Hewitt Blog

Instapundit has a great set of links, including this bit of analysis from Tim Graham:

It's sad that within minutes of announcing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death, the network morning shows were already carrying criticism of the Bush administration. Not only did NBC invite Sen. Joe Biden so he could attack Bush incompetence (funny day for that!), ABC's Bill Weir reminded the audience that Zarqawi beheaded American Nicholas Berg, and then replayed Berg's left-wing dad saying at the time that he had no desire for his son's killers to be killed. Weir then reported that he spoke to Berg's father this morning, and he condemned the Zarqawi killing as part of an endless cycle of retribution.

It isn't sad. It is predictable.

MSM has been trained by Democratic Party cues to view every development in the war through the lens of the political war on the Bush Adminsitration.

News is never "good," but "long overdue." Excellent political developments are mere flip-turns en route to another length of anti-Bush diatribe.

Here's the key analysis you won't here on MSM today: Had we not invaded Iraq, Zarqawi would not be dead today, but rather ensconced in some Baghdad safe house or larger encampment plotting more savagery. Had we not invaded Iraq, Saddam's decision menu today would be how much or little assistance to give Zarqawi, followed by the allocation of bribes to his various U.N. oil-for-food stooges, followed by succession planning with his mad-as-hatter sons.

UPDATE: Austin Bay, WideAwakeCafe and CounterterrorismBlog have much more.

Dan Darling pens a send-off: "Death of a Monster" notes that Zarqawi was "one of the most accomplished mass murderers in the modern history of terrorism."

UPDATE:

17 other raids? From John Burns in the NYT:

General Caldwell said that it took many weeks of painstaking exploitation of intelligence, until Wednesday night they had "definitive, unquestionable" knowledge of Mr. Zarqawi's location for the first time. He said a "treasure trove" of information was found enabling forces to go after other targets in 17 simultaneous raids in Baghdad and on the outskirts.

Mr. Maliki said the attack that killed Mr. Zarqawi had resulted from a tip that came from Iraqi civilians in the area, which lies in a province, Diyala, that has an evenly balanced population of Shiite and Sunni Arabs, as well as Kurds.

A good day gets even better.

Today's Day by Day features the "Five Points Shirt" to your right.

Send a couple to your favorite Congressman or Senator today. Flood the Hill with enough common sense conservatism, and November will be much brighter.

Instapundit has a great set of links, including this bit of analysis from Tim Graham:

It's sad that within minutes of announcing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death, the network morning shows were already carrying criticism of the Bush administration. Not only did NBC invite Sen. Joe Biden so he could attack Bush incompetence (funny day for that!), ABC's Bill Weir reminded the audience that Zarqawi beheaded American Nicholas Berg, and then replayed Berg's left-wing dad saying at the time that he had no desire for his son's killers to be killed. Weir then reported that he spoke to Berg's father this morning, and he condemned the Zarqawi killing as part of an endless cycle of retribution.

It isn't sad. It is predictable.

MSM has been trained by Democratic Party cues to view every development in the war through the lens of the political war on the Bush Adminsitration.

News is never "good," but "long overdue." Excellent political developments are mere flip-turns en route to another length of anti-Bush diatribe.

Here's the key analysis you won't here on MSM today: Had we not invaded Iraq, Zarqawi would not be dead today, but rather ensconced in some Baghdad safe house or larger encampment plotting more savagery. Had we not invaded Iraq, Saddam's decision menu today would be how much or little assistance to give Zarqawi, followed by the allocation of bribes to his various U.N. oil-for-food stooges, followed by succession planning with his mad-as-hatter sons.

Powerline has the details.

The headline says "Iranian President Signals Readiness to Negotiate."

But here are the Ahmadinejad quotes:

"On behalf of the Iranian nation, I'm announcing that the Iranian nation will never hold negotiations about its definite rights with anybody....But we are for talks about mutual concerns to resolve misunderstandings in the international arena. . . .

"We don't negotiate on the way we should live, on how we should walk and the way we must handle our economy...Be aware whether you negotiate or not, whether you frown at us or not and whether you stay beside us or turn your back on us, the Iranian nation will not retreat from its path of developments and achievement of advanced technology."

The headline writers must be taking their cues from the Dawsonites.

Here's a timeline of his barbarism.

Prime Minister Malaki followed the announcement of the end of Zarqawi with the completion of the cabinet process.

A very good day in Iraq.

So Rick Kaplan is out. Here's why:

Weekdays in prime time, MSNBC's ratings rose 14 percent compared with the same time last year, though it is still only clocking about 360,000 viewers. CNN and Fox News Channel are both down compared with last year but still laps ahead of MSNBC with 800,000 viewers for CNN and 1.7 million for FNC.

Fox has almost five times the number of viewers as MSNBC. The network went left and the viewers weren't there. Perhaps the new boss will figure out that the place to compete with FNC is with fair and balanced news and opinion, not with more of the dross that MSM tosses out via the papers and the nets every day.

There's room and need for a second channel on the dial that doesn't revile conservatives and their views without interruption. But the audience didn't need a fifth network devoted to cheerleading the left.

How does the news play in the caves of Afghanistan-Pakistan?

Terry Pluto on the voice of Cleveland sports.

