Hewitt Blog

From the Washington Times' Rowan Scarborough:

Pentagon officials say they are increasingly worried that Washington's political fight over the Iraq war will dampen what has been high morale among troops fighting a tenacious and deadly enemy.
Commanders are telling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that ground troops do not understand the generally negative press that their missions receive, despite what they consider significant achievements in rebuilding Iraq and instilling democracy.
The commanders also worry about the public's declining support for the mission and what may be a growing movement inside the Democratic Party to advocate troop withdrawal from Iraq.
"They say morale is very high," said a senior Pentagon official of reports filed by commanders with Washington. "But they relate comments from troops asking, 'What the heck is going on back here' and why America isn't seeing the progress they are making or appreciating the mission the way those on the ground there do. My take is that they are wondering if America is still behind them."

With more than 50 days yet to go until the start of his hearings, the big MSM guns are slowly getting Judge Alito into range. Their ability to do so is the product of Senator Specter's concession to postpone hearings until next year (which combined with his refusal to sign the Patriot Act conference report or bring Brett Kavanaugh out of the deep freezer of the Judiciary Committee suggest that his commitments made to the GOP caucus a year ago had an expiration date).

Here's today's New York Times on Judge Alito:

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. has compiled a brief but unmistakable record, lawyers and analysts say, that makes him a leader in the camp of conservative theorists and judges who believe federal courts have been too quick to limit religious activities in public life.

During his 15 years sitting in Newark as a member of a federal appeals court, Judge Alito has sided almost uniformly with those who have complained vigorously in recent years that zealousness in enforcing the Constitution's separation of church and state has unfairly inhibited religious practices....

Eliot Mincberg, the legal director of People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, said Judge Alito's record demonstrates that he was "very solicitous when it comes to protecting the right of an individual to practice his religion, but not so solicitous of the right of people to be free of government-supported religion."

This morning's Washington Post editorializes that Judge Alito's Commerce Clause ruling on machine guns --though clearly based on Judge Alito's understanding of the Lopez case-- raise issues that the Senate must probe:

The machine gun law banned both transfer and possession of machine guns -- the ban on possession being an effort to criminalize the demand side of the gun market, while the transfer ban criminalized the supply side. Judge Alito's desire to extend the logic of Lopez to such a law seems to indicate an overly restrictive approach to the commerce clause -- though he did note that Congress could fix the statute quite easily. Senators will need to satisfy themselves that he does not envision a dramatic curtailing of national power.

If the Senate GOP spends December toasting each other and raising money and not raising a defense of Judge Alito to each and every MSM-attack or Democratic lie, the nominee will have been pummelled for seven straight weeks before the gavel comes down. Since Senator Specter set the schedule, perhaps he can organize the defense.

Howard Kurtz is the country's leading media critic and analyst, and his Washington Post column is a must-read for any serious student of the MSM. But today he takes a pratfall.

Kurtz writes:

Mapes is right that the purported 30-year-old memos by Bush's long-dead squadron commander have not been proved to be forgeries...

Yes, they have been proven to be forgeries. They have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been produced on equipment not available in the era of President Bush's military service. If there was any cause to sue in open court over the documents, any coherent jury would so find, and just because Mary Mapes is journalism's O.J. Simpson doesn't mean that serious writers should encourage her fantasy life to the detriment of their own credibility.

UPDATE: The original poster on the forgeries, FreeRepublic's Buckhead, has a commentary up at FR.

I recall that some years ago Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued that the CIA should be abolished, and I argued that that was a ridiculous and irresponsible position. As usual when Pat and I disagreed, Pat turned out to be right.

--Michael Barone.

From the front page of the Los Angeles Times, a horrific story and in-depth investigation of the sexual abuse of two entire villages of children at the hands of a "volunteer" Catholic missionary.

Since [2002], 85 Alaska natives from 13 villages have filed claims against the church for alleged abuse by six priests and two lay missionaries from 1956 to 1988.

The flood of allegations has led to speculation that the Eskimo settlements were a "dumping ground" for abusive priests and lay workers affiliated with the Jesuit order, which supplied priests and bishops to the Fairbanks diocese.

The reaction from Church authorities:

Officials of the Diocese of Fairbanks and the Jesuits' Oregon Province — the two defendants in the Lundowski suits — have asked a Superior Court judge to throw out the claims.

In legal papers, they argue that the statute of limitations on the allegations has run out, and that Lundowski was an unauthorized volunteer not under the supervision of the diocese or the Jesuits.

None of the missionary's 28 accusers in St. Michael and Stebbins — nor the dozen who have filed suit from other villages in which Lundowski previously served — has received a settlement offer.

I hope the story makes its way to the desk of Benedict.

