Comedy Duo of Massachussetts: Kerry & Kennedy

The "Filibuster Follies"

In a last-ditch effort to thwart President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito, the Comedy Duo of Massachussetts (John Kerry and Ted Kennedy) have teamed up again. Predictably, and in keeping with their respective histories of bad judgment and failure, this move is doomed even before it begins.

Let's have a quick look at those numbers. In order to prevent a filibuster, 60 votes are requred to end debate. The Republicans number 55 in the Senate, and all are supporting Alito. A total of 8 Democrats have said they will vote to end debate (another word for "Filibuster"). That means that at least 63 Senators publicly support having an up-or-down vote for this nominee. In that final vote, only a simple majority is required for confirmation (hopefully, this Tuesday).

What are these two bumbling blue-bloods thinking?

Well, not being a mind-reader (and who the hell would want to look into either of these corrupted craniums?), I can only guess that it is because neither Kennedy, nor Kerry, has anything to worry about. These two will likely die in their U.S. Senate seats (in Kennedy's case, perhaps on a bar stool - but you get the point), with nary a challenge in that bluest of states. Alfred E. Newman has nothing on these two cats in the "What? Me Worry?" department.

Saddam's General Sada, "WMDs shipped to Syria!"

Will the MSM and Moonbats Eat This Crow?

The silence is TRULY DEAFENING as the MSM tries very hard to ignore the story that might completely refute so much of their salivating and "hard-hitting" reporting over the last four years. Weapons of Mass Destruction, and all related documentation, were secretly spirited off to Syria in 2002, according to Iraqi Air Force General and Saddam confidant, Georges Sada.

In his new book, Saddam's Secrets - How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein - Sada describes the ruthlessness of Saddam's regime, as well as his large-scale and secret (up until now) shipment of chemical weapons to Syria when it became obvious that the United States would lead an invasion.

"Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," Mr. Sada has claimed in his book and in interviews. "They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians."

I have always maintained that there were WMDs still in Iraq - the entire world and its numerous intelligence agencies could not have all been wrong. And my stance has been this: Just because a thing has not been found DOES NOT mean it did not exist. And let's face it folks - Saddam was not the type of guy to destroy/give up weapons he had obviously used several times before - and just because we asked him to.

Check out the New York Sun article on this brave man and his story. Don't wait to hear it on CNN - you might be waiting a very, very long time.

Tookie Over Haleigh ~ WTF is Wrong Here?

With empty echoes of "Terri Schiavo Redux" and "Another Right to Die," my head is pounding with confused indignation. On the one hand, Williams - a death-row, gang-leading and murdering monster somehow rated the Full Monty Defense from Hollywood. On the other, a literally abandoned, tortured and baseball-bat-beaten little girl fights for her right to life - with nary a left-coast whisper.

In the home turf of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, the Massachussetts Supreme Court decided to remove the apparatus that was thought to be keeping her breathing and alive. Haleigh, diagnosed as irreversibly vegetative and dependent, defied that first step as she suddenly began to breathe on her own.

You've got to read Michelle Malkin's article on this one.

How do Liberals (especially those with fame, power and "gravitas") define a life worth defending? Apparently, it is the Terrorist, Insurgent and Murderer who needs us to save them. The truly innocent and harmless among us - our children, including those unborn - simply cannot get a break in Hollywood.

Tough town.

NSA Wiretapping Defended by Bush, Hayden

FISA Not Always Appropriate or Effective

Defenders of NSA's international terrorist surveillance program, inaccurately depicted by the Press as "Domestic Spying," spoke out today to kick off a week of PR, during which President Bush hopes to bring his case to the American People. This move is in anticipation of upcoming congressional hearings on the subject.

Speaking from Kansas State University today for an unusually long session, with an open Q&A in the second half, the President made it clear that he intends to stick to his guns on the surveillance tactics he ordered. Some snippets:

"These are not phone calls within the United States, it's a phone call of an Al Qaeda, known Al Qaeda suspect making a phone call into the United States."

