IN WASHINGTON, IT'S ALWAYS THE YEAR OF THE RAT

by Ann Coulter

Democrats have leapt on reports of mold, rats and bureaucratic hurdles at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as further proof of President George Bush's failed war policies.

To the contrary, the problems at Walter Reed are further proof of the Democrats' failed domestic policies -- to wit, the civil service rules that prevent government employees from ever being fired. (A policy that also may account for Robert Byrd's longevity as a U.S. senator.)

Thanks to the Democrats, government employees have the world's most complicated set of job protection rules outside of the old East Germany. Oddly enough, this has not led to a dynamic workforce in the nation's capital.

Noticeably, the problems at Walter Reed are not with the doctors or medical care. The problems are with basic maintenance at the facility.

Unless U.S. Army generals are supposed to be spraying fungicide on the walls and crawling under beds to set rattraps, the slovenly conditions at Walter Reed are not their fault. The military is nominally in charge of Walter Reed, but -- because of civil service rules put into place by Democrats -- the maintenance crew can't be fired.

If the general "in charge" can't fire the people not doing their jobs, I don't know why he is being held responsible for them not doing their jobs.

You will find the exact same problems anyplace market forces have been artificially removed by the government and there is a total absence of incentives, competition, effective oversight, cost controls and so on. It's almost like a cause-and-effect thing.

The Washington Post could have done the same report on any government facility in the Washington, D.C., area.

In a typical story from the nation's capital, last year, a 38-year-old woman died at the hospital after her blood pressure dropped and a D.C. ambulance took 90 minutes to pick her up and take her to a hospital that was five minutes away. For 90 minutes, the 911 operator repeatedly assured the woman's sister that the ambulance was on its way.

You read these stories every few months in Washington.

New York Times reporter David Rosenbaum also died in Washington last year after being treated to the famed work ethic of the average government employee. Rosenbaum was mugged near his house and hit on the head with a pipe. A neighbor found him lying on the sidewalk and immediately called 911.

First, the ambulance got lost on the way to Rosenbaum. Then, instead of taking him to the closest emergency room, the ambulance took him to Howard University Hospital, nearly 30 minutes away, because one of the "emergency medical technicians" had personal business in the area.

Once he finally arrived at the hospital, Rosenbaum was left unattended on a gurney for 90 minutes because the "emergency medical technicians" had completely missed his head injury and listed him as "drunk" and "low priority."

Months later, the deputy mayor for public safety told The Washington Post that "to the best of his knowledge, no one involved in the incident had been fired."

No one has any authority over civil service employees in the nation's capital. Bush probably lives in terror of White House janitors. The White House bathroom could be flooding and he'd be told: "I'll get to you when I get to you. Listen, fella, you're fifth on my list. I'm not making any promises, just don't flush for the next week."

It's especially adorable how Democrats and the media are acting like these are the first rats ever sighted in the Washington, D.C., area. There are rats in the Capitol building. There are rats in The Washington Post building. Bush has seen rats. But let's leave Chuck Hagel out of this for now.

On "ABC News" last year, a CBS radio reporter described a rat jumping off the camera in the White House press briefing room in the middle of a press conference. (And a shrew sits right in the front!) The Washington Post called the White House press room -- located between the residence and the Oval Office -- "a broken-down, rat-infested fire trap." During David Gregory's stand-up report on MSNBC about the damage done to Republicans by conditions at Walter Reed, rats appeared to be scurrying on the ground behind him.

Instead of an investigative report on the problems at Walter Reed, how about an investigative report on what happens when the head of janitorial services at Walter Reed is told about the dirt, mold and rats at the facility? If it's before 2:30 in the afternoon and he's still at work and he hasn't taken a "sick day," a "vacation day," a "personal day" or a "mental health day," I predict the answer will be: "I'm on my break."

The Democrats' response is: We must pass even more stringent rules to ensure that all government employees get every single break so that public-sector unions will continue giving massive campaign donations to the Democrats.

This was, you will recall, the precise issue that led to a partisan battle over the Homeland Security bill a few years ago: Whether employees at an emergency terrorist response agency could be fired -- as Republicans wanted -- or if they would be subject to civil service rules and unfireable -- as the Democrats wanted.

HELLO? HOMELAND SECURITY? THERE'S A BOMB IN THE WELL OF THE SENATE!

Sorry, not my job. Try the Department of Public Works.

When Republican Saxby Chambliss challenged Democrat Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, he ran an ad attacking Cleland for demanding civil service protections for workers at the Homeland Security Department. Naturally, Republicans were accused of hating veterans for mentioning Cleland's vote on the Homeland Security bill.

