SCHUMER POUNDS GOP OVER IMMIGRATION

Joining the leader of his party, Howard Dean, New York Senator Chuck Schumer is accusing the Republicans of using immigration as a central campaign issue. He says it's like Willie Horton in 1988 and gay marriage in 2004.

The tactic is clear. Democrats are on the losing side of the immigration issue. What to do? It simple! If you're on the losing side of an issue you simply demonize the winning side .... for being on the winning side!

What some (not all) Republicans are opposing is illegal immigration. Does not Chuck Schumer oppose illegal immigration? Evidently not. He's also in for a surprise if the thinks Democrats are going to ride this particular idea to victory this fall. Poll after poll shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans have grown tired of the illegal alien invasion and want something done.

Running against illegal immigration is a solid issue...and Republicans are already winning with it. I can't see Democrats being swept into power on the backs of illegal aliens ... unless, of course, those illegal aliens vote! But at least Schumer is being honest. He wants more illegal aliens...and thus potential Democratic voters...to come to the United States. If he's lucky, maybe he can even buy them off with one of his taxpayer-funded government programs.

SO MUCH FOR TRIALS

In reviewing the opinions of the Supreme Court in their Hamdan decision today, it seems pretty clear what action the Bush administration will take in the future with the detainees of the war on terror. More to the point, we know what action they will not take, at least if we rely on Justice Stevens' opinion. On page 80, in section VII of his opinion, Stevens writes:

We have assumed, as we must, that the allegations made in the Government’s charge against Hamdan are true. We have assumed, moreover, the truth of the message implicit in that charge—viz., that Hamdan is a dangerous individual whose beliefs, if acted upon, would causegreat harm and even death to innocent civilians, and who would act upon those beliefs if given the opportunity. It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the Government’s power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities in order to prevent such harm. But in undertaking to try Hamdanand subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in thisjurisdiction.

Shorter Stevens: Don't attempt to hold trials at all for GWOT detainees, and you will have no problems with us. That affirms the treatment of these detainees as POWs in some sense, but in that effort, it makes clear that these detainees have no rights to any court. Stevens only says that if the government wants to try them, then the government must use civil courts, a strange ruling nonetheless when one reviews the relevant articles of the Geneva Convention.

I'm satisfied with that agreement. Lock all of them up until Islamofascists surrender or die. When the Islamist terror networks give up their war on the United States, then we will release them. Until then, they can remain in Guantanamo Bay or wherever we set up detention facilities for them.

GOP PUTTING HEAT ON NY TIMES

The Hill magazine’s Patrick O’Connor and Jonathan Allen are reporting that the House GOP is putting the heat on the NY Times for their reporting of the SWIFT counterterrorist program. Here’s how they’re doing it:

House Republican leaders are expected to introduce a resolution today condemning The New York Times for publishing a story last week that exposed government monitoring of banking records. The resolution is expected to condemn the leak and publication of classified documents, said one Republican aide with knowledge of the impending legislation.

This is an easy decision on the GOP’s part. Not only do they condemn the NY Times’ revealing an effective counterterrorism program but they put the Democrats in the position of either voting against the NY Times’ reporting or of saying that the leaking, and reporting, of this and similar types of programs is ok with them. That’s hardly the position they want to be in.

Expect Democrats to whine about the GOP ‘playing politics with national security and First Amendment issues.’ That’s a surefire sign that they’re caught betwixt and between on a thorny issue for them. Don’t be fooled by their caterwauling. It’s just their attempt to distract from expressing their opinion on the issue of leaking vital national security programs.

EXPOSING BILL KELLER'S ARGUMENTS

That’s essentially what this letter from Treasury Secretary John Snow does.

* * *

Dear Mr. Keller:

The New York Times’ decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were “half-hearted” is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times, from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing “half-hearted” about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that “terror financiers know” our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the “public interest” in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of, even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.
What you’ve seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available, lawfully and responsibly, to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.
Sincerely,
[signed]
John W. Snow, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury

DID THE NEW YORK TIMES CROSS THE LINE BETWEEN A FREE PRESS AND TREASON?

Liberal columnist Mort Kondracke* echoed the sentiments of many Americans: The New York Times leaked information about a top secret banking operation, which was aimed at stopping terrorist financing and money transfers, because of their hatred for President George W. Bush.

President Bush implored the Times not to run their story, but the editors decided to disregard the presidential request. (One cannot help but wonder: If President Bill Clinton were our Commander-in-Chief today, would the editors at the New York Times comply with his request to kill the story? Most probably.)

Americans following the aftermath of the Times leak knew that part of the news story.

However, what most didn’t know was that the co-chairmen of the 9-11 Commission — Tom Keane and Lee Thompson — also contacted the New York Times and told them disclosure of the Treasury Department’s counterterrorism operation would hurt national security. The editors at the Times couldn’t care less and disregarded their plea, as well.

“In the past, I believe the New York Times got too close to the line separating honest journalism and betrayal. Now I think they crossed that line,” said a former intelligence officer who now works as an undercover detective for a large city police department.

“I also don’t believe someone from the [Treasury Department] leaked the information to the Times. I believe one of the lawmakers — either in the House or Senate — who opposes the war on terrorism leaked the information,” he added.

As yet, there are no comments emanating from Washingtion, DC regarding a full investigation of the leak. One source says he hopes the Justice Department assigns a special prosecutor to look into the case.

“We wasted millions of dollars on the so-called CIA leak case; how about investigating a serious leak that actually does impact [upon] US national security?” he added.

