Right Side of the Rainbow

Gentle readers:

I’m off to Washington, D.C. for a few days. See you again Tuesday. Have a good weekend.

Posted by Paul at 10:30 PM | Permalink

We learned nothing new today.

• “Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak: Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment,” MSNBC

• “Was She or Wasn’t She? Arguing that Libby deserves jail time, Fitzgerald says Plame was a covert agent,” Newsweek

Sounds new and dispositive, doesn’t it? It’s not.

Here, in pdf, is the Government’s sentencing memorandum in United States v. Libby; and here, also in pdf, is the ballyhooed “unclassifed document,” marked as Exhibit A.

Open Exhibit A. You’ll note that the clerk of the United States District Court received it on May 25, 2007. The document is otherwise undated. It is also unattributed. We don’t know who wrote Exhibit A. But we may reasonably infer, both from the Exhibit’s context and content and from Newsweek’s reporting, that it was written by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald or by someone on his staff:

In the “unclassified summary” of his memorandum which was based on information cleared by the CIA and became publicly available Tuesday, Fitzgerald provided new details about Wilson’s previously classified activities at the agency. In January 2002, she was working for the agency “as an operations officer” in the Directorate of Operations’s Counterproliferation Division (CPD) and serving as “chief” of a unit with responsibility for weapons-proliferation issues related to Iraq. In that capacity, he added, she traveled overseas in an undercover capacity. [Italics added.]

In other words, Exhibit A is not a declassified CIA document, as many on the left have taken it to be. It is, instead, a declassified summary of Ms. Plame’s employment history, as understood and written by the prosecutor.

Why does that matter? Well, it might not, depending on your view. Ask yourself:

• Are the facts incontestably established by the statement of a prosecutor?

If you answered yes, then the question whether Ms. Plame’s identity was protected as a matter of law has been answered dispositively by the prosecutor’s summary.

But if you believe, as I do, that the statements of a lawyer are not evidence, then we learned nothing today that we didn’t already know. Mr. Fitzgerald long ago made known his view that Ms. Plame was covert withing the meaning of federal law. He’s now reduced his opinion to writing. (I note in passing that counsel to the CIA has yet to join Mr. Fitzgerald’s view.)

For reasons still unknown, Mr. Fitzgerald never indicted anyone, including Scooter Libby, for unlawfully revealing the identity of a covert agent. And yet, he now asks a federal judge to sentence a man on the basis of assertion never tried by a jury and never admitted to by the defendant.

I stand by Scooter Libby.

Technorati Tags: Scooter Libby

Posted by Paul at 8:45 PM | Permalink

George Will observes that the immigration reform bill now before Congress presents a conundrum:

It would provide legal status to most of the illegal immigrants who were here before this past Jan. 1. The government, however, has no cognizance of those who are here illegally. They have proved by their presence here that they have limited regard for U.S. legal niceties. So, what is to prevent those who have arrived since Jan. 1, and those who will continue to arrive by the millions, while — “while” means years — the border is supposedly being secured, from fibbing about when they arrived?

The answer is, of course, nothing. And even if we could identify the fibbers, what would we do about them?

As Clive Crook notes, “each passing month adds to the numbers that the law insists must be sent home — and the number is going to keep on rising, even if the pace slows once the new border measures are up and running.”

So consider. One of the things the bill purports to recognize is that mass deportation of the 12 million illegal immigrants thought to be in the country is both impractical and undesirable (not least because of the effects on the U.S. economy). But is the mass deportation of, say, a million immigrants, or 2 million, much more practical or desirable? This is the outcome that the bill implicitly envisages even if, in every other respect, all goes to plan. Multiply that by two, on a very conservative estimate, for the illegal immigrants already here who opt not to apply for legal status under the terms of the new law. Add a hundred thousand a year, maybe, for new illegal immigrants who manage to slip through even after the border has been strengthened. In other words, suppose the bill is enacted: Ten years from now, what has been gained?

Bottom line, says Crook: “This bill will not work, and I find it hard to accept that the Senate negotiators honestly believe otherwise.”

Unlike other center-right types, I didn’t jump to a position on the immigration bill the moment it surfaced. I thought we should all take time to understand the bill and its implications before saying yes or no. We now know enough to say no.

