Lifted in its entirety from Powerline:

Eric Holder illustrates the dangers of ambition married to weak character. His subservience to the interests of Bill Clinton in approving the corrupt pardon of Marc Rich and the indefensible pardons of the FALN terrorists was a disgrace. His role in these pardons should disqualify him for higher office.

Holder himself does not defend his role in the Rich pardon. He concedes it was a mistake. He claims somewhat paradoxically that he learned so much from his mistake that he will be a better Attorney General. Holder makes no such concession or claim in the case of the FALN terrorists. Joseph Connor is the son of one of their victims. He testified against Holder in the confirmation hearing yesterday. In “Terrorists killed my father,” Connor writes:

At the time of the [FALN] pardons, Eric H. Holder Jr. was deputy attorney general. In considering his department’s recommendation on clemency, he met with supporters of the terrorists but ignored their victims. He pushed staff members to drop their strong opposition to a presidential pardon for the FALN members and alter a report they had prepared for the president recommending against clemency. Today, although two turned down their pardons because they were unwilling to renounce violence, many of the convicted FALN members walk free. And a man who was instrumental in their release may become the highest law enforcer in the land.

Holder said at his confirmation hearing Thursday that he thought Clinton’s decision to pardon the FALN members was “reasonable.” But they were bad people. During their Chicago trial, some of them threatened the life of Judge Thomas McMillen, who was hearing the case. Carmen Valentin, one of those later pardoned by Clinton, told the judge, “You are lucky that we cannot take you right now,” and she told other officers of the court, “You will be walking with canes and wheelchairs. … Revolutionary justice can be fierce.” She also declared war against the United States. Dylcia Pagan, another recipient of Clinton’s gift, warned the courtroom: “All of you, I would advise you to watch your backs.” McMillen was convinced the defendants would continue being terrorists as long as they lived. “If there was a death penalty,” he said at their sentencing, “I’d impose the penalty on you without hesitation.”

In its editorial today supporting the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, the Washginton Post adopts Holder’s defense of the FALN pardons:

Mr. Holder defended his support for Mr. Clinton’s commutation of the sentences of 16 members of a Puerto Rican terrorist group based on the facts that none of the 16 had been convicted of murder and that most had served almost 20 years in prison. There is still much to dislike in the commutations themselves. But no new evidence emerged to challenge Mr. Holder’s assertion that the recommendation was based on his best judgment.

This defense of the FALN terrorists lacks a certain logic. Whether or not the FALN terrorists were convicted of murder, they wantonly perpetrated it. Does Holder dispute that? Morevoer, if the recommendation was based on Holder’s best judgment, Holder shouldn’t be a partner at a prominent Washington law firm, let alone the Attorney General of the United States.

Bill Clinton, 1/30/08:

We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.

Paul Ehrlich, 1990:

We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.

From CNN:

Former President Bill Clinton said Monday that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America’s reputation by the current president — Bush’s son, George W. Bush.

“Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again,” Clinton said in response to a question from a supporter about what his wife’s “number one priority” would be as president.

I wonder what “open for business” means coming from a guy like Clinton.

Does it mean the party in the White House will again be soliciting illegal political contributions from foreign governments? Of perhaps it means the US will return to the Clinton-era policy of looking the other way as US-funded international bureaucrats undertake massive financial frauds like the Iraq Oil for Food program and Cash for Kim?

Maybe Clinton will tell Beijing his wife will follow his example in side-stepping the Defense Technology Security Administration, allowing the Chinese to bulk up their military with illegal purchases of our missile, satellite, and super computer technology.

He’ll probably just tell his foreign admirers that the fire sale of American freedoms, influence, and security is back on.

A producer of the ABC mini-series Path to 911 is claiming the network is blocking DVD release in deference to Hillary’s incipient presidential bid. The claim is so extraordinary its hard to believe - but why, exactly, is this otherwise popular and critically acclaimed mini-series not available?

From the LAT:

Among the nearly two dozen television DVDs slated for nationwide release on Sept. 11 is the second season of “Bones,” the third season of “Grey’s Anatomy” and the miniseries “The Starter Wife” that aired earlier this year. Not on the list on that day or any other in the near future is last year’s highly controversial “The Path to 9/11.”

