http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Mon, 4 Dec 2006 22:46:45 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/12/04/224645.php Art GreenWhile the Xbox 360 has been on the market for a little more than a year now, it appears that it now has its "killer app" in Gears of War. Beyond that, though, Epic Games might have created a game that truly feels like the "next-generation" is here and now. Sure, a lot of the launch-window titles looked fine and played well, however, there was something missing from all of the games that gave me the feeling that this was nothing to get too excited about. A good example of this problem is Perfect Dark Zero, a game that I actually enjoyed quite a bit. The problem was that the only noticeable improvements over current-generation consoles were the graphics. There was nothing inherently remarkable about the game play design, sound or story. The game just looked better than anything on current-generation consoles. The game, in retrospect, was a pretty standard shooter that just did a lot of things well, and that's why I liked it. The launch and the subsequent games were plagued by this problem. The only games I feel came even close to the level of immersion that Gears had are Call of Duty 2 and Condemned. Both combined a great visual style with some fantastic audio that really drove the game play. But in Call of Duty 2's case, the impact of the sound of those guns firing and the soldiers screaming was somewhat deadened by familiar setting.With Gears of War, Epic managed to create a title that was completely immersive while you were playing it. It wasn't just about how great the game looked. (Don't get me wrong, Gears is the best looking game from a technical standpoint to date.) Rather, Gears of War has tremendous sound effects, memorable characters, great controls, inspired character design and an intriguing (albeit disgusting underdeveloped) story. For example, the great design and look of the Berserker, along with the fantastic use of her sound effects when she attacks literally had me screaming. I was screaming because I could see the effort on the main character, Marcus Fenix's face as I leaped or ran out of her way. I knew if I screwed up, I was dead. The first time I went toe-to-toe with the Berserker is easily one of the most memorable game play experiences I've had in a video game. The game has a ton of these experiences where you are completely engulfed by the game play and it is the only thing you are thinking about.And isn't that what the next-generation of games should promise? A fabulous looking, immersive game play experience. 2007 looks to be a fantastic year for Xbox 360 owners, with exclusives like Halo 3, BioShock, Mass Effect, Blue Dragon and so on coming out. We can only hope that developers continue to create not only great looking games, but also great sounding games that help keep us totally engaged in our game play experience! Gaming56586@blogcritics.org Mon, 4 Dec 2006 22:46:45 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/15/083023.php Art GreenNBC's Jamie Gangel interviewed former Ambassador Joe Wilson today. (Click Wilson's picture in the article to launch the video.) This part interested me the most:Gangel: Your critics have said that this is partisan on your part, that you are part of a Democratic attempt to discredit Iraq policy.Wilson: That's simply not true.Gangel: You are a Democrat?Wilson: I exercise my rights as a citizen of this country to participate in the selection of my leaders. And I'm proud to do so. I did so in the election in 2000 by contributing not just to Al Gore's campaign but also to the Bush-Cheney campaign.So, I checked it out. An OpenSecret.Org search reveals that Wilson's claim could be false. I searched for the name "Wilson" for Gore. It revealed these findings. Mr. Joseph C. Wilson IV of J.C. Wilson Intl. Ventures/Strateg made two, $2000 contributions to the Gore campaign on March 26th, 1999. Address was attributed to Washington D.C.The same search on OpenSecrets.Org for candidate Bush was ran. It revealed a Mr. Joe C. Wilson of Wilson & Association Engineering, (CEO) came up for a $1000 contribution on 12/15/1999 and then a contribution of $1000 on 8/30/2000. I did some Google searches, but couldn't find the company. I also couldn't find in any biographies of Wilson that he was head of any company, especially one in Tennessee. (and resided there)Regardless, if he is both of them only at a different address, he showed a preference nonetheless.For more from Art Green, visit his blog Conservative Eyes Politics32577@blogcritics.org Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:30:23 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/13/085053.php Art GreenPhillip Adams of The Australian has an article that raises a good point in the beginning: IT'S a quiet, ho-hum, run-of-the-mill day in Iraq. Just a few bombs will explode in Baghdad. Only a few dozen will be killed or maimed. Fifty or 60 max. With the victims predominantly locals - only a couple of US soldiers among the casualties - they'll hardly rate a mention. Won't crack it for the Nine Network or ABC news. Perhaps a brief para in tomorrow's broadsheets.Oh, almost forgot. There'll be about 20 kidnappings today. This has been a big racket in Iraq for a year or more with thousands of locals snatched off the streets. Nothing political about it, nothing religious. Just a grab bag of