The left is just incensed at the unfair "smear" of Harry Reid as an Abramoff stooge. A Kos post generated dozens of comments condeming the "right-wing" press for not absolving their champion.

Not surprisingly, Moonbat criticial reading skills suffer when they panic. The following are comments on the AP article detailing Reid's extensive contacts with Abramoff lobbying associate Ronald Platt over legislation dealing with a minimum wage issue in the Marianas islands.

Conclusion, by any reasonable person, there was no quid pro quo by Reid on this issue. But has AP contacted Senator Reid's office to find out his position on this legislation? Have they looked at his floor statements on it, easily available in the Congressional Record? If they have, they're leaving that key information out.

Is this hard to understand? When investigating an influence peddling and bribery scandal, it's kind of critical to actually look at the results of those efforts. You might have quid, but in this case no quo.

Meanwhile, three more members of Congress have been linked to Abramoff. And guess what? They are all Republicans.

Actually, a reasonable person would note that there is no accusation of quid pro quo on the Marianas issue--the quid pro quo has so far been confined to the writing of letters to Gale Norton on behalf of interested tribes and then receiving large checks the next day. What the two dozen Platt contacts suggest is that Reid is stonewalling when he suggests that he had no contact with Abramoff.

Reid has been around the block a few times--he knows he could have made this a one day story and smelled like a rose if he had called a press conference and laid it all out, but instead he is engaged in a pattern of stonewalling that he has got to know will only end badly for him. Of course the reason you stonewall when you know its a bad thing to do is because you feel you have to...

What's rather hilarious though, is that while complaining about a smear on Reid, the post author immediately turns around and points out that "three more Republicans have been linked to Abramoff." Smears are apparently only bad if they are directed at your own party.

To further emphasize that point, consider Time's "expose" on Bush's Abramoff links. Time publishes a series of pictures

The man Bush is shaking hands with--not Abramoff. Abramoff is the guy in the background whose head is visible just over the President's shoulder. Obviously Time magazine is hoping you'll infer that Bush and Abramoff were having sex because they were clearly in the same room.

Moonbats can't have it both ways--either guilt-by-association applies to everyone, or it applies to no one. If Bush is obviously a crook because he's in the same room as Abramoff, then Reid must be Saddam Hussein for quid pro quo letter-writing and two dozen contacts with an Abramoff lobbyist.

UPDATE: Reading through the comments on the Kos post, I came across this predictable absolution by a Noam Chomsky fan:

proof? We have to prove a neqative for you? (none / 1)

Lawyer/Lobbiest calls senator twice a month so he can include it on his hourly billing in time to go in with his firms payment schedual (sic).

Its seems to me that if a lobbyist can demonstrate that he meets with a Senator or his staff twice a month, then he has a legitimate reason to bill his client for those contacts. Don't believe me? Call up your Senator and try to get an appointment. Pretty tough eh? Now try getting an appointment every two weeks for a year. The question arises as to why this particular lobbyist gets such preferential access? I'm not a Senator, but the only people that get this kind of time from me are either on my payroll or I'm on their payroll.

In an investigation that has been characterized as "aggressive" and "fast-moving", the FBI has interviewed officials in their own agency, the NSA and others, and is working to determine who legitimately had access to the NSA wiretap information--no doubt as part of a process to determine who did not have legitimate access.

"An outgrowth of the Fitzgerald investigation is that the gloves are off in leak cases," said George J. Terwilliger III, former deputy attorney general in the administration of the first President Bush. "New rules apply."

How aggressively prosecutors pursue the new case involving the N.S.A. may depend on their assessment of the damage caused by the disclosure, Mr. Terwilliger said. "If the program is as sensitive and critical as it has been described, and leaking its existence could put the lives of innocent American people in jeopardy," he said, "that surely would have an effect on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion."

Recently, federal authorities have used espionage statutes to move beyond prosecutions of government officials who disclose classified information to indict private citizens who receive it. In the case of a former Pentagon analyst, Lawrence A. Franklin, who pleaded guilty to disclosing defense secrets, federal authorities have charged Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, formerly representatives of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group.

The two men have been indicted on charges of turning over information obtained from Mr. Franklin to a foreign government, which has been identified as Israel, and to journalists. At Mr. Franklin's sentencing hearing in Alexandria, Va., Judge T. S. Ellis III of Federal District Court said he believed that private citizens and government employees must obey laws against illegally disseminating classified information.

"Persons who have unauthorized possession, who come into unauthorized possession of classified information, must abide by the law," Judge Ellis said. "That applies to academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever."

The Times and other major media are insisting they have "powerful" arguments for media privilege in these matters. Perhaps they do, but in a balancing act between rights, it appears to me that national security trumps press privilege every time.

I hate my attorney general.

Here's a good sampling of why.

