Here is some good news from the White House as reported by

President George W. Bush said today he’s lifting a presidential ban on drilling for oil and natural gas on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, setting up a showdown with Congress over a separate ban it put in place in the 1980s.

“Today I’ve taken every step within my power to allow offshore exploration of the OCS,” Bush said in a statement at the White House. “This means the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action by the U.S. Congress.”

Of course, for every action is an equal and opposite political reaction. In this case, Democrat leaders peeing in the good-news punch the President is serving:

Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress rejected the president’s call, saying the move to end the moratorium would have no effect on prices and better options are available.

“If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks. But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement today.

Lifting of the executive ban on offshore drilling won’t have any short-term effect on gas prices as long as liberals continue to stand between America and America’s oil. And as far as thinking long-term is concerned, eventually the sun will burn out, too, but we shouldn’t let that paralyze us from making plans for the future.

I can tell you what would have an effect on oil prices: a two-pronged approach that targets both supply and demand. We need to increase supply by drilling for all the oil and natural gas we can find in the U.S. Every state or federal official who resists drilling for America’s oil is telling you, the American public, that high prices due to politically reduced supply is a good thing. We also need to decrease demand by inventing the technology to free us from the use of oil for fuel. An organized effort on the scale of the Manhattan Project or Apollo Program is what I’d like to see. Every state or federal official who resists promoting technology is telling you, the American public, that high prices due to increased demand is a good thing.

I find it interesting, the awkward position liberal Democrats have placed themselves in today. As the U.S. continues to suffer from the effects of high oil and gas prices, they stand to benefit politically this November. But if they work to help America by reducing the high price of oil and gas by freeing supply and innovating to decrease demand, the praise will go to the sitting President–a Republican. In effect, as America suffers, Democrats benefit. It’s no wonder that they are unwilling to drill for oil anywhere. They know that doing so would improve America’s economic situation, and that would not currently be a benefit to their party.

Rather than pulling together to help America, liberals are more anxious to benefit politically from our pain. So why should we elect people who are more interested in furthering their own political careers than in meeting America’s needs?

UPDATE (7/16/2008 7:53:28 PM): Oil prices have fallen for two days after President Bush’s announcement that he was lifting the executive order banning drilling on the U.S. continental shelf, but all of the articles I have read, like this one in The New York Times, have identified other reasons for the drop.

Concerns about a slowing economy and rising inflation pushed oil prices down sharply for a second day on Wednesday, an unusual dip in the oil price rally that began more than six years ago.

The two-day decline totaled more than $10.50 a barrel, but analysts cautioned that it was still unclear how far prices would fall and that the respite may be temporary.

There have been concerns for a while now, so why the drop yesterday and today? The only specific thing I could point to is President Bush’s executive order. But once the investors realize that the liberals in Congress and the leaders in the states will continue their own drilling ban, the futures price of oil will head back up. Once they realize that the U.S. won’t drill to increase supply, then you will see oil prices head back up, regardless of the state of the U.S. economy and inflation.

The title of the MSNBC article by Senior Producer John W. Schoen is “Can government turn the economy around?” The answer is a loud yes. Government, by its action and inaction, can turn a healthy economy sick just as it can turn a sick economy healthy. But it really depends on what the government plans are. In a nutshell, if the government butts out of the economy and allows people to engage in commerce without restrictive and repressive rules and regulations, the economy can soar. When the government plays the role of buttinski, their actions can cause the economy to sour. Here is the second paragraph from the article:

Theres no shortage of ideas in an election year. But it remains to be seen just how much the government can do to halt the continued slide in an economy battered by falling housing prices, rising energy costs and a lending slowdown caused by worries about how many more loans will go bad.

Let’s take a quick look at the three woes in Schoen’s article. Housing prices are falling because they have risen in a speculative market driven by house flippers and low interest rates. Rising energy costs can be blamed on an increase in demand for oil as nations like India and China want to get out of the 20th Century and join the 21st. But some of the blame for the increase can be laid at the feet of government and government regulation. We haven’t built a new nuclear power plant in the U.S. for over 30 years, and environmental nutjobs have succeeded in preventing the U.S. from tapping into much of our own available oil fields. And the loan crisis was caused by the government forcing companies to give loans to high-risk people, or they would be labeled as discriminating racists and prosecuted by government thugs. Now that — surprise, surprise — these high-risk people are defaulting on their loans, government thugs like Senator Clinton are bashing those same loan companies as being “predatory.” Politicians get to look good twice: first when they cause a problem, and later when they try to “fix” the same problem they created.