From yesterday's interview with Senator Jon Kyl:

HH: Thirty seconds, Senator Kyl. Brett Kavanaugh. I gig you about him every time you come on.

JK: I know, and in fact, excuse me for interrupting, but I raised him with Senator Specter last night when we met. I said look, there's a bunch of other stuff we have to do, too, including getting a bunch of people confirmed for judgeships. And he said yes, we do need to do that. So yes, we need to do it. But we're going into a holiday period here, so it's not going to happen real soon.

Brett Kavanuagh was originally nominated by President Bush to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 25, 2003.

Denied a hearing and an up-or-down vote by a Republican controlled Senate for 28 months, the treatment of Kavanaugh --and of Terrance Boyle, initially nominated in May of 2001-- makes a mockery of Republican statements made in the course of campaign 2004 and even before that, campaign 2002. While filibuster kept these men from their votes until May of this year, the Gang of 14 deal was supposed to have ended the atrocious treatment of judicial nominees.

That has not happened, and the continued deep freeze of these two nominees ought to remind the GOP Senate Majority of pledges made to them by Senator Specter prior to his assumption of the Chair of the Judiciary Committee. (The alleged reason for the "hold" on Kavanaugh disappeared with the elevation of Chief Justice Roberts and the senior status of Judge Harry Edwards. No matter how you count, the D.C. Circuit is operating with two vacancies --a terrible bit of management by the Senate given the importance of this court.)

Senator Frist's presidential ambitions were badly battered by the events of the last week, but one way to recapture some esteem from GOP primary voters would be the successful imposition on the Judiciary Committee of a demand that it live up to the oft-repeated Republican pledge of an up-or-down vote for all judicial nominees.

From Blackfive.

The Murtha proposal for immediate withdrawal from Iraq was defeated 403 to 3 last night. So much for the idea of cut and run.

Many Democrats were emotionally undon by the exercise of having to confront their own rhetoric, and the anti-war left must be stunned this morning: Only three votes? All that work? All those marches? All those posts at the fever swamp bulletin board? For three votes?

The Dems have more excuses than a teenager: It wasn't the real Murtha resolution; it's a terrible political trick; I will not participate in the assault on Congressman Murtha etc, etc, etc.

But the talk around the turkey this week should review that the elections in 2002, 2004 and the vote on Friday night in the House underscore the county is committed to victory in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and everywhere else the GWOT is being waged. That talk should also dwell on the profound hypocrisy of the left and its Congressional representatives, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." They only believe what they believe when the country as a whole isn't watching. Supermen on the web, when Congress assmebled they went into their phonebooths/cloakrooms and came out as Clark Kent.

The Democrats took their walloping last year and instead of resolving to return to D.C. as an opposition party that would work to craft alternatives to domestic policies while remaining supportive of the GWOT and of the troops, have spent a year digging deeper and deeper into anti-war conspiracy theories and committing themselves to Vietnam Syndrome 2.0. The GOP abetted their descent by failing to do what happened yesterday: Call them on their nonsense and debate it, in full view of the public, and not in MSM-mediated soundbytes.

The Chamber was full and the tempers high --as they should be when a great party confronts its opposite over a serious issue. The Democratic Party is committed to retreat, but they hate to be asked to defend that inclination. The Republicans are committed to victory, but seem hesitant because of the high costs of the war, even though the costs of retreat would be much higher still.

If the GOP stays the course of clarity, and keeps its purposes front and center, the elections of 2006 will be another milestone in the Democrats road to Whigdom.

Win the war.
Confirm the judges.
Cut the taxes.
Control the spending.

As the House GOP moved quickly to bring Congressman Murtha's proposal for immediate withdrawal from Iraq to a floor vote tonight, I was joined by Congressman J.D. Heyworth and House Rules Committee Chair David Dreier who explained what the House was doing and why. Kudos to both of them for getting this very important debate underway. I wish every American could see it. The contrast between the confident and energized GOp finally able to step up to a anational audience and debate the war versus the halting and often incoherent replies from the left --Dennis Kucinich was spectacularly unhinged as usual-- is exactly what the country needed to see and hear. Every Democrat who attempted to charge the Republicans as attacking Congressman Murtha's patriotism was instantly revealed as a fraud, and the Democrats who attempted to argue that Congressman Murtha hadn't called for immediate withdrawal are laughingstocks. It is a great way to rescue a dispiriting week, and an example to the Congressional leadership in both Houses on how to conduct this debate over the next 11 months leading to the 2006 elections: By engaging directly and at length every hard left demand to cut and run, and every conspiracy theory that asserts the president misled the country into war.