In spite of being out of power for a dozen years, Democrats still managed to accept more money from lobbyists than did Republicans since the 1990 election.

Data provided by the nonpartisan group also shows that when Democrats controlled Congress in the early 1990s, they consistently hauled in more than 70 percent of the town's lobbyist money. The group is a leading critic of Texas Republican Rep. Tom DeLay's ties to lobbyists.
"When the Democrats were in charge, they were getting an incredibly higher amount of lobbyist money compared to Republicans," said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "Now that the tables are turned there is parity between the two parties."
Last year, for instance, Republicans took in 55 percent of the lobbyist money, which roughly corresponds to their majority share in Congress.

What genius at the DNC thought "culture of corruption" was going to be a winning issue?

H/T No Agenda

We've all seen the pictures of Muslim protestors holding up signs promising the most vile acts of violence against the Danes. What do you think happened to those people?

Undoubtedly they went home for a meal of couscous and watch a little telly.

On the other hand, a 61 year old retired German businessman is going to jail for a year because he printed the word Koran on toilet paper.

The Conservative Voice

I've already written reams about the use of polls as propaganda. I'm not sure when it actually started but I first noticed it during the 2002 electoral cycle and have seen its use escalating ever since.

Initially, skewed polls could be construed as a kind of "honest" bias--inadvertant by nature, but increasingly there is an outright effort to make the polls say what you want them to.

A recent example is the See-BS poll indicating the president's popularity down to 34%. An analysis of the sample shows a clear skew in the sample, underrepresenting Republicans. See-BS's recent history serves to remove the benefit of the doubt--its a prop-poll and the liberal media are quoting it authoritively without a moment's pause.

The Zogby poll on the attitudes of American soldiers in Iraq is a new benchmark in propaganda

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows..

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but the Zogby poll isn't very forthcoming. Much of the methodology is secret but 20 bucks will get you a peek at the questions.

According to the Mystery Pollster who interviewed John Zogby about the poll, it was commissioned by the Center for Peace and Global Studies, a left-wing campus organization at LeMoyne College in Syracuse, NY.

There are two interesting points to consider here--where does an obscure group at an obscure college get the kind of money required to fund such an admittedly ambitious poll? Secondly, what kind of value does the group get for funding such a poll? Are we to believe that a left-wing peacenik group paid Zogby International big bucks for whatever result came out of the bottom of the hopper?

The standard practice for public polls is to publicly reveal the methodology. Zogby explains his refusal to disclose key elements of his procedures because of "concern for the safety of the troops being polled?" Really? Concerned about guys wth body armor and automatic weapons? Who are these people in danger from? Is Zogby seriously suggesting that although he had permission from the Pentagon to conduct the poll, that soldiers were in danger of reprisals from their superiors? The claim undermines all pretense at objectivity.

It occured to me right away that a large part of the problem with conducting a poll in Iraq is getting a truly representative sample.

So to evaluate this survey, one important question is whether the troop populations accessible at the locations Zogby selected are representative of all troops in Iraq. This issue is analogous to the question of whether precincts selected for an exit poll are representative of all precincts in a given state (although exit poll precinct selection is usually random). Zogby believes the locations involved provide a reasonably representative sampling and, as noted above, he offered to share the names of specific locations on an off-the-record basis. I declined largely because I lack the knowledge and resources to make an independent assessment. So for me, this question remains open.

The opaque quality of the survey would be a big problem without any other considerations, but its conclusions contradict a massive body of contrary evidence, including the direct observations of over 1200 milbloggers.

Zogby’s response to the question as to “what advice he would offer data consumers who find this all puzzling. In this case, he said, ‘you have to trust me.”

As Hugh Hewitt points out--Zogby's credibility isn't particularly strong in the wake of his performance during the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections, which Larry political scientist Larry Sabato described charitably as "highly inaccurate". Which reminds me--what methodology Zogby deigns to reveal publicly looks suspiciously similar to 2004 election day exit polling in Florida.

Ironically, the American public appears to be immune to these manipulations. Most people outgrow peer pressure some time during highschool or soon thereafter. "Likely Voters" don't seem that fickle to me.. What is less clear is what effect a poll like this will have on Iraqis, on the Middleeast generally and on the terrorists specifically. Bin Laden's tapes betray a naivete about the relationship between American public opinion and elite media coverage, and if as expected, he and other al Qaeda maniacs take the survey at face value, life in the caves just got a little less gloomy.

I don't think happy terrorists are a good thing and there is the very real prospect of more lives lost because of this. I don't need this post to be any longer than it is, but the issue raises the question of whether the free speech rights of a bunch of kooks at Lemoyne College trump the right to life of Americans and Iraqis? More so since the speech is a lie.

