Continuing Fallout From President Obama's Middle East Speech

Despite the fact that the speech was largely directed at areas other than the Arab-Israeli conflict, the headlines are pretty much in concert that President Barack Obama made demands on Israel that exceed anything demanded by the US in the past.

That's simply wrong, but the Administration isn't stepping forward to address the situation.

The fact that President Obama says that the borders of a 2-state solution will be along the 1967 lines with land swaps is essentially the same exact language used by President George H.W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, and President George W. Bush. In many respects, the speech carries on the policy prescriptions of President Bush, who wanted Israel to have secure and defensible borders:

Initially, the Clinton administration supported the idea of defensible borders in its January 17, 1997, letter by Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But with the 2001 Clinton Parameters, the idea of defensible borders was dropped and replaced by "security guarantees." Indeed, Clinton proposed "an international presence in Palestine to provide border security along the Jordan Valley."

In contrast, Bush refers to defensible borders in the context of preserving and strengthening "Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself."

Here's the entirety of what Obama said about Israel's borders:

We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

That's a formulation that essentially covers the same exact ground as laid out by President Bush. This isn't a change, but a reaffirmation of existing US policy.

Indeed, yesterday's speech actually continues a trend started by Obama's immediate predecessor by calling out allies who have acted wrongly by not respecting human rights:

He also followed Bush in attacking some US allies, calling on Bahrain and Yemen to make changes. It was a speech that enraged almost every powerful actor in the Middle East and put America out on a limb. Like Bush, Obama is willing to confront some of America’s closest allies (the Saudis, who back the crackdown in Bahrain). Like Bush, he hailed Iraq as an example of democracy and pluralism that can play a vital role in the transformation of the region. Like Bush, he proposes to work with opposition groups in friendly countries.

His policy on Israel-Palestine is also looking Bushesque. Like Bush, he wants a sovereign but demilitarized Palestinian state. Like Bush, he believes that the 1967 lines with minor and mutually agreed changes should be the basis for the permanent boundaries between the two countries — and like Bush he set Jerusalem and the refugees to one side.

The President is nailing his colors to the mast of the Anglo-American revolutionary tradition. Open societies, open economies, religious freedom, minority rights: these are revolutionary ideas in much of the world. Americans have often been globally isolated as we stand for the rights of ordinary people (like immigrant African chambermaids in New York hotels) against the privilege of elites. A faith in the capacity of the common woman and the common man to make good decisions (and in their right to make those decisions even if they are sometimes wrong) is the basis of America’s political faith; President Obama proclaimed today that this needs to be the basis of our policy in the Middle East.

While everyone is apparently focused on the Israel 1967 line/border statement, everyone is simultaneously ignoring the fact that President Obama made the clearest declaration to date that the Palestinians would never see statehood if they continue to refuse to accept a 2-state solution and press for independence via means other than direct negotiation with Israel. That's about as strong a supportive statement for Israel as one can give.

So why are so many people, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu so bent out of shape over Obama's line on borders? Even Netenyahu knows that the borders aren't going to be exactly along the 1967 line (or 1948 Green Line); and that without the Palestinians accepting a 2-state solution the Israelis wont get to the point of having to worry about the delineation of the border.

For those who simply haven't read the speech or have adopted the media spin about the speech, here's the comments in question and their supporting context:

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people - not just a few leaders - must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself - by itself - against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.

This is an essential restatement of obligations under Oslo Declaration of Principles. It isn't a major divergence from existing policy.

So the media and pundits should stop treating it as such. The fact is that the media and pundits are up in arms over a speech that was anything but controversial - and if anything - made even more explicit the demand that the Palestinians give up the ghost of trying to destroy Israel or seek anything other than a 2-state solution.

UPDATE:
A few media outlets and pundits are managing to actually parse the speech correctly, including Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, Ben Smith at Politico and the Christian Science Monitor, which notes the following:

Netanyahu, who sometimes users bluster as a negotiating tool, practically ordered Obama to change course yesterday. In a statement ahead of his US trip that began today Netanyahu said a Palestinian state would not be founded "at Israel's expense" and that he "expects to hear from President Obama a reconfirmation of commitments to Israel from 2004." The Jerusalem Post characterized Netanyahu's response as "quick and bitter."

But what is the commitment from 2004? It's a letter written by President George W. Bush that ... suggests more or less the same thing that Obama said yesterday.

"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion," President Bush wrote to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April of 2004. "It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."

Now, the language of Bush's comment may be flipped a little, in the sense that he emphasizes that the borders will be different from the 1949-67 borders rather than emphasizing that those should be the starting point, but the overall sense is the same. The real contours of the borders will be determined between the Israelis and Palestinians with "mutually agreed changes" (in Bush's formulation) or "mutually agreed land swaps" (in Obama's).

In other words, this speech broke no new ground despite all the manufactured outrage.

Carter Continues Trashing Israel, Successors On MidEast Peace Process

Former President Jimmy Carter can't seem to get enough of the spotlight, and still revels in the idea that his foreign policy statements have merit.

He couldn't be more hopelessly wrong.

Carter was a failed presidency who failed to deal with the key issues during his Administration: the Iranian hostage situation was a major debacle, but so too was the crippling economic situation (the misery index) and his inability to get his own political party to buy into his worldview.

The one success he can take away wasn't even really his: the Camp David Accords was the result of Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat going to Jerusalem with an interest in making peace; without which no deal would ever have been possible. Carter was along for the ride.

In his latest book, he think that Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama didn't do enough to pressure Israel to stop building homes in the West Bank. Carter continues to believe in the nonsense that those houses are the impediment to peace.

Carter ignores the Palestinians' longstanding refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. He ignores that when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinian response was not to build an economy and utilize the infrastructure left behind as part of agricultural and business improvements, but rather started a rocket war, using those very greenhouses as terror training camps.

Carter ignores that Israel has made numerous attempts to make a peace deal with the Palestinians, but successive leaders of the Palestinian Authority (Yasir Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas) have not only refused those deals, but have failed to make counteroffers to the proposals.