Posted by Paul at 11:59 PM | Permalink

Ah, the sure-fire just get ‘em told method. Why didn’t anybody think of that before?

In a press conference after the four-hour meeting, US ambassador Ryan Crocker said that the Iranian and American delegations both expressed ”support for a secure, stable, democratic, federal Iraq, in control of its own security, at peace with its neighbours.”

How sweet!

… the American delegation stressed to the Iranians that they should stop supporting Iraqi militants.

We stressed it, did we? Well, if we stressed it …

Mr Crocker said support by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard for Iraqi militants “needed to cease,” and that the US “would be looking for results.”

Why do I get the impression that we can keep looking? Is it because few things in the world are more utterly useless than diplomatic babble?

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Iran, War in Iraq

Posted by Paul at 3:15 PM | Permalink

Watch.

Posted by Paul at 1:00 PM | Permalink

On what Mr. Bush calls the “Internets,” you can find some truly excellent, legal mp3s from little known artists who deserve to be better known.

See if you like “Rejoice” from Amit Shoham as much as I did. If you do, follow the link below to download it.

Except for a brief intro from me and a couple of transition stingers, this podcast is six minutes of pelvis grinding music. Enjoy.

Download “Rejoice” (mp3)
from “Deep Sessions Vol 3”
by Amit Shoham
More On This Album

Posted by Paul at 6:20 PM | Permalink

All in service of the drug war, of course.

Posted by Paul at 6:00 PM | Permalink

But we won’t.

Writing for the Weekly Standard, William Kristol and Fred Kagan say “[t]here should be no doubt about the hostile role Iran and Syria are playing in Iraq today:”

The reality is that foreign fighters are flowing into Iraq to kill Iraqis and Americans. Almost all suicide bombers in Iraq are foreign fighters, for whom this is the crucial battle. This means that our victory there will be an important victory in the larger struggle against terrorism—and our defeat there would embolden and empower our enemies. And the reality is that Iran and Syria are enemies. Most foreign fighters join al Qaeda in Iraq via Syria. And Iran has been sending advanced weapons and advisers into Iraq. These weapons and insurgents supported by Iran are killing our soldiers on a daily basis.

In other words, our biggest problem in Iraq isn’t in Iraq; it’s in Tehran and Damascus. But if so, doesn’t this doom the surge? Beyond the fever swamps of the left, does anybody think we’re going to wage war on Iran for aiding the jihadists? We won’t even stop her from developing nuclear weapons.

If you’re picking fleas off a dog when what you should be doing is fumigating the backyard, you’re fighting a never-ending battle.

We minority of Americans who still support this war won only a transient victory this week when Congress capitulated to the president on the funding bill. Our countrymen no longer want to hold the line, much less advance it. Everybody, but everybody, knows what’s coming.

The Iraqis, especially those who were foolish enough to trust us, will suffer mightly, as will America’s national security interests. Jules Crittenden put it best: “How many times can a great nation retreat from inferior forces and remain great?”

But in a democracy — a truly awful form of government, wherein the unlettered hold as much sway over public policy as their well-read peers, but for which no decent alternative exists — you cannot long defy the will of the majority.

So there it is. And come September, we can all sign off.

Posted by Paul at 5:25 PM | Permalink

• “There seems to be a lot of surprise and disgust that the people who advocate surrender practice it.” — Jules Crittenden on the reaction of left-wing bloggers to the pro-surrender Democrats who surrendered to President Bush

• “When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose.” — Aide to an anti-war member of Congress, with no sense of irony, on the consequences of self-imposed deadlines

Posted by Paul at 10:30 AM | Permalink

Do not believe them.

Technorati Tags: Hate crimes law, Free speech, Constitutional law

Posted by Paul at 6:50 PM | Permalink

UPDATE BELOW

“Bowing to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled House reluctantly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war on Thursday, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto,” MSNBC reports.

The vote was 280-142.

UPDATE —

The Senate, where the vote was 80-14, follows suit. Among the nays, Clinton, Dodd and Obama.

Posted by Paul at 6:45 PM | Permalink

By which he means gays:

In his new memoir, “No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner,” Shrum recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, “What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?”