So far, the most vocal member of the Bush Administration regarding the New York Times and Los Angeles Times stories is Vice President Dick Cheney. “These [were] good, solid, sound programs. They [were] conducted in accordance with the laws of the land,” Cheney said.

“They are carried out in a manner that is fully consistent with the constitutional authority of the president,” Mr. Cheney said. He also said that he found it “offensive” that newspapers would publicize the secret program.

“What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some in the media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people,” Cheney said with obvious anger in his voice.

The New York Times stood by its coverage saying editors had judged after careful deliberations that releasing the information served the public’s interest. They didn’t explain in what way the disclosure of top secret information served the public interest, unless they include terrorists, our homegrown insurgents in congress, left-wing Stalinist groups, and your garden variety Bush-haters.

It’s been said before: Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups don’t need to spend money on intelligence gathering and analysis. Members of the US news media are de-facto intelligence agents for them.

RELATED:
Enemies Are Reading…
Austin Bay: “An Inadequate Apologie From The Axis of Abuse”

—

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

DEAN TOUTS DEMOCRAT'S PLAN

DNC Chairman Howard Dean touted the Democrats’ agenda in their weekly radio address. Here’s some of his key points:

“Democrats are determined to set a different course for our Nation, to tell the truth to the American people, to save the lives of our American soldiers and keep America safe.”

If Democrats are so determined to tell the truth, then why isn’t anyone chastising John Murtha for the whoppers he’s told recently? Why isn’t Nancy Pelosi telling him to stop using the line that an IED killed Iraqi civilians? No one said the IED killed innocent Iraqi civilians. As the Marines reported, the IED killed Marine Sgt. Miguel Terrazas. Why doesn’t Ms. Pelosi tell Mr. Murtha that there really was a gunfight that night in Haditha?

Mr. Murtha has put American soldiers at greater risk because he’s told those whoppers again & again. Soldiers on the ground in Iraq tell their stateside relatives that they’re at greater risk. Mr. Dean would be well advised to keep his mouth shut if his mission is to convince people of the latest Democratic nonsense.

“A majority of Democrats have called upon the President to change course in Iraq.”

TRANSLATION: A majority of Democrats have called on the President to change course before we win in Iraq so that Democrats don’t look like total idiots.

“Democrats have also offered a plan that asks the president to responsibly redeploy our troops.”

Mr. Dean, it’s impossible to “responsibly redeploy our troops” because the end result of Democratic-style redeployment is what most people know as cut-and-run. It’s a plan for defeat, not victory. Democrats got their way with Vietnam, the only war we ever lost. Republicans refuse to let you do to the patriotic Iraqi people what the counterculture crowd did to the courageous Vietnamese people. Period!

“The phased re-deployment strategy proposed by Democrats this week calls on the President to do the following:
– First, work with the Government of Iraq to begin a phased redeployment of United States troops from Iraq by the end of this year;”

Doesn’t this fool pay attention? He should read Mowaffak al-Rubaie’s Washington Post op-ed to familiarize himself with the plan that President Bush has agreed to with the sovereign Iraqi government. Here’s the most important statement Mr. Rubaie makes, in the first paragraph no less:

“There is, however, an unofficial “road map” to foreign troop reductions that will eventually lead to total withdrawal of U.S. troops. This road map is based not just on a series of dates but, more important, on the achievement of set objectives for restoring security in Iraq.”

It’d be nice if Mr. Dean paid attention to that roadmap instead of blustering on about the Democrats’ plan.

– Second, submit a plan to Congress by the end of 2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq;

Mr. Dean, see above statement by Mr. Rubaie.

– Third, we have also told the President that we demand accountability for the resources being spent in Iraq. The cost of the Iraq war will be at least one trillion dollars, enough to finance a health care program for every single American, including our veterans coming home from the war.

Who are you to demand accountability for the resources being spent there? You don’t have a vote in appropriating money to the war effort. Democratic senators and representatives do. It’s their responsibility to make sure the money’s being spent on the highest priorities in Iraq before they appropriate the money. If they aren’t doing that before the vote is taken, then they should be ashamed of themselves.

– Fourth, expedite the transition of United States forces in Iraq to a limited presence and mission of training, providing logistical support, protecting United States infrastructure and personnel, and participating in targeted counterterrorism activities.

Seriously, have you paid even a minute amount of attention to Iraq? I’d seriously doubt it based on this statement because we’ve been in a mostly logistical and support role for at least six months now. If you’re finally figuring this out now, snap with it. You’re ages behind, which isn’t surprising.

– Finally, our plan recognizes that during and after the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, the United States will need to sustain a non-military effort to actively support reconstruction, governance, and a durable political solution in Iraq.

Again, where have you been? Mr. Dean, is it that you only pay attention to the things revolving around your head in your make-believe universe? Get a clue.

Most of the ‘Democratic plan’ has been in place for half a year or better, with the lone exception being setting timelines. And that ain’t gonna happen until there’s icicles hanging from the ceiling in Hades.

We see an America where we are all on the same team again, working together to deal with problems American Families face, Defense, Security, Health Care, Jobs.

The only division in America is the Democratic-caused division. The Bush administration is dealing with defending this nation and providing for true national security. The Bush economic plan dug us out of a recession and 9/11. Since then, it’s creating jobs at a rate comparable to the Clinton record.

Simply put, it’s time for Mr. Dean’s Democrats to take the blinders off and to stop Bush-hating.