Bush critics make much of the supposed outing of Valerie Plame, a CIA employee who has not been undercover for at least seven years but was somehow a “secret CIA operative” at the time when Libby and Rove mentioned her to various reporters.

We know now, of course, that Ms. Plame was not covert at the time. We know also that it was the media that brought Plame to the attention of Rove and Libby.

Of course, when Ms. Plame’s name was revealed to the general public in an article published by Robert Novak, Joe Wilson immediately began to scream that his wife had been outed. The media, ever ready to hurt the President, picked up the story, never imagining they also would be singed by the fire they were about to light.

But the greatest irony of that whole incident, which is now as good as dead, is that Wilson was himself a major offender when it came to leaks. It was Plame who recommended Wilson, her husband, to her superiors (can you say ‘nepotism’?) to go on an undercover assignment to Niger to see if, indeed, Saddam was attempting to buy yellowcake uranium for his nuclear program.

Interestingly, however, the CIA never asked Wilson to sign a confidentiality agreement. Nor did the CIA require that Wilson write any kind of formal report regarding what he heard and saw while in Niger. Nor did the CIA require Wilson to come to them for approval before writing or speaking of his work for the CIA in public.

So, after the President’s State of The Union speech in March of 2003, Wilson chose to write an anonymous Op Ed in the NY Times, revealing his recent assignment and, basically, calling the President a liar for declaring that British Intelligence believed Saddam had been attempting to buy yellowcake in Niger (since confirmed). Even worse, Wilson falsely claimed that it was VP Cheney who had recommended him for the assignment when Cheney had no idea that such a mission had been undertaken.

Soon after the first Op Ed, Wilson then went fully public to grandstand for the media and boast of his supposedly “secret” mission to Niger. Ironically, most members of the media never called attention to the fact that he had so recklessly leaked details of an assignment that was supposed to be “covert.”

I don’t think Mr. Wilson knows the meaning of that word. He might want to look it up on Dictionary.com. But I digress…

So the President has been under fire ever since for the so-called “outing” of the non-undercover Valerie Plame, who was already well known by members of the media and whose husband went public about an undercover mission that she had recommended him for. That’s as clear as mud, don’t you think?

And Wilson is not the only liberal who enjoys leaking information to the media! Lets look at what Democrats have been doing in the past several years. For example, here is a very interesting piece from John Fund of the Wall Street Journal:

Is Senator Harry Reid all that swift when it comes to U.S. Intelligence matters? Last Wednesday, the Minority Leader appeared on KRNV-TV’s “Nevada Newsmakers” program and dropped a stunning revelation. He had been informed just that day that Osama bin Laden was killed in the giant Pakistan earthquake last month. “I heard that Osama bin Laden died in the earthquake, and if that’s the case, I certainly wouldn’t wish anyone harm, but if that’s the case, that’s good for the world.”

Intelligence analysts tell me that the only proper action by a top U.S. Senate leader who has been given such information is radio silence. If the report is true, such information is best released at a moment of the U.S. government’s choosing. For one thing, as long as the information is tightly held, it can be used to sift out electronic intercepts that might lead to other Al Qaeda leaders. On the other hand, if Mr. Reid’s public speculation proves groundless, it only embarrasses the U.S. and contributes to enemy morale. Here’s hoping Al Qaeda figures aren’t soon appearing on Al Jazeera television chortling about the clueless Mr. Reid.

Here is another perfect example of what I’m talking about:

Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, the following exchange took place between Chris Wallace and U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
———————–
WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn’t it Jay Rockefeller?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I’ll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.
———————–
While Democrats in Washington are berating the White House for having prewar intelligence wrong, a high-profile U.S. senator, member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who has a name more internationally recognizable than Richard Cheney’s, tells two putative allies (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and an enemy who is allied with Saddam Hussein (Syria) that the United States was going to war with Iraq. This is not a prewar intelligence mistake, it is a prewar intelligence giveaway.