businesspeople and schoolchildren to be held for ransom. So many children are kidnapped these days that parents are keeping them home.Will these incidents be reported in the US, Britain and Australia? No, they won't. Not news. Just further symptoms of a totally dysfunctional society. Unless, of course, if one of the kidnapped is one of us. Then all media hell will break lose.Yes, what happened last week in London was appalling. But it happens every day in Iraq. It has since the coalition of the willing, of which Australia was such a willing member, came thundering in more than two years ago.I agree to the extent that Adams says Iraq bombings do not generate the coverage that an attack that London does. I'm conflicted in the belief that this is somehow wrong when you factor in that it is not a normal day when London gets bombed and in Baghdad, it's a daily thing. But, we don't hold moments of silence for soldiers killed or moments of silence for Iraqi civilians who are maimed at the hands of the terrorists.Does it have something to do with the fact that we can identify better with our British allies? They speak our language, are the same religion, long time allies, etc.? However, the Iraqis are in a fierce struggle for their freedoms and the United States is putting our faith in them. Wouldn't citizen support and Presidential Statements to "keep the fight going" help the Iraqis? Wouldn't that show them that we are thinking of them in their moments of need?Regardless of what the true answer is to this, the eternal truth is that all terrorism is a horrible thing and each act should elicit condemnation and horror of the attack, and rage and retribution towards the perpetrators.For more commentary from Art Green, visit his blog Conservative EyesEdited: LI Politics32477@blogcritics.org Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:50:53 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/11/081817.php Art GreenWell, if you're a far-leftist, you believe that they are behind the attacks. John Pilger of Truthout writes an article titled "Lest We Forget-- These Were Blair's Bombs."In all the coverage of last week's bombing of London, a basic truth is struggling to be heard. It is this: no one doubts the atrocious inhumanity of those who planted the bombs, but no one should also doubt that this has been coming since the day Tony Blair joined George Bush in their bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq. They are "Blair's bombs," and he ought not be allowed to evade culpability with yet another unctuous speech about "our way of life," which his own rapacious violence in other countries has despoiled.Indeed, the only reliable warning from British intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was that which predicted a sharp increase in terrorism "with Britain and Britons a target." A House of Commons committee has since verified this warning. Had Blair heeded it instead of conspiring to deceive the nation that Iraq offered a threat the Londoners who died on Thursday might be alive today, along with tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.Three weeks ago, a classified CIA report revealed that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq had turned that country into a focal point of terrorism. None of the intelligence agencies regarded Iraq as such a flashpoint before the invasion, however tyrannical the regime. On the contrary, in 2003, the CIA reported that Iraq "exported no terrorist threat to his neighbours" and that Saddam Hussein was "implacably hostile to Al-Qaeda."Blair's and Bush's invasion changed all that. In invading a stricken and defenceless country at the heart of the Islamic and Arab world, their adventure became self-fulfilling; Blair's epic irresponsibility has brought the daily horrors of Iraq home to Britain.This article reminds me of Christopher Hitchens appearance on Connected: Coast-to-Coast, when he totally demolished Ron Reagan.RR: Christopher, I'm not sure that I buy the idea that these attacks are a sign that we're actually winning the war on terror. I mean, how many more victories like this do we really want to endure?CH: Well, it depends on how you think it started, sir. I mean, these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there. If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean. Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?RR: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which...CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?RR: No, actually, I didn't say that, Christopher.CH: At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?RR: What I did say, though, was that Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now.CH: How can you know so little about...RR: You can make the claim that you just made about any other country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.CH: Absolutely nonsense.RR: So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher?CH: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst...RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?RR: I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose that's how, Christopher.CH: Well, then they were wrong, weren't they?RR: No, maybe they just needed to listen to you, Christopher.CH; Well, I'm not sure that they actually did say that. What they did say was they didn't know of any actual operational connection...RR: That's right. No substantive operational