Hewitt Blog

Yesterday Oklahoma Senator Inhofe quoted Iraqi Defense Minsiter as stating bluntly "I hate CNN."

Now Counterterrorismblog.com gives us another example of why that contempt is deserved: "CNN Editor Equates "Terrorism" With "Freedom Fight," Insulting All Coalition Forces"

OpinionJournal.com carries Professor John Eastman's testimony on the subject of the press, classified information and the First Amendment, which he delivered to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on May 26, 2006. His central conclusion:

The constitutionality of protecting intelligence gathering and other operational military secrets in time of war is therefore beyond dispute, and the institutional press is no more permitted to ignore the legal restrictions imposed by the Espionage Act on the publication and other dissemination of such classified information than are ordinary citizens.

Professor Eastman's testimony is a closely argued and completely persuasive rebuttal of New York Times' editor Bill Keller's incoherent posturings on the subject of his paper's publications of classified information. The testimony undressed Keller's many poses, and leave's not a single stitch on the claim to special status of the leftwing MSM. If DOJ is indeed investigating these leaks, Mr. Keller would be well advised to study Professor Eastman's arguments closely, and instruct his zealous anti-war agenda journalists that they can indeed publish without fear of prior restraint, but not with immunity from the laws that bind all Americans.

"Liberal Activists Boo Clinton" is the best thing that could have happened to Senator Clinton. She'll clip and save that Washington Post headline for the presidential debates in the fall of '08, and when she proclaims that "I supported this mismanaged war even when those in my own party didn't see past the mismanagement to the freedom and future of Iraq, and I was booed for it," her indifference to her party's moonbat left will have proven to be a boon.

Two other agenda journalism pieces in the Post this morning.

The Peter Baker assessment of President Bush's week is as grudging and tentative a bit of coverage as can be imagined. The central graphs use a former Clintonite to drum the message home --the president is manipulating the news, but the advantage he gained will only be a blip:

"When you get into these ruts, you're always looking for anything to bounce you out and get you back on track," said Joel P. Johnson, a White House adviser to President Bill Clinton during difficult times. "They've been in a rut for so long that anything that serves to pull them back onto the road has got to feel pretty good for them. The real question is, does it last a week or is it a real sign of some sort of steadying of the process?"

The aftermath of the capture of Saddam Hussein demonstrated how transitory a single moment of victory can be. Bush got a four-point bump in Washington Post-ABC News polling after Hussein was found in December 2003, but it lasted about two months. Recognizing that, Bush orchestrated a flurry of activity on Iraq in the past few days -- including his secret trip, a Camp David war cabinet meeting and a briefing blitz on Capitol Hill -- to demonstrate that progress in Iraq means more than Zarqawi's death.

It is almost a piece of art, this diminishment of W's successes, a "Get Well Soon" card to the Dems.

And Robert Barnes' assessment of former Navy Secretary and USMC hero James Webb's chances in the fall doesn't want you guessing as to whom he and the WaPo are supporting. Look at this second-to-last line:

So Virginians will choose between the cowboy-booted Allen and the combat-booted Webb.

As I have written before, James Webb is a formidable candidate because of his record of courage, honor and achievement.

But the question in the Virginia Senate race will not be his past but the country's future, and whether the Iraq campaign should be adandoned, Supreme Court nominees obstructed, taxes hiked, spending unbound even beyond its already high levels, and border security ignored.

Because those are the positions of the Democratic senate caucus that Webb would join if he triumphs in the fall.

His great qualities aside, a Webb victory means a much greater likelihood of Patrick Leahy in the chair of the Judiciary Committee, Joe Biden in control of the Foreign Relations committee, and Carl Levin back in the saddle of Armed Services. Harry Reid and Dick Durbin running things with Barbara Boxer also back in the leadership are all bound up in a vote for Webb.

If the Democrats really want to give Webb a chance, they'd announce now that he would be appoitned to Judiciary, where one centrist Democrat would indeed make a difference.