Now that the Democrats are once again pretending to give a damn about the troops by wailing about conditions at Walter Reed, how about some Republican -- maybe Chambliss! -- introduce a bill to remove civil service protections from employees at Walter Reed and all veterans' hospitals? You know, a bill that would actually address the problem.

And don't worry about the useless, slothful government employees who can only hold jobs from which they cannot be fired. We'll get them jobs at the EPA and Department of Education.

MEXICO LECTURING THE U.S. AGAIN

George Bush is in Mexico...and this Mexican president down there is about to get on everybody's last nerve. He actually had the gall yesterday to blame the problem of illegal immigration on the United States. He also whined about the border fence and said Americans shouldn't do so many drugs. Perhaps we need more of what he's smoking.

So this character, whose name is Felipe Calderon, is upset about our 700-mile border fence. If that makes him upset...I wonder how mad he'd get if we put up a real border fence...you know, one that is 2,000 miles long. He also complained that he couldn't reduce drug production in Mexico with demand so high in the States. The truth probably is that he doesn't want to reduce illicit drug production ... or can't.

In the face of all of this rhetoric Bush was intent on doing all he could to appease those who enable and promote the Mexican invasion of the U.S.

Addressing El Presidente directly, Bush said: "In the debate on migration, I remind my fellow citizens that family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River, that there are decent, hardworking honorable citizens of Mexico who want to make a living for their families. And so, Mr. President, my pledge to you and your government, but, more importantly, the people of Mexico, is I will work as hard as I possibly can to pass comprehensive immigration reform."

Translation: OK, here you go: "I will do all I can to secure amnesty for the Mexicans who have already illegally crossed the border into the United States, and we'll try to make it easier for more of you to follow."

So once again the Mexican government takes no blame for their weak border security and the 12 million criminal immigrants invading our country. Thanks guys. And oh, by the way, when is somebody going to ask the president of Mexico why so many of its citizens want to leave their country? Oh, and the Mexican president compared our border fence to the Berlin Wall. Wrong...the Berlin Wall was to keep people in....we're' trying to keep people out. Big difference.

NO SHE DID'NT.......UH, YES SHE DID

Clinton: Right-Wing Conspiracy Is Back

By DEVLIN BARRETT

It just so happens that many of those places where people are waiting for hours are places where people of color are voting or young people are voting. That is un-American, and we're going to end it

The 'vast, right-wing conspiracy' is back, presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is warning, using a phrase she once coined to describe partisan plotting.

Once derided for her use of the phrase, Clinton is now trying to turn the imagery to her advantage.

Speaking Tuesday to Democratic municipal officials, the New York senator used the term to hammer Republicans on election irregularities.

She also used the phrase similarly during a campaign appearance over the weekend in New Hampshire.

Clinton was first lady when she famously charged allegations of an affair between her then-president husband Bill Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky were the result of a conservative conspiracy.

As evidence of the affair eventually came to light, the comment was ridiculed.But many Democrats have since insisted that Clinton was correct, pointing to the well-documented efforts by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife to fund a network of anti-Clinton investigations.

On Tuesday, she asserted the conspiracy is alive and well, and cited as proof the Election Day 2002 case of phone jamming in New Hampshire, a case in which two Republican operatives pleaded guilty to criminal charges, and a third was convicted.

'To the New Hampshire Democratic party's credit, they sued and the trail led all the way to the Republican National Committee,' Clinton said.

'So if anybody tells you there is no vast right-wing conspiracy, tell them that New Hampshire has proven it in court,' she said.

Former RNC operative James Tobin was convicted of telephone harassment and appealed his conviction. The investigation arose after Democratic organizers' phones were overwhelmed by annoying hang-up calls hindering their get-out-the-vote efforts.

Clinton accused the GOP of a number of other anti-voter actions, including intimidating phone calls during the contentious 2006 congressional elections.

New Hampshire Democratic Party chairwoman Kathy Sullivan said she absolutely agreed with the senator's description of the case.

'People think we're paranoid when we talk about the vast right-wing conspiracy, but there is a real connection of these groups _ the same names keep popping up,' said Sullivan. 'They are the most disgusting group of political thugs that I have ever seen.'

RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt responded that Democrats 'might be disappointed to learn that almost a decade later, the senator's playbook consists of little more than a resurrection of Clinton-era talking points.'

Clinton made her charge of conspiracy in response to a question about her proposed bill that would make Election Day a federal holiday, and make it a crime to send misleading or fraudulent information to voters.

She also said the government should do more to end unusually long lines at certain polling places.