connection.CH: ...which was the Iraqi Baath Party and...excuse me...and Al Qaeda. A direct operational connection. Now, that's because they don't know. They don't say there isn't one. They say they couldn't find one. But I just gave you the number, I would have thought, rather suggestive examples.Pilger, and his leftist allies would like people to believe that terrorist attacks are somehow the fault of Blair and Bush and that they are the reason terrorists attack the innocent. I previously wrote in a post called "The Politics of Exploitation," I have a few more quotes from various bloggers and Democrats in reaction to the attacks on London. I think (actually, I hope) that they realize that they are just trying to score political points. It's sick in its own right, but I think (again, hope) that they realize that they are not speaking the truth when they say that this is somehow Blair or Bush's fault. I think that actually believing that this was their fault for going after terrorists in Iraq belies the argument that Iraq was not a harborer of terrorism at least at some level. Like Hitchens said, stating that responding to terrorism by killing their leaders is some how the root of terrorism is a ridiculous idea. If we were not in Muslim lands before September 11th, what did they attack us for then? The argument does not hold up that the attack of Iraq and Afghanistan seemingly "put them over the edge."For more commentary from Art Green, visit his blog at Conservative EyesEdited: LI Edited: DN Politics32358@blogcritics.org Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:18:17 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/08/170202.php Art GreenMatt Drudge has on his site that the "media on standby after growing reports Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist is handing in his resignation."With Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement last week, and if Rehnquist is going to retire sometime in the very near future, that will give Bush three picks: two replacements for an associate justice and a pick for the new Chief Justice.Robert Novak's newest article talks about how George Bush might be the biggest obstacle to a "conservative court."Conservatives who have spent more than a decade planning for this moment to change the balance of power on the Supreme Court are reeling from blows delivered by two dissimilar political leaders: Edward M. Kennedy and George W. Bush. Sen. Kennedy has succeeded with the news media in establishing a new standard of ''mainstream conservatism'' for a justice. President Bush has put forth ''friendship'' as a qualification for being named to the high court.Bush is by far the bigger obstacle in the way of a conservative court. While Kennedy's ploy presents a temporary problem, Bush's stance could be fatal. The right's morale was devastated by the president's comments in a USA Today telephone interview published on the newspaper's front page Tuesday: ''Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine. When a friend gets attacked, I don't like it.''Bush is a stubborn man, who sounded like he might really nominate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the face of deep and broad opposition from the president's own political base.Adding to the tension is word from court sources that ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist also will announce his retirement before the week is over. That would enable Bush to play this game: Name one justice no less conservative than Rehnquist, and name Gonzales, whose past record suggests he would replicate retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on abortion and possibly other social issues. Thus, the present ideological orientation of the court would be unchanged, which would suit the left just fine.Bush is stubborn, but he's bluffing. If he isn't, I don't know if the Republicans will let Gonzales through. I think the Republicans have too much to lose if they maintain the current ideological balance. They do not want to tick off their base. I would be more than surprised if Bush nominates a "mainstream conservative" (or, in the Democrats eyes, a liberal on social issues) to the court. If Bush does what I think he will do, he'll probably have a fight on his hands. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has not ruled out a filibuster.Sen. Harry Reid said Thursday he hopes to avoid prolonged political battle over a Supreme Court nominee and is encouraged by President Bush's efforts to reach out to Democrats for advice. But the Senate Democratic leader said the nature of the confirmation proceedings ultimately will depend on whether Bush taps a "mainstream conservative" or someone further to the right of the political spectrum to fill the high court vacancy. "The president has started a consultive process," Reid said in an interview Thursday. "Constitutionally that's the right thing to do. I appreciate his having done this," he told The Associated Press. "As to whether or not there's a knockdown, drag-out fight on this is up to the president," Reid said before giving a keynote address at a Reno conference on aging. "I think we're headed in the right direction," he said, stopping short of ruling out a filibuster.As I have posted on before, I think that a filibuster is not good politics for the Democrats. They will be easily shot down as obstructionists, and because of the "Gang of 14" agreement, they