"If [terrorists] are making a call to the United States, we need to know why, to protect you," Bush said, adding that despite criticism of the program saying otherwise, he did consult with many lawyers and some members of Congress before authorizing the eavesdropping program.

"It's amazing when people say to me, 'Well, he's just breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress? Federal courts have consistently ruled that a president has authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance against our enemies. Predecessors of mine have used that same constitutional authority."

Meanwhile, Air Force General Michael Hayden, the former Director of NSA and current Deputy Director of National Intelligence, made an appearance at the National Press Club today. Known for his brilliant retooling of NSA in the aftermath of 9-11-05, Hayden had plenty to say on the subject as well.

"Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the al-Qaeda operatives in the United States."

When asked how National Security had been harmed by the leak, given that "the bad guys already assume they are being monitored:"

"You know, we've had this question asked several times. Public discussion of how we determine al Qaeda intentions, I just -- I can't see how that can do anything but harm the security of the nation. And I know people say, "Oh, they know they're being monitored." Well, you know, they don't always act like they know they're being monitored. But if you want to shove it in their face constantly, it's bound to have an impact. [C]onstant revelations and speculation and connecting the dots in ways that I find unimaginable, and laying that out there for our enemy to see cannot help but diminish our ability to detect and prevent attacks."

When asked why FISA, with its 72-hour grace period, was not good enough for all cases of this kind of monitoring:

"Under the FISA statute, NSA cannot put someone on coverage and go ahead and play for 72 hours while it gets a note saying it was okay. All right? The attorney general is the one who approves emergency FISA coverage, and the attorney general's standard for approving FISA coverage is a body of evidence equal to that which he would present to the court. So it's not like you can throw it on for 72 hours."

"In the instances where this program applies, FISA does not give us the operational effect that the authorities that the president has given us give us. Look. I can't -- and I understand it's going to be an incomplete answer, and I can't give you all the fine print as to why, but let me just kind of reverse the answer just a bit. If FISA worked just as well, why wouldn't I use FISA? To save typing? No. There is an operational impact here, and I have two paths in front of me, both of them lawful, one FISA, one the presidential -- the president's authorization. And we go down this path because our operational judgment is it is much more effective. So we do it for that reason."

((Did I happen to mention that General Hayden possesses a rare intellect, and can put an unwary room full of reporters to shame? Well, see for yourself - Read the full transcript of his press conference. Lots of great information on the right side of this debate to be found here.))

---

Speaking of FISA, here is a point of interest: In April 2004, members of the September 11th Commission briefed the press on some preliminary findings concerning problems with FISA.

"Many agents in the field told us that although there is now less hesitancy in seeking approval for electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the application process nonetheless continues to be long and slow," the commission said. "Requests for such approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct the surveillance. The Department of Justice and FBI are attempting to address bottlenecks in the process."

Hmmmm. Bet you don't see THAT splashed all over the press, now do you?

Islam - The Religion of Peace?

Mohammed: Prophet of Peace or Purveyor of Murder?

Following yet another communique to the world from Osama bin Laden, which has sent American Stocks to record-setting (albeit temporary) losses and struck fear into millions of hearts, it is once again obvious to most rational people that bin Laden's Islam is a catalyst for anything but peace. Having lived in the Middle East for a time myself, I have concluded that Islam is, at best, repressive and counter to many values we hold dear (e.g. equal rights, freedoms of religion and expression, separation of religion and state); at worst, it is a religion that espouses violence against non-muslims and women - a perfect playing field for Terror.

"Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war."
~Qur'an, Sura 9:5

Why is that? Has the violent nature of this religion changed since Mohammed violently wrought Islam upon the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century, and his followers imposed it by the sword across the Middle East, North Africa and into Spain into the 8th century?

The word "Islam," though derived from the Arabic root "Peace," means in fact "Submission or Surrender"

However you may feel about Islam, you will find the following articles by David Wood provocative:

• Islam Beheaded: The Information Superhighway and the Death of Mohammedanism


• Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

Many will say "What about the unspeakable crimes committed in the name of Christianity? The Crusades? The Inquisitions?"