The $40-million, five-hour ABC miniseries, which recently received seven Emmy nominations and drew a combined two-night audience of more than 25 million viewers, is for now on the path to nowhere. Its Amazon page reads: “Currently unavailable. We don’t know when or if this item will be back in stock.”

With no date for the release, questions are being raised about whether political pressure is behind its current status as a stalled or discarded DVD project. The reasons are murky, but the miniseries’ writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, believes it’s crystal clear: Powerful forces are out to protect Bill Clinton’s presidential legacy and shield Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from any potential collateral damage in her bid for the White House.

Nowrasteh, also one of the miniseries’ many producers, said he was told by a top executive at ABC Studios that “if Hillary weren’t running for president, this wouldn’t be a problem.”…

…Even before “The Path to 9/11″ aired on ABC late last summer, the docudrama ignited a political firestorm, almost entirely from high-profile Democratic leaders who viewed its account of events leading up to the terrorist attacks as a right-wing hatchet job on the Clinton administration and its efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Attempts to pressure ABC to cancel the miniseries at the time were unsuccessful, but last-minute network edits were imposed to quell the critical outcry…

…Initially, Nowrasteh was told by executives at ABC Studios that the miniseries would have a DVD release in January. Then, April. Then, this summer. Currently, Nowrasteh has not been notified of a specific release date for the DVD.

Despite a virtually nonexistent Emmy marketing campaign, “The Path to 9/11″ claimed seven nominations, though none in the more prestigious categories for writing and directing. As the miniseries’ writer and a producer, Nowrasteh is entitled to revenue from DVD sales, but it would be fractions of a penny for a disc sold. DVD sales, too, could potentially help ABC offset its considerable financial losses on the project.

“I go to Blockbuster and I see a lot of crap on the shelves,” added Nowrasteh. ” ‘Path to 9/11′ deserves to be available to people who want to see it or buy it or rent it or whatever. Every controversial movie I can think of, whether it’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ the Reagan miniseries . . . they were all released; they were broadcast. You can get them on DVD.”

I never saw it, but my recollection is that Dems were upset only because it didn’t pin 100% of the blame on the Bush administration. Recall, five Dem Senators, including now majority leader Harry Reid, wrote a letter to Disney (parent of ABC) threatening to withdraw their broadcast license if they aired the miniseries. From the letter:

…The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events…

Thus the collectivist mind churns - the only “fair and accurate” side is the Dem side. Anything else is not in the “public interest,” so the government has the authority to shut you down.

Yesterday was the 39th anniversary of Prague Spring, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

The Russian’s celebrated with veiled threats against their former colonial possession. From Reuters:

Russia’s military chief told the Czech Republic it would be making a “big mistake” to host a U.S. missile defense shield on its soil and urged Prague on Tuesday to delay a decision until a new U.S. president is elected.

The Czech Republic is discussing hosting a radar station which would form part of the U.S. missile shield — a system designed to intercept and destroy missiles from “rogues states” but which Moscow sees as a threat to its security.

“We say it will be a big mistake by the Czech government to put this radar site on Czech territory,” said Yuri Baluyevsky, the Russian military chief of staff, after meeting the Czech deputy defense minister, Martin Bartak.

He said the Czech Republic should hold off making a decision until after the U.S. presidential election, scheduled to take place in late 2008. Incumbent George W. Bush will not be running.

Why its any of Russia’s business what purely defensive preparations the Czech Republic makes is an interesting question in itself.

But maybe more interesting is their view of American domestic politics. For some reason they think that a Democratic President will abandon our NATO commitments.

That’s unlikely. Former Soviet allies Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland were admitted to NATO (despite strenuous Russian protests) in 1999 during the Clinton Administration. At the time Clinton said:

Today we welcome Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, finally erasing the boundary the Cold War artificially imposed on the continent of Europe.

The expansion strengthens an alliance that now clearly is better preserved to keep the peace and preserve our security in the 21st century, by giving the 16 current members three new allies ready to contribute troops, technology and ingenuity.

Approval in the Senate was broad and bi-partisan, the treaty passing 80-19.