might not even have the votes to fend off a cloture vote. If the Democrats filibuster, will the Senate Republicans have the backbone to go "nuclear" on them? One would hope so.For more commentary from Art Green, visit his blog "Conservative Eyes" Politics32271@blogcritics.org Fri, 8 Jul 2005 17:02:02 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/06/023740.php Art GreenTalk about some serious partisanship:A free association exercise: Think of a Washington Nationals baseball cap. What's the next thing that pops into your head?Some people think of the old Senators, whose caps inspired the new team's logo. Some think of the first-place team they now root for, or of hometown pride.Then there are those steeped in the kind of partisan perspective that forced the french fry to decide whether it was with us or against us. They can't get past the "W," as in the president's trademark middle initial.That can be good: "My immediate reaction was, 'W! Perfect!,' " said Dan Mintz, 57, of Bethesda. "Not only do I get to root for Washington, but I get to root for George."Or it can be bad: "I just couldn't get myself to wear the red hat with the 'W' on it," said Jerry Stewart, 41, of Sterling, who bought a replica of the cap the Nationals wear for away games. Those hats are Democrat blue; the home caps are Republican red.I guess it would figure that in one of the most partisan towns, there is going to be political "controversy" over a baseball team. But seriously, have we gotten so bad that anything that might even be construed as being on the other side is simply unacceptable.This cap "ordeal" is a little bit more light-hearted though. I recall this story about Republicans in Congress that were having a hissy fit over George Soros bidding to buy the Washington Nationals.Major League Baseball hasn't narrowed the list of the eight bidders seeking to buy the Washington Nationals and some Republicans on Capitol Hill already are hinting at revoking the league's antitrust exemption if billionaire financier George Soros , an ardent critic of President Bush and supporter of liberal causes, buys the team."It's not necessarily smart business sense to have anybody who is so polarizing in the political world," Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) said. "That goes for anybody, but especially as it relates to Major League Baseball because it's one of the few businesses that get incredibly special treatment from Congress and the federal government."Have we gotten so partisan and so nasty that baseball is something we can't enjoy without devolving into political sniping matches?For more commentary from Art Green, visit his blog "Conservative Eyes" Politics32085@blogcritics.org Wed, 6 Jul 2005 02:37:40 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/05/164301.php Art GreenTed Rall, a shrill comic strip creator and a columnist has posted an unbelievable column on Karl Rove and the Valerie Plame case: (HT: Michelle Malkin)The right points to critics like Michael Moore, yours truly, and Ward Churchill, the Colorado professor who points out the gaping chasm between America's high-falooting rhetoric and its historical record. But these bête noires are guilty only of the all-American actions of criticism and dissent, not to mention speaking uncomfortable truths to liars and deniers. As far as we know, no one on what passes for the "left" (which would be the center-right anywhere else) has betrayed the United States in the GWOT. No anti-Bush progressive has made common cause with Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or any other officially designated "terrorist" group. No American liberal has handed over classified information or worked to undermine the CIA.Michelle Malkin points to Lynne Stewart, who has been convicted of aiding and abetting terroristsAfter a seven-month trial, progressive New York attorney Lynne Stewart was convicted today on charges of conspiracy to aid and abet terrorism. Her co-defendants Mohammed Yousry and Abdel Sattar were also convicted. They all face 20 to 40 years in jail.Now, lets look at the other great Americans he points to, Ward Churchill and Michael Moore, before we get to the greatest American, Ted Rall.Ward Churchill first said that "more 9/11's are necessary" because 'states' were unwilling to listen to opposing viewpoints.Then, on June 29th, Bill O'Reilly received audio of Ward Churchill advocating lower ranking soldiers to "frag" their officers: The Political Teen has the videoFor those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?...Conscientious objection removes a given piece of cannon fodder from the fray. Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect.Then, let's look at a quote that was written by Michael Moore on his official website:The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not insurgents or terrorists, or The Enemy. They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win.Lastly, Ted Rall. We only have to go a little deeper into his article to find one of the most outrageous political hyperbole one could ever hope to see:If Newsweek's report is accurate, Karl Rove is more morally repugnant and more anti-American than Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, after all, has no affiliation with, and therefore no presumed loyalty to, the United States. Rove, on the other hand, is a U.S. citizen and, as deputy White House chief of staff, a high-ranking official of the U.S. government sworn to uphold and defend our nation, its laws and its interests. Yet he sold out America just to get even with Joe Wilson.Osama bin Laden, conversely, is loyal to his cause. He has never exposed an Al Qaeda agent's identity to the media.How could one even start to try to make an argument that killing 3,000 Americans is less "anti-American" than a report that Karl Rove leaked Valerie Plame's name? How is killing 3,000 civilians somehow less morally repugnant than knowingly releasing a CIA agent's name?None of the people Rall mentioned are shining examples of progressive dissent, himself included. Churchill supports killing military officers as a means to stop war, Moore just doesn't think our soldiers are good enough to win, and Rall tries to morally equate releasing a name of someone who was so low key to 9/11 hijackers. Sick.You can visit Art Green's blog "Conservative Eyes" for commentary from a neoconservative's point of view. Politics32062@blogcritics.org Tue, 5 Jul 2005 16:43:01 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/03/045235.php Art GreenDaniel Henninger wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about national unity and the September 11th attacks:In time even Pearl Harbor became more a symbol than the bloody reality that ultimately hurled American forces against a Germany that didn't attack us at Pearl Harbor. But time seems to pass faster today. The first Fourth of July after September 11 was a day of national unity, in sorrow but also in belief that the U.S. had to go on offense, over there, against the force that had hit us. Now there is no unity; September 11, the war in Iraq, pretty much anything George Bush does and even Afghanistan is a fair target.[...] We've watched September 11 drift from unity of purpose to unhinged vituperation. The partisanship is easy to dismiss, but I believe the Bush team's deep disdain of a hostile opposition media has caused it to miss--until now--the need to organize a home front to support the remarkable sacrifice in Iraq. This failure may prove to be the one unforgivable thing.I think that Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame. They fought over what September 11th victims and family members want. I think what the Bush administration needs to do is to make it clear to the American people who we are fighting. We are fighting al-Qaeda terrorists who did attack us on September 11th. If we leave, we will, in effect, create another Afghanistan. We will create a nation in the heart of the Middle East that will house terrorists and give them the time to regroup and attack us again. The Administration needs to tell the American people that the reason initially given for war has proved false, not because a thirst for war, but because of the intelligence they were given that Saddam Hussein was a threat. Now that we are there, we have an opportunity to bring hope to a region that never had any until now. Bush needs to tell the American people that this means a commitment that means many more years of sacrifice.Democrats and Republicans need to come together like they did after the attacks. They need to stop the partisanship over who is right and who is wrong. The reality of the situation is this: If we do not win this war, the effects will haunt us for decades.Visit Art Green blog "Conservative Eyes" Politics31958@blogcritics.org Sun, 3 Jul 2005 04:52:35 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/21/030503.php Art GreenThe Democrats are just proving that they continue to be the party of no ideas, the party of "no." Some disturbing news from the Washington Post:Senate Democrats blocked John Bolton's confirmation as U.N. ambassador for the second time Monday and President Bush left open the possibility of bypassing lawmakers and appointing the tough-talking former State Department official on his own.The vote was 54-38, six shy of the total needed to force a final vote on Bolton, and represented an erosion in support from last month's failed Republican effort. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who voted in May to advance the nomination, switched positions and urged Bush to consider another candidate, while only three Democrats crossed party lines. Now, listent to Pat Roberts (R-KS) in this next paragraph:Some Republicans urged Bush to continue fighting for Bolton rather than appoint him on his own during an upcoming Senate recess for fear of sending a weakened nominee to the United Nations. "That would not be in our best interest," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.Well, I think it would be in the Republicans interest. If you look at who are up for re-election:Democrats Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Robert Byrd (D-WV)* Maria Cantwell (D-WA)* Thomas Carper (D-DE) Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Kent Conrad (D-ND) Jon Corzine (D-NJ)* Mark Dayton (D-MN)* Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) James Jeffords (I-VT) Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Herb Kohl (D-WI) Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Bill Nelson (D-FL)* Ben Nelson (D-NE)* Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)* Republicans George Allen (R-VA) Conrad Burns (R-MT) Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) Mike DeWine (R-OH) John Ensign (R-NV) Bill Frist (R-TN) Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Trent Lott (R-MS) Richard Lugar (R-IN) Rick Santorum (R-PA)* Craig Thomas (R-WY) The only person that has basically any chance of losing on the Republican side is Rick Santorum. For the Democrats, they have a have a list of people that could lose. Corzine squeaked out a victory in 2000 beating Republican Bob Franks by three points. He is leaving his seat to run for governor, so that seat is open and when a seat is open, it depends on the candidates. Same goes for Mark Dayton, who is giving up his seat. Minnesota is a really big chance for Republicans to win because they only lost the state in the 2004 election by three points. Robert Byrd might retire after this session of Congress. If he retires, the West Virginia seat might be a Republican pick up. If he stays, the Republicans have no chance in my eyes.Maria Cantwell and Debbie Stabenow are very vulnerable. Both squeaked out a victory and will be facing good candidates in 2006. Here's to Dino Rossi running for Senate in Washington.Both Ben and Bill Nelson are vulnerable. Ben Nelson will probably make it, but I really do not know about Bill. He will probably face Katherine Harris and with Florida turning very conservative from 2000 to 2004, he will have a tough time holding onto his seat.By my count, there are seven possible vulnerable seats for the Republicans to take, and at best, one for the Democrats. Bill Frist is retiring, I believe, so that will have an open seat in Tennessee, but Republicans probably won't have much to worry about as long as they don't have another Bunning run in the state.Now, the two out of the three Democrats that crossed party lines will be guaranteed to be in the Senate. (Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu) That would be a guaranteed 55 votes if every single Senator voted the same way on John Bolton. The Republicans could very well win five seats in 2006. Even if they don't, in two years I think the Senate would see what Bolton can do.Article II, Section II of the United States Constitution states:He [The President} shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.Senate Democrats are not Advising and Consenting, they are obstructing and denying. Therefore, the course of action for the Republicans is clear. Either have President Bush appoint Bolton on the recess, or threaten Senate Democrats with the "Constitutional Option." If Bush appoints Bolton by himself, he might have the supermajority needed in 2006 to enact a cloture vote. If they evoke the Constitutional option, they will all ready have the votes needed to get Bolton approved.UPDATE:I think it is also important to point out that three sure fire Republicans were not present to vote. Politics31355@blogcritics.org Tue, 21 Jun 2005 03:05:03 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/19/173315.php Art GreenCharles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has a post on the "Downing Street Memos":The Downing Street memos: fake but accurate.The eight memos -- all labeled "secret" or "confidential" -- were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.Smith told the AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals. Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters has another great post: Readers of this site should recall this set of circumstances from last year. The Killian memos at the center of CBS' 60 Minutes Wednesday report on George Bush' National Guard service supposedly went through the same laundry service as the Downing Street Memos. Bill Burkett, once he'd been outed as the source of the now-disgraced Killian memos, claimed that a woman named Lucy Ramirez provided them to him -- but that he made copies and burned the originals to protect her identity or that of her source. Why would a reporter do such a thing? While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication -- and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible. The AP gets a "senior British official" to assert that the content "appeared authentic", which only means that the content seems to match what he thinks he knows. This, in fact, could very well be another case of "fake but accurate," where documents get created after the fact to support preconceived notions about what happened in the past. One fact certainly stands out -- Michael Smith cannot authenticate the copies. And absent that authentication, they lose their value as evidence of anything.Ed also points his readers to this post by Larisa Alexandrova of "The Raw Story":"I [Michael Smith, who first reported on the memos] first photocopied them to ensure they were on our paper and returned the originals, which were on government paper and therefore government property, to the source," he added...."It was these photocopies that I worked on, destroying them shortly before we went to press on Sept 17, 2004," he added. "Before we destroyed them the legal desk secretary typed the text up on an old fashioned typewriter."As Captain Ed said, why would you do this? Why would you not keep the originals? There is a degree that a reporter must go to protect his source, but isn't what Michael Smith did a bit of an overkill? He protected his source, all right, but he totally killed any legitimacy that his story once had.John Conyers (D-MI), who chaired the "Downing Street Memo Hearing" must feel a little stupid at the moment.For more analysis by Art Green, please visit his blog Conservative Eyes Politics31279@blogcritics.org Sun, 19 Jun 2005 17:33:15 EDT