Wednesday, March 26, 2008

What do you say to a naked lady?

It's time for Americans to admit that when it comes to sex scandals, France is the world's only superpower.

Check out this photo:



That's Prince Charles kissing the gloved hand of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy at the welcoming ceremony today at London's Heathrow Airport. The man gripping Mrs. Sarkozy's elbow is her husband Nicolas, the president of France.

If President Sarkozy looks a little tense, it might be because a nude full-body photo of his wife was published in all the British tabloids today. The portrait, taken fifteen years ago by Michel Comte, will be auctioned by Christie's in New York on April 10.

Here's a different photo from Mrs. Sarkozy's modeling career that ran this week in an Australian paper:



She's Italian and her husband is Hungarian, but those boots are pure Germany.

Anyway, the point is that the newlywed Mrs. Sarkozy, seen here at an official state dinner at the Elysee Palace in Paris earlier this month...



...and the sublimely happy, if exhausted, Nicolas Sarkozy...



...were welcomed in Britain by, speaking of sex scandals, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall...



...and everyone's perfectly happy. Completely calm. Utterly unfazed.

We just don't have anything to hold a candle to it. Look at the week we had in the sex scandal division:

-- New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was snagged by the Patriot Act and forced from office for overpaying an aspiring pop singer for unsafe sex with his socks on.

-- New York Governor David Paterson was forced by blackmailers to admit that the Quality Inn was his motel of choice for adulterous affairs.

-- Former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey insisted that his wife was lying when she denied having a threesome with his gay lover.

-- Somebody mentioned Monica Lewinsky to Chelsea Clinton and every newspaper in America wrote a story about it.

Compare these pathetic attempts at scandal to the fabulous French achievement. Nicolas Sarkozy waited until he was elected president of France to divorce his wife Cecilia and marry supermodel Carla Bruni. And if you think we've heard the last of Cecilia, guess again: earlier this week she flew to New York and married public relations executive Richard Attias in what the New York Post called a "revenge wedding" in Manhattan's "glitzy" Rainbow Room.

My fellow Americans, it is time to face up to the truth. In the Grand Prix of sex scandals, the United States is a fleet of Pintos.

It is time to set aside narrow self-interest and take the action that's needed to make the United States competitive again.

America Wants to Know calls on all Democratic party superdelegates to do the right thing for the country this summer at the Democratic convention.

Nominate Warren Beatty for president.



Copyright 2008

.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Hearing from the troops

America Wants to Know recently heard from an annoyed active-duty service member and thought you'd find the correspondence interesting. The name has been changed and the e-mail address deleted. But if you'd like to respond to him, or to me, comments have been enabled on this post.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

From: Zachary Morrison
Subject: How to end the violence in Iraq
Date: Thu, March 20, 2008 11:12 am
To: susan@extremeink.com

You recently wrote an article, "The Motive of War," where you state that the *"The Iraqis are murdering each other by the hundreds every day, and the American government is flailing in the dark, looking for a way to stop the violence." *Which, if you watch and believe the strictly liberal media programs, would validate the above statement.

The truth is much different from that. I am a part of a military family, my wife and I both are active duty. Your statement and the articles splashed in local newspapers and on the news programs are well off the mark. We are not "flailing in the dark," we are systematically training more and more Iraqi citizens in the field of security. Shiite, Kurd and Sunni peoples, working together to keep their own streets safe. Now, like most Americans with blinders on, I am sure you fall in the "Pull the troops out," category. This would be the worst move we could make. We have walked into a sovereign land, changed the entire political process and given the people of that land a type of freedom that they didn't know was possible! We have put our foot in it... we must stay now until they ask us to leave. Only when the Free Government of Iraq asks us to leave will we leave. To do so before that would be a form of murder. In their eyes and in the eyes of all of us military members who have fought and watched friends die to give these people freedom.

Thank you for your time.

Zachary G Morrison

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

From: Susan Shelley
To: Zachary Morrison
Subject: Re: How to end the violence in Iraq
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 8:39 pm

Hi, Zach,

Thanks very much for writing.

I'm a little bit confused by your note, because I'm on your side. I want the Iraq policy to work, and I want the Iraqi people to live in freedom.

You mentioned my article, "The Motive for War: How to End the Violence in Iraq," but in quoting from it you didn't seem to notice that it was written on November 16, 2006. The "flailing" that I described referred to President Bush's then-upcoming change in policy, ultimately resulting in a "surge" of U.S. troops.

Frankly, I suspect that you didn't read the article at all and that you wrote to me as part of a letter-writing campaign to shut down criticism of the president's policy.

I hope I'm wrong about that.