And the biggest whopper of them all, as far as I’m concerned, was outlined in detail by John Hinderaker in today’s Weekly Standard:

THE CIA’S WAR against the Bush administration is one of the great untold stories of the past three years. It is, perhaps, the agency’s most successful covert action of recent times…

In one leak after another, generally to the New York Times or the Washington Post, CIA officials have sought to undermine America’s foreign policy. Usually this is done by leaking reports or memos critical of administration policies or skeptical of their prospects. Through it all, our principal news outlets, which share the agency’s agenda and profit from its torrent of leaks, have maintained a discreet silence about what should be a major scandal…

Recent events indicate that the CIA might even be willing to compromise the effectiveness of its own covert operations, if by doing so it can damage the Bush administration. The story began last May, when the New York Times outed an undercover CIA operation by identifying private companies that operated airlines for the agency…

The Times reported that its sources included “interviews with former C.I.A. officers and pilots.” It seems difficult to believe that the information conveyed in those interviews was unclassified. But if the agency made any objection to the Times’s disclosure, it has not been publicly recorded. And the agency’s flood of leaks to the Times continued…

The other shoe dropped on November 2, when the Washington Post revealed, in a front-page story, the destinations to which many terrorists were transported by the CIA’s formerly-secret airlines–a covert network of detention centers in Europe and Thailand…

The leakers evidently included officials from the highest levels of the CIA…

The twin leaks to the Times and the Post have severely impaired the agency’s ability to carry out renditions, transport prisoners, and maintain secret detention facilities. It is striking that top-level CIA officials are evidently willing to do serious damage to their own agency’s capabilities and operations for the sake of harming the Bush administration and impeding administration policies with which they disagree…

One final note, which is an important point to underscore, is the fact that the media and many liberals had high hopes that the Plame affair would become another Watergate. It did do some damage to the Bush Administration, but the whole issue is likely to pass quickly, even with the continuing investigation.

But the supposed crime of “outing” an undercover CIA operative never materialized. Even if it had, however, there is one major difference between the Plame investigation and Watergate.

The role played by the media.

With Watergate, the media was the one to expose a Whitehouse coverup. And what Woodward and Bernstein found was a whole web of lies that, ultimately, brought Richard Nixon and his administration down.

With Valerie Plame, the entire controversy grew out of investigative reporting being done by members of the media. They were the ones who brought Ms. Plame to the attention of Rove and Libby, not the other way around. Andy Rove and Libby then passed what they had learned on to other members of the media; not that Plame was an undercover operative whose husband was trying to hurt the Bush Administration, but that Ms. Plame was employed by the CIA and who had gotten her husband a job that he was never in any way qualified for. The Plame affair was sparked by the media, not a Republican administration. And their fingerprints are everywhere.

And the greatest irony of all to me is that all of this is well known by anyone with a desire to know the facts. But it’s not about the facts for some, it’s about the opportunity.

The opportunity to hurt a President that they hate more than they hate even the terrorists who murdered 3000 Americans on 9/11.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

James Taranto of Opinionjournal.com noted this in his column “Best of The Web Today“:

Mistaken Identity
Yesterday we got an e-mail from an old friend who is a captain in the U.S. Army. He writes:

I just got back from my third deployment from Iraq on Friday, and I happened to be at the dentist and saw a completely offensive ad from the idiots at MoveOn.org this morning. Anyway, it is a Bush-bashing ad that pretends to be arguing for American soldiers families as they will miss the holidays and it shows turkey and crying wives and blames Bush for it all. Here is the crucial part of the ad that I would like to bring to your attention. As they pretend to argue on my behalf, they show a group of soldiers standing around a table in the Middle East.

Here’s the scene to which our friend refers:

“A hundred and fifty thousand American men and women are stuck in Iraq,” according to the narration that accompanies this scene. Our friend (we’ve cleaned up a bit of his language for civilian consumption) continues:

These are not your normal everyday U.S. soldiers though. If you look at the frame they are actually British soldiers. One is in shorts (we don’t have shorts as a normal combat uniform) and the others are all clearly wearing British pattern fatigues. So, my point is that these [turkeys] pretend to argue on my behalf and bash the president in the name of my crying wife, and they don’t even know what an American soldier looks like! Anyway, it really [ticked] me off.

The only thing that would have made this more galling is if the ad had mentioned that the liberation of Iraq was “unilateral.”

This little excerpt underscores an important point that I’ve made before. Groups like MoveOn.org could care less about our troops. Just as they could care less about Cindy Sheehan, who they shuttled all over the country to speak out against that President and the war while she was still in the spotlight.

