In the News – 9/12

On a personal note, I spent over four hours yesterday traveling to my computer store to get the keyboard in my laptop fixed.  I now have a working F key.  Now I always try to keep the language clean here.  I figure that there may be people reading with kids present.  In addition, I think I can find more intellectually descriptive words to use.  However, it’s comforting to know it’s available if the situation absolutely calls for it.  That’s why I was scarce.

Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that if Wilson fails to apologize publicly from the House well, she will proceed with a censure vote on Monday.

House Democratic leaders plan to vote early next week on whether to formally admonish  Rep. Joe Wilson unless the South Carolina Republican apologizes on the House floor for interrupting President Obama’s address to Congress by yelling "You lie!"

Wilson apologized to the White House shortly after Obama’s speech on health-care reform Wednesday night, and the president accepted his apology Thursday. But the lawmaker ignored a request from his party’s leaders to say he was sorry directly to House colleagues.

Absent such an apology, Democratic leaders will move forward with a resolution of disapproval or reprimand against Wilson, senior Democratic aides said Friday…

Inserted from <Washington Post>

In my opinion, censure is the minimum consequence for Wilson’s behavior, especially since he has made it crystal clear that his apology to President Obama was not authentic.  What would be best would be for he and Gov. Sanford to take a nice hike along the Appalachian trail.  Do you have a better suggestion?

Sadly it appears that Bradley Schlozman will not be charged for his perjury.

…Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has decided not to bring criminal charges against a former Bush administration official who lawmakers said lied to them in sworn testimony.

An inspector general’s report said Bradley Schlozman, former head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, misled lawmakers in sworn testimony about whether he politicized hiring decisions. The report said he mistreated staff and tried to punish agency employees he believed were liberal.

Under questioning from Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D., N.Y.), Schlozman denied making hiring decisions based on applicants’ political affiliations. "Perjury is often a close call, but in this case it wasn’t," Schumer said after Holder revealed his decision in a letter yesterday.

In the letter, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich said Holder found Schlozman’s conduct disturbing but chose to defer to prosecutors’ original decision not to bring charges…

Inserted from <Philadelphia Enquirer>

Those of you who used to visit here before will remember that I often warned that the GOP was planting moles in Justice and other departments by having political appointees (especially those from the Liberty University set) apply for changes in status to career employees in the last year of the Bush regime, so that they could sabotage the coming Democratic administration from within.  While I have no definitive proof for this, I just bet that the prosecutor who made this decision is one of those GOP moles.  Holder’s decision not to prosecute him stinks.  Do you agree?

High level negotiations between the US and Iran are on the way.

The Obama administration said Friday that the United States would accept Iran’s offer to meet, fulfilling President Obama’s pledge to hold unconditional talks despite the Iranian government’s insistence that it would not negotiate over the future of its nuclear program.

The decision to engage directly with Iran would put a senior representative of the Obama administration at the bargaining table, along with emissaries from five other nations, for the first time since Mr. Obama took office.

The decision is bound to raise protests from conservatives who contend that unconditional talks are naïve, and from human rights groups that say the United States should not legitimize an Iranian government that appears to have manipulated its presidential election in June and crushed protests after the vote…

Inserted from <NY Times>

I share the concerns expressed by human rights groups.  However, eight years under Crawford Caligula clearly demonstrated that trying to force enemies to concede as a precondition for negotiations does not work.  The only way to bring enemies closer to our positions is to talk to them.  For example, Clinton was successful in his negotiations with North Korea until Bush and the GOP failed to abide by the agreement Clinton had negotiated.  I fully support Obama’s decision.  What do you think?