The Palestinian leadership has not fulfilled its obligations under Oslo to stop inciting Palestinians to violence. Indeed, earlier this year, Israel dedicated a new synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, and top Palestinian authorities claimed that this was the first step to destroying the Dome of the Rock and al Aqsa mosques on the Temple Mount.

The Palestinian leadership isn't even united in an interest of carrying on talks; Fatah is pursuing talks but doesn't speak for all Palestinians and isn't even legitimate in the eyes of Palestinians given that elections haven't been held and Hamas controls Gaza and has the majority in the Palestinian parliament.

It is necessary to be realistic about the Palestinian intentions, positions, and statements - not just in English, but in Arabic and how they are shaping Palestinian opinions back home and in their disapora. If they continue calling for an unequivocal right of return, that's a signal that the Palestinians aren't interested in peace - or recognizing Israel's right to exist.

If they continue calling for Jerusalem as their capital and produce maps that do not show a two-state solution, that's a sign that the Palestinians aren't interested in peace. If they continue to mount terror attacks at every opportunity, it's a sign that they have no interest in peace and are engaging in their usual triangle offense that allows the Palestinians (Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, etc.) to cast blame on others for attacks while continuing to make demands at the bargaining table.

Haitian Missionary Kidnapping Case Takes a Turn Into the Weird

Just when you thought that the case of the 10 members of the New Life Children's Ministries who are charged with kidnapping and criminal association in connection with trying to take 33 Haitian kids into the Dominican Republic couldn't get weirder, it just did:

The Haitian lawyer for 10 U.S. Baptists charged with child kidnapping tried to bribe the missionaries' way out of jail and has been fired, the attorney who hired him said Saturday night.

The Haitian lawyer, Edwin Coq, denied the allegation. He said the $60,000 he requested from the Americans' families was his fee.

Jorge Puello, the attorney in the neighboring Dominican Republic retained by relatives of the 10 American missionaries after their arrest last week, told The Associated Press that he fired Coq on Friday night. He had hired Coq to represent the detainees at Haitian legal proceedings.

Coq orchestrated "some kind of extortion with government officials" that would have led to the release of nine of the 10 missionaries, Puello charged.

"He had some people inside the court that asked him for money, and he was part of this scheme," Puello said.

Coq denied the requested $60,000 payment amounted to a bribe.

Eight of the 10 arrested passed a signed note saying that they were just volunteers and had nothing to do with actual arrangements with the "adoptions". They pretty much say that Laura Silsby is lying.

At the same time, Laura Silsby claims that she had all the papers in order. That clearly wasn't the case as she was stopped and arrested.

Former President Bill Clinton is trying to work out a deal that would release all but Silsby from a Haitian jail.

Corzine Hopes Money and Star-Power Helps Win Reelection

Incumbent New Jersey governor Jon Corzine is hoping that current and former Presidents and a whole lot of money help him achieve his goal of reelection.

President Barack Obama will be in New Jersey for the third time this year to stump for Corzine. Former President Bill Clinton will make two more appearances. Obama Administration officials, including various Cabinet Secretaries, will be in the state stumping for Corzine.

And Corzine will continue expanding on his 3-1 spending advantage against GOP candidate Chris Christie with still more negative advertising to try and win in New Jersey despite an economy that is in the crapper and a fiscally irresponsible budget situation.

Despite Corzine's efforts, Christie and Corzine are virtually tied in the polls.

After dozens of attack ads, Corzine finally ran a personal ad that didn't involve attacking Corzine. It was actually effective, recalling Corzine's service in the US Marine Corps, and claims that he supports education and economic growth. It's clearly targeted at independents, who make up the largest election bloc in the state, but the facts go against Corzine at every turn.

Corzine ran up state budgets year after year, and the current year budget was only brought into balance as a result of $2 billion in federal stimulus money. Abbott district restrictions were finally lifted, an actual achievement in the state, but not because of reduced spending, but massively expanded spending in include other districts other than the 30+ districts originally included in Abbott district funding. Such spending is unaffordable and throwing money at the problem - students that aren't achieving - hasn't generated results. It has, however, helped out the teachers unions, which is a political calculus that helps Corzine.

Big Name Democrats Coming To Corzine's Support In Tight Contest

President Barack Obama is in New Jersey today to attend a rally supporting Gov. Jon Corzine's reelection bid. That's following a visit by Vice President Joe Biden and former President Bill Clinton.

That's a lot of firepower to help Corzine in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans and where Corzine is outspending his Republican challenger, Chris Christie by a 3-1 margin.

There's a reason for that.

The reason is that the race is practically a dead heat.

Corzine has spent tens of millions to smear Christie with nothing but attack ads launched by his campaign or those aligned with Corzine (various interest groups seeking Corzine's reelection).

The Corzine campaign isn't exactly pushing ads showcasing Corzine's achievements since they are few and far between. The state is in horrible financial shape, and Corzine's prescription for solving the state's fiscal problems has been to engage in fiscally irresponsible demands that localities defer or withhold pension payment obligations at a time when the state is already shortchanging the state pension funds by billions of dollars.

The state has spent more than it took in for years on end and financial tricks helped to balance the budget, and this year's budget is no exception. It took $2 billion in federal stimulus funds to balance the budget, which will not be forthcoming next year. That means that extravagant spending plans, like expanding Abbott school funding beyond the original 31 districts will be in jeopardy next year. Instead of realizing that throwing money at problems isn't going to solve them, Corzine's solution is to spend even more money.

Three reasons indicate why the race has tightened in recent weeks. First has to do with the massive attack ad campaign launched against Christie. That's perhaps the biggest reason. Second, Christie has not done enough to indicate what he will do to improve the state's business climate. Third, the emergence of third party candidate Chris Daggett appears to have siphoned support from Christie more than it has from Corzine.

If the state wants to see true improvement and a change in the culture in Trenton, Corzine must go, but the state's voters seem to be buying into the attack ads.