Instead, this organization and so many others simply want to hurt Republicans in general and the President in particular. And if they have to damage the morale of our troops to do it, well then, so be it. They probably think of it as “collateral damage.”

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

I was perusing the Drudge Report tonight and, about half way down the page saw, at first glance, this image:

Say what? Then I took a second look and it all became clear. Here is the actual layout:

Not as much fun but, still, you gotta appreciate the positioning of these two articles.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

As you can see by the AP photos below, Ms. Sheehan’s 15 minutes of fame have clearly come and gone. I disagree with her words and her actions… I think she’s a bit of a kook really… But I know also that she is a mom whose arms ache to hold her son again.

Her mistake was to believe a lie. It’s what we Christians call “a lie straight from the pit of hell.”

The lie is that her son died for nothing. Worse; that her son died for a lie.

Nothing could be further from the truth, but Ms. Sheehan chose long ago to believe that her son, rather than being a heroic young man determined to defend the people he loved, was a deceived young man sent to a war that has no meaning. Actually, Ms. Sheehan is the one who was deceived.

She chose to believe the lies of those who could care less about Iraq, or freedom in general. Furthermore, they had no compuction when it came to duping her into supporting their cause. They made her into their poster child, hoping that her status as a “Gold Star” mom would give their cause a higher profile, and the MSM bit. They milked it for all it was worth, putting Ms. Sheehan on display like she was some kind of prize-winning pig from the state fair.

And Ms. Sheehan, desperately alone and still grief-stricken over her son’s death, did exactly as she was told. She repeated the things they told her to repeat, showed up wherever they told her to show up, and believed in the anti-war cause even as she refused to believe in the cause her son died fighting for.

And now, as you can see, Ms. Sheehan is alone again. And her so-called friends? They’ve mostly moved. Yes, they are still telling her where to go and what to do and say, but, after this past weekend, I don’t think you’ll see groups like Code Pink showing up for her rallies. Did they even show up for this one?

But what of Ms. Sheehan?

I pray that she finds peace. I pray that she learns the truth… Her son died for a reason. He made a difference, he died protecting us. And he died helping to found a new nation that will rise up to become a vibrant democracy.

I believe that, even if so many others do not. The Iraqi people will prove all the doubters wrong; they’ll lay hold of freedom, and they won’t let go.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

OSM Media, LLC, formerly known as Pajamasmedia.com is changing its name back to Pajamasmedia.com. They are a great group of bloggers who are working to further the influence and professionalism of serious bloggers and I wish them well in their name re-change.

With that said, I am a LITTLE bit disappointed. Here is what they had to say regarding their name re-change:

Once upon a time, some friends who met in the casual atmosphere of the blogosphere (us) got together and decided it would be groovy to start a blog company. “We could call it Pajamas Media,” we said, referring to the now-famous quote by whatshisface, who disparaged bloggers as a bunch of guys sitting around in their sleepwear. Well, we were as surprised as anyone when we managed to raise a significant amount of capital to form said company.

At our swanky launch party in the Rainbow Room at New York’s Rockefeller Center on November 16, we changed out of our “pajamas” both literally and figuratively. We went from being www.pajamasmedia.com to OSM™ Media, LLC, the OSM being short for Open Source Media. And oh, what a drubbing we took. Many, many readers pointed out to us that OSM™ was an oxymoron; the open source tech community expressed concern; and a very fine gentleman named Christopher Lydon at Open Source (www.radioopensource.org) politely pointed out that we might be trampling on his space. (We’re sending him a pair of warm, fuzzy slippers, a heartfelt apology, and his name back, as we speak.)

All of which, as it turns out, has led us to make a change for the better. We are re-assuming our identity as Pajamas Media. (Just give us a few days to sort the technical issues out.) In short, the whole experience of being caught with our pajamas down has been a bit embarrassing, but in the end, when we realized we could get our beloved name back, we were overjoyed. So a warm, hearty thanks to all of you who expressed your displeasure with our phony identity.

Pajamasmedia.com is a great name. At the same time, I liked their adoption of OSM Media because I originally coined the term back in September of 2004 in a post entitled, “The Rise of The Open Source Media (AKA, the Blogosphere).” In this article, I argued that the Blogosphere was actually a type of Open Source Media community similar to the Open Source software development community.

