The Conservative Newsletter

"Who is to judge of the necessity and propriety of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union? I answer, first, that this question arises as well and as fully upon the simple grant of those powers as upon the declaratory clause; and I answer, in the second place, that the national government, like every other, must judge, in the first instance, of the proper exercise of its powers, and its constituents in the last. If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #33

** Clinton's Bogus Intelligence Prompted Little Outcry
** Media Ignore Gephardt's Vow to Overthrow the Supreme Court
** Dignity For All Students Act Dies
** Supremely Wrong

Clinton's Bogus Intelligence Prompted Little Outcry

Prominent Democrats have wasted no time accusing President Bush of using doctored intelligence about Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq war, while like-minded pundits have already begun hinting darkly about the possibility of impeaching Bush if the WMDs don't turn up soon.

But there was no similar outcry five years ago after the Clinton administration came up empty on evidence that Sudan was producing weapons of mass destruction, a claim the White House used to justify slamming some 20 cruise missiles into Khartoum's Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant - a facility it also claimed had ties to Osama bin Laden.

"Officials throughout the Government raised doubts up to the eve of the attack about whether the United States had sufficient information linking the factory to either chemical weapons or to Mr. bin Laden, according to participants in the discussions. They said senior diplomatic and intelligence officials argued strenuously over whether any target in Sudan should be attacked."

Aides passed on their doubts to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the Times said. "But the national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, who played a pivotal role in approving the strike, said in an interview that he was not aware of any questions about the strength of the evidence before the attack."

But diplomatic insiders told the Times that senior officials moved to suppress internal dissent. "Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and a senior deputy, they said, encouraged State Department intelligence analysts to kill a report being drafted that said the bombing was not justified," the paper said.

In fact, the attack was so controversial within the Clinton administration that not even the Joint Chiefs of Staff were warned in advance. Only Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Henry Shelton was informed before the strike, which included a failed, simultaneous cruise missile strike on Osama bin Laden's terrorist training camp in Khost, Afghanistan

According to The New Yorker magazine, Gen. Shelton faced a firestorm of outrage for keeping Pentagon decision makers in the dark. He promised his colleagues that nothing like that would ever happen again.

It certainly didn't help that the missile strike seemed timed to coincide with Monica Lewinsky's scheduled testimony before a grand jury probing Mr. Clinton's attempts to obstruct the Paula Jones case.

Still, the mounting evidence that Mr. Clinton had committed an act of war to distract the media from his own legal problems failed to rekindle calls for impeachment.

Clinton-friendly media organs, however, did voice their discomfort with the deception.

"After repeated investigative reports and repeated evasions by the Clinton administration, it is clear that the missile attack was a mistake," noted The New Republic magazine. "It's time to say so."

"In the attack's immediate aftermath, the administration made many claims on its behalf. Few have withstood scrutiny," the magazine noted.

"Contrary to government assertions, the plant was indeed manufacturing medicines (about half of Sudan's pharmaceutical needs). There was no heavy security at the facility, and it was not patrolled by the Sudanese military, as was alleged. It was not owned or controlled by the Sudanese government, but by a Saudi banker with anti- fundamentalist ties. ...

"Subsequent testing at the site has found no materials associated with chemical weapons. And no evidence directly linking the factory to Osama Bin Laden has ever surfaced."

TNR concluded, "If the Clinton administration has information to the contrary, it has not produced it."

As Democrats and their media friends now feign outrage about missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it's worth noting how tepid the response was after the Clinton administration invoked WMD intelligence it knew was suspect to justify attacking a sovereign nation that posed absolutely no threat to the U.S.

Media Ignore Gephardt's Vow to Overthrow the Supreme Court

The leftist media establishment has shown a stunning lack of interest in Rep. Dick Gephardt's bizarre threat to vanquish the Supreme Court.

As we noted Monday in our article on the Supreme Court's rulings on racial quotas, Gephardt said Sunday, "When [sic] I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day."

Imagine the nationwide media uproar if candidate George W. Bush had said such a thing. But Gephardt was pandering to Jesse Jackson, so any crazy promise seems to be OK in the eyes of the pro-Democrat media.

A few people outside the media mainstream did take notice. Andrew Sullivan wrote today: "Does Gephardt understand even the basics of constitutional law? Or does he think his audience is too craven to notice an obvious piece of nonsense."

Rush Limbaugh pointed out the wacko pledge in an item on his Web site headlined "Nine Democrat Losers Meet to Race-Bait."

But headlines in the daily papers have been hilariously bland and unrevealing. "Democratic presidential hopefuls tackle issues of interest to blacks," according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "Democratic hopefuls get together at forum," quoth the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Headlines in the Baltimore Sun, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Detroit News and others merely claimed that Gephardt and company were backing so-called "affirmative action," i.e., discrimination against those of European or Asian descent.

Will these media think it is an "affirmative action" if by some miracle Dick is elected president and manages to "overcome" the judicial branch of government?

DIGNITY FOR ALL STUDENTS ACT DIES

Through the efforts of a number of pro-family organizations, combined with a legal memorandum prepared by Liberty Counsel, attempts to pass the so-called Dignity for All Students Act died in the New York legislature. The bill would have required religious schools to teach a civility course on homosexuality, including transgender and cross-dressing life styles. Schools failing to do so would have been considered illegal and parents sending their children to such schools could have been targeted for truancy. The good news is the bill died. It may come back next year so we must be prepared. A similar bill also died this year in Florida after the legislature was slammed with telephone calls from concerned citizens.

Supremely Wrong

"Student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions." - Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision upholding racial discrimination in college admissions under the guise of "diversity"

"This is a major decision which gives a green light to discrimination in colleges and universities against whites and Asians." - Nelson Lund, George Mason law professor, Washington Times

"Sandra Day O'Conner (is) a nice white lady who wanted to do something nice for the colored folks." - Wesley Pruden, "Pruden on Politics"

"Anyone looking for legal, much less moral, clarity from yesterday's Supreme Court rulings on race-based admissions at the University of Michigan was surely disappointed. What we got instead was another look at Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's split-the-baby jurisprudence, and another generation of polarizing race-based public policy." - Wall Street Journal editorial

"(E)ven if the way out of racism were more racism - and it's clearly not - the (Supreme Court) simply does not have the constitutionally granted authority to substitute its own social and political understandings for a law that says race may not be used as a basis of discrimination and a constitutional principle that assures equality under the law." - Columnist Jay Ambrose

This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to tcn@wilderness-cry.net .