So in the end, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the BDS*-suffering left over the leak of Joe Wilson’s wife’s name to the press comes to nothing.

According to a new book, the original source of the leak was Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State under then Secretary of State Colin Powell. Armitage, described by columnist Robert Novak as “not a partisan gunslinger”, apparently had no political motive in revealing Plame’s name. Karl Rove and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby then merely confirmed this already-known information in brief conversations with a couple of other reporters.

The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone.

So it was not an effort by the administration to punish Joe Wilson for “speaking truth to power.” There was an effort of course to refute Wilson’s false claims about his trip to Niger, but those efforts were completely legitimate; they were not “punishment”. As we noted before, debunking Lyin’ Joe Wilson is not a crime. The revelation of Valerie Plame’s name was a barely-signifiicant side issue.

Now, it’s past time for Patrick Fitzgerald to wrap up his inquiry and end this thing.

More:
Memorandum
Captain’s Quarters
The Corner
JustOneMinute

Update: And more today (8/29/06) from The Washington Post and Christopher Hitchens

Probably not, as this effort from The Washington Post illustrates.

We noted all the shoddy press coverage of the hurricane and its aftermath at the time. See for example here and here. More Katrina related stuff here.

The Post piece fails to even mention any of the unrealistic expectations, hysteria and outright falsehoods spread by the mainstream media after the hurricane. They merely note that the president’s poll numbers dipped after the hurricane. That’s always the bottom line for many, driving down the president’s poll numbers.

Austin Bay has an excellent post (quoting Tom Nichols) debunking the “Bush lied about Iraqi WMD” slander once again.

This slander, promulgated by so many on the left, from the angry nutroots bloggers up to senior Democratic Party leaders like Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean, has been grossly irresponsible, undermining the Commander in Chief with false attacks in the middle of a war. Either these Democrats don’t really believe we are at war, or they don’t care, putting their quest for power above all else. Either way, they cannot be trusted with a majority in Congress in 2006 or with the presidency in 2008.

Here are a couple of excerpts from Bay’s post, quoting Nichols; read the whole thing.

All this talk about “deception” regarding the question of WMD in Iraq has really turned into Monday-morning quarterbacking of the very worst kind. The issue-from the point of view of political decisionmaking and any putative “deception”-is not whether there were WMD in Iraq before the war, or whether we’ll ever find any, but rather whether any reasonable person could have believed that Saddam was hiding WMD and WMD programs in Iraq as late as 2003. The answer to that should be obvious.

The bottom line:

The simple fact of the matter is that it would have imprudent-and just plain dumb-to take on faith Saddam Hussein’s assurances about the destruction of his WMD stocks. He had them, he used them, he claimed to destroy them, but wouldn’t allow anyone to verify that claim. To say now that it should have been obvious in 2003 that there were no WMD in Iraq, given the history of the regime and the behavior of its mad dictator, is not only unsupportable, it is irresponsible, and even borders on silly.

Exactly. A president must make decisions based on the information he has available when the decision is made, not based on any and all information that may come out later. We only know what we know now because President Bush acted, so the Democrats are in effect using (twisting) information the President gave them to (falsely) attack him.

What would a President Gore (shudder) or a President Kerry (shudder) do when their CIA Director told them “it’s a slam dunk” that a terror-sponsoring regime with a history of developing and using WMD is continuing to do so?

Of course the Democrats understand this, they’re simply not being honest about it.

The most surprising thing about this editorial against the Democrats’ silly and somewhat Marxist demonization of Wal-mart is that it appears in the Los Angeles Times:

WITH ONE EYE ON 2008 and one on their labor union base, Democratic luminaries are canvassing Iowa and other states this summer to campaign against the nation’s incumbent … retailer. They obviously see Wal-Mart as this season’s Enron, the one corporation that represents all that is wrong with America.

Too bad the party can’t simply draft Costco or Target to run for president. Instead, Democratic presidential aspirants “” including Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico “” feel compelled to bash one company, the largest employer in the U.S., to score points with labor organizers. The candidates are so intent on gaining tactical advantage in the primary season that they risk alienating possible supporters in the general election.

Well, almost no one is wrong 100% of the time. But still, it is shocking to see such a sensible piece from the Times editorial board.

More:
Townhall Blog

Having experienced some success in their work in favor of the Webb campaign in Virginia, the The Washington Post has a couple of new Republican targets in its sights:

A new video released this week by his Democratic challenger, Jon Tester, shows Burns, 71, joking to a crowd in June about how a “nice little Guatemalan man” fixing up his house might be an illegal immigrant. “Could I see your green card?” Burns tells the crowd he asked the man. “And Hugo, says, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Oh, gosh.’ ”

A Burns spokesman said the senator never really doubted the legal status of the handyman, Hugo Reyes. But it wasn’t the only time Burns — a critic of illegal immigration — has poked fun at the immigrants doing work around his house.