European and Asian markets are struggling today because of their worry over a U.S. recession. So, what can the government do that could stimulate the economy? Quite simply, the government could just get out of the way. The more government butts into our jobs and tells us what we can and can’t do, the harder it is for us to do our jobs. And possibly the easiest way for the government to leave us alone is by lowering the tax rates. As I have written before, you get more of that which you reward, and less of that which you punish, and taxes certainly are punitive on people working and doing business.

But it appears we may instead get a tax rebate. According to this news report, Pres. Bush is considering up to an $800 tax rebate, similar to the $300 tax rebate that was given in 2001. But whether it is a tax rebate or a tax rate cut, it will have to pass the Democrats in Congress. And knowing that, I have to wonder whether Democrats are really willing to help.

Here’s their dilemma — if Democrats do nothing or block any attempt by the White House to improve the economy, they could use a weak economy to push themselves forward. But doing so politically would mean hurting the little people the Democrats say they support. Time will tell whether the Democrats in Congress will put their own political fortunes ahead of the national interest.

It’s really interesting the way the mainstream media reports a non-story. Here’s a bit from an Associated Press article that caught my eye today:

President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has “run its course.”

“And now we’re going to move on,” Bush said in a White House news conference.

The president had initially said he would fire anyone in his administration found to have publicly disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and a CIA operative. Ten days ago, Bush commuted the 30-month sentence given to I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby by a federal judge in connection with the case.

I had to laugh at the first paragraph. I can almost hear the media hounds barking over the tired old bone of who leaked Valerie Plame’s name to the media. *bark*bark* “Bush admits his administration did it!” *bark*bark*

But it is the third paragraph that really cheesed me off. It contains two sentences that have nothing to do with each other, but by placing them together, the media gets a twofer. First, they get to *tsk-tsk* the President for saying he’d fire someone who leaked the name and didn’t, and second, they bring up Libby right after, linking his sentence and commutation with the President’s pledge to fire the leaker.

But Libby didn’t leak the name. And shame on the unnamed Associated Press hack(s) who wrote this story to make people believe he did. They know Libby didn’t leak the name. When Patrick Fitzgerald started his investigation into the leak, he knew Libby wasn’t at fault. Attorney General John Ashcroft knew that Libby wasn’t the leaker. They all knew who the leaker was.

The leaker was Richard Armitage, the number two man under then-Secretary of State Colin Powell. And President Bush couldn’t fire him because he had already left his post as Deputy Secretary of State on Feb. 22, 2005.

But isn’t it interesting that in the entire AP story, Armitage’s name never even appears?

Once again top Democrats are giving the finger to our troops. Today Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi aided and abetted our enemies by flatly telling President Bush that the troop surge has failed.

“As many had forseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results,” the two leaders wrote.

“The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.

“It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.

“In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops.”

Yep, that there surge sure has failed. Of course, the full complement of troops have yet to fully surge into the field, but these Dems are telling us it has already failed. Violence is up, so the U.S. troops suck. Just listen to the Dems.

And people are listening to the Democrats. Al-Qaeda is listening, and the murderous thugs killing our soldiers and Iraqi civilians are listening. The message they are hearing is “Hold on, terrorists! And keep killing Americans. Just a few more deaths, and we’ll wave the white flag and run.”

It’s no surprise that Senator Reid is ready to wave the white flag and claim the surge has failed. He waved the white flag and gave up in April when he said, “this war is lost.” Way to show backbone, Senator Reid!

With friends like the Democrats, the troops don’t need enemies.

And global warming continues to make the news. First comes a story about a comment made by NASA administrator Michael Griffin in an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep. Inskeep asked Griffin whether he was concerned about global warming.

“I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin told Inskeep. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”

“To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change,” Griffin said. “I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.”

Griffin’s comments immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

“It’s an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement,” Hansen told ABC News. “It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change.”

Can you hear Hanson’s cry of “Heretic!” at Griffin? I sure can! And what exactly are the “implications of climate change” that Hanson is frothing over? Humans have experienced hotter overall temperatures than the ones we are currently experiencing, most recently during the Medieval Warm Period of the 10th – 14th centuries. But Hansen’s response is disingenuous — his comment about the implication of climate change has nothing to do with Griffin’s question. Who are we to say that this climate is the best climate and that we should do something to arrest the climate to our arbitrary standard? Hanson continues to deliberately misunderstand Griffin’s query.