'It just so happens that many of those places where people are waiting for hours are places where people of color are voting or young people are voting. That is un-American, and we're going to end it,' Clinton said.

PANDERING TO MEXICO

George Bush is traveling to Mexico to meet with Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Perhaps Felipe will have some medal to award to President Bush for his support of the Mexican invasion of the United States.

The issue, of course, will be what they will call the "immigration" problem, and what really should be called the Mexican invasion of the United States. The idea of a border fence will surely be discussed. I heard on the news this morning that some think the fence sends a message that Latin Americans aren't welcome in the United States. Nonsense. It sends a message that the United States is a government of laws and that people who break those laws are not welcome in the United States. It's about the law. Just follow the law. Sure, we're a nation of immigrants. But we're a nation of legal immigrants! What kind of respect for the rule of law do you have when your very presence here is based on a violation of those laws?

Don't let George Bush fool you with these references to "comprehensive immigration reform." The "comprehensive" word is just another way of saying that we must have amnesty. Bush's goal is to forgive the illegal activities of the 12 to 20 million criminal aliens we have in this country and to give them a shortcut to legal residency and citizenship.

Can we stop the invasion by building a fence along the border? Probably not, though it would certainly be a good start. The real way to stop the invasion is to remove the reason these people swarm across our border ... jobs. Make the penalties harsh ... very harsh ... on any employer in the United States who knowingly or carelessly hires a criminal alien. We can then set up a guest worker program administered through a series of employment agencies operating under strict government oversight ... only workers with guest worker permits can get jobs, and guest worker permits are only available in the countries of their citizenship. All payments are made through the employment agencies .. and the payments stop when the job is over.

THE SURRENDER DEMOCRATS SURRENDER

By Michelle Malkin

***update:*** The Washington Post blasts the Pelosi plan. Writes the editorial board: "It makes perfect sense, if the goal is winning votes in the United States." Wow. There's more:

THE RESTRICTIONS on Iraq war funding drawn up by the House Democratic leadership are exquisitely tailored to bring together the party's leftist and centrist wings. For the Out of Iraq Caucus, which demands that Congress force a withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of this year, there is language that appears to deliver that mandate, albeit indirectly. For those who prefer a more moderate course, there is another withdrawal deadline, in August 2008. Either way, almost all American troops would be out of Iraq by the time the next election campaign begins in earnest. And there are plenty of enticements on the side: more money for wounded veterans, for children's health, for post-Hurricane Katrina reconstruction.

The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending President Bush's supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year -- a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world's second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.

In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself.

***

Doing what they do best: Dems abandon war authority provision.

Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy.

The developments occurred as Democrats pointed toward an initial test vote in the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday on the overall bill, which would require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, if not earlier. The measure provides nearly $100 billion to pay for fighting in two wars, and includes more money than the president requested for operations in Afghanistan and what Democrats called training and equipment shortages.

The White House has issued a veto threat against the bill, and Vice President Dick Cheney attacked its supporters in a speech, declaring they "are telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out."

It's not just Republicans balking:

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.

"It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," she said of the now-abandoned provision.

"I didn't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way," said Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York.

Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially hostile regime in Tehran.

And here's another Dem with sense:

"This supplemental should be about supporting the troops and providing what they need," said Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., on Monday upon returning from a trip to Iraq. Boren said he plans to oppose any legislation setting a clear deadline for troops to leave.

Cheney's full remarks, btw, are here.

THE PROTESTS CONTINUE DOWN SOUTH

President Bush's tour of South America continues....and so do the protests. Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez is shooting off his big mouth, calling capitalism the "road to hell." Oh really? The one economic system responsible for lifting more of the world's people out of poverty than any other in the history of mankind is the "road to hell?"

It's easy to criticize capitalism...it feels so good, doesn't it? You see, because capitalism is an individual pursuit. You sit on your ass all day and complain about how rough you have it ... you eschew work ... you make lousy decisions ... and you go without. On the other hand if you recognize that the 40-hour work week is for those who pursue mediocrity; you consider each decision carefully, and you don't wait for others to do for you when you can do for yourself .. and you end up sitting pretty.

The chink in the armor of people like Hugo Chavez and Hillary Clinton has always been that they need the rich. Because without the tax revenues brought in by the wealthy, who pay most of the taxes by the way, politicians won't have enough money to buy votes. Same thing with Chavez and some of these other Latin American dictatorships. They derive their power from the fact that they have money. Without it, they're sunk. If only there were a way to boycott Chavez's oil...and deny him the financing for his anti-Americanism. Well .. you can dream, can't you?