Christie would be wise to highlight the fact that Corzine spent months trying to curtail the state's pension obligations to help balance the budget - and called on municipalities to do the same. Thus far, he has not. That's a big mistake. There is time to fix it, and focusing on how Corzine is doing his best to distance himself from his former Wall Street ties shows just how little Corzine has in his favor, other than his still considerable fortune.

Former President Clinton Meets With North Korean Dictator: UPDATE: Ling and Lee Pardoned

Former President Bill Clinton is in North Korea, hoping to get the North Korean dictator Kim Il Jung to release two Americans, Euna Lee and Laura Ling, from prison. Both were tried and convicted on trumped up charges, and now the former President is giving Kim the attention he craves.

What is Clinton going to give North Korea in exchange for the release of the two Americans?

Clinton "courteously conveyed a verbal message" to Kim from President Obama, North Korea's state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported. But White House spokesman Robert Gibbs denied that Clinton was carrying any message from the Obama administration.

Kim and Clinton had "an exhaustive conversation" that included "a wide-ranging exchange of views on the matters of common concern," KCNA reported.

Earlier in the day, Gibbs confirmed Clinton was on a "solely private mission to secure the release of two Americans," but gave little detail on his itinerary .

"We do not want to jeopardize the success of former President Clinton's mission," Gibbs said.

KCNA did not disclose the purpose of the visit in its three-line dispatch. However a source with detailed knowledge of Clinton's movements told CNN late Monday that he was going to seek the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, both reporters for California-based Current TV, a media venture launched by Clinton's Vice President Al Gore.

Yang Hyong Sop, the vice president of North Korea's Supreme People's Assembly, and Kim Kye Gwan, the vice foreign minister, met Clinton, KCNA reported.

Lee and Ling were arrested while reporting on the border between North Korea and China and sentenced in June to 12 years in prison on charges of entering the country illegally to conduct a smear campaign.

North Korea needs time and space to work out the kinks in its nuclear weapons and missile programs. They need energy and food from outside North Korea because without such humanitarian aid, mass starvation and death would be all too common.

North Korea's regime oversees a vast gulag archipelago where political prisoners go to die. It is an evil regime, and having Former President Clinton engage in such high level talks lends far too much prestige to this dictatorship.

While securing the release of Ling and Lee would be great, I fear that the price will be far too steep for the US, South Koreans, and the long tormented North Korean people who live under the ruthless dictatorship for all too long.

UPDATE:
Reports indicate that the North Korean regime has issued pardons for Ling and Lee. I wonder what the US is giving up in return. There's always something in the bargain. North Korea plays the game better than most and knows how to maximize its interests. What will the US be forced to pay down the road? Increased humanitarian aid that enables the regime to spend more on its military budget? Holding back on missile defense systems operable in the region? Cash?

I suspect that the price isn't going to be cheap. After all, that's why regimes such as North Korea act as they do. They know they can get away with it.

The Clinton Contributions

Who gave what to President Clinton's foundation? Well, it's not so easy to figure out. The Foundation has put together hundreds of pages of data, but there's no way to actually search through the information. You have to literally scan every page.

It would take literally five minutes worth of work to write the search code so that you can figure out if anyone you're looking for gave money to the Clinton Foundation.

The Washington Post is relying on transcribing the information and adding it to its own database. The New York Times did the same. You're able to search through the newspaper sources, but the Foundation's own site doesn't permit searches.

Among those names that have been culled include Denise Rich ($250-$500k), Richard Mellon Scaife ($250-$500k), Tom Golisano ($10-$25 million), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ($10-25 million), and quite a few others that should raise eyebrows:

Saudi Arabia alone gave to the foundation $10 million to $25 million, as did government aid agencies in Australia and the Dominican Republic. Brunei, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar and Taiwan each gave more than $1 million. So did the ruling family of Abu Dhabi and the Dubai Foundation, both based in the United Arab Emirates, and the Friends of Saudi Arabia, founded by a Saudi prince.

Also among the largest donors were a businessman who was close to the onetime military ruler of Nigeria, a Ukrainian tycoon who was son-in-law of that former Soviet republic’s authoritarian president and a Canadian mining executive who took Mr. Clinton to Kazakhstan while trying to win lucrative uranium contracts.

In addition, the foundation accepted sizable contributions from several prominent figures from India, like a billionaire steel magnate and a politician who lobbied Mrs. Clinton this year on behalf of a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement between India and the United States, a deal that has rankled Pakistan, a key foreign policy focus of the incoming administration.

Such contributions could provoke suspicion at home and abroad among those wondering about any effect on administration policy.

Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said donations from “countries where we have particularly sensitive issues and relations” would invariably raise concerns about whether Mrs. Clinton had conflicts of interest.

“The real question,” Mr. Levitt said, “is to what extent you can really separate the activities and influence of any husband and wife, and certainly a husband and wife team that is such a powerhouse.”

There are others, including Stephen L. Bing, Rupert Murdoch, Barbra Streisand, and Bloomberg L.P.

Freddie Mac also contributed ($50-$100k), but there's no way to know when they gave the money (whether it was during Bill's presidency or during Hillary's senate or presidential campaigns) and whether they had pledged additional funds since Clinton's disclosure doesn't go beyond listing the names and ranges of money provided.

What Are They Hiding?

USA Today reports that the Clinton Library is holding on to hundreds of pages of documents requested by various parties, including the Obama and McCain campaigns about President Clinton's pardons.

What are the archivists hiding? Why do the Clintons not want their record to be in the public domain? This isn't the first time the Clintons have sought to limit the release of documents from Bill's presidency.

Federal archivists at the Clinton Presidential Library are blocking the release of hundreds of pages of White House papers on pardons that the former president approved, including clemency for fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich.

That archivists’ decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton that restricts the disclosure of advice he received from aides, prevents public scrutiny of documents that would shed light on how he decided which pardons to approve from among hundreds of requests.