“I’m not comfortable around those people,” Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate’s wife, Elizabeth, told him: “John, you know that’s wrong.”

Edwards’s pollster, Harrison Hickman, who was in the room during the discussion, says Shrum “is sensationalizing and taking out of context what was an honest discussion about [Edwards’s] lack of exposure to these issues and openly gay people. I don’t remember anything that expressed any kind of venom or judgment about gay people.” [Emphasis added.]

In other words, Edwards said just exactly what Robert Shrum says he said.

Fair enough. Everyone is uncomfortable around someone. There are, for example, precincts within the gay community where a hair-flipping, compact-using, lip-wetting male would face derision. E.g.:

[RSS and e-mail subscribers: Video appears here. Click to watch.]

HT: Dean Barnett

Technorati Tags: John Edwards, Gays

Posted by Paul at 6:15 PM | Permalink

Question:

• Is a disproportionate percentage of the Arab population gay, or is a disproportionate percentage of the gay population Arabic speaking?

Posted by Paul at 8:35 AM | Permalink

“The bi-partisan agreement among influential Senators and the White House has been met with bi-partisan opposition among the public,” according to Rasmussen.

Republicans are agin it. Democrats are agin it. Independents are agin it.

Actually, the percentage of Democrats opposed to the bill is slightly higher than the percentage of Republicans opposed to it, which is remarkable since the bill is almost certainly a political boon for Democrats. (Perhaps the rank and file believe that “Democratic party elders are joining a bipartisan Beltway elite in selling out the Dems’ labor and lower-income constituents.”)

Message to Washington, part I: the only emergency is the one in your mind. Take the red pill.

Advocates of “comprehensive” reform have taken to arguing that those who want an enforcement-only policy must explain how they would deal with the 12 million illegal aliens already living in the country. The public reaction to that question appears to be “Why?” Only 29% of voters say it is Very Important for “the government to legalize the status of illegal aliens already in the United States.”

Message to Washington, part II: secure the borders first, then we’ll talk.

… 65% of voters would be willing to support a compromise including a “very long path to citizenship” provided that “the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English” and that the compromise “would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country.” The proposal, specifically described as a compromise, was said to include “strict employer penalties for hiring illegal aliens, building a barrier along the Mexican border and other steps to significantly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the United States.”

The willingness of voters to accept compromise and allow a path to citizenship suggests both pragmatism and a strong desire to do what it takes to reduce the ongoing flow of illegal immigration. [Emphasis added.]

The American people are not anti-immigration; they just want control of their country’s borders. Is that unreasonable?

Technorati Tags: Illegal immigration, Immigration, Immigration reform, Democrats, Republicans

Posted by Paul at 12:05 AM | Permalink

Citing unnamed sources, ABC News reports “[t]he CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert ‘black’ operation to destabilize the Iranian government:”

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a “nonlethal presidential finding” that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions.

[…]

Officials say the covert plan is designed to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq.

Questions:

• Did the Administration authorize this leak? If so, why?

• And if, as seems more likely, the Administration did not authorize the leak, why did ABC report that its sources “spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject”? Wouldn’t it have been more accurate to say the sources sought anonymity to avoid termination or prosecution or both for revealing classified information?

• Does the hobbling of covert action — “[c]overt actions that appear on national television tend to lose the element of surprise, after all” — make military action against Iran more likely?

Posted by Paul at 8:31 AM | Permalink

That’s what the headline says, anyway. But as the article makes apparent, their fear is hardly psychotic:

Pakistan’s capital Islamabad, seemingly calm under the watchful gaze of the Margalla hills, belies the rising tension that its women residents are confronting.

Radical Muslims clerics, who have taken over the capital’s Lal Masjid and the adjoining madrasa, are among other things, demanding the imposition of Sharia law across Pakistan and their moral policemen lurk and pounce without a warning.

“We are frightened of all these maulvis. Whenever we see them out on the roads, we roll our car widows up, out of fright. We are scared that they may throw acid on us, if we are wearing half sleeves,” said a local girl.

Acid victim

Having acid thrown in their face is a not uncommon experience for women in Muslim countries.

Yes, everything.

Posted by Paul at 6:00 AM | Permalink

The funding is good only through September, when the fiscal year ends. The Democrats will then be back, and probably in possession of enough Republican votes to force the president’s hand. But for now, the fight is over:

In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.

The legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added.

While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war.

Tags: Congress, Iraq, war in Iraq

Posted by Paul at 8:15 PM | Permalink

UPDATE BELOW

69-23, with eight not voting.

As I understand it, this was a vote on whether to proceed to consideration of the bill. In other words, it wasn’t a conventional cloture vote, which ends debate. It was a vote on whether to begin debate. And begin they will.

UPDATE:

Senate leaders agreed Monday that they would wait until June to take final action on a bipartisan plan to give millions of unlawful immigrants legal status.

The measure, which also tightens border security and workplace enforcement measures, unites a group of influential liberals, centrists and conservatives and has White House backing, but it has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. In a nod to that opposition, Senate leaders won’t seek to complete it before a hoped-for Memorial Day deadline.

[…]

The bipartisan compromise cleared its first hurdle Monday with a bipartisan Senate vote to begin debate on a separate immigration measure. Still, it faces significant obstacles as lawmakers seek dozens of modifications to its key elements.

Posted by Paul at 6:15 PM | Permalink

George Will nails it. For sheer illumination, it is, I think, one of the best columns he’s ever written.

Posted by Paul at 7:45 PM | Permalink

NRO’s David Frum:

With the immigration *compromise* in the Senate, President Bush and the Senators have detonated the slow-motion trigger on a Republican debacle in 2008. Let’s count the ways.

Posted by Paul at 3:47 PM | Permalink

Some day, I’m going to do a substantive video blog entry. But not today. Today, I’m still playing with the software. It’s fun!

In this vlog, I demonstrate the power of SnagIt, a screen capture and image editing program. In the process, you’ll see some more features of Vlog It!, which I first used here.

My thanks to Nancy Pelosi and John Edwards, both of whom make appearances. Credit for the music bed, “Revolve,” belongs to His Boy Elroy.

[RSS and e-mail subscribers: Video appears here. Click to watch.]

Posted by Paul at 6:00 AM | Permalink

It’s called the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007. And it’s 326 pages of pdf. You’ll need a law professor to make heads or tails of it.

The Senate is supposed to vote Monday on cloture. But there’s no way the public — or the senators themselves — can digest this by then:

Ordinary citizens have almost zero chance of figuring out what this bill intends and how its provisions will interact, and the proxies on whom they might rely will hardly have any opportunity to fully vet the language.

Tell your senators to oppose cloture. You can reach the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

In the meantime, if you’d like to take a gander at the bill, you can download it from the public folder of my Mac iDisk account.

Tags: Immigration, illegal immigration, immigration reform, immigration reform bill

Posted by Paul at 4:11 PM | Permalink

Words have meaning, yes?

Question: Does the proposed immigration reform bill provide amnesty, as defined by the dictionary, to the 12 million or so illegal aliens now living in the United States?

From dictionary.com:

am·nes·ty [am-nuh-stee], noun

1. a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.
3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.

par·don [pahr-dn], noun

1. kind indulgence, as in forgiveness of an offense or discourtesy or in tolerance of a distraction or inconvenience.
2. Law. a release from the penalty of an offense; a remission of penalty, as by a governor.
3. forgiveness of a serious offense or offender.

for·give·ness [fer-giv-nis], noun

1. compassionate feelings that support a willingness to forgive.
2. the act of excusing a mistake or offense.

Under the compromise announced Thursday, “illegal immigrants would have to pay a total of $5,000 in fines, more than 14 times the typical weekly earnings on the streets here, return to their home countries at least once, and wait as long as eight years” before becoming fully legal residents.

What becomes of the hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of probationary illegals who either can’t or won’t pay the fine and meet the bill’s other requirements?Now we might say these terms are generous or insufficiently punitive. We might also say these terms are unfair to those who entered the U.S. lawfully, if lawful entry is either more expensive or arduous than what the compromise offers. (I don’t know. Is it?)

But if we care about the meaning of words, we cannot say these terms constitute amnesty. Illegal immigrants are not released from penalty, and their offense is not excused.