Since 2004 I have been writing consistently that the political situation in Iraq will never be stable until the state-owned enterprises are privatized. I invite you to read "Why the Iraq Policy Isn't Working" at this link:

http://www.extremeink.com/awtk/2005/11/why-iraq-policy-isnt-working.html

And also, "A Plan to Get Out of Iraq: Blackstone's Fundamental Rights and the Power of Property," at this link:

http://www.extremeink.com/susan/iraq.htm

We are all on the same side here. We all want freedom for the Iraqi people and U.S. troops out of Iraq. I hope you'll forward my articles to anyone you know who is concerned about the situation and wondering why the policy in Iraq has not worked out the way we all hoped it would.

You and your wife have my admiration, respect and gratitude for your service.

With all good wishes,

Susan Shelley

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

From: Zachary Morrison
Subject: Re: How to end the violence in Iraq
Date: Fri, March 21, 2008 1:51 am
To: Susan Shelley

Susan,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my letter, I truly appreciate that. Firstly, I would like to say this, I am not defending President Bush. I believe that we are needed in Iraq and were needed before we attacked. Though you are right about the privatization of Iraqi businesses, which is a step that will be taken, when they are ready as a people. For thousands of years these people have been a dictatorship, they are taking the steps to Democracy as quickly as they can. The Republic system they have set up at the moment is the closest thing that any of them have seen to freedom. Ever.

Further, we will never be "out" of Iraq. Just like Germany, Japan and Italy, we will always have a base in Iraq. Which, strategically is brilliant, especially in the hotbed that is South West Asia. Not to mention the economic value to the host country, in this case Iraq, a base will bring thousands of jobs and security to the local area.

I didn't mean to seem so harsh in my first email, because I do agree with much that you are saying. The problem I have, and it is not strictly directed at you, is that so many people are so vocal in their arguments against the War in Iraq that the military men and women suffer because of it. Sometimes all you have is your morale, the feeling that you are doing the right thing in the face of such unutterable hardship. It hurts to come home and hear nothing but anger and hate directed at the actions that so many of us have died for. Its easy for all those same people to say "We love the troops!" Then in the next sentence say that this war is lost. How is it that they can't understand that by saying that, they are saying that our brothers and sisters have died in this war for no reason. That by saying such things they put lie to their own words of Love for the troops.

Susan, thank you for your time.

Very Respectfully
Morrison, Zachary G. USN Active Duty

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

From: Susan Shelley
To: Zachary Morrison
Subject: Re: How to end the violence in Iraq
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 5:35 pm

Hi, Zach,

Thanks for writing back. I apologize for thinking you were part of a letter-writing campaign in support of President Bush's policies.

I don't want to take up your time, but I feel that I have to say a word in defense of the war critics who have made you so angry.

They don't want to see U.S. troops sacrificed. They don't want you to be sacrificed in order to prove that earlier sacrifices were not in vain. They don't want another generation to be sacrificed in order to prove that your sacrifice, God forbid, was not in vain.

You're undoubtedly too young to remember it personally, but this kind of thinking is how we ended up with fifty-eight thousand names on a black granite wall in Washington D.C.

None of us want that again.

Like the Vietnam war, the Iraq war was not declared by Congress as the U.S. Constitution requires. Instead we had a deployment of troops by order of the commander in chief, followed by a series of assertions that the troops must be kept in place because to pull them out would be catastrophic.

That's not the deal we signed in 1789. The United States should go to war when the elected representatives of the people of the United States agree to go to war, not when the president mistakenly believes there's an imminent danger and then claims for five years that the decision was right for other reasons, and now can't be reversed without disastrous consequences.

Your commitment and valor deserve better support from your country. Blind allegiance by Congress to the president's policies is no substitute for a frank and ongoing debate over whether the policies are succeeding, whether the goals are attainable, and whether they are worth the sacrifice of even one treasured American life.

What I'm trying to say is that we're all looking out for you. Even the people who sound like they're not backing you up.

As far as keeping a base in Iraq permanently, that might be a good idea, but once again it's not the deal we signed. Congress must debate and authorize a permanent military presence in Iraq, it can't just be ordered by the president. Unchecked executive power is dangerous to freedom. If Saddam Hussein taught us anything, it's that.

One of the U.S. commanders said some time ago that the U.S. military is the finest hammer in the history of the world, but not every problem is a nail. If it turns out that Iraq is not a nail, no one in the United States, not even the most outspoken or obnoxious protester, will have anything but the highest regard for the hammer.

In the meantime, let's stay friends. I really am on your side.