Clinton’s legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld, said the archivists, who work for the federal government, not the Clintons.

The decision to withhold much of the requested material could provide fodder for critics who say that the former president and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, have been unwilling to fully release documents to public scrutiny.

Officials with the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., criticized Sen. Clinton this week for not doing more to see that records from her husband’s administration are made public. “She’s been reluctant to disclose information,” Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod told reporters in a conference call where he specifically cited the slow release records from the Clinton library. “If she’s not willing to be open with (voters) on these issues now, why would she be open as president.”

From the way they're ducking and covering, you'd think that the Clintons had something to hide.

The fact is that the pardons are rich fodder for pundits and opponents, because so many of the pardons had a foul stench to them. Marc Rich got a pardon, despite the Department of Justice opposing one, all because Rich's wife was a big donor.

Others got pardons because Clinton family members benefited.

Bill Clinton: Slowing Economy Good For Environment?

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?

I don't really think there's much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?

He went on to say that his the U.S. -- and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases -- could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan..

So there was something of a contradiction there.

I'll say. For someone whose mantra was "it's the economy, stupid," Bill Clinton surely doesn't appear to get it, or being in a most charitable mood that he was simply confused and misspoke.

Does this mean that the current slow economy is a good thing because it means less greenhouse gases are being produced? If so, kudos to President Bush for being ahead of the curve.

Seriously though, there's nothing really good about a slow economy. It means that innovations come slower and capital is not being expended on research, development, and improvements.

Clinton is also firmly in the Al Gore global warming camp, which puts him at odds with the scientists, but which counts for more - scientists with hard science, or Al Gore?

UPDATE:
Or, is this Bill's attempt to provide Hillary with cover should the economy go sour during her Presidency - a bad economy is actually good for the environment.

If that were only the case. And let's just ignore the fact that China continues to ruin the environment at a tremendous clip (and threatens the health of those who are going to participate in the Olympics because of the toxic fumes spewing forth from China's factories, homes, and power plants). Let's also ignore the science suggesting that solar output affects climate change far more than any man made factors (after all, is man responsible for global warming on Mars?).

The Clintons On The Defensive

This has been a real bad week for the Clinton clan. First, Hillary came in third in the Iowa caucuses. Then, her favorite bagman, Norman Hsu, was sentenced in California to three years in prison from the charges stemming from his 1994 conviction (he's still awaiting trial on multiple charges in New York and California).

Finally, she was booed at New Hampshire Democratic Party dinner. Gateway Pundit has the details.

This comes at a time when her campaign is looking to turn things around. They've rolled out their heavy guns - Bill Clinton, but that double edged sword looks like it's a wee bit dull. He's busy blaming the media for his wife's political misfortunes, and is blaming them if Hillary is forced to go negative on Obama to make up ground.

Are you kidding me? Of course Hillary is going to go negative on Obama. It's the way of politics to go after your opponents with negative stories and ad campaigns because it usually works. People often say they hate all the negativity in political campaigns and yet we see time and time again that those campaigns make up significant ground in polls. Here, there's an interesting dynamic because Hillary would be seen beating up on Obama, who is the first African American candidate who appears to have a shot at winning the nomination and the Presidency (although some media outlets and pundits who run with that line ought to remember that Jesse Jackson came before as did Shirley Chisholm and Jackson won several states including Michigan in the 1984 primaries).

Marc Ambinder has more on the Clinton strategy to swarm New Hampshire with her supporters to help get out the vote and her message. If she does poorly here, where her network is deepest, she's got real serious problems going forward, and it puts Obama in the driver's seat.

Still, the RCP average for the nomination still has Hillary in a commanding position, garnering nearly 44% and a 20 point lead over Obama in polls.

UPDATE:
At least CNN is still covering for the Clintons. They've whitewashed all traces of Hillary's links to Hsunami in their coverage of the sentencing of Norman Hsu, who happened to be one of Hillary's big moneymakers. Don Surber has the details.

Hsu More Bagmen

Just when you think you've completed your list of questions relating to Norman Hsu, more questions appear - in the form of still more bagmen who collected money for Hillary's campaign. One is a fluke, two is a pattern, and three - well, it's a sign that someone really wants to collect money. Still more HillRaisers are showing signs of engaging in potentially illicit acts in bundling money.

Then again, some of the names appearing in the Hsu-nami should be familiar to those who saw something similar surrounding the Clinton campaigns during the 1990s although the issue of crooked bagmen isn't solely a concern for Democrats (even as they're the overwhelming majority in this growing scandal):

A list of the donors who have "bundled" large sums from dozens of individuals to give to Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign includes several figures who were involved in the 1990s Democratic Party fundraising scandal that tarnished her husband's record.

Among them is an Oklahoma oilman who testified in the mid-1990s that the firm he worked for, owned by Democratic fundraisers, sought to curry favor with Bill Clinton's administration by providing payments and a golf club membership to a Cabinet secretary's son.

Democrat John Edwards's list of bundlers includes well-known fellow trial lawyer William S. Lerach, who raised $80,000 from his family and law firm partners for the candidate after a government probe had begun of Lerach's wrongdoing, campaign aides confirmed yesterday. Lerach pleaded guilty this week to a conspiracy charge, prompting Edwards to announce that he will give back Lerach's personal donations but not the money Lerach raised from others.

A close look at donors who have collected large sums from hundreds of people to give to the presidential candidates makes it clear that Norman Hsu, the convicted thief who attracted attention last month for donating $850,000 to Hillary Clinton, is far from the only controversial figure to play a major fundraising role in campaigns.

Republican Mitt Romney's list of bundlers until recently included Alan Fabian, who was charged in a 23-count indictment last month alleging mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Baltimore. Fabian's lawyer, David B. Irwin, has declined to comment about the merits of the case but told The Post last month: "We are hoping for an early resolution of the matter."

Hsu's now facing criminal charges in New York for operating a Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors out of $60 million.