The Washington Post is in full campaign mode, going after any trivial issue they can find to help out any Democrat they can. Today’s non-issue issue – Republican Senator Conrad Burns of Montana referred to a Guatemalan contractor as a – get ready – a “Guatemalan”. Not only that, but the Senator actually joked about illegal immigration. We haven’t seen the memo, but apparently it is now prohibited in America to joke about illegal immigration in any way. This is nothing but a cheap, ridiculous hit piece by the Post. There is nothing derogatory or remotely racist about what Burns said.

Also accused by the Post of being “racially insensitive” is Republican Paul Nelson, a candidate for Congress from Wisconsin:

Also on tape are comments by Wisconsin GOP House candidate Paul R. Nelson, which critics have said are similarly racially insensitive. Nelson, who is running against Rep. Ron Kind (D), has called for racial profiling as a way to tighten airport security. When asked by a radio interviewer how to identify a Muslim male, Nelson said: “Well, you know, if he comes in wearing a turban and his name is Muhammad, that’s a good start.”

Whether one thinks Muslim males should be given additional scrutiny at the airport or not is a debate we need to have, but suggesting that Muslims be given additional scrutiny in no way constitutes “racial insensitivity.” “Muslim” is not a race. Somehow that simple fact was missed by the “journalist” at the Post.

The only effects of this nonsense are to make the Post look overtly partisan and to trivialize real racism.

The Washington Post continues its campaign in favor of James Webb, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senator from Virginia, today with another front page story about incumbent Senator George Allen’s use of the ‘M’ word:

RICHMOND — The nationwide fallout from controversial remarks Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) made last week has given [The Washington Post and other] Democrats new hope in a race many thought would be difficult to win in the historically conservative state.

Not being from Virginia, we have no great interest in this campaign, other than the general desire that the Republicans maintain their majority position in the Senate. This is not about George Allen, it is about a major national newspaper openly shilling for one side in a political campaign. Allen’s name-calling was not the smartest move ever, but it doesn’t come close to warranting three front page stories in the Post.

Links to two news articles occur adjacent to each other on the blog tracking site Memorandum today (See here and here), that seem to tell two completely different stories about the roots of the terror threat in Britain.

From the Washington Post:

Young Muslim Rage Takes Root in Britain
Unemployment, Foreign Policy Fuel Extremism

“…Britain has become an incubator for violent Islamic extremism, fueled by disenchantment at home and growing rage about events abroad, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

….

In one of Europe’s largest Muslim communities, young men face a lack of jobs, poor educational achievement and discrimination in a highly class-oriented culture. Prime Minister Tony Blair is the most outspoken ally of President Bush, and their policies in Iraq and Afghanistan are seen by many Muslims as aimed at Islam.

But from the UK Telegraph, contrast the article headlined “University students at centre of terror plots“:

The recruitment of Muslim students at British universities to take part in terrorist attacks is at the heart of the alleged plot to blow up passenger jets, it is feared.

A dossier of extremist Islamic literature has been uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph on the campus of a north London university, one of whose students has suspected links to the alleged terrorist attack.

Waheed Zaman, 22, a bio-chemistry student and the president of the Islamic Society at London Metropolitan University, was one of 24 people arrested last week. Material found at two portable buildings used by the society includes documents advocating jihad and a pamphlet on how to deal with approaches from the security services.

….

Extremist Muslim groups had been detected at more than 20 institutions, both former polytechnics and long-established universities, over the past 15 years, Prof Glees said.

….

According to security sources, “several” of the 23 people still in custody over the alleged plot last week are suspected of links to universities, appearing to confirm growing fears that campuses are providing Britain’s biggest security threat.

So if The Washington Post is correct, that unemployment and rage at foreign policy cause extremism, how many Britons who are unemployed, against British foreign policy, and non-Muslim have been found to have plotted to blow up airliners? Perhaps the common denominator here is not employment status or objection to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And if the rage is being fueled by unemployment and lack of education, why are so many of the plotters tied to British universities?

The view from the Post looks like nothing more than a rehash of the old left-wing “poverty causes crime” canard, re-tooled as the “poverty causes jihad” canard.