Here, though, is the rub: “… the 12 million illegals here before January [1, 2007] would get probationary legal status immediately” upon the bill’s passage. That is amnesty. And it gives rise to an interesting question:

Another man among the group of job-seekers gathered outside a church here that serves as a hiring site for day laborers overheard Mr. Ramírez and approached with disdain.

“It’s almost impossible to bring your family,” he said, rattling off information he had gleaned from a Spanish-language newspaper. “You have to go back first, and what are you going to do in Mexico while you are there and there is no work? I’ve been here 20 years and I still work and support my family, so why would I do any of these things?”

[…]

Sipping from a bottle filled with ice as the day’s heat soared, Mr. Ramírez occasionally broke away when pickup trucks and other vehicles approached, joining others begging for a day’s work.

The biggest obstacle, he said, would probably be paying the $5,000 in fines on the way to permanent legal status. He does not have health insurance now, which he would be required to provide for his family if he decided to return to Mexico and come back as a temporary worker. “I don’t know who sells that or what it costs,” he said.

What becomes of the hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of probationary illegals who either can’t or won’t pay the fine and meet the bill’s other requirements? Will the Government deport them? We’re told often that massive deportation is impractical, are we not?

Tags: Immigration, illegal immigration, immigration reform, amnesty

Posted by Paul at 2:00 PM | Permalink

All right, third and final round. Snippet:

Like many fanatical preachers, Falwell was especially disgusting in exuding an almost sexless personality while railing from dawn to dusk about the sex lives of others. His obsession with homosexuality was on a par with his lip-smacking evocations of hellfire. From his wobbly base of opportunist fund raising and degree-mill money-spinning in Lynchburg, Va., he set out to puddle his sausage-sized fingers into the intimate arrangements of people who had done no harm.

Posted by Paul at 10:45 PM | Permalink

This is rich:

Many in Mexico expressed disappointment Friday with the U.S. Congress’ immigration reform proposal, arguing it doesn’t let enough Mexicans enter the United States legally to work, while focusing on an arduous path to residency for those who have already taken the illegal path.

[…]

At the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey, which hands out more temporary work visas than anywhere else in the world, Edmundo Bermudez, a 36-year-old from the northern city of Durango, was especially offended by reports that preference would be given to migrants with degrees and specialized skills.

“The United States already has enough people with college degrees. Who is going to cut their tobacco?” asked Bermudez, who has been working intermittently in the U.S. for the past eight years. In Mexico, he makes about $10 a day, while in the U.S. he earns $8 an hour.

Given the difference between what he can earn in Mexico and what he can earn in the United States, it’s understandable that Bermudez wants to work in the United States.

But has it occurred to him to ask the obvious: “Why can’t Mexicans earn $8 an hour in Mexico?”

People have left Mexico by the millions. What’s going on down there?

Tags: Immigration, immigration reform, Mexico

Posted by Paul at 7:45 PM | Permalink

I’m reading everything as I try to understand the “deal.” I’d like to inform myself and maybe help to inform you, too. What, exactly, does the “deal” consist of? I’ve read a lot of opinion and conclusory observation, but I’d rather read facts.

In my quest for understanding, I found this post by Dafydd at Big Lizards. (Hey, it’s his blog. He can call it whatever he likes.) Dafydd’s post is the best summary of the immigration reform deal I’ve read so far. The post includes opinion, but it’s not unsupported opinion. He cites his references.

I’m not endorsing Dafydd’s reform-friendly observations; I don’t yet know enough to say whether S. 1348 should become law. I do know the calamitous reaction of others gives me pause, as does the bill’s endorsement by Senators Kennedy and McCain. And according to AP, the bill provides for de facto amnesty without first securing the border.** That’s wildly improvident.

But I’m keeping an open mind and trying to get my head around the facts. If the facts are also of interest to you, and I know they are, Dafydd’s post is a good place to begin your reading.

**Per AP, the 12 million illegal aliens now here “could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.”

Tags: Immigration, illegal immigration, immigration reform

Posted by Paul at 11:44 PM | Permalink

John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States

Jan Crawford Greenburg, Supreme Court correspondent for ABC News and author of “Supreme Conflict,” says Chief Justice John Roberts is changing the American legal landscape:

This is a Supreme Court engaged in a fierce battle of ideas, a big-picture struggle over the role of the Court and the direction it’s going to take. When you talk about long-range influence over the law, it’s the ideas that define the Court. It’s a Court in struggle — not for the vote of one justice, but for an intellectual mooring.