It was a post that received a great deal of attention and was actually republished in a couple of journals elsewhere. I still stand by my premise, one which was backed up by Hugh Hewitt in his excellent book entitled “Blog.”

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

THE source for radio and TV news and gossip here in the Washington, DC metro area, “DCRTV.com” is reporting that, based on information from a reliable source, Don Geronimo and Mike O’Meara of “The Don & Mike Show” may be moving to “cable radio” (as Don Geronimo likes to call satellite radio) in the Spring of 2006.

Here is what Dave Hughes from dcrtv.com is reporting:

The Get Sirius Info blog “now feels confident in reporting that Don and Mike will join Sirius in the spring. No official word yet, so please still view this as a ‘reliable rumor’… We are told by sources and on air comments made, that Don and Mike signed a three-and-a-half year deal with Sirius. Estimated to be valued at over $5 million in cash and stock. Sirius chief Mel Karmazin is a fan of the show, and gave them a big break back in his Infinity days. Don and Mike will join Sirius in late spring. Don and Mike will announce the details of this deal on the air in early December 2005. There is (sic) some other sources in DC talking about some changes to WJFK-FM the current flagship of Don and Mike. It is also likely that Don and Mike will join the Sirius Stars 103 line-up.” DCRTV hears that if Don and Mike do a deal with NYC’s Sirius, they’ll still be based in DC and still be heard afternoons on WJFK-FM. Graphic courtesy of GSI…..

It could happen. Obviously, since Stern announced his move to Sirius and Mel Karmazin moved over into a leadership role there, the “satellite wars” have been heating up. The result of this increasing competition is that a lot of “free radio” talent has been pulled into satellite.

The big advantage, if such a move were made, would be that Don & Mike could do the show THEY wanted. I like their show because they refuse to follow anyone’s rules but their own. And sometimes their rules change from day-to-day!

It’s what makes the Don & Mike show fun and interesting.

Would I pay to listen to Don & Mike? Yeah, I probably would. I wouldn’t pay for Stern, despite the fact that he is the king shock jock. Or maybe because he is the king shock jock. I certainly wouldn’t pay for Opie & Anthony.

But I would pay for Don & Mike. Just as long as it’s not too much.

At the same time, if Don & Mike go over to the “non-premium” channels, you can bet that I’ll sign up and follow. I’m a big fan of satellite and now that Sirius has an even better portable receiver than XM’s, I would go in a heartbeat.

If all of this is true.

Don & Mike have been having a little fun with all of the rumors lately, generating a few additional rumors at the same time. So I’m just going to wait and see.

If rumors are true, we’ll know for sure in early December; just a few weeks away.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

The Republican National Committee has posted an excellent streaming video regarding Democrats’ past statements on Iraq’s WMDs. It shows you exactly how horribly hypocritical and partisan the DNC’s leadership has become.

You can find the video here. Enjoy!

Let me put this bluntly… It is clear to me that a number of leaders in the Democratic Party have become little more than lying, backstabbing traitors to this country. The term “deeply disappointing” does not even scratch the surface when it comes to their conduct.

Okay, now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, lets talk about the litany of outrages perpretrated by the party of self-interest, AKA, the “Democratic” Party.

We all know the facts. After 9/11, we had oodles of Democrats urging the President to deal with Iraq. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Jay Rockefeller, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and former president Bill Clinton.

I think Bill Clinton set the tone regarding the Democrat’s change of heart with his recent statements regarding the war. And these statements were made on FOREIGN SOIL NO LESS! Here is a direct quote as noted by the Jerusalem Post:

It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors … one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country.

What is a bit more confusing is the fact that our former President THEN goes on to equivocate, perhaps realizing that he had just said something stupid, by saying that we had also done some good things in Iraq as well. For example, Clinton cited the the removal of Saddam, the ratification of a new constitution, and the holding of parliamentary elections.

Okay, so now I’m confused. Was removing Saddam a good thing or a bad thing? Have efforts aimed at helping Iraqis build their own democracy been worthwhile or a “mistake”?

This reminds me of recent comments by John Kerry, basically pulling his old “I did for the $87 billion dollars… before I voted against it” shtick:

George Bush won’t accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace. . . .