I interviewed both Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala) on today's program, and asked both about the 11th and 12th seats on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The D.C. Circuit is authorized to have 12 judges. With last month's Senate confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the 10th seat, it now has 10 sitting judges. Senator Cornyn urged that the White House get the new nominees for this and other vacancies up soon, and also stated his belief that both vacancies on the D.C. Circuit should be filled. He also, somewhat reluctantly, agreed that the D.C. Circuit is "first among equals" among the federal circuits becuase it handles the key cases involving the federal regulatory state, the agencies of which have such incredible power over the lives of ordinary Americans and which are usually indifferent at best to issues of federalism, private property and regulatory costs.

When Senator Sessions followed, however, the real issue came out. Senator Sessions is an opponent of filling the 12th seat, although he is willing to support a competent nominee for the 11th seat. Senator Sessions does not believe the workload of the D.C. Circuit justifies a 12th judge at a cost of more than a million dollars a year --salary, benefits, staff, clerks overhead etc go into that figure.

While I was happy to hear that Senator Sessions will support moving forward with the process of confirming one more judge, I am sorry to hear him argue against filling the 12th seat. Though I was low on time, I pointed out that a 12th judge increases the likelihood of a litigant facing a three judge panel made up of sound originalist judges by a significant percentage, and that it was not conservative to undo via refusal the legislative direction of a previous Congress and president.

Of the 10 "active" judges, two were appointed by President Reagan, two by the first President Bush, three by President Clinton, and three by the current President Bush.

There are four "senior" circuit judges, who can hear and decide cases as well, (one appointed by President Clinton and three by President Reagan), so the pool from which three judge panels come is actually larger than the 10 "active" judges. ("Senior status" judges do not participate in en banc hearings of the entire court.)

Obviously even one additional sound appointment to this court would have huge and welcome effects on the federal administrative law and many other areas of law as well. I hope colleagues and constituents will engage Senator Sessions --a fine and very smart senator with a distinguished record-- in a conversation about the 12th seat and persuade him that the million dollars is well invested in a court with so much power.

But of course the White House has to get the nominee for the 11th seat up to the Hill.

Here's the exchange with Senator Cornyn:

HH: Senator Cornyn, of those...the 11th and 12th seats on the D.C. Circuit which are vacant, it's a 12 seat court for the benefit of our audience, not nine like the Supreme Court. Have any colleagues of yours expressed to you the view that that's too many judges, and at least one of those ought to be left unfilled?

JC: Well, I have heard some concerns expressed that the work load for the court does not justify additional judges, but it's been mainly just conversation, nothing specific.

HH: It would be very uncharacteristic of a conservative to simply not comply with a law that had been passed by both chambers, correct?

JC: Absolutely.

HH: And so, I hope that if you get a bunch of nominees, do you think the Judiciary Committee will put the D.C. Circuit at the front of the line?

JC: Well, I think it certainly deserves to be filled, that vacancy. But I can tell you, Hugh, that there's a lot of judicial emergencies that exist around the country, as designated by the judicial conference that have been gone wanting for a long time. So I'd be loathe to elevate one over another, but yeah, they all need to be filled.

HH: But Senator, at the risk of pushing you, the D.C. Circuit is, you know, first among equals among the appellate courts, correct?

JC: Well, that's what they say. It's of course the place where a lot of folks get elevated to the United States Supreme Court, and it's the court that has jurisdiction over a lot of the administrative bureaucracy here in Washington. It's a very, very important court. And I think you're right, they should be filled.

HH: I appreciate it. Senator Cornyn, great work on the Hawaii bill, too bad on the marriage amendment, but you'll live to fight again, and thanks for the work on the Judiciary Committee.

JC: Thanks, Hugh.

Here's the exchange with Senator Sessions:

HH: All right, now I also want to talk to you, Senator, about the D.C. Circuit. There are two vacancies, the famed 11th and 12th seat. Do you think judges should be confirmed to both of those seats, Senator Sessions?

JS: I don't, Hugh. I've opposed that for some time. It has the lowest case load of any circuit in America by far, about half the national average, and it's declining. I'm prepared to approve maybe one of the nominees, but I don't think we need to fill both of those seats. We don't have a dime to waste. It costs about...over a million dollars a year to field a single circuit judge slot, and we need to start looking for ways to save money...

HH: Senator, can I argue that with you a little bit?

JS: Yeah.

HH: I mean, when the Congress passes twelve, and it's the second most important court, and we could get two more conservatives on there, the odds of getting a fair-minded, originalist panel increased by 10% for a litigant, if you have another bush judge up there. And given that the Congress has already approved it, isn't it sort of extra-legal not to fill that which has been approved?

JS: Well, Congress has approved it. We don't have to fill it. In fact, we need to just eliminate it, and take that money, and apply it to some areas where we're going to have to add judges. Senator Grassley and I, back when President Clinton was in office, we were on the subcommittee that deals with case loads for courts, and I now chair that subcommittee. And we concluded that we did not need that slot then.

HH: But you're open to the 11th?

JS: I'll go the 11th. We don't need either one of them, frankly.

HH: But you'll go for the 11th?

JS: Yeah.

HH: All right, Senator Sessions. I'll take half. I believe in compromise. Thank you, Senator.

Full transcripts will be available at Radioblogger.com.

UPDATE: And be sure to read Ed Whelan's series of posts on the ABA's judge-evaluators. Eye-opening.