Zogby is a gun for hire, but its the MSM that is going to go with the story as tomorrow's lead. They will of course ignore the obvious problems in favor of a little sensationalism, the self-delusion of speaking "truth to power and a chance to stick it to Bush just one more time.

I had a helluva week so I neglected to comment on the passing of the Patriot Act on Thursday but 89-10 in the U.S. Senate.

After months of delays, furrowed brows on Sunday morning talk shows and general puffery, what major concessions led to such resounding bi-partisan support?

In the end, the White House and the Senate GOP leadership crafted a package of civil liberties additions that satisfied most Senate critics. Among the most important changes:

Recipients of court-approved subpoenas for information in terrorist investigations will have the right to challenge the requirement that they not tell anyone about the subpoena.

In addition, recipients of such subpoenas will no longer be forced to provide the FBI with the name of their lawyer.

Finally, the civil liberties package clarifies that most general-purpose libraries are not subject to demands made in so-called National Security Letters for information about suspected terrorists.

The changes ultimately swayed the Senate, which passed the bill 89-10 vote Thursday in a bright spot for President Bush's troubled second term. The House is expected to take its final vote on March 7.

The most adamant opponent of the Patriot Act in the Senate, Russell Feingold (D) of Wisconsin, held that most of the civil liberties changes would have little real effect, in practice. But he acknowledged that in political terms the provisions had worked, and the bill was virtually certain to clear all reauthorization hurdles.

"The die is cast," said Feingold on Wednesday.

Indeed.

These were the compromises that were holding up the Patriot act? I've probably never agreed with Feingold about anything, so there must be a blue moon out.

Aside from being mildly annoyed at the fracas, it strikes me as portenous that in spite of a president with a "34% approval rating" (more likely about 38%) and all the nonsense the Crats were spouting over the president's wiretapping of "political opponents" (i.e. terrorists), the act passed handily if not overwhelmingly..

Apparently the port kerfuffle wasn't just an opportunist feint by the Crats, trying to get to the right of the administration on security issues--they've figured out that Karl Rove was right--the election will again be largely over security concerns and they are pulling on their combat boots and special forces berets (given to them one Christmas Eve while deep in Cambodia...).

Bill Clinton has been telling them to be at least as strong as the President on this issue for some time already, and I guess they are finally taking his advice (since things went so well for them in the past two election cycles). Its a good sign, in that it means the Democrats are not insane as I've feared for sometime now, but a caveat is in order.

Rove choose this battleground.

The Congressional "Progressive" Caucus (too many negatives associated with "liberal caucus"...) is recommending 60B in defense spending cuts.

The House Appropriations Committee has approved a measure to block Dubai Ports World from managing the stevedoring at six U.S. ports by a whopping 62-2 margin.

The naked fear this represents is impressive. House members are apparently so scared of being labelled soft-on-terror that they are refusing to wait for the 45 day review period to elapse. That's another way of saying--"don't bother me with the facts, there's a mob outside the door with tar, feathers and a rail.."

This is extremely disturbing.

Every member who voted for this should be held to account for being a sniveling weenie. The excuse that opponents had legitimate reservations and needed time to consider the scope of DPW is blown out of the water by this precipitous action. By both argument and action, this comes down to pandering to the worst angels of our nature.

Ironically, the posturing is made possible because of a tacit concession that the UAE is going to react in a responsible fashion, allowing our politicos to make asses of themselves. Perhaps the question we should be asking is not whether DPW can run the ports, but whether these pussies should be running the government.

Harry Reid must be feeliing like a guy who missed his flight to Hawaii today.

In a press conference this morning, flanked by Schumer and other Crat movers and shakers, Reid demanded a floor vote on the Dubai deal.

Unfortunately, the Republcians already killed the deal in the House yesterday and Dubai Ports World has withdrawn it petition, saying that it would sell the P&O's American interests to a domestic entity.

Reid and the Democrats missed what has to be their single best opportunity to take the whip hand on national security and flog the Republcian for a change.

Of course, there is still plenty of work to be done. Senator Schumer and Clinton's home ports are effectively run by the mafia according to a Homeland Security report. Perhaps the good Senators can explain what they intend to do about that mess.

How secret was Valerie Plame-Wilson's identity?

Apparently, not very.

Former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee claims that Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's former deputy, was the original source of the Plame leak.

In the latest issue of VANITY FAIR: "Woodward was in a tricky position. People close to him believe that he had learned about Plame from his friend Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's former deputy, who has been known to be critical of the administration and who has a blunt way of speaking. 'That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption,' former WASHINGTON POST editor Ben Bradlee said."

'I had heard about an e-mail that was sent that had a lot of unprintable language in it.'"

Take it for what its worth, but I find it interesting that Scooter Libby is on trial for his freedom and the issue still remains a matter of speculation.

Remarkable.