We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We’ve reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals.

So which is it? Do we not have enough troops, or do we have too many? We certainly had enough troops to remove Saddam. His regime fell apart immediately. We’ve had enough troops to date to help secure the country and foster the democratic process, to protect citizens during their elections, and to train their new forces to eventually take over the job of national security.

These guys can’t even show consistency in the same sentence! How then, can they lead an entire country?

And just so I give context to some of the comments made by other DNC leaders I’ve listed above, here is what Paul Mirengoff of Powerline Blog - one of my favs - posted recently regarding past statements made by some of these folks:

Bush is absolutely correct that most Democrats were as concerned as he was (and as any sensible person would be) about Saddam’s ties to terrorism and, hence, the danger of Saddam possessing WMD in a post 9/11 environment. Carl Levin stated on Dec. 12, 2001, “The war on terrorism will not be finished as long as [Saddam] is in power.” Jay Rockefeller said in Oct. 2002, “I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat.” Hillary Clinton stated that same month that Saddam “has also given aid and comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.” And John Kerry said, soon after we attacked Afghanistan, that “this doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. . .It is absolutely vital that we continue for instance [after] Saddam Hussein.” (All quotations via Wes Pruden) Like President Bush, they understood the risk that possession of WMD by Saddam would pose after 9/11. Like President Bush, they believed that Saddam possessed WMD. The first proposition was mainly a matter of common sense. The second was what our intelligence said.

Please note the “imminent threat” comment made by Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. That quote would later be falsely attributed to President Bush, who actually said during his 2003 SOU speech that Saddam was NOT an imminent threat, but rather, if we waited until he became one, we would have waited too long.

Rockefeller is one of those backstabbing Dems who is willing to attribute his own statements to the President in order to make the President look bad. Wow, these guys are sleazy!

Just recently, Rockefeller made an even more startling statement regarding his role in the runup to the Iraq war while appearing on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: Now, the president never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn’t it Jay Rockefeller?

ROCKEFELLER: No. I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I’ll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11..

Do you understand what Rockefeller has admitted to here? He let slip the fact that he informed Saudi Arabia and Syria, both of whom are questionable allies at best an inside scoop on what our President was planning. And Syria was very friendly with the Saddam regime!!

What the HELL did Rockefeller think he was doing? Does he not understand that, had he kept his mouth shut at the time, we might not be fighting the kind of insurgency that now exists in Iraq?

And this happened more than a year BEFORE we invaded! More than enough time for the word to have gotten back to Saddam and for him to have prepared for the attack.

Unbelievable!

We need to make sure that this kind of behaviour is exposed for everyone to see. I think only then are we going to be truly safe as a country.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Isn’t it ironic that, right at this moment, Iraq is by far a more peaceful country than France?

What’s the difference? Well, American troops for one.

Yeah, I know. More people are dying in Iraq from terrorist bombs.

But that one remaining advantage for France may yet be a temporary one. Who knows, perhaps as Iraq becomes a thriving new democracy, France will become the next Islamic state.

It seems to me that, at this point, anything can happen, especially in light of the fact that French leaders continue to talk tough but seem unable to act in any kind of decisive manner. It makes the Katrina response here in the US appears to be downright brilliant!

I can only conclude, based on what I’m seeing via the news reports, that French culture has grown too weak to properly deal with the more-vigorous Islamic culture which exists within its borders. And, big surprise, one of the underlying flaws is its nearly fanatical adherence to secularism.

Let’s exam secularism’s track record to-date:

• The Soviet Union - A proudly secularist society… which is now dead.
• China - Tried secularism, but is opting for some cautious forays into allowing religious expression so as not to follow the USSR into oblivion.
• North Korea - Secular as well, I believe, and dying even as we speak. North Korea’s communist government will eventually fold.
• Cuba - A communist government committed to secularism which will likely die with its current leader.

See any patterns here? Nahhhh!

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

I heard an interesting comment from New York’s ‘other’ Senator, Chuck Schumer, on one of the political talk shows yesterday. Schumer talked, as usual, about the President’s “twisting” of the intelligence regarding Iraq’s WMDs. The show’s host, Chris Wallace I believe, from Fox News, nailed him with a quote from a speech he gave a few year’s back saying, at the very least, everything the President had said before we took down Saddam.