Hansen believes Griffin’s comments fly in the face of well-established scientific knowledge that hundreds of NASA scientists have contributed to.

“It’s unbelievable,” said Hansen. “I thought he had been misquoted. It’s so unbelievable.”

It’s not unbelievable. It’s just that Hansen isn’t listening to what Griffin is actually saying. Griffin isn’t denying that there is a warming trend. What he doubts is that we must be all a-twitter over “fixing” our climate. Climate temperatures rise and fall over time, just as the water level of the sea rises and falls over time with the tide. Griffin is saying that it is arrogant for scientists to claim that our current climate is the “right” climate and to try to fix temperatures at this level. Imagine a scientist standing at the seashore, declaring the “right” sea level and trying to stop the changing of the tide. Is it not arrogant to stand on the shore and demand that the tides obey your very whim?

Sadly, it appears that President Bush is climbing on the “we must fix it” bandwagon.

President Bush on Thursday urged 15 major nations to agree on a global emissions goal for greenhouse gases and to reach a consensus by next year.

With the United States accused of dragging its feet on combatting climate change, Bush called for a meeting this fall of 15 countries identified as major emitters of greenhouse gases. This list would include the United States, China, India and major European countries.

But Germany has a better plan, and it only calls for a reduction in emissions (read that as production of goods and services) to 50% of what it was in 1990. It is like making only 50% of the money you earned 17 years ago. Does that sound like a good plan?

Germany, which holds the European Union and Group of Eight presidencies, is proposing a so-called “two-degree” target, whereby global temperatures would be allowed to increase no more than 2 degrees Celsius – the equivalent of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit – before being brought back down. Practically, experts have said that means a global reduction in emissions of 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

It was hot yesterday, and there is no air conditioner at my place. But I took care of the matter because I gave strict instructions to my thermometer not to rise more than 3.6 degrees that day before it started to cool off. For some reason, it ignored me. I’m not sure why.

But good luck on that, Germany. Tell us how it works out.

Speaker Pelosi is in the news again — this time, she is in Greenland with other members of Congress looking at climate change. If you haven’t noticed already, more and more people and reports are switching to the term “climate change” from “global warming.” This term is much more flexible and useful; whether temperatures go up or down, they can thus claim to have predicted it. Using the “climate change” method, I predict that stocks will go up and down over time. I like to call it “stock change.” Of course, I have to wonder who promised people that stocks and the climate would never change during their lifetimes.

But that’s not what caught my eye. I was reading a news article reporting Speaker Pelosi’s trip to Greenland when I noticed an error. See if you can spot the error in the following two paragraphs:

Her trip comes ahead of next week’s Group of Eight summit and a climate change meeting next month involving the leading industrialized nations and during a time of increased debate over what should succeed the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 international treaty that caps the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from power plants and factories in industrialized countries. It expires in 2012.

President Bush rejected that accord, saying it would harm the U.S. economy and unfair excludes developing countries like China and India from its obligations. Pelosi, who strongly disagrees with that decision and many other of Bush’s environmental policies, said Friday she said she wants to work with the administration rather than provoke it.

Based on what I read here, President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol. But that is completely and utterly wrong! I have to wonder whether the reporter, Geir Moulson, was too lazy to actually research the facts, or if he just sought to beat on President Bush for political brownie points. So, lazy or lying? It’s a tough call.

Here’s the facts: the U.S. is a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, but even though the Protocol was signed, it does not take effect until ratified by the Senate. In 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 on a resolution not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Pray tell, Geir, what was President Bush’s role in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol in 1997? Here’s a hint: President Bush took office in 2001.

While President Bush is not a fan of the Kyoto Protocol, that is not the same as saying he “rejected that accord.” The Kyoto Protocol was rejected more than 40 months before President Bush even took office. So I must repeat my question: is Geir guilty of being too lazy to research the facts, or was it a deliberate attempt to mislead?

Lazy or lying? It’s your call.

UPDATE (5/29/2007 12:12:52 PM): Hehe. I see that Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters spotted this same reporting error earlier today.

There is some wonderful news coming out of stem cell research, as reported in the UK based Times Online.

Diabetics using stem-cell therapy have been able to stop taking insulin injections for the first time, after their bodies started to produce the hormone naturally again.

In a breakthrough trial, 15 young patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were given drugs to suppress their immune systems followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood.