That still doesn't address how he managed to get the money donated to the various campaigns in the first place in his own name, let alone those that he bundled. Hsu was apparently skillful enough to con some pretty important people who should have engaged in due diligence to determine if he was reputable or not, though I have to wonder about just how much due diligence was done. I think my theory that he maintained a large bank account to portray himself as a successful businessman was part of the charade to show that he was legitimate, even if the money was all from shady interests.

Meanwhile, Hillary's campaign isn't exactly returning the money bundled by Hsu all that quickly. Flip has the details.

UPDATE:
Has Hsu all but admitted to wrongdoing in the criminal complaint filed against him? It may be just that as Flip has the highlights. Also, Hot Air points out what Hsu had on him when he was arrested after falling ill on that Amtrak train in Colorado.

During the search of the Evidence, I recovered the following items from the locked suitcase in the possession of NORMAN HSU, the defendant, at the time of his arrest: (1) HSU’s passport; (2) approximately $7,000 in cash; (3) checkbooks for bank accounts used by HSU to carry out his fraudulent scheme; (4) hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of checks from HSU’s victims; (5) bank receipts reflecting millions of dollars worth of financial transactions conducted by HSU; (6) hand-written ledgers reflecting specific amounts of campaign contributions to be made by specific victims on behalf of various candidates for Federal Office; (7) Federal Express shipping labels for materials sent by HSU via overnight mail from Components Ltd. in New York, New York; a Cartier watch and Tiffany jewelry; and (8) receipts reflecting HSU’s travel throughout the United States via a corporate jet service.

So much for the claim that Hsu had no idea where his passport was. It was on him when he was arrested, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in checks from his victims, and all manner of incriminating evidence.

Spouses Making Impact On 2008 Elections

I can't say that I've seen anything quite like this before. We've been increasingly seeing the spouses of prospective candidates for President entering the fray and issuing statements of making statements to the press slamming other candidates with increasing fury and vigor.

All in the name of soundbites.

I've said it before that I believed that Elizabeth Edwards was behaving far more like a candidate than her husband John Edwards, but Michelle Obama taking on the Clintons over Hillary's inability to deal with Bill's indiscretions strikes me as being just wrong.

Some people might think that such attacks are fair game considering that we should know as much about candidates, their personal backgrounds, and missteps as possible. However, who exactly are we electing?

Are we electing the person on the ballot or the spouse? Should that really play a role? No doubt that it does play a role, but that the spouses are getting deeply involved is in contrast to prior elections, where the spouses stayed on the sidelines to avoid becoming the story.

Here, it would seem that the spouses are going out of their way to become the story.

Move the Embassy Already

American Presidents have long claimed that they would move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. However, they've always stopped short of actually doing it. President Bush continues that awful tradition by refusing to move it, even though he made a campaign promise to do so. They listen to the State Dept flacks who say that moving the embassy to Jerusalem would be taking sides and reduce the appearance of impartiality. Congress, however, has set yet another vote on a resolution calling on the President to move the embassy.

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote next week on a resolution calling for President Bush to move the American Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, strengthening Israel's position against recurring diplomatic efforts to take away its capital.

The resolution, which passed the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 23, commemorates the 40th anniversary of Israel's victory in the Six Day War that unified Jerusalem. It also calls on Mr. Bush to adhere to the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which authorized the funds to begin moving the embassy and declared that it was American policy to recognize the city as the capital of the Jewish state.

The House resolution, scheduled for a floor vote on Tuesday, "reiterates its commitment to the provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and calls upon the President and all United States officials to abide by its provisions."

Here's a newsflash.

Israel is a US ally and the Palestinians have only seen the US as an enemy for years. Sure, they'll take our money and equipment, but they'll turn around and use them to kill our allies and even US citizens who get in the way. Palestinian leaders have tread all over American efforts, and made US presidents look foolish - see Clinton and his Camp David efforts in 2000 to get Arafat to make peace with Israel once and for all blow up in his face.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would be a concession to reality, and long overdue.

Where Are New Jersey Representatives?

Mrs. Lawhawk had been wondering about this after watching news reports the past few days relating to the flooding in New York and New Jersey. If you look at the reporting about the Nor'easter and the damage done to New Jersey and New York, you too would wonder where New Jersey representatives are in pressing for federal aid to assist those who were flooded out by the Nor'easter.

New York's Senators Schumer and Clinton have been all over the airways. Governor Spitzer has also called for parts of New York to be declared disaster areas.

In contrast, the only voice being heard from New Jersey politicians is Gov. Codey. Where are the state's two senators? Are Lautenberg and Menendez too busy with other business to tour the disaster areas with media in tow and call for federal aid to flow? Where are the members of the House touring the area?

How Should Libby Get Sentenced?

Drawn and quartered? To the four winds? Strung up? Tarred and feathered?

None of those punishments are available and they obviously are not going to happen no matter where you reside on the ideological spectrum, so how about looking at what the law dictates under these circumstances. Jeralyn Meritt who has been covering the trial from the outset does a pretty good job laying out the setencing guidelines.

As she correctly notes, the talk about 25 years prison is the maximum authorized by law, but not what he will most likely receive. She thinks that the lowest the guidelines offer is 15 to 21 months while the high end would push out to 24 to 33 months. The sentencing guidelines are further explained by White Collar Crime Blog and the Sentencing Law and Policy Blog, who notes how the guidelines operate.

Based on the guidelines alone, I think those numbers are reasonable. However, this is a case with political ramifications as well, and it would be wise to examine similar and/or contemporaneous acts.

How the courts have dealt with other high profile cases involving perjury or obstruction of justice is a good place to start. Former President Bill Clinton comes to mind. After all, he was impeached for giving false and misleading statements in relation to the Lewinsky matter (itself a sidebar issue arising from the Whitewater investigation). Losing the law license is a definite possibility with no time served.