While I am no great defender of Christianity either, I submit that there is a very fundamental difference between the two in modern times. I cannot think of a single time in living memory when Christians committed terrorism, much less beheading, stoning, or the killing of thousands of civilians, in the name of God.

Since 9-11 alone, Islamists have conducted over 4000 acts of terror in the name of Allah. I ask again - is this the Religion of Peace?

LIBS Say the DARNDEST THINGS!

It must have been some particularly strong Kool-Aid served up in some Liberal households over the holidays, because there are some remarkable things coming out of some of their mouths in 2006 - yes, even more than usual.

Mayor Ray Nagin - The Mayor of ravaged New Orleans who somehow managed to escape having to account for his own incompetence leading up to, during, and after the Katrina disaster:

"I don't care what people are saying Uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day. This city will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be."

Senator Hillary Clinton - The (very) Junior Senator (not) from New York, who has been very careful to slide toward the Center in preparation for her presidential bid in 2008, seems to have forgotten that Political Correctness is a supposed "Democrat Thing" as she ranted against the Republican Majority in the House:

"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about."

Senator Ted Kennedy seemed to have quite the righteous outrage over Samuel Alito's ancient and distant ties to a Princeton Conservative Organization that supposedly discriminates against women -- in fact he found it "very troubling" and demanded from Arlen Specter that all records be subpoenaed. Of course, no mention of Alito's name could be found in any records or notes from the group.

Turns out, old Teddy has been a paying member (for over 50 years!) of an all-male social club (The "Owl Club") that bans women - an organization sent packing by Harvard in 1984.

"I joined when I...52 years ago, I was a member of the Owl Club, which was basically a fraternal organization...I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100." When asked about being a member of a club that practices sexual discrimination, he replied "I shouldn’t be and I’m going to get out of it as fast as I can."

Add to that Al Gore, Chuck Hagel, Harry Belefonte, Nasty Pelosi, Walter Cronkite...the unhinged playlist for 2006 is truly remarkable, and we are only in the 3rd week of the year!

Linked to:
Michelle Malkin - DEMO-DEMAGOGUERY: PUSHING BACK

Martin Luther King Jr. Had a Dream - Why The Nightmare?

On April 4th 1968, Doctor Martin Luther King Junior, the interpretor and messenger of the Dream of Black Americans, was snuffed out by an assassin's bullet - leaving the future of Civil Rights and Black Americans in the hands of lesser men - who's stewardship has become increasingly hostile to our own country.

A young, bungling understudy of Doctor King's was Jessy Jackson. As stated in Wikipedia:

"When King and his allies returned to the South, they left Jesse Jackson, then a young Chicago activist, in charge of their organization. While Jackson had a great deal of heart and oratorical skill, he knew very little about running an organization. They asked him for financial information, and he sent them a bag of unorganized receipts. Chicago could be seen as a point where the civil rights movement lost its momentum and began to fade to a shadow of what King had planned for it."

Jackson has hardly improved with age, lately spotted courting Hugo Chavez and Cindy Sheehan for the Liberal Lime-Light.

Another pretender to the thrown, the dubious little fat man known as Al Sharpton - like Jackson, he is also called "Reverend" (although it's hard to imagine why, at this point). Cutting his teeth as a boy preacher, then a tour manager for James Brown (still has the wonky hairstyle), Sharpton is currently in a running competition with Jesse Jackson for "who can be the most outlandish liberal black man in America."

(See Sharpton and Jackson Vie for Liberal Attention)

Luis Farrakhan is a confused man at best. Known for his hatred of Jews, and caustic militant style, he is yet another leader that Black Americans can be ashamed of. Not only does he visit with aliens, but he has accused President Bush of orchestrating the New Orleans disaster (Katrina) by blowing up the levees to kill those in the black parts of town.