Schumer’s response was amusing. He said, basically, that the President was more certain than he was regarding the intelligence. Funny, Schumer sounded pretty confident during that speech to me. As confident even as he does now when he tells everyone in essence that “the President set me up!”

But that is not the point.

The point is, we went to war, not because we were certain, but because we were NOT absolutely certain whether or not Saddam had the WMDs we feared he might have. The fact that we have not found those weapons doesn’t bother me as much as the thought of not being sure.

Ironically, it was Saddam, who was doing everything he could to hamper the investigation, who really forced this war. If he had opened his borders and complied with the dozen or so UN resolutions which demanded he do this, we could have moved on. But he didn’t. And so, we just were not sure!

Meanwhile, Democrats were talking like hawks regarding the need to deal with Husain. They were ready to eat the President alive if he showed even one iota of weakness on the issue, and, of course, to make it look as if they were in control and had both the authority and the desire to show strength on issues of national security, they demanded that the President come to them for war authorization. When he did, of course, they gave it to him.

Which goes to the saying, ‘be careful what you wish for.’ Or demand, for that matter.

If anything, these folks GOADED the President into taking on Husain. Does anyone really believe that President Bush could so easily manipulate a bunch of hardened Washington politicians so easily? Not to mention all the journalists.

I’ve said it before, if the President id THAT good, then give up hope all ye who enter here, because he’s way too good to ever be defeated.

But, of course, those hardened Washington politicians were NOT manipulated, nor were they even for one second misled, they were simply courting votes, hoping to gain some ground during the next upcoming election.

The President, for his part, knew that we could no longer sit idly by while Husain payed money to terrorists and their families and thumbed his nose at the world community. We didn’t know what he was up to and I have no doubt that, had the President chosen NOT to go after Saddam, he would not have seen a second term.

Democrats would have made certain of that.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjouirnal.com

The folks at Powerline Blog agree with me that yesterday’s “Rule 21” stunt by Democrats in congress was a gift. Nothing like a little silliness on the part of Democrats to remind conservatives in general and Republicans in particular why it’s a good thing that Dems remain a minority party.

What mystifies me is the short-sighted nature of this stunt. I make my living in the corporate world, and it’s not an easy life. Despite what you may think, everyone works for their jobs everyday; from the newest recruit out of college to the CEO.

I work for a company that’s been pretty good to me over the years, both in the salary that I earn as well as the mentoring and training I’ve received from a lot of dedicated people. One thing drilled into me over and over again during my time as part of CorpAmerica is to ALWAYS think things out well in advance when launching a program of any kind.

Not only should you plan carefully in order to maximize the value of your program, you should think through as fully as possible both the intended and unintended consequences. Many times, in CorpAmerica, programs which are launched have a primary and secondary purpose, but there are ALWAYS unintended effects as well.

So, did DNC leaders fully consider the possible unintended effects of this stunt? I have some serious doubts on that score.

Their public statement spoke of the need to call attention to pre-war intelligence on Iraq and it’s use by the Bush Administration. And, indeed, Senate Dems did gain a commitment from Senate Republicans to form a committee to review the progress of another committee (don’t you love the way government works?), chaired by Pat Roberts, which is reviewing both the intelligence and the way it was used.

But is that it?

Did Senate Dems use what seems to me to be their own “nuclear” option just to get a committee appointed to investigate another committee? Yes, they received a bit of press as well, but, if that was their secondary purpose, it seems likely to hurt more than it helps them.

Even CNN commentators this morning were asking the question, “was this just some kind of stunt?” Needless to say, the initial press coverage may play better for Republicans than Democrats.

Why do I say this?

Because, upon hearing the initial reports regarding this move by Senate Dems, my very first impression, before rational thought took over, was that this was some kind of wierd ‘cout de tat’ on their part. But even as I read on into the AP story, I remained upset over the literal subversion of normal Senate business to complain about the same old thing that we’ve been
discussing, and debating, and investigating since almost the day Saddam was removed from power.

All this… for THAT?