Then, there's the case of Sandy Berger, who received nothing more than a slap on the wrist. I found that to be a travesty of the law considering that he was involved in the destruction of classified documents and quite likely impeded the federal investigation into the 9/11 attacks by destroying documents that might have shed an uncomfortable light on the acts of the Clinton Administration. Those actions are just as, if not more, dangerous and undermine the legal system and national security, as any claimed against Libby.

Take the sentencing guidelines and combine with the political component, and you begin to get the idea in the complexity of the issue facing the judge. If a harsh sentence comes down, those who argue for a strict adherence to the guidelines - many of whom are Republicans - would complain that one of their own are getting hit in a way that a Democrat never was (see Berger and Clinton), while if he gets a slap on the wrist Democrats will complain that it was a miscarriage of justice. And both sides would be right. This is the hypocrisy of the Beltway political dance. There were miscarriages of justice here on both sides of the aisle, but not in the way that the partisans think.

Clinton and Berger got slaps on the wrist when their acts actually warranted much more serious punishment. Both will be able to practice law again and Berger will even be able to review classified documents in the near future. Libby's career would be seriously harmed by the imposition of an appropriate sentence under the guidelines. There's a reason that the sentencing guidelines are there and why judges should follow them - to prevent abuse and arbitrary sentences handed down.

However, that dichotomy (the political considerations and the guideline recommendations) leads me to think that the Libby sentencing will go the way of a slap on the wrist, though if the judge thinks that a pardon might be in the offing, might push a harsher sentence within the guidelines. This is Beltway politics after all.

Still, before we reach that point, there's the not insignificant point of the appeals process. Libby's defense team is more than likely going to appeal the decision on the facts and the law. They feel that there is more than enough here to merit an appeal and Libby's lawyer was quite clear that he believed that Libby was innocent. Things that work in his favor is the Cooper charge where he was found not guilty, the exclusion of certain evidence that the defense thought would be exculpatory, and various other details and inconsistencies in the witness testimony.

Of course talk will drift to the notion of a presidential pardon, but I think such talk is premature. Things have yet to play out fully on the appeals process, and in any event, Bush would not pardon Libby until after the November 2008 election on his way out of office.

Guess the date of the pardon and win a prize. Heh. If he receives one, it's going to be December 24, 2008.

UPDATE:
This editorial from the Washington Post should not be missed. The biggest loser in the entire kerfuffle? The media. The problem is that many of them don't even recognize it just yet.

Ten Years Later: NYC Terror Attack Politically Motivated

GAZA CITY - Ali Abu Kamal’s relatives say they are tired of lying about why the Palestinian opened fire on the observation deck of Empire State Building, killing a tourist and injuring six other people before committing suicide.

Kamal’s widow insisted after the shooting spree that the attack was not politically motivated. She said that her husband had become suicidal after losing $300,000 in a business venture.

But in a stunning admission, Kamal’s 48-year-old daughter Linda told the Daily News that her dad wanted to punish the U.S. for supporting Israel - and revealed her mom’s 1997 account was a cover story crafted by the Palestinian Authority.

“A Palestinian Authority official advised us to say the attack was not for political reasons because that would harm the peace agreement with Israel,” she told The News on Friday. “We didn’t know that he was martyred for patriotic motivations, so we repeated what we were told to do.”

But three days after the shootings, Kamal’s family got a copy of a letter that was found on his body, they said. The letter said he planned the violence as a political statement, his daughter said. “When we wanted to clarify that to the media, nobody listened to us,” she said. “His goal was patriotic. He wanted to take revenge from the Americans, the British, the French and the Israelis.”

She said the family became certain that he carried out the attack for political reasons after reading his diary. “He wrote that after he raised his children and made sure that his family was all right he decided to avenge in the highest building in America to make sure they get his message,” said Linda, who works for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.

She said her mom burned the diary, fearing that it would cause the family trouble.

Let's start with the basics. President Clinton was in office and the Israelis had signed the Oslo Accords with the Palestinian Authority only three years earlier. The Palestinians continued to engage in terror attacks against Israel, but were written off as minor attacks and limited in scope and nature.

It was under these circumstances that Kamal headed to the observation deck at the Empire State Building to commit an act of terrorism on February 23, 1997. The attack on the observation deck of the Empire State Building was out of the blue and at the time, there were questions as to whether the attack was politically and religiously motivated.

Not only do we get confirmation that the attacks were politically motivated, but the political and religious motivations were purposefully hidden from view because it would undermine the support for the Palestinian Authority inside the US. After all, New York City is home to a very large Jewish population and another terrorist attack by Islamic terrorists would not sit well with American politicians.

It also wouldn't sit well with President Clinton's Middle East foreign policy since he was staking much of his reputation and clout on getting the deal done.

So, we have a confluence of PA and American domestic political agendas to blind the American people to the fact that Islamic terrorists attacked on that day in 1997. It was also yet another example of how terrorist attacks were glossed over by the US government because of the desire to be peacemakers between Palestinians and Israelis despite the fact that the Palestinians had absolutely no desire to make peace with Israel - they continue to this day to seek Israel's destruction.

One has to consider why the US continues to pressure Israel into making concessions with a terrorist group that seeks Israel's annihilation. It will not improve the US security posture in the region and undermines an American ally. Palestinian terrorists have repeatedly targeted Americans and yet the American government refuses to bring the hammer down on the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Fatah once and for all. Even now, the US is considering supporting a Palestinian Authority that includes Hamas officials that refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.

Did Clinton Admit to Breaking Law?

Lt. Col. Oliver North seems to think that Clinton admitted to breaking US law by saying that he got closer to killing Osama than anyone before or since.

Not one of the "experts" has, as yet, observed that in all of this, the biggest loser wasn't on the screen; it was the American people. The tape of a former president arrogantly proclaiming on international television that he personally authorized the assassination of a foreign foe may be great stuff for the screenplay of "Rambo V," but U.S. and international law specifically forbid it. Over the course of fighting the jihad being waged against us, Mr. Clinton's intemperate words will come back to haunt us many times over. And of course, he won't be the one to pay the price.