(See Farrakhan: Levees 'May have been Blown Up')

Who can follow in the footsteps of so great a man as MLK? The black community is in utter disarray under the leadership of these three racist morons. Who will emerge that is worthy of their trust? Barak Obama would be an improvement, if only for his ability to charm and articulate to all listeners. And what about Republicans? Why is it that the Colin Powells and Condi Rices of the world are not at the forefront of the American Civil Rights movement? Because, THEY ARE REPUBLICANS - and therefore (apparently) to be scorned.

This day, we salute YOU, Doctor King! Your strength, decency, selflessness and honor are all missed - and sadly lacking today in Black Leadership. Sorry for the sad news, but you were a giant, and perhaps the last of your kind.

Timmer's Rant on Abortion

Not an Easy "Choice"

With so much attention to Roe V. Wade being misused as a contrived political hammer against Judge Alito during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, I have wanted to address this subject, and a fellow blogger gave me that opportunity on her site.

Amy Proctor is one of my favorite bloggers. Not because we always agree (we don't - especially on this issue), but because she is an honest, compelling and fearless writer who is not afraid to address the most controversial issues. Below are my comments to her excellent and provocative article, Abortion Debate, which I encourage everyone to read.

This is about feelings and philosophy - not precedents, cases, or spin. See if
you agree with any of this, or perhaps where YOU would draw these lines?

---

My feelings have evolved a great deal on this issue. Having grown up as an adopted son, in my early years I was completely against abortion, thinking that even in 1962 I could have easily been aborted instead of carried to term and given up for adoption. I knew nothing at all about my natural parents at the time, but assumed that my mother was single and unable to care for a baby (me). It turns out that I was correct in that assumption, as my wife has turned up some information on my beginnings.

In my late twenties, I met a Norwegian girl in Greece who had been abandoned, penniless and pregnant, by her boyfriend - with no way home. She was determined to have an abortion and was set to go to the free hospital in Athens - notorious for its surgical blunders and lack of sanitation (doctors even smoked while in surgery). I took pity on her, and borrowed money to pay for a private clinic for her procedure. Now, I had crossed the line that I had drawn on this issue for myself.

I took a hard look at my involvement, and decided that perhaps abortion was the lesser of evils in some cases - but where to draw the line? Was I right or wrong in this? I was uncertain.

Since that time, I have met MANY women who have had multiple abortions and seem to use it as a form of birth-control - apparently not having the will or intelligence to force their lovers to wear condoms. I myself am extremely fortunate not to have (as far as I know) impregnated any during my own skirt-chasing days.

The woman who adopted me, it turns out, had been raped repeatedly by her own father while growing up. Although I can't prove it, many things my adopted father said to me over the years made me suspect that she might have been pregnant from her own dad, and either lost it or had had it aborted. One such piece of evidence was my adoption itself, as she was no longer able to bear children (and abortion was a very crude procedure in the 1930's and 40's).

I am not hindered, nor blessed, with religious beliefs or doctrine on this issue. My own sense of it comes from a moral foundation that I have developed from life's experience - nothing more and nothing less.

Why am I telling you all this? Because (well, you don't really know me so it's easy, and) I want you to know that my philosophy is not a knee-jerk reaction to headlines or pundits of today, nor anyone elses words or conclusions adopted by me unwittingly. I have given great consideration to this topic.

Here is what I do believe:

1) CONSENTUAL ADULT SEX RESULTING IN PREGNANCY: It is the woman's choice to have sex, protected or not. If pregnancy should occur, I don't think it is too much to ask of her to live with the consequences for 9 months. There are more GREAT couples than ever that would love to adopt such a child. The father of this child should be legally compelled to render financial assistance to the mother during this period, and the state or federal government (in a limited sense) as well, whether through grants or low-interest loans.

2) RAPE RESULTING IN PREGNANCY: This is a truly heinous crime, and the victim should not have to bear the child of her attacker if she chooses not to. She has already endured enough. HOWEVER, a state or federal program that would provide financial assistance, housing, job-training, educational assistance and counseling might help to convince some rape victims that, ultimately, some good could come from all of what has happened - that carrying to term and (if she chose) adoption is an altruistic option - this, and her ability to choose it for herself, could heal some of the psychological wounds she has had to endure already.