Best wishes,

Susan

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

From: Zachary Morrison
Subject: Re: How to end the violence in Iraq
Date: Fri, March 21, 2008 6:21 am
To: Susan Shelley

Susan,

Again thank you. I agree with you wholeheartedly on the issues of Military misuse. Bush didn't have a right to take us into this war, nor does he have a right to keep us in this war. But, if you were to ask those of us fighting this war, if we wanted to pull out tomorrow, most of us would tell you no. As horrible as war is, blood is the price for freedom. Though it is our blood and their freedom, it is a price we have begun to pay and would be loathe to leave unfinished.

You are right, though, I am too young to remember Vietnam but I'm not too young to know the difference between right and wrong. It wasn't wrong to start this war in Iraq, though if it had been done through the correct process no doubt there would still be nay sayers and critics. It wasn't wrong to depose that dictator. It wasn't wrong to allow those people the chance at freedom and a government chosen by the people. Its not wrong to stand along side those same people and protect them while they finalize the acts of that government. It's not wrong for us to be teaching them the same means of security we use on our streets. It was just wrong for the President to use another war and scare tactics to get us there in the first place.

It hurts to see people whose sole opinion stems from CNN say such horrible things about this war without pausing to ask us. Those of us fighting this war. Not a single one of us expects a parade, just some honest support from our countrymen.

I do like your writing, Susan. Don't misunderstand me, just remember that there are more than two sides to this. That's all I ask.

And again, thank you for taking time to listen, whether we agree or disagree.

Zach

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

From: Susan Shelley
To: Zachary Morrison
Subject: Re: How to end the violence in Iraq
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:46 am

Hi, Zach,

I should have known better than to think I could win a fight with the U.S. Navy.

Would it be all right with you if I posted our correspondence on my blog, AmericaWantsToKnow.com? I know a lot of people would like to read your thoughts on this war, and I think they should.

I'll take your name and e-mail address off, of course, to protect your privacy.

Best regards,

Susan

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

From: Zachary Morrison
Subject: Re: How to end the violence in Iraq
Date: Sat, March 22, 2008 12:36 am
To: Susan Shelley

Susan,

I wouldn't mind at all. Though, I don't think it's really a fight, more a differing of opinion. I believe pretty strongly in this. I don't agree with the manner in which we went to war but I do agree with the reasons that keep us here. Many of our fighting men and women feel this way. Oh, and please don't think that I singled you out for my rants... I have made it a point to comment as much as I possibly can with as many differing authors as I can find. Not in an effort to actually disagree with the authors but in an effort to show as many of those people how we feel about this war.

Truth be told, we are winning this war, one small step at a time. Remember, we are trying to change a country from Dictatorship to Democracy. Not the easiest of tasks. Not four years ago these people had no idea what it meant to vote, to actually have a place in the process of Government, now everyone over 18 has that right, both men and women! With the help of all the clans, Sunni, Kurd and Shiite, we have trained and built a police force that is keeping the streets so much safer than it was even 7 years ago!

That's enough of my ranting though, I truly appreciate you listening to what I have to say. Thank you, Susan. All I ask is that you remember just how hard this country's men and women are working to keep every American safe at home and trying to give those same freedoms and safety to the men and women who live in other countries. Do I think we should try to force Democracy on everyone? No. But where we can, we should.

That's all I have, again, thank you, Susan.

Very Respectfully,

Zachary G Morrison

I have truly enjoyed reading your articles and look forward to reading still more and I would be proud to have my opinions posted. I don't feel that I have anything to be embarrassed about. I am a proud American.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

What Barack Obama didn't say

Michelle Obama sat in the front row at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia Tuesday as her husband addressed the potentially campaign-ending controversy caused by the remarks of his longtime pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Mrs. Obama was "very emotional" during the speech, ABC News reported, and was observed crying backstage afterwards.

In the speech, Senator Obama both criticized and explained the "incendiary language" of his now former pastor. The senator denounced the views that he said "rightly offend white and black alike." But he also described Rev. Wright's background, career, good works, and inspirational services. He said he could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could disown the black community.

Rev. Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama and baptized their two daughters.

Here's something to consider.

Maybe Rev. Wright is not his pastor.

Maybe Rev. Wright is her pastor.

Barack Obama is a man who is going to be happily married for a very long time.


Copyright 2008

.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Reading the mind of a superdelegate

America Wants to Know is very busy and doesn't have a lot of time to waste.

So when the Sunday New York Times ran a story about the angst of the Democratic party's superdelegates as they ponder the choice between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, we made a phone call to our in-house mind reader and asked him this question:

What are the superdelegates thinking?

Mirko the Magnificent Mind Reader came right over with a suitcase full of crystals and and a bottle of Slivovitz.

Hey, whatever works.

"I see fear," Mirko said, when he had set up his gear on the coffee table. "There is profound fear."