No wonder they’re still the minority party.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Senate Democrats, seeing all their hopes beginning to disipate after the Plame Investigation closed with none of their hoped-for inictments, seems to have acted in desperation today. Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, invoked Rule 21, which I had never been aware of, to institute a closed-door session on the issue of pre-war intelligence, and who knows what else.

The fact is, though Libby was indicted on some serious charges, he was indicted for comments related to an investigation that concluded that there was NO wrongdoing. No matter how many times Reid and others rant about the pre-war intelligence and the so-called “outing” of Valerie Plame, nothing will come of endlessly droning on about these issues.

The average person knows that we had faulty intelligence, and the average person could care less about Ms. Plame. But let me tell you why the invoking of “Rule 21” in the Senate is such a monumentally dumb thing to do.

Conservatives have just gone through something of an in-house spat, of a sorts. We had this huge debate and publicly dissented from our President, whom we’ve supported to a significant degree over the past 6+ years. So, after this whole in-house debate, an intelligent opposition leader would seek a way to capitalize on this potential rift.

So, what did Senate Democrats do? Initiate an outrageous action guaranteed to unite conservatives across the board.

Is this the best that DNC leaders can do? If so, they are in for yet another rough election cycle in 2006.

I think this move by Senate Democrats will wind up hurting them FAR more than it ever could have helped them. So, let me be the first to extend my thanks to DNC leaders who have done us the favor of reminding us that, no matter how much conservatives might disagree on various issues, we can all agree that the Democratic Party has no answers to offer anyone in America.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

VPJ Priority Dispatch
Friday, September 28, 2005

IRAQ A ‘QUAGMIRE’ FOR OSAMA?

Recent documents discovered during the combined Iraqi/American assault on terrorist operations in Tal Afar reflect a sentiment among key al Qaeda leaders that Osama bin Laden has led his organization into a “quagmire in Iraq.” Though the Iraqi government has only revealed a few of the names found on recovered documents, one widely circulated rumor has it that a principle accuser is none other than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda’s forces in Iraq and, ironically, an Iraqi himself.

One of the name which has been revealed is Abu Azzam. Mr. Azzam, before being killed by coalition forces in anti-terrorist activities centering around the town of Tal Afar, was widely reputed to have been Zarqawi’s right-hand man.

“Is there any GOOD news regarding our operations in Iraq,” asks Abu Azzam in one of his most recent notes to Zarqawi. For Mr. Azzam at least, the answer is now a definitive “no.”

Ultimately, for Osama’s followers in Iraq, while some have managed to inflict casualties on US and Iraqi forces, the operation overall has consumed massive amounts of al Qaeda resources, diverted tens of millions of dollars, and resulted in the delay of terrorist initiatives worldwide.

Not to mention the fact that hundreds of al Qaeda operatives have killed themselves in hopes of killing either soldiers or innocent civilians. Thousands more have been killed or captured during engagements with Iraqi and American forces.

Meanwhile, Osama and Zarqawi have both been forced to find remote hiding places, well away from the action, which has, according to Al Jazeera television, prompted whispered accusations that these key leaders are nothing more than “chickenhawks”.

Adding insult to injury, Osama’s poll numbers are at an all-time low throughout the middle east. Sales of the Osama T-Shirt throughout the region have declined rapidly among all demographics except among western tourists. There is even talk among members of the Taliban regarding plans for putting a proposed Osama Action/Adventure Theme Park on an indefinite “hold.” This organization, as most know, is one which has, until recently, remained in lockstep with al Qaeda.

Given these facts, complaints of ‘quagmire’ among supporters should not come as much of a surprise. And, as the Iraqi military continues to grow larger, stronger, and better equipped with each passing month, matters have grown that much worse.

Over all, polling shows popularity for Osama in general, and his Middle East policies in particular, is down among Muslims. This, of course, signals an alarming trend for the once popular terrorist leader:

Osama bin Laden’s standing has dropped significantly in some pivotal Muslim countries, while support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence has “declined dramatically,” according to a new survey released yesterday.

Predominantly Muslim populations in a sampling of six North African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries share to a “considerable degree” Western concerns about Islamic extremism, according to the poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted by the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization.

Mr. bin Laden could not be reached for comment; however, his press secretary, upon hearing the news, held a press conference during which he wagged his finger in front of reporters and cameras and stated, “no virgins for you!“