*As an aside, convicted rapists and child molesters should be surgically castrated, with their organs preserved and stored in case of new evidence, appeals or (which happens) the victim eventually confesses that it was not rape at all.

3) LIFE-THREATENING PREGNANCY: A great potential for abuse here, as there are undoubtedly plenty of unscrupulous doctors who would sign anything for a fee. My sense tells me that, in a perfect world, this decision should sit with the mother and her immediate family. If she is legally unwed to him, the father of the unborn child has no place in this decision.

4) PREGNANT CHILDREN: The hardest issue of all. So many factors to consider, that no hard and fast law could hope to address this with any modicum of efficiency or enough compassion. But there is no question in my mind that Parents (of both minor partners) should be informed of a resultant pregnancy and held legally responsible for sexually active children age 17 or less, and their offspring. As in the first two items above, state and federal incentives for carrying to term and ultimate adoption (if chosen by minors' parents) should apply here in varying degrees as well.

Bottom line: There is MUCH to consider with abortion. To say that it is black and white is, to my mind, like saying all drugs (including the medicinal kind) should be outlawed. I want us to look after our women and children - doing everything possible to preserve life for both. Adoption in this country is RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE and difficult...why is that?

NSA "Whistleblower" Tice Had an Axe to Grind

NYT's NSA Source a Disgruntled Nutcase

Russell Tice had hit some hard times. After having made false allegations of spying against a female DIA coworker in 2001, in his new job at NSA he was soon stripped of his security clearance, relegated to maintaining NSA's carpool and VIP vehicles, diagnosed with psychotic paranoia by a Defense Department psychologist and finally terminated in the Summer of 2005.

Read this article on Our Hero Tice from the Pulse Journal, dated May of 2005!.

Notice anything funny here? This is Russel Tice BEFORE the New York Times story of NSA's so-called "Domestic Wiretapping."

So here we are, 2006. New York Times drops a Bombshell on secret "Domestic Spying," and who should voluntarily emerge as one of the sources? A mentally disturbed former employee, previously fired for issuing false allegations. Is THIS the face of Liberal investigative reporting? Did reporter (and "tell-all AUTHOR") James Risen exploit this troubled (and mentally ill) former-employee of NSA for his own personal agenda?

As Stephen Spruiell of National Review Online excerpts an earlier post in which he wrote:

"If Tice turns out to be one of the NY Times' anonymous sources for its NSA stories, didn't the Times readers deserve to know that its information came from a potentially unbalanced ex-employee with an ax to grind?"

You wouldn't think so to hear James Risen describe these (let's be frank here) spies against America:

"Well, you know, I think this was the most classic whistleblower case I've ever seen where people--you know, in--in a lot of stories people have mixed motives for why they talk to reporters. Some--some people--in some stories there's a turf battle, and they're losing out in the turf battle, or whatever. In this case--I've been a reporter for about 25 years, this was the purest case of a whistle--of--of whistleblowers coming forward, people who truly believed that there was something wrong going on in the government, and they were motivated, I believe, by the purest of reasons."

Although an Inspector General (IG) has finally been called to investigate the NSA Wiretapping Program, the legality of Russell Tice's leaking of highly classifed information to a major liberal newspaper (hence the entire world), instead of the IG, is hardly a question.

Perhaps they will have a good psychiatric program in the jail that will eventually house this disillusioned criminal.

New Year Musings

As is my custom, I came down to my office tonight after the rest of my little family were sound asleep - thinking I would do me some bloggin.' But after a day like this one, I can't think of a single thing to write about -- there are simply too many to choose from, and I don't do more than one article at a time - personal rule. So, since I can't decide, some scattered musings are in order!