"Fear that the Democratic party will be torn apart by a bloodletting fight between the candidates?" we asked.

Mirko squinted. "No," he said, "Fear of job loss." Then he fell silent and poured two shots of Slivovitz.

"So the issue is the economy," we volunteered, declining the plum brandy. (We have a strict policy here at America Wants to Know: nothing above 80 proof before lunch.)

"No," Mirko said. "The issue is job loss. The Democratic party's superdelegates are mostly elected officials. They're thinking about their jobs. They want to be re-elected. They don't want to lose to their Republican challengers."

"What else do you see?" we asked.

"Nothing else," Mirko said. He moved the crystals around on the table and squinted again. "That's all they're thinking. They don't want to lose their jobs in November."

"But what does that mean?" we asked. "What does that tell us about which candidate they'll finally decide to support?"

Mirko drained the second shot of Slivovitz. "You don't need a mind reader for this," he said. "They're going to support the candidate who is most likely to draw energized Democrats to the polls in November, and least likely to draw energized Republicans. They're going to support Barack Obama." He packed the crystals back into the suitcase and snapped the latches shut.

"Thanks, Mirko," we said. "You've certainly saved us a lot of time."

"Child's play," he muttered. "Call me when you need a mind reader."


Copyright 2008

.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Executive privilege: President Bush's unicorn

The House Judiciary Committee filed a civil lawsuit on Monday to enforce subpoenas against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, the former White House counsel and current White House chief of staff, respectively.

The two aides to President Bush have already been found in contempt of Congress for refusing to show up at hearings investigating the firings of U.S. attorneys, dismissals which may have been motivated by a desire to prevent public corruption prosecutions of Republicans.

The civil suit was filed because President Bush's attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, has parroted President Bush's position that the aides are free to ignore subpoenas from Congress because the president is claiming executive privilege over everything from here to the horizon and back again.

This is going to be interesting.

There actually is no such thing as executive privilege. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach the president, the vice president, and all civil officers of the United States. Inherent in the power to impeach is the power to investigate. Logically and legally, no president can have an unwritten constitutional privilege to stymie the exercise of another branch's plainly written constitutional power.

But a civil suit? Congress unquestionably has the power to impeach the attorney general for failing to execute the laws of the United States, but can Congress win a civil suit aiming to force current and former White House aides to testify?

We'll all find out together.

No doubt the Democrats in Congress have concluded that impeachment proceedings would be received by the American people with something less than complete support. But that's a political judgment. Legally, constitutionally, Congress has the power (and the responsibility) to impeach executive branch officials who refuse to execute the laws of the United States. The civil courts have nowhere near as much power. And probably even less nerve.

So we're headed toward a waffling and incomprehensible civil court ruling from a frightened judge who does not want to get in the middle of a fight between the executive and legislative branches of the United States government.

Then President Bush will spin the confusing story to make the Democrats look like political hacks who are attacking him when they should be working for you.

The Democrats are foolish to put their fate in the hands of a civil court judge. They'd be better advised to heed Napoleon's advice: "If you're going to take Vienna, take Vienna."


Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier post, "Senate Republicans fire the big gun" and in the 1974 book by the late Harvard law professor Raoul Berger, Executive Privilege: A Constitutional Myth."

.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Sneak peek: Eliot Spitzer jokes from Argus

Enjoy a sneak peek at these Eliot Spitzer jokes from Argus Hamilton's column for Wednesday, March 12.


New York Governor Eliot Spitzer admitted Monday he hired five-thousand-dollar-an-hour prostitutes working in a Manhattan call girl ring. He did it to feed his ego. There simply wasn't enough room in the presidential race for any more New Yorkers.

Governor Eliot Spitzer was caught on a federal wiretap procuring a high-priced call girl. One thing is for sure now. Democrats in Congress will reauthorize Jim Crow laws before they allow the president to conduct any more warrantless wiretapping.

Governor Spitzer was caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet a call girl in a famous Washington D.C. hotel. It's not unusual. The number of women who came over on the Mayflower will never equal the number of women who came across at the Mayflower.

NBC News in New York reported Monday that Eliot Spitzer introduced himself to the prostitutes using the name George Fox. No Democrat can be linked to Fox and survive. If he had called himself George CNN the party would have rallied to his side.

New York politicians formed a chorus calling for Governor Spitzer to resign on Monday in the wake of his call girl scandal. The lieutenant governor who would replace him is legally blind. That's the first good news Wall Street has had all year.

If Argus Hamilton's column doesn't appear in your local newspaper, call the editors and complain, and meanwhile, read Argus every day at www.ArgusHamilton.com.


Copyright 2008
Used by permission.

Update: Find the latest Eliot Spitzer jokes from Argus right here.

.