But they won't, and Virginia voters will spend the next five months pondering whether they wish, through an Allen vote, to continue to support not just Senator Allen --who has represented them very well-- but also the president, the war in Iraq and across its other fronts, and justices like Roberts and Alito.

The left and its allies in places like the Washington Post will try again and again to make this a referendum on the life of James Webb, which will always require serious Americans to thank the candidate for his service.

But the real choice is between parties, not footwear.

This race benefits the JP Blecksmith Leadership Foundation. It is held in San Marino, California.

Here's a brief bio of Lt. Blecksmith, USMC. Try and make the race this year.

With today's announcemnt that Karl Rove will not be indicted, the left may at last give up their pipe dream of scandals that never occured and get on with their politics-based-attacks on the Bush Adminsitration free of demands for perp walks etc.

There remains, however, the matter of Scooter Libbey, and the growing recognition that this prosecution is as unwise as it is unnecessary. The prospect of many big time MSMers on the stand and under oath may thrill those who would like nothing more than to have the "journalistic practicies" of Beltway bigs exposed, but it could be the wrong field on which to contest such serious matters as press privileges, and it also would proceed with the liberty of a fine public servant in the balance.

So does Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald have an option?

He could of course rethink and dismiss the indictment against Libbey, but that seems unlikely in the extreme.

As does the prospect of any Libbey plea to a criminal charge.

But there is a precedent that might have some utility here: The resolution of the case against Bill Clinton for providing misleading testimony under oath:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton will leave office free of the prospect of criminal charges after he admitted Friday that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 lawsuit.

Under an agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Clinton's law license will be suspended for five years and he will pay a $25,000 fine to Arkansas bar officials. He also gave up any claim to repayment of his legal fees in the matter. In return, Ray will end the 7-year-old Whitewater probe that has shadowed most of Clinton's two terms.

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House.

The admission, which came on the president's last full day in office, stems from the same allegations that led to Clinton's 1998 impeachment by the House of Representatives, and the later acquittal by the Senate.

In a statement minutes later, Ray said "the nation's interest has been served" by Clinton's admission.

There are two crucial differences of course.

First, Libbey's alleged misleading testimony occurred before a grand jury, not in a deposition.

But on the other hand, Libbey is a staffer, not the POTUS.

If POTUS' misleading testimony can be punished via other than a guilty plea, why not this matter, and perhaps in a similar fashion?

Some on the far left might complain, and Libbey might be unwilling to accept other than exoneration, but this does seem one exit that 90% of those who care could accept.

Rev. Frank Page, newly elected president of the Southern Baptists:

Page said a new generation of blogging Baptists played a role in his selection.

“I believe they played a role beyond their numbers,” he said. “I believe they are a growing force and phenomenon in denominational life. There are a relatively small number who write them, but I believe a large number of leaders read them.”

This race benefits the JP Blecksmith Leadership Foundation. It is held in San Marino, California.

Here's a brief bio of Lt. Blecksmith, USMC. Try and make the race this year.

When PBS sent me off to do a series on faith in America in the mid-1990s, it was my great fortune to meet, interview and become friends with Elder Neal Maxwell, an Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Although Elder Maxwell and I could never agree on theology, we became good friends, and until his death in 2004, would stay in touch via the phone and too rare visits, discussing politics and the country's various troubles/accomplishments. He was a great gentleman of extraordinary intellect and good humor.

BYU announced today that it is naming its widely respected Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts as the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship.

For an example of the work of the Maxwell Institute, see this press release of one its joint programs with the Library of Congress. This is a wonderful tribute to a great American. The Institute's home page (as yet not updated) is here.

Ward Churchill: Call your office. While you still have an office.

James Joyner rounds up the critical health news of the week.

Now, if we can only find that single malt increase longevity and cigars impede dementia, the work of science will be done.