2006 is off and running full speed - and the dumbocrats and moonbats have wasted no time in letting go of that residual holiday cheer and getting down to brass knuckles, er, tacks.
___________________________________________

Alito Confirmation: Watching the Senate Judiciary Committee go to work on Samuel Alito was better than any other daytime television. Ted Kennedy and his insufferably smug minions with their sophomoric criticisms, half-baked conclusions and barely-concealed insults were truly comical to behold. Yet their audacity to demand from Judge Alito that which is NOT required nor professionally prudent from a supreme court nominee - that he address issues that he will likely have to rule on in the Supreme Court - is utterly laughable. The rules have NOT changed since Ruth Bader Ginsberg sat in that same hot seat, and refused to answer that line of questining. I hope he laughs in their faces, since a Filibuster is imminent no matter what he says or does.

Tom Delay Dilemma: Under a shaky state indictment from a rogue prosecutor named Ronnie Earle (Ken Starr gots NUTTIN on this cat!), Tom Delay made his abdication of House Majority Leadership permanent so that the Republican agenda in the House would not be harmed by the circus surrounding him. Of course, this is seen by the MINORITY party as a sign of defeat and an admission of guilt - mostly because they are blinded by power envy and seem to have forgotten that INNOCENT until proven GUILTY thing.

Belefonte Loves Chavez: While visiting his buddy Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Harry Belefonte, another FORMER celebrity who no one remembers (save for his moonbat activism) has finally shown that he has slipped into dotage. During his trip with fellow moonbat Danny Glover, he stated to Venezuelan Television: "No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution." Considering the fact that most Americans don't even know who Chavez is (same can be said about Belefonte), methinks Old Harry has lost most of his small collection of marbles.

Reid LOVES Abramoff('s money): A memo issued Friday by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to other minority senators indicates that Dumbocrats plan to take an offensive position regarding Jack Abramoff, a powerful lobbyist who is now entangled with several members of Congress in a bribery scandal that threatens to transform Washington. Reid, who has refused to return his own 61,000 in Abromoff money, is trying desperately to tie Republicans to the alleged "culture of corruption."
___________________________________________
I'm ready for another long weekend, and GUESS WHAT! It just so happens that it will be! Cheers, Doctor King!

Congressmen Murtha and Moran Get Scolded by Vets

Murtha's Remarks Draw Military Criticism

In a townhall meeting held last week in Arlington, Virginia, two war veterans of different generations got on the microphone and blasted Representative Murtha for his apparent sudden departure from support of our military, while Representative Moran tried to run interference for him. Check out both of these great video-clips from C-Span coverage of the event. You will be very proud of this General and the young soldier:

Video #1: General Wagner, Vietnam Veteran
Video #2: Sgt. Mark Seavey, Afghanistan Campaign Veteran

((Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin))
To read all about it, go to Michelle's site. I think it's better to watch the short clips first, without knowing the details - then go to her site and read up.

These two Patriotic Men of America speak for me and the vast majority of our veterans and military. Murtha has shown his true colors and stands with the likes of John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi - a man who cares more for politics than for our brave young heroes.

In fact, it would seem that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, is not all too thrilled with Murtha either. According to an article on the MSNBC site, in reference to Murtha's claim that he would not enlist in today's military, nor expect anyone else to, General Pace stated Thursday:

“That’s damaging to recruiting. It’s damaging to morale of the troops who are deployed, and it’s damaging to the morale of their families who believe in what they are doing to serve this country.”

Of course, as the head of JCS, the good General needs to use flowery language. Let me translate that for you:

"HE (Murtha) IS REALLY F**CKING OUR TROOPS HERE!"

American Media Ignores Terrorist Plot

International News Agencies Run the Story

In perhaps one of the most transparent examples of Liberal bias in American news services, a terror plot against the United States was foiled by Italian authorities, ironically using electronic eavesdropping - and became a major news story outside of the U.S.

((Hat tip to Detroit Patriotette at Conservababes!))
According to an article at NewsMax.com, entitled Major Terror Plot Against U.S. Ignored, a major terrorist attack against the U.S. was being masterminded by three Algerian nationals.