Apparently neither violations of law nor increasing the vulnerability of the American people seem to matter much to Mr. Clinton, his political cronies or his allies in the media. The silence has been deafening from the barons of bombast and political potentates who went nuts last year when Rev. Pat Robertson suggested that Venezuela's tin-horn dictator Hugo Chavez should be "eliminated." Then, there were calls for an investigation of Dr. Robertson. Not so for Bill Clinton.

For the record, Mr. Clinton proudly claimed to have broken a long series of U.S. laws:

— Executive Order 11905, signed Feb. 18, 1976, by President Gerald Ford in response to the Church Committee. Section 5(g) of that order states "no employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

— Section 2-305 of Executive Order 12036, signed by President Jimmy Carter on Jan. 24, 1978, broadens the prohibition from "political assassination" to "assassination" generally.

— Executive Order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan on Dec. 4, 1981, specifies that assassination is against the law and contrary to U.S. policy. Section 2.11 of the order, which is labeled "Prohibition on Assassination," says "no person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." The next section (Section 2.12) states "no agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order."

Without hubris, I must acknowledge that I wrote, "staffed" and presented Executive Order 12333 to President Reagan for his signature. I was asked then — and have been asked many times since — if I thought such a prohibition was important. I did then and I do now. And since no chief executive has ever rescinded them, it seemed as though they thought the prohibition was important too — up until Mr. Clinton's petulant outburst.

Ordering the assassination of a foreign national is arguably more important than lying about a tryst with an intern in the Oval Office. So where is the "shock and awe" from human rights standard bearers who still complain about the so-called abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay? Do they not care that Mr. Clinton ordered an assassination?

Where are John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter and Colin Powell now? If we want the world to know our prisoners of war are accorded protection under the Geneva Conventions, don't we also want the world to know we don't engage in assassination?

And since presidential findings — orders for the CIA to conduct covert operations — are all highly classified, shouldn't those who reveal them be held accountable?

Now, there are executive orders that various Presidents have issued relating to the assassination of foreign leaders or individuals, and North notes that Carter and Reagan both issued orders that made it official US policy not to assassinate foreign leaders. Unless Clinton issued an order permitting such action, then Clinton appears to have violated federal law by making those claims in his interview with Wallace. Will he be held to account for his actions? Doubtful.

Slobodan Milosevic Found Dead in Prison Cell

Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav leader who orchestrated the Balkan wars of the 1990s and was on trial for war crimes, was found dead in his prison cell near The Hague, the U.N. tribunal said Saturday.

Milosevic, 64, apparently died of natural causes, a tribunal press officer said. He was found dead in his bed at the U.N. detention center.

Milosevic has been on trial since February 2002, defending himself against 66 counts of crimes, including genocide, in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo.

The trial repeatedly was interrupted by Milosevic's poor health and chronic heart condition. It was recessed last week until Tuesday to await his next defense witness.

His death comes less than a week after the star witness in his trial, former Croatian Serb leader Milan Babic, was found dead in the same prison. Babic, who was serving a 13-year prison sentence, committed suicide. He testified against Milosevic in 2002.

A figure of beguiling charm and cunning ruthlessness, Milosevic was a master tactician who turned his country's defeats into personal victories and held onto power for 13 years despite losing four wars that shattered his nation and impoverished his people.

He was a dictator responsible for mass murder, genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The court had been in recess while considering Milosevic's request to subpoena former US President Bill Clinton.

Wikipedia has more details about his death, and that his supporters are already calling his death a murder:

On March 11, 2006, B-92, a Belgrade radio station, reported Milošević had been found dead in his cell in The Hague, citing "non-official" sources. This report has been confirmed by his lawyer. His death was confirmed by the Dutch NOS News Agency at 13.20 CET. An official in the chief prosecutor's office said that he had been found at about 10 a.m. Saturday and had apparently been dead for several hours.[8] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia said that he had been suffering from heart problems and high blood pressure.[9][10]. His trial had been due to resume on 14 March with testimony from the former president of Montenegro, Momir Bulatović. The tribunal had recently denied his request to travel to Russia for specialist medical treatment. He had planned to appeal against this decision, saying that his health was worsening.[8] His death from natural causes has been announced by the Serbian Socialist Party.[11]

However, according to the B92 the Socialist Party leader Zoran Anđelković has released a following statement: "Slobodan Milošević, the president of the Socialist Party of Serbia and a former president of Serbia and Yugoslavia was murdered today at the Tribunal in Hague. The decision of the Tribunal to disallow Milošević's medical treatment at the Bakunin Institute in Moscow represents a prescribed death sentence against Milošević. Truth and justice were on his side and this is why they have used a strategy of gradual killing of Slobodan Milošević. The responsibility for his death is clearly with the Hague Tribunal".[12]

UPDATE:

Austin Bay has more details, including his thoughts that the Iraqis were handling Saddam's trial better than the UN was managing Milosevic despite the fact that Saddam was essentially ripping off his shennanigans from Milosevic's playbook.

UPDATE:
Others noting Milosevic's death: Mac Ranger, who thinks Milosevic got off way too easy and escaped justice. AJ Strata notes that the Grim Reaper has reclaimed one of his own. Justice was not served. Michelle Malkin has a roundup. Bubblehead wonders whether the UN will be investigated for the mysterious deaths and suicides on its watch over the past several months in the course of its trial of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. Not likely. It's the UN, not the US.

Nimne opines on learning of the earlier suicide by Milan Babic

Either that, or he just couldn’t take the boredom anymore.

The war crimes trials have been ongoing for years, and there are still war criminals still roaming the countryside more than a decade after the end of the war. This, in Europe's backyard with NATO troops and the UN all over the place. It took years to bring Milosevic in, and in the end even he escaped justice.

What Do Those Polls Really Mean?