I was also joined by Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to discuss the Patriot Act renewal impasse that now exists in the Senate. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter would not sign the Conference Report that hammered out the differences between the House and Senate versions of this crucial law, so no debate on the Act's extension occured today, and will begin in the Senate only on December 13th. Senator Kyl's strong belief is that critics of the conference report have not read it, and that the Senate Majority needs to get serious about this critical national security measure.

All the transcripts will be up at Radioblogger later.

From an e-mail from Imperial Capital,LLC in Beverly Hills, CA:

Just wanted you to let you know that I was able to collect $4,101 from about 40 employees here at our firm to provide the Marines from the First Maintenance Battalion a great Thanksgiving meal. Thanks for putting the word out.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Keep in mind that if you are near any military installation, a call to the chaplain's staff will figure out if there's a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine who'd like to share your table for Thanksgiving, or a military family in need of some help in getting their own celebration to table.

And you might enjoy this column from the Notre Dame student newspaper:

The Loudest Silence

The Observer Viewpoint

Notre Dame Newspaper

11/14/05

by Peter Schroeder

It was another Notre Dame-Navy game this past weekend, an affair that these days seems to be as fresh as Grandma's ubiquitous fruitcake. We all know the routine; these two teams face each other, Notre Dame wins, Navy loses, dance a jig, yadda yadda yadda. It's been that way for 42 years now, and Saturday's game was no different. Save a 7-7 tie in the beginning of the game, the Irish had their way with Navy, to the tune of a 42-21 final score. The weather was beautiful, the team looked great, and the home crowd at Notre Dame Stadium had plenty to cheer about on Saturday.

However, the most impressive event in that stadium was when 80,795 people did no cheering at all. No yelling, no talking, not even an odd sneeze. Dead silence. That's what the Navy band received at the end of the game while they played their alma mater.

Well, it wasn't entirely silent where I was standing for the game. Just a few rows behind me, a couple Knievelesque Navy fans had made it into the student section with the help of some erroneous ticket booklets and a Notre Dame senior. And while Navy played their alma mater, one of their fans sang along. An opposing student, singing his alma mater in our student section. Surely he must have a death wish. But on this day, no jeers, insults, or contentious voices were heard; thousands of opposing fans simply listened as a solitary voice in a crowd of thousands rang out and sang for the Navy Blue and Gold. That silence, that voice and the goose bumps on my arm after it was all said and done is what makes this rivalry special.

It's easy to overlook the annual Notre Dame-Navy game. When one team wins 42 times in a row, there's not a whole lot of drama reserved for the football field. However, this historic match-up goes far beyond anything that could happen between the sidelines. The game is more of a ritual than anything else, an opportunity for each team to show their respect for the other. Notre Dame is forever grateful to Navy for supporting the University through tough times during World War II, and the Irish pay back the Middies by playing them year in, and year out. It's our way of saying "thanks" for something done half a century ago, and playing the game is all that matters, not who wins or loses. Of course, that's easy to say when you're on the winning end of 42 years of games, but I digress.

Remember when we were looking for a football coach, seemingly eons ago? One of the things that is always listed in the job requirements is a guy who gets Notre Dame. He has to get "it." Notre Dame may not be able to describe in words what "it" is, but the coach has got to have "it." If people weren't convinced yet, the end of Saturday's game proved Charlie Weis has "it" coming out of his ears. After convincingly crushing the opponent, Charlie led the team over to Navy's corner of the field to sing their alma mater. Just minutes before, these two teams walked on that grass as dire enemies, but now they walked across as one. Hopefully next year Charlie can show Michigan State how a real team celebrates a victory.

With no time left on the clock and the outcome decided, this respectful gesture wasn't about Navy's football team; it was about Navy. It was a sobering reminder that what we just poured all of our energy into was just a game. Many times that's easy to forget at Notre Dame, where football lies in the hierarchy of priorities somewhere between inhaling and exhaling. While we can spend countless hours worrying about Sagarin rankings, passing efficiency, and Mark May, Navy has bigger fish to fry. We may claim that we must protect this house, but Navy must protect something way bigger.

Sure, the last time Navy beat us, the twinkles in our parents' eyes weren't even us, but rather a Barbie Doll or a G.I. Joe. And sure, with Charlie at the helm, a loss to Navy doesn't seem forthcoming in the near future. Lee Corso will never come to a Notre Dame-Navy game. Nonetheless, I know I'll be looking forward to this matchup for years to come. I'll look forward to being able to cheer for everybody, clap for both fight songs, and enjoy a game for what it is, a game. Thank you, Notre Dame football players, for showing respect to an opponent who rightfully deserves it. Thank you, Charlie, for leading the team in that gesture. But most of all, thank you, Navy, for nothing football-related whatsoever.

Peter Schroeder is a senior English major. He can be reached at pschroed@nd.edu. He hopes you're having a good day.

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.