You knew this was coming:

Sen. Russ Feingold introduced a resolution Monday to censure President Bush for authorizing a no-warrant domestic surveillance program, accusing Bush of breaking the law and misleading Congress about it.

"When the president of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable," the Wisconsin Democrat told the Senate.

Feingold's action will likely be largely symbolic. No Republican senators, who hold a majority, are expected to vote for the resolution, and no other Democratic senators have expressed support for it.

This is an interesting move. Feingold is already the wunderkind of the far left and he'll get brownie points for it. And I do see his point - this is a president who has illegally spied on American citizens and has indicated that he'll continue to do whatever he pleases, Congress and the law be damned. What should they do? Pass another law?

But there's zero traction on this. As Bob Dole would say, "Where's the outrage?" The motion has about as much hope in the US Senate as Juanita Broderick did with Bill Clinton. I'm sure somewhere in the Oval Office, Bush is laughing to the Constitution, "hey, you outta put some ice on that..."

Others:

Charging RINO

We do need a comprehensive investigation into the actions of the Administration, and if that reveals wrongdoing, actions should then be taken. The Congress should not shirk its oversight responsibilities here - aside from asserting their authority now, they should also examine the president's past actions. But a censure resolution does none of that, and simply creates more problems when I think we can all agree we've got plenty of those on our plate already.

Bull Moose

The only thing that can save the Republicans is Democratic over-reach. For instance, it would throw a life-line to the elephant if the donkey embraces the censure resolution that is being offered by Senator Feingold. That would be the Democratic equivalent of the Gingrich government shut-down.

MyDD

We are pointing out that Feingold, a real leader, is actually showing that Democrats can and do fight. And we are pointing out that all the lazy progressives, who won't file ethics complaints, and all the centrist fools, who keep pretending that being lied to on Iraq is somehow strong, are being stupid incumbent middle managers.

State of the Day

Senator Frist, you are an ass. Keep your fucking treason talk to yourself. The only reason Senator Feingold felt is was necessary to go the way of censure is because your spineless Republican buddies on the Intelligence Committee refused to do their jobs and investigate the president for breaking the law by spying on the American people. 200 years of checks and balances tossed out the window on your watch. So enough with the treason talk. The only "terrible signal" being sent around here is by you and YOUR commander-in-chief for showing the world that the rule of law means nothing in America anymore.

Glenn Greenwald

It is completely unacceptable, and a total abdication of their responsibility, for the media to pass along the White House's factually false claim that Democrats oppose eavesdropping on Al Qaeda. The media does not need to, and should not, take sides in the NSA debate, but it ought to inform American citizens about what the arguments actually are and what the debate is about. If it doesn't do that, what does it do?

Pundit Guy

His family still loves him.

Crossposted

A couple weeks ago, Mick spanked Zogby for their polling data which suggested the troops wanted to withdraw.

Apparently, it's even worse than we thought. Check it out at Real Clear Politics.

Why anyone takes Zogby seriously these days is beyond me.

Hat tip: Bogus Gold

Claude Allen, a White House advisor, a 45 year old family man and until this mess, universally regarded as a stand-up guy, suddenly decides to engage in a crude conspiracy of petty theft against Target stores.

That certainly struck me as weird. Did you think it was weird?

Not weird enough apparently.

Claude has an identical twin brother Floyd, who hasn't been as successful as his brother, and has had a variety of serious financial troubles, some of which Claude bailed him out of.

Hmmm.

Officials might want to take a closer look at Floyd and check out what he's been doing lately...

45 year old men with stable jobs, family and no history of larceny, don't suddenly go shop-lifting.

A couple of days ago, George Clooney's post on Huffington got a lot of attention, particularly for his condemnation of Congressional Democrats as spineless. Only one problem.

He didn't write it.

"Miss Huffington's blog is purposefully misleading and I have asked her to clarify the facts," Clooney, 44, said in a statement issued Wednesday. "I stand by my statements but I did not write this blog."

In Monday's profanity-filled posting, Democrats are faulted for muting their views and criticism of the Bush administration in the months before the start of the Iraq war.

Huffington has denied any wrongdoing.

Arianna Huffington is admitting that her people wrote a "sample blog" for Clooney and that it was approved by his publicist, but Clooney's publicist and Clooney himself aren't having none of it.

Clooney's publicist Stan Rosenfield disagreed.

"It's not a misunderstanding, it's misrepresentation," he said. "She knows what she was doing. She was saying to people that she had George Clooney's blog and was printing it. George Clooney does not make statements. He answers questions."

Anyway you cut it, Arianna is misrepresenting not just George Clooney, but the Huffington Post as well. Ghost-writing for celebrities is bad enough, but ghost-writing for ghost-celebrities is really beyond the pale.

Full disclosure. I wrote this myself on a Dell Inspiron 8600. No animals were harmed in the production of this post.