It’s the Roberts Court v. the Stevens Court.

And as this term is beginning to make clear, in that battle, Roberts’ vision is going to win out.

This is good news for political liberals. Yes, the Roberts Court will occasionally issue decisions of which liberals disapprove. For example, the Court is likely, as Greenburg notes, to launch a frontal assault on affirmative action. (There is, after all, this small matter of the 14th Amendment.)

But most of the time, conservative jurists show deference to the elected branches of Government. Democrats are now in control of Congress, and they’re likely to retake the White House next year. It is to them that deference will be shown.

The irony is striking. For years, Republicans fought to reshape the judiciary in the belief that their ideas would benefit from a more modest Supreme Court. But the GOP’s efforts are coming to fruition just as the Nation’s policy-making apparatus is changing hands.

Tags: Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts; HT: Patterico Pontifications

Posted by Paul at 11:29 AM | Permalink

Hook. And. Tong.

[RSS and e-mail subscribers: Video appears here. Click to watch.]

Posted by Paul at 1:00 AM | Permalink

He is, uh … not kind.

[RSS and e-mail subscribers: Video appears here. Click to watch.]

Posted by Paul at 6:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

“Democrats who are highly critical of President Bush’s Iraq war strategy suffered a stinging defeat today when the Senate overwhelmingly rejected a measure to cut off money for the military campaign by March 31, 2008,” the New York Times reports:

The measure, in the form of an amendment to an unrelated water-projects bill, was effectively rejected, 67 to 29, with 19 Democrats voting against it in a procedural vote. Sixty “yes” votes were required for the measure to advance, so it fell short by 31 votes.

Though the vote was largely symbolic, the outcome was nevertheless significant, in that it underscored the divisions among Democrats over how to oppose the administration’s Iraq policy, as well as widespread fear of being seen as undercutting American troops.

Roll call. No Republican voted for the amendment.

Observes John Hinderaker, “The flailing around that Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats are doing on the issue reflects their need to show the base that they are trying to do something to foil the President, while the ‘No’ votes cast by Democrats from states like North Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Montana and Florida reflect, I think, not only a need to be perceived as supportive of the troops, but also a very real fear of being seen as a party of defeat and surrender.”

Posted by Paul at 5:15 PM | Permalink

VIDEO ADDED

If Rudy won this evening’s GOP presidential debate, he has Ron Paul to thank:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani won the strongest applause of Tuesday night’s first-in-the-South Republican primary when he lashed out at Texas Rep. Ron Paul for suggesting that the United States’ non-interventionist policy invited the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting,” Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq.

“They are delighted that we’re over there because Usama bin Laden has said ‘I’m glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.’ They have already now since that time they’ve killed 3,400 of our men and I don’t think it was necessary,” Paul continued.

“That’s really an extraordinary statement,” Giuliani said, interrupting FOX News panelist Wendell Goler. “That’s really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.”

“The good news,” says Dean Barnett, “is that Paul was such an embarrassment tonight, he may not be invited to the next debate. As Captain Picard might say, make it so.”

ADDED —

Posted by Paul at 10:35 PM | Permalink

The ten Republican presidential candidates will meet tonight in Columbia, South Carolina for their second debate, which airs live on Fox at 8 p.m. CT.

Relatedly, in an article titled “Why the GOP’s future belongs to Rudy,” this from the New Republic (reg. req’d.):

Giuliani is the beneficiary of an upheaval within the Republican electorate—an upheaval that was catalyzed by September 11 but is becoming apparent only now, as the GOP hosts its first primary battle since the terrorist attacks. In brief, among Republican voters, the litmus test issues of abortion and gay marriage have been losing traction, subordinated to the Iraq war and terrorism. According to the Pew Research Center, 31 percent of GOP voters name Iraq as their top priority, and 17 percent choose terrorism and security. Just 7 percent name abortion and 1 percent name gay marriage.

The article also notes the importance of Texas to Rudy’s fund raising:

Texas does not rank among the top five states in donations for either Mitt Romney or [John] McCain, and no Texas metropolitan area is a major source of cash for their bids. By contrast, for Giuliani, Texas ranks third—behind New York and California—while Dallas and Houston place second and fourth on his list of top donor cities.