The pro-Hezbollah rallies in Dearborn, Michigan seem to have spread to Washington D.C. over the weekend:

Lebanon Supporters Converge at White House
Families, Activists Travel to Demand Cease-Fire, Protest Actions of U.S. and Israel

Thousands of people came from across town, across the river or across the country to circle the White House yesterday in a passionate demonstration supporting Lebanon, the country at the center of the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.

Hundreds of red-white-and-green Lebanese flags bearing the country’s emblematic cedar tree waved beneath Lafayette Square’s canopy of elms as demonstrators demanded a cease-fire, many of them mourning their war-ravaged homeland.

….

The primary organizer was the ANSWER coalition, a left-wing group that has sponsored numerous antiwar rallies that often attract socialists and anarchists. The National Council of Arab Americans and the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation also were sponsors.

….

By early afternoon, the march wound its way around the White House. As the marchers turned onto 15th Street NW, they encountered about two dozen counter-protesters.

“There is no other God but Jesus!” shouted one of the counter-protesters. He held a megaphone in one hand, a Bible in the other.

The crowd shouted back: “Rah, rah, Hezbollah!” and “Long live Hezbollah!”

Syed Hussain, 19, of Columbia carried a neon green sign that read: “Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization.”

“They’re just defending themselves,” Hussain said. “I hope this rally helps to show people that, so when they see us shouting ‘Hezbollah,’ they know what it means.”

Yes, Mr. Hussain, we know what it means. It means you have sympathy for a terrorist group that has murdered hundreds of your fellow Americans and preaches genocide against Jews.

Also:

“Tolerant lefties for peace” rally in San Francisco and D.C rally video.
More Dearborn news
More photos from the D.C. rally

From The Washington Post:

The aggressive Democratic response to this week’s foiled terrorist plot reflects a widely shared view among party strategists that intensified attacks against President Bush represent the best chance to offset what historically has been a clear Republican advantage whenever national security issues become more prominent, Democratic officials said yesterday.

….

At the same time, Democratic leaders in Washington moved on several fronts to accuse Republicans of exploiting terrorism fears for political gain — and to warn that Democrats will respond to weak-on-security attacks of the sort launched by Vice President Cheney on Wednesday.

There you have it – the Democrats’ strategy is not to press for better strategies for stopping terrorists and for a renewed commitment to victory in Iraq, but “intensified attacks against President Bush”. BDS* is the central paradigm of the Democratic Party today. There’s no way they can be trusted with power, they have no idea who the real enemy is.

And just how disingenuous can these people be? Their response to every issue is to try to figure out how they can exploit it to maximum political effect, while simultaneously complaining that the Republicans are politicizing the issue. Seemingly everything, including ultimate success or failure in the war against the Islamic terrorists, takes a back seat to trying to win back a majority in Congress in November, and the White House in 2008. Such bald-faced doubletalk really takes a huge amount of nerve (as well as a sympathetic liberal press that won’t ever call them on it).

Just a day or two ago, Democrats were whining and complaining that the Republicans had sent out a fundraising letter that merely mentioned the terrorist threat. How dare the Republicans mention the most important issue of the day during a political campaign! Apparently, only issues of lesser importance may be mentioned to voters.

Good article today from OpinionJournal.com:

‘Mass Murder’ Foiled
A terror plot is exposed by the policies many American liberals oppose.

“This wasn’t supposed to happen today,” a U.S. official told the Washington Post of the arrests and terror alert. “It was supposed to happen several days from now. We hear the British lost track of one or two guys. They had to move.” Meanwhile, British antiterrorism chief Peter Clarke said at a news conference that the plot was foiled because “a large number of people” had been under surveillance, with police monitoring “spending, travel and communications.”

Let’s emphasize that again: The plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications. Which leads us to wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or the New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs.

And almost on political cue yesterday, Members of the Congressional Democratic leadership were using the occasion to suggest that the U.S. is actually more vulnerable today despite this antiterror success. Harry Reid, who’s bidding to run the Senate as Majority Leader, saw it as one more opportunity to insist that “the Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists.”

Hmm, “spending, travel, and communications.” Spending. Travel. Communications. Patriot Act anyone? NSA surveillance of international calls anyone? Treasury Dept. analysis of international bank transfers anyone? Helllllllo? Liberals?

And how about Harry “we killed the Patriot Act” Reid using the circumstance of a successful effort to stop a terrorist plot to complain the Bush Administration isn’t focusing enough on the terrorism threat? What a genius!

Voters must remember this in November. The Democrats are simply not serious about national defense and the threat of Islamic terrorism.

Via Memorandum, we get this USA Today story about discrimination against Muslims in America and a Gallup poll showing that many Americans mistrust Muslims. The USA Today article defines discrimination broadly, anything from a rude comment to assault.