"Italian Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu said the planned attacks would have targeted stadiums, ships and railway stations, and the terrorists' goal, he said, was to exceed the devastation caused by 9/11."

"Italian authorities stepped up their internal surveillance programs after July's terrorist bombings in London. Their domestic wiretaps picked up phone conversations by Algerian Yamine Bouhrama that discussed terrorist attacks in Italy and abroad."

"Italian authorities arrested Bouhrama on November 15 and he remains in prison. Authorities later arrested two other men, Achour Rabah and Tartaq Sami, who are believed to be Bouhrama’s chief aides in planning the attacks."

Now any reasonable American newspaper, one might surmise, should find such a story newsworthy. Ironically (and sadly), this was one that got away from virtually all major American news agencies - and not because they were unaware of the incident, as it was distributed world-wide by Associated Press (AP). Agencies around the world, such as Xinhua of China, England’s Sunday Times and the Agence France Presse , reported this story with major headlines. According to News Max, only one American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, is known to have published the story that the AP distributed. It ran on page A-6 under the headline "Italy Charges 3 Algerians."

It is painfully obvious that there is an agenda at work here. While virtually every newspaper in the country has been having a field day with the strategically timed "NSA Eavesdropping for Bush" story, a major success story in the Global War on Terror like this would prove bad timing indeed - insofar as it would threaten to ebb the momentum of the Liberal Media and its goal to unseat President Bush.

States Cliff Kincaid, editor of the Accuracy in Media (AIM)Report,

"It's clear to me that they're trying their best to make this NSA program to be an impeachable offense, saying it is directed at ordinary Americans. That's why they keep referring to this as a 'program of spying on Americans' - whereas the President keeps pointing out it's a program designed to uncover al-Qaida operations on American soil."

James Risen Cashes In on His Own Treachery

NYT "NSA Phonetap" Reporter Pounces Early

In a move that surprises no one, reporter James Risen has decided to publish his book, State of War: The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration, today - ahead of its scheduled release which was set for later this month.

Risen is no stranger to contrived timing of releases. Both he and his employer, the New York Times, sat on the story of so-called "domestic spying" for over a year - only to ignore national security interests and publish it the same week of Iraq's Constitutional Election and the senate vote on continuance of The Patriot Act.

As mentioned in Michelle Malkin's article Let the Shilling Begin, it is also no surpise to find the likes of the Today Show's perky host, Katie Couric, stepping up for that first book interview.

Not only did this revelation (intentionally) crowd out the good news from Iraq, slow the President's climbing approval ratings and negatively effect the senate vote, but now in an apparent strategy of self enrichment and opportunism, James Risen is riding the media wave he created with the early release of his book.

These are not just any old domestic wire-taps, as the liberal talking heads would have you believe. This program specifically targets international calls of suspected al-Qaieda members. Would that this type of intelligence had been gathered prior to 9-11? Mohammed Atta and his gang of hijackers may well have been caught.

In what is perhaps the strangest twist in events, public outrage has been directed (by Main-Stream Media) at the Bush Adminstration for taking steps to prevent another terrorist attack. He is accused of breaking the law - although the President has a strong argument for having the constitutional authority for his actions (under the War Powers provision), which were taken with the knowledge of Congressional oversight committee members and the last two Attorneys General.

Speaking of breaking the law, the final insult - there is no question that the law was broken and national security compromised by the government informant who leaked this highly classified information to Risen and his employers at the Times. After over one year, the Justice Department has finally opened an investigation.

According to USA TODAY in an article entitled Justice officials to investigate leak of domestic spying work, an investigation has finally been opened to determine who might have divulged such information.

Given the uproar over the thouroughly hyped Valerie Plame "outing," there is but a comparative trickle coming from the media concerning this truly disastrous breach of national security. But will James Risen, like his former colleague Judith Miller, have to endure jail-time for protecting his sources? Given the severity of this truly horrible crime and blatant treachery, I can only hope it is much, much longer than 85 days.