I seriously doubt a Democratic administration would mean a change in our NATO policy, but for some reason the Russian’s believe otherwise. For some reason they believe that a Democratic president would abandon a formal ally. For some reason they think they think American treaty commitments are worthless. For some reason they think a little intimidation is all it takes to send the US packing.

Maybe that’s because its exactly what the Dems have been telling the world for the last 4 years. I’ve ascribed it to crass political opportunism that would be set aside if the American people gave them responsibility for our national security. Let’s hope we don’t have to find out.

Bill Clinton is addicted to media attention. He ran his own presidency like a 24hr Bill Clinton Variety Show, even stooping so far as to discuss his underwear on TV for a laugh. And the media loved it - a whole generation of political reporters built their careers writing about Oval Office blowjobs and presidential knickers. I think this is one of the reasons much of the media hates Bush so much - what could be more boring that reporting on a President who only talks about policy issues all the time.

Unlike Reagan, Ford, and Bush I, Clinton doesn’t have class or self control to tone it down at all in his post-presidency. And he’s not above directly undermining our national security to grab a bit more spotlight.

Last week he was in Russia, an increasingly assertive and decreasingly democratic country riding high on its oil fueled, centralized economy. Just a few days before Bush was to meet with Putin in what was certain to be a delicate meeting, Clinton decided to toss a curve ball.

Mr. Clinton came down on the side of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has attacked U.S. plans for 10 missile interceptors in Eastern Europe as a threat to Russian security. “My facts may be wrong, but my impression is that we are creating a crisis here when none is necessary,” Reuters quotes Mr. Clinton as saying only two days before Mr. Putin’s meeting with President Bush in Maine. Former Presidents once refrained from attacking U.S. foreign policy, especially while overseas or on the eve of a summit with a foreign leader. But Jimmy Carter long ago broke that decorum barrier, and Mr. Clinton is now joining him.

As for the “facts,” the modest radars and interceptors are clearly aimed at the threat from Iran and are desired by the Eastern Europeans. Mr. Clinton also pulled a fast one by contrasting Mr. Bush with Ronald Reagan, who wanted to share missile defenses with the Russians. In fact, the Bush Administration has invited Russia to cooperate on missile defense only to be turned down.

That’s just great. Never mind what people in Poland or Eastern Europe might want (they desperately want it). This simply tells countries like Russia that ever aspect of our defense and foreign policy is up in the air, pending the 2008 election. And Putin can have whatever he wants so long as he does whatever he can to make Bush appear ineffective - incidentally making the next two years unsafe and uncertain for all Americans.

From the AP:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that she followed all Senate rules when she accepted rides on a private jet from a longtime benefactor.

“Whatever I’ve done, I complied with Senate rules at the time. That’s the way every senator operates,” the Democratic presidential contender said in an interview with The Associated Press during a campaign stop in Las Vegas.

Clinton’s travel, along with and consulting fees paid to her husband, the former president, have come to light recently in a lawsuit against Vinod Gupta, a Clinton contributor and chief executive of the data company, InfoUSA Inc.

The lawsuit by company shareholders accuses Gupta of excessively spending millions of dollars, including $900,000 worth of travel on the Clintons.

Sen. Clinton, who complained about corporate America’s largesse and skyrocketing executive pay during campaign events Wednesday, said she did not believe her message was undermined by her acceptance of the private flights. In line with Senate rules then in effect, Clinton’s campaign has said she reimbursed Gupta at the cost of a first-class flight, typically a significant discount off the expense of a private jet.

“Those were the rules. You’ll have to ask somebody else whether that’s good policy,” she said.

Hang on a second. She doesn’t have an opinion on whether or not the present Senate rules are good policy? She’s a friggin Senator - her job is making policy. And she wants to be President? Will President Rodham-Clinton be telling the press in ‘09 to ask others what constitutes good policy?

Clinton struck several populist notes Wednesday in a speech at a union hall and at a town hall appearance at a North Las Vegas high school with large number of minority and low-income students.

The senator told members of the Culinary Workers Union, a group that represents casino and hotel workers, that it should be made easier for unions to organize and that private equity firms should honor union contracts after buyouts. Both issues are important to the union, whose endorsement is considered key to winning Nevada’s Jan. 19 caucus.