The results show that insulin-dependent diabetics can be freed from reliance on needles by an injection of their own stem cells. The therapy could signal a revolution in the treatment of the condition, which affects more than 300,000 Britons. [emphasis mine - ed]

While this is great news for people who are suffering type 1 diabetes, it is yet another successful use of adult stem cells. And what is not surprising is the complete absence of the phrase “adult stem cells” from the report, but the reporter does mention stem cells from embryos and uses that mention to bash President Bush. A liberal twofer!

But research using the most versatile kind of stem cells — those acquired from human embryos — is currently opposed by powerful critics, including President Bush.

Adult stem cell research has been successful in this instance and in many others, but human embryo stem cell (hESC) research has turned up no, repeat NO, successful therapies yet. I add the “yet” because people are still researching hESC for beneficial therapies. But including President Bush as opposing hESC research is a flat-out error. President Bush announced back in 2001 that the federal government would provide funds for existing hESC lines, but there would be no public funding for creating new hESC lines, which would mean the destruction of new embryos. That is not the same as saying President Bush opposes hESC research. He does not, and the reporter is wrong.

But that’s the sort of thing you get when the media reports their political views as news rather than just giving the facts.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is making headlines with her visit to Syria. I’ll ignore the headscarf nonsense that has some people all hot and bothered; and I’ll ignore the fact that she’s meeting with the leaders of Syria, a puppet-state of our dear friends in the Islamic Republic of Iran; and I’ll even ignore the fact that President Bush objected to her visit. Instead, I’m going to focus on a matter I believe is more important: just what the hell is she doing over there?

Let me back up a bit. The U.S. government is made up of three branches — Judicial, Executive, and Legislative. Madam Speaker is a leading member of the Legislative body. This simply means it is her responsibility to write the laws that the Executive will enforce. But what authority does the Legislature have in negotiating with a foreign nation? Here’s a quick refresher course in Constitutional limits on the powers of Congress:

Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That’s a fair number of things for Congress to do. So did you notice the part empowering Congress to negotiate with foreign dictators? Yeah, neither did I. Basically, visiting foreign countries and heads of state is not part of Speaker Pelosi’s job. But far worse than just going beyond the bounds of her job, Speaker Pelosi is actively undermining the President. Whether you like him or not, President Bush is responsible for representing the nation to others–not Speaker Pelosi, even if she believes she can do a better job.

To make the actions of Speaker Pelosi easier to understand, let’s think of an example closer to home. Consider a teenager who has come home way past his curfew for the third time in a week. His dad is reading him the riot act and reminding him that the agreed-upon punishment is being grounded for a full week. His mom can choose to stand with his dad, supporting him, or she can undermine his authority by playing “good cop” to the dad’s “bad cop.” If she chooses the latter course of action, the teenager comes to realize that Mom is a pushover, and all he needs to do is work on her to get out of any problem he happens to be in. This is a recipe for disaster.

And a disaster is exactly what Speaker Pelosi is asking for when she undermines the President. But what else would you expect from the party of defeat?

 Madam Neville Pelosi

Thank you, Madam Neville Pelosi. In addition to the comic above, Cox and Forkum nicely sum up Speaker Pelosi’s ineffectual discussions with Syria: “It’s impossible to have a “dialogue” about peace with an intransigent and bloody state sponsor of two groups who openly want to destroy the free state of Israel. This is the mess that Pelosi and her ilk refuse to see.”

UPDATE (4/5/2007 9:29:58 AM): More people are recognizing how Madam Speaker inserted her foot deeply in her mouth with her visit to Syria. What is the problem? The Washington Post explains the Speaker’s failure here:

After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. What’s more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to “resume the peace process” as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. “We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria,” she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. “What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that “a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.” In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda.

We have a Secretary of State for a reason — so buttinskies like Speaker Pelosi don’t blunder through mistakes like this gaff with the consummate skill of a head-scarfed cow in a china shop. Captain Ed of Captain’s Quarters summed up Madam Speaker’s gaff in this manner:

Pelosi somehow forgot the part about ending support for terrorism when she met with Assad. She told the Syrian dictator that Israel was ready to meet with Assad on a peace proposal, which only told part of the story. In delivering only part of the message, Pelosi not only arrogated to herself the role of American foreign policy director — which Condoleezza Rice has as Secretary of State — she did the same with Israel’s foreign policy as well.

Not a bad night’s work for an incompetent.

When diplomats meet with enemies, they make sure to get their positions coordinated with their allies and execute strict message discipline. They do not “wing it” — they check with their elected governments when any questions arise about the directions of talks. Only someone with an ego in inverse proportion to her talent would start making stuff up as she goes when dealing with the Syrian-Israeli relationship, one of the most explosive in the world.

