill it was attached to — a larger plan to curb terrorism and illegal immigration sponsored by Wisconsin Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner that passed 239 to 182.

“It is a tangible demonstration of the seriousness of the United States in not permitting illegal migration into the country,” said Jack Martin, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C., that favors tighter immigration controls.

It’s good to see that Congressional Republicans are listening to the voters. We hope and encourage the Senate to do the same.

More details here. And the opposition is wasting no time.
(more…)

Because everybody deserves an Ivy League diploma. Even terrorists.

This is no joke. John Fund reports:

“Never has an article made me blink with astonishment as much as when I read in yesterday’s New York Times magazine that Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, former ambassador-at-large for the Taliban, is now studying at Yale on a U.S. student visa. This is taking the obsession that U.S. universities have with promoting diversity a bit too far.” (emphasis ours)

(Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

And we thought Berkeley was bad. (They still are)

Read more.

As I’m seldom subtle, I hope the title of this piece puts to rest my opinion on the United Arab Emirates acquisition of American ports issue.* Many have asked my opinion, but I just had to wait and watch the sheer folly of the who incident and what it’s revealed about the information absorbed by the American people and the ignorance/propaganda spewed once again by our mainstream media.

An acquaintance recently asked me about the deal as he was concerned a foreign nation was going to be running a bunch of our sea ports. I asked him who owned them now? He had no answer and when I told him the previous owners were a British company that was being bought by a company from the UAE, he confessed he didn’t know that.

Here’s the problem, folks.

I write for the love of writing, as much as I’d like to do this for a living. There are those amongst us who are paid handsomely to disseminate the news. In this instance, like many others, our media either deserves an “F” if they really intended to get correct information out, and/or an “A” if they are once again fronting for Democrats. I’d prefer to believe the “F” factor, especially when picking apart the latest Rasmussen poll on the issue….

“February 24, 2006–Just 17% of Americans believe Dubai Ports World should be allowed to purchase operating rights to several U.S. ports. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 64% disagree and believe the sale should not be allowed.”

I would bet that those 64% believed an American company, and not Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) which is a British entity, ran them. According to the P&O website, “The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company has a celebrated history dating back to the 1830s. The initials "P&O" are among the most familiar anywhere, and its house flag, older even than the Company itself, is one of the best known. The history of its first century is encapsulated in the heraldry of its Coat of Arms, granted in 1937, while throughout well over 160 years it has been a premier British shipping company, and in its time the largest and most varied in the world.”

How many of you who bother to watch the mainstream media has heard them say that the UAE company is buying out a British one? Wouldn’t you think that’s an important part of the story here? (more…)

Dear Readers,

Sorry for the temporary downtime. Between 11:43PST and 12:51PST our site was down due to exceed bandwidth. Not a bad problem to have, but an inconvenience nonetheless.

Thanks for your continued readership. Your support makes this all possible.

Please help us continue spreading the word.

It’s welcome news that the AP is reporting that Sunnis are willing to get to the negotiating table so that a government can be formed.

Sunni Arabs are ready to end their boycott of talks to form a new Iraqi government if rival Shiites return mosques seized in last week’s sectarian attacks and meet other unspecified demands, a top Sunni figure said Monday.
———-
Adnan al-Dulaimi, whose Iraqi Accordance Front spearheaded the Sunni boycott, said the Sunnis have not decided to return to the talks but are “intent on participating” in a new government. “The situation is tense and within the next two days, we expect the situation to improve and then we will have talks,” he told The Associated Press. “We haven’t ended our suspension completely but we are on the way to end it.”

Bit by bit, the tensions are diminishing. The key to understanding this situation is to know that it’s a process, not an event. It’s about putting subtle pieces of the puzzle together.

Cross-post at LetFreedomRing