Since when is getting rid of secret ballots for organizing a union populist? The AP gives her a pass on her support for the “card check” bill - allowing unions to claim to represent all workers at a company without a secret ballot vote sure will make it easier “for unions to organize.” It will also make it easier to intimidate workers into paying dues to unpopular unions (thereafter remitted to the DNC).

The senator made light of her own personal wealth.

“I know a lot of rich people. My husband and I never had any money … now all (of a) … sudden we’re rich,” Clinton said. “I have nothing against rich people. … but what made America great is the American middle class.”

They sure are rich “all of a sudden.” They got rich selling political access. Federal law limits the amount of money individuals can give political candidates, but a few likeminded collectivists on some company or non profit board can easily steer million$ to her though speaking engagements and consulting fees.

Since leaving office Bill has collected $40MM in speaking fees. In 2004 Citigroup paid Bill $250K for a speech (the chairman of Citi’s executive committee is Rob Rubin, Clinton’s Treasury Secretary).

And back to those private jet trips. That $900K worth of trips included flights to Jamaica, Switzerland, and Hawaii. Hillary also used the jet for campaign trips. The jet’s owner is InfoUSA, a public (IUSA) database marketing company. CEO Vinod Gupta, donated $1MM to Bill’s Presidential Library and $2MM to a “Millennium Party” thrown by Hillary on 12/31/99. InfoUSA paid Bill $200K to give a speech in 2001, and he’s gotten $3MM in consulting contracts from the company.

No one would be paying Bill $250K to give a speech if his wife wasn’t in the Senate and running for President.

Did George Bush Sr, or Gerald Ford, or Jimmy Carter ever make $40MM in 6 years giving speeches? No one would pay them that, because they aren’t selling anything. The Clinton’s are wealthy because they operate a pay-to-play political franchise.

Update 6/6/07:

From Newsmax:

…The firm InfoUSA, headed by major Clinton backer Vinod Gupta, has placed Pelosi’s son, Paul Pelosi Jr., on its payroll – even though he has no experience in the company’s main business activities, NewsMax has learned…

… Just four weeks after Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the House this past January, Gupta and InfoUSA hired her son as a senior vice president. He told NewsMax InfoUsa pays him $180,000 a year.

Even though his job with InfoUSA is considered full-time, Paul Pelosi continues another full-time job, as a home loan officer at Countrywide Home Loans, part of Countrywide Financial, in San Mateo, a suburb of San Francisco…

… Besides being a loan officer at Countrywide and now a senior vice president of InfoUSA, Paul Pelosi is president of San Francisco’s Commission on the Environment. Former Mayor Willie Brown originally appointed him in 2003.

From today’s WSJ:

A new study by the Congressional Budget Office says the poor have been getting less poor. On average, CBO found that low-wage households with children had incomes after inflation that were more than one-third higher in 2005 than in 1991.

The CBO results don’t fit the prevailing media stereotype of the U.S. economy as a richer take all affair — which may explain why you haven’t read about them. Among all families with children, the poorest fifth had the fastest overall earnings growth over the 15 years measured. (See the nearby chart.) The poorest even had higher earnings growth than the richest 20%. The earnings of these poor households are about 80% higher today than in the early 1990s.

What happened? CBO says the main causes of this low-income earnings surge have been a combination of welfare reform, expansion of the earned income tax credit and wage gains from a tight labor market, especially in the late stages of the 1990s expansion. Though cash welfare fell as a share of overall income (which includes government benefits), earnings from work climbed sharply as the 1996 welfare reform pushed at least one family breadwinner into the job market…earnings for low-income families have still nearly doubled in the years since welfare reform became law. Some two million welfare mothers have left the dole for jobs since the mid-1990s. Far from being a disaster for the poor, as most on the left claimed when it was debated, welfare reform has proven to be a boon.

Clinton claims welfare reform was one of his greatest accomplishments. He’s sort of right, but it was the GOP, having swept of the House and Senate in 1996, that dragged him to it kicking and screaming. Clinton had vetoed two almost identical welfare reform bills before finally signing in 1997 - and then only when his signature didn’t matter anymore, the bill having passed with a veto-proof majority.