Would you, anonymous stranger, complain if I were to paint the inside of my house a bright green with pink spots? Of course not, because you’d have no business dictating to me how I can or can’t paint my own place. It’s not your place, nor is it your responsibility to dictate what I do. On the other hand, my landlord could certainly complain, keep my security deposit, or demand that I repaint the walls their original color. He has the right to do this because it is his house. Since he has ownership and its associated responsibility, he can dictate exactly what I can and cannot do to the house. But you have no say because it is not your house and not your responsibility.

Is this clear enough? Apparently, not to Congress.

The current brouhaha in Congress comes over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department. Congress has its collective panties in a bunch because it could be *drum roll* politically motivated. *gasp* The horror!

Lawmakers requested the documents as part of an investigation into whether the firings were politically motivated. While it is unclear whether the documents will answer Congress’s questions, they show that the White House and other administration officials were more closely involved in the dismissals, and at a much earlier date, than they have previously acknowledged.

Seven U.S. attorneys were fired on Dec. 7, and another was fired months earlier, with little explanation from the Justice Department….

When Congress asked the Justice Department to fork over documents to justify the firings, the Justice Department should have responded with, “Mind your own business, Congress.” The Justice Department is overseen by the Executive Branch, and its hirings and firings are an internal matter. The title of the above report is “Attorney firings had genesis in White House.” And my response is–yeah; so? The U.S. attorneys work under the auspices of the Chief Executive, not the Legislature, so firings are handled by the Executive Branch. Frankly, the President could have fired any of these people on a whim, if he chose.

Would the White House be justified in asking Speaker Pelosi to explain the firing of someone on her staff? Absolutely not! The Executive Branch has nothing to do with Speaker Pelosi’s staffing issues, and Speaker Pelosi and the rest of Congress should butt out of the private staffing issues of the Executive Branch.

Paul Kane of the Washington Post has expressed his barely contained glee at the subpoenas by Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) regarding the firing of the U.S. attorneys. Sanchez asked, “Are these people being removed for doing their job and for doing it too well?” The question is left hanging. Obviously there is something evil going on–or so Kane would have you believe. But his own blog entry has the key quote:

“Today’s hearing was political grandstanding. Every U.S. attorney serves at the pleasure of the president and they know this beforehand. Most of the U.S. attorneys in question served 4 years or longer. Republicans are not going to provide votes for political subpoenas,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the top Republican on the full Judiciary Committee, in a statement.

They serve “at the pleasure of the President,” says Rep. Smith. This sounds very much like “at will” employment. Every job I have had in my professional career to date has been at-will employment. This meant I could be fired for any reason or no reason, and with no prior warning. It also meant I could leave my job for any reason or no reason, and with no prior warning.

So some U.S. attorneys were fired. Big whoop-de-friggin’-doo. Even if these people were fired at the personal request of Pres. Bush, it would still be a non-story. The attorneys worked for him, and he had every right to fire them if he chose to do so, regardless of what meddlesome Democrats in Congress and liberals in the media might say. They have no more say in this event than you have in choosing a paint color for my house.

UPDATE (3/13/2007 2:37:14 PM): Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acknowledges mistakes, successfully pouring oil on the Democrat fire.

“Obviously I am concerned about the fact that information — incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress,” Gonzales said. “I believe very strongly in our obligation to ensure that when we provide information to the Congress, it is accurate and it is complete. And I very dismayed that that may not have occurred here.”

If the Justice Department had told the Congress to butt out of internal affairs, this wouldn’t be the ginned-up scandal it is today.

If you ever get in a debate argument with a liberal about WMDs at the level of “Bush Lied, people died,” there is a simple question to ask them:

If the U.S. military were to find deadly WMDs in Iraq with a note attached saying “To America with love” and signed by Saddam Hussein, would you support the war in Iraq to remove him?

If you get an answer of NO like I have, stop the conversation right there. There is absolutely no reason to discuss Iraqi WMDs when the presence of WMDs doesn’t matter to the liberal.

If the answer is YES, then you have two options: point out the WMDs that have been found in Iraq, or point out how the entire world, including the Democratic party leaders, were worried about WMDs in the hands of Saddam Hussein. Here is a video put together by the GOP about Democrats and using their own words against them. I bring this up because people are quick to forget what others say unless they are reminded.

Thanks to Instapundit for linking to the video in the first place.