It all started with a Rasmussen Reports poll that shows that 64% of Americans support eavesdropping on terrorists, even when that eavesdropping includes warrantless searches. Ace of Spades was quick to point out the significance of the polling. Despite big media outlets pounding the message that these searches constitute a grave and gathering threat to civil rights of Americans and potentially impeachable offenses against the President of the US, most Americans realize that the President is simply doing his Constitutional duty to protect and defend the citizens of the United States against threats both foreign and domestic.

While there are many folks who are showing that the actions taken by the President are legal (Mark Levin and Powerline come to mind, though Cass Sunstein, John Schmidt, and Jaime Gorelick are also on the record as finding the Administration's use of warrantless searches within the powers of the President despite those searches not going through the FISA court), the big media outlets continue to pound away that these searches are illegal and that the Administration should be held accountable for those illegal actions.

What gets lost in the NYT and media coverage is that similar efforts have been undertaken by every President since Jimmy Carter was first constrained by the creation of FISA in 1978. President Carter knew that there were situations that the FISA process couldn't deal with swiftly enough for national security purposes, and therefore went ahead with warrantless searches anyway. Every president since then engaged in similar methods though President Clinton even extended the warrantless search to certain wholly domestic operations.

Yet the big media outlets, and specifically the New York Times have not shed light on how they actually obtained information about the NSA wiretapping and similar eavesdropping programs in the first place. Considering that the programs described in the NYT were classified programs, the leaks are violations of numerous federal laws and those leakers are criminals. These leaks threaten national security in a real and tangible way. It shows terrorists potential loopholes for exploitation and may cause some to change means of contacting cells in the US. Apparently, those concerns were not sufficient to keep this story out of the limelight.

The Times says that they sat on this story for more than a year, and that's troubling in and of itself. If this was such a violation of civil rights, don't you think that they would have released details of the program much sooner. Instead, we've learned that one of the journalists involved in the story, Eric Risen, is touting a new book and it appears that the Times was concerned about being scooped by one of its own journalists on an 'exclusive.'

This was a concerted effort to undermine the war effort, and the polling reflects this - both in terms of the pragmatic result and why the numbers weren't even higher.

Despite the media play, even 51% of Democrats support the continued surveillance of terrorists that includes warrantless eavesdropping. We're talking about communications intercepts between foreign terrorists with individuals domestically. This isn't about a political spy operation against political opponents or using the IRS to bully political opponents, but a natural and logical outgrowth over the need to protect the US against further terrorist attacks domestically by intercepting communcations between terror cells domestically and their international cohorts.

And we’re seeing some leftist bloggers complaining that the polling isn’t actually good news, but bad news. They think that support for this kind of eavesdropping should be even higher than it currently is. Do these bloggers and pundits not realize that the biased media coverage of the eavesdropping stories in the Times and elsewhere affects and skews the polling results? If all people read and hear is bad news, don’t these leftist bloggers realize that the polling will reflect the bad news.

Yet, despite the negative press in the Times and other big media sources, the high level of support for these kinds of warrantless searches against terrorists who are communicating with individuals inside the US shows that most folks still have some kind of functional common sense. Now, if the big media outlets actually noted that these kinds of warrantless searches are constitutional and justifiable on national security grounds, support would be much higher.

UPDATE:
And don't get me started on the repercussions of this information on all current and past terrorism investigations and convictions for terror-related charges. These revelations will inevitably spark challenges to every single terrorism case pursued by the Justice Department. It's yet another attempt to hamstring the war on terror.

Others blogging this important story are: Confederate Yankee, Rob at Say Anything, Sister Toldjah, Michelle Malkin, Captain Ed, Blogs For Bush, Jeff Goldstein, Political Teen, Decision ‘08, Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive’s, [and] Junkyard Blog.

UPDATE:
Generation Why wonders when the media will understand the definition of mainstream as most Americans favor this kind of spycraft to keep this nation safe from terror plots.

Also noting the polling data on approval of eavesdropping on terrorists: The Right Nation.

FISA: It's Everywhere You Want To Be

FISA seems to be one of the big buzzwords on the lips of many pundits and media types these days. The NYT had run with a story that was based on a leak of classified information that the US was conducting surveillance on certain communications. The implicit message of those articles was that the President was committing a criminal violation of federal law and potentially the US Constitution.

The Administration hit back hard in press conferences and speeches saying that it was justified and authorized to take such actions under the law.

That hasn't stopped some from claiming that the President acted illegally. Is this based on facts and the law, or on their opinion. I think that its more of the latter than the former.

Reasonable minds may differ over the law. In fact, while there are some folks who think that the President may have violated federal law - including Orin Kerr, others think that the President was entirely justified including John Schmidt, Jaime Gorelick, Andy McCarthy, and Mark Levin. Those first two names (Schmidt and Gorelick) were Clinton Administration officials who argued consistently during their term in office that the President had the powers that Bush is now being accused of using illegally. McCarthy and Levin both argue that the President was following a consistent and legal policy that has been in place for more than 20 years and that they operated under a legal interpretation of the law that permitted the kinds of warrantless searches on communications.

These legal questions cross party lines and focus on civil liberties. Can the President operate under his authority to protect and defend the US from foreign threats - including terrorist groups - by monitoring electronic communications between terrorists outside the US and those operating within our borders. This question has serious consequences. If the President is limited in his ability to conduct warrantless searches on those communications, even if one of the parties is a US citizen, the real and distinct possibility that a terrorist could exploit this loophole grows significantly.

Confederate Yankee has more on the possibility that the FISA court may simply disband in the new year since the President has the authority to conduct warrantless searches.

Instapundit, Volokh Conspiracy and LawDork have all been covering the subject.

UPDATE:
Sister Toldjah reports the fact that the Clinton Administration utilized warrantless searches on communications and other physical searches in wholly domestic situations. No such uproar and call for Congressional investigations ensued. Stop the ACLU is reporting that the ACLU is trying to release all kinds of information relating to the policies and procedures involved in the warrantless search program.

Others noting the kerfuffle are Dean Esmay and Bryan Preston.