And from NPR, a profile of the Lebanese-American community in Dearborn Michigan includes this:

Osama Siblani runs the Arab-American News, America’s largest such newspaper. He says the fighting is fueling anger in his community — not at Hezbollah, but at the Bush administration.

“The anger that you see in the Arab community, you do not see in the eyes of the American community,” says Siblani. “They’re not viewing the same thing. And the perspective you get out of Jazeera or Arabiya, you do not get it out of Fox News or CNN.”

Siblani says many in the community who opposed Hezbollah before the fighting have now changed their minds. The U.S. State Department has designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Siblani disagrees.

“The terrorist here is the Bush administration,” he says.

….

Daily protests occur in Dearborn. At one recent demonstration, organized by the Congress of Arab-Americans, about 1,000 people attended. College-age men asked, in call and response fashion, “Who is your army?” Protestors responded: “Hezbollah.” “Who is your leader?” they were asked. “Nasrallah,” the chanters responded. Many carried placards of the Hezbollah leader. A few days earlier at an even larger demonstration, more than 15,000 turned out, about half of Dearborn’s Arab community.

Those who regularly attend the demonstrations tend to be the most strident.

“Oh, Jews, remember Khaibar,” the marchers chant. “The army of the Prophet will return.”

The line is a reference to Khaibar, a Jewish town north of Medina that, according to Islamic tradition, was overtaken by the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century. Once defeated, the surviving Jews of Khaibar were forced into serfdom. Two decades later, they were expelled from the Arabian peninsula.

Perhaps there’s a connection between these two stories. Such an open demonstration of support for our Islamic terrorist enemies in an American city is chilling. This is not to suggest that all Muslims in America deserve discrimination because a few seditious idiots in Dearborn decide to go out and rally for Hezbollah (Yes, we do question their patriotism. Anyone who cheers for Hezbollah is not a decent, loyal American). But a certain level of mistrust is not completely irrational either, given the battle we’re in. Maybe it would help if more American Muslims spoke out directly against this sort of demonstration. And we sure hope the FBI is there for those daily pep rallies for Hezbollah.

Robert Kagan writes in The Washington Post that Senator Joe Lieberman is in trouble because he refuses to dishonestly run away from his support for the liberation of Iraq like so many of his fellow Democrats have been doing:

The Last Honest Man

No, Lieberman’s sin is of a different order. Lieberman stands condemned today because he didn’t recant. He didn’t say he was wrong. He didn’t turn on his former allies and condemn them. He didn’t claim to be the victim of a hoax. He didn’t try to pretend that he never supported the war in the first place. He didn’t claim to be led into support for the war by a group of writers and intellectuals whom he can now denounce. He didn’t go through a public show of agonizing and phony soul-baring and apologizing in the hopes of resuscitating his reputation, as have some noted “public intellectuals.”

These have been the chosen tactics of self-preservation ever since events in Iraq started to go badly and the war became unpopular. Prominent intellectuals, both liberal and conservative, have turned on their friends and allies in an effort to avoid opprobrium for a war they publicly supported. Journalists have turned on their fellow journalists in an effort to make them scapegoats for the whole profession. Politicians have twisted themselves into pretzels to explain away their support for the war or, better still, to blame someone else for persuading them to support it.

Al Gore, the one-time Clinton administration hawk, airbrushed that history from his record. He turned on all those with whom he once agreed about Iraq and about many other foreign policy questions. And for this astonishing reversal he has been applauded by his fellow Democrats and may even get the party’s nomination.

Apparently, amazingly, dispiritingly, it all works. At least in the short run, dishonesty pays. Dissembling pays. Forgetting your past writings and statements pays. Condemning those with whom you once agreed pays. Phony self-flagellation followed by self-righteous self-congratulation pays. The only thing that doesn’t pay is honesty. If Joe Lieberman loses, it will not be because he supported the war or even because he still supports it. It will be because he refused to choose one of the many dishonorable paths open to him to salvage his political career.

He is the last honest man, and he may pay the price for it. At least he will be able to sleep at night. And he can take some solace in knowing that history, at least an honest history, will be kinder to him than was his own party.

There’s a certain irony here in that Lieberman felt compelled to run away from many of his own positions when he was chosen to run with Al Gore in 2000. But Senator Lieberman is to be credited for remaining steadfast on the major issue of our time, the war on terror. It is shameful that so many of his fellow Democrats want to punish his honesty and steadfastness. But that is, unfortunately, the Democratic Party today.

Others:
Captain’s Quarters
Hugh Hewitt