Posted by Paul at 8:00 AM | Permalink

From Adobe comes a new software offering, Vlog It! If you have any interest at all in video blogging, buy a copy. Vlog It! is easy to use and designed for “talking heads” video. Plus, Adobe has never sold anything this cheaply.

Here, just for fun, I demonstrate some of Vlog It!’s features while reading a few paragraphs from WaPo’s report on the first of our gods, Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy is a judicial Lucky Pierre.

You’ll note that I let my Logitech webcam do its face-tracking thing; the result is kinda artsy, yes? But I overrode the camera’s mic in favor of my Samson CO1U. Even without speaking directly into it, the CO1U records amazingly well.

Finally, if it looks like I’m reading from a teleprompter, that’s because I am. A teleprompter is one of Vlog It!’s features.

[RSS and e-mail subscribers: Video appears here. Click to watch.]

Tags: Video blogging, Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy

Posted by Paul at 6:00 AM | Permalink

Or least he should be. Today in Houston, His Honor came clean:

“I should honestly tell you what I believe,” Mr. Giuliani said. “I should honestly tell you the things that I can evolve on, and the things that I can’t, and then you should decide.”

Ah, the sweet sound of candor.

We don’t need politicians who agree with us on everything. We need politicians who tell us the truth, including the truth about what they believe. Rudy did that today. He’s for choice; he’s for gay rights; and he’s for gun control.**

None of this is news. You and I already knew these were his views, which is why his flipping and flopping made for an undignified and disheartening spectacle.

Today, Rudy stopped pandering and started leading. He told the truth, even though his own interests may be hurt by it. A man who levels with you when it’s hard for him is one who will level with you all the time.

Honesty and integrity are not sufficient in a president. But they are necessary. And on the defining issue of our day — the struggle between the West and radical Islam — Rudy gets it right.

My friends, we have a candidate.

[**It should go without saying that I don’t share the Mayor’s opinions on gun control. I own four guns, I’m a member of the National Rifle Association, and I have a license to carry a concealed handgun. If ever you hear that my guns have been taken from me, you’ll know that I’m dead. I will not be disarmed. In this view, I am not alone, which is why widespread gun confiscation is not feasible public policy in the United States.]

Tags: Rudy Giuliani, 2008 election, Republicans

Posted by Paul at 7:19 PM | Permalink

“The excessive concern that you have for ferrets is something you should examine with a therapist.”Slate: “In 1999, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani hosted a weekly call-in program. During one show, he responded to caller David Guthartz, a ferret-rights activist who was upset over city regulations making it illegal to keep ferrets as pets.”

Slate has animated the “mayor’s famous rant.” Clear your mouth of all food and beverage, and then go hear and see.

Posted by Paul at 5:20 PM | Permalink

Asked if Republicans would accept that, he said, “I guess we are going to find out.”

Posted by Paul at 5:15 PM | Permalink

Democrats tell us we need to protect the environment and wean the Nation from its oil dependence. But their Senate leader has other ideas:

When the Democratic-controlled Senate returns from the Memorial Day recess it will take up energy legislation aimed at lowering gasoline prices, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Wednesday.

Now nobody ever said Harry Reid was a genius. But how smart would he have to be to understand the economics of conservation?

If you want to discourage the consumption of a commodity, you don’t lower its price, you raise it. For a party that proclaims its fealty to the environment and energy independence, higher gas prices are a boon.

Reid probably knows this and is just prostituting himself politically, as is his wont. But in that case, you have to wonder: Does the man believe in anything?

Tags: Democrats, environment, economics, oil, gas prices

Posted by Paul at 8:00 PM | Permalink

Jonah Goldberg says we may soon get our wish:

Netrooters may have a terrible shock in store for them when the war is over and their reason for existence is too.

Posted by Paul at 5:15 PM | Permalink

“I find your lack of faith disturbing.”

Tags: War in Iraq

Posted by Paul at 12:45 PM | Permalink

Among other things, the First Amendment guarantees your right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” But are you entitled to a response to your petition, or at least to official consideration of it?

Answer: no