Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press!  Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary

The Morning Murmur – Wednesday, April 5, 2006

1. Saddam Cross-Examined for First Time - Associated Press
Saddam Hussein was cross-examined for the first time in his six-month-old trial Wednesday, saying he approved death sentences against Shiites in the 1980s, a day after prosecutors indicted Saddam on separate charges of genocide.

2. Criminal Alien Exception Blocked - Washington Times
Senate Democrats refused to allow consideration of an amendment yesterday that would bar illegal aliens convicted of felonies from obtaining U.S. citizenship.

3. The real 'party of the rich' - Washington Times
Reformers who promise to rid politics of the corrupting influence of big money have had little success in keeping wealthy donors from spending millions to elect Democrats. It is no wonder Democrats don't want to see their 527 advantage restricted.

4. The Party of Police-Haters - RealClearPolitics
While McKinney and her ilk sling wild charges of racism and conspiracy at the police, national Dems have yet to utter one clear word in defense of the men and women who protect their privileged backsides day in and day out in Washington.

5. Not Another Clinton Presidency - Human Events
We, as a nation, simply cannot afford another Clinton Presidency-be it male or female. The Clintons' brand of politics was poison for our country and we cannot run the risk of moving backward at this critical juncture in our nation's history.

For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov

FULL ARTICLES BELOW:

1.  Saddam Cross-Examined for First Time - Associated Press

Saddam Cross-Examined for First Time in Trial, Calls Court 'Illegitimate'
By MARIAM FAM

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein was cross-examined for the first time in his six-month-old trial Wednesday, saying he approved death sentences against Shiites in the 1980s because he believed the evidence had proven they were involved in an assassination attempt against him.

Standing alone as the sole defendant in the courtroom, Saddam dodged questions from prosecutors over his role in the crackdown, giving long speeches in which he called the court "illegitimate." He also accused the current Shiite-led Interior Ministry of killing and torturing thousands of Iraqis and bickered with chief judge Raouf Abdel-Rahman.

The session came a day after prosecutors indicted Saddam on separate charges of genocide, accusing him of trying to exterminate Kurds in a 1980s campaign that killed an estimated 100,000 people. The charges will be dealt with in a separate trial.

In the current trial, Saddam and seven former members of his regime are charged in a crackdown against Shiites launched after a 1982 assassination attempt against Saddam in the town of Dujail. In the sweep that followed, 148 Shiites were killed and hundreds were imprisoned, some of them undergoing torture.

Dressed in a black suit and white shirt, Saddam appeared relaxed throughout Wednesday's questioning, frequently shooting grins at chief prosecutor Jaafar al-Moussawi and even reciting a short bit of poetry to the judge.

Al-Moussawi asked Saddam about his approval for death sentences passed against the Shiites by his Revolutionary Court, which prosecutors have argued gave them only a cursory trial.

"That is one of the duties of the president," Saddam replied. "I had the right to question the judgment. But I was convinced the evidence that was presented was sufficient" to show their guilt in the assassination attempt.

In a previous court session, Saddam acknowledged ordering the trial in which the Shiites were sentenced to death but has maintained his actions were legal because they were in response to the attempt to kill him.

Al-Moussawi asked Saddam if he was aware that 28 of those sentenced to death were under 18 years old and presented identity cards for some of the killed minors. Prosecutors have earlier said an 11-year-old boy was among those killed.

Saddam replied that ID cards can easily be forged.

"You can buy IDs like this in the market," he said. "Is it the responsibility of the head of the state to check the IDs of defendants and see how old he is?"

"I could get a hold of an ID saying Raouf is 25 years old," he added, waving toward the judge.

Al-Moussawi also displayed documents showing the approval of medals for intelligence agents involved in the crackdown and approvals for the razing of Dujail farmlands in retaliation for the assassination attempt. Al-Moussawi repeatedly asked if the signatures on the documents were Saddam's.

But Saddam, sometimes smiling at the prosecutor, avoided a direct reply, refusing to confirm the signatures but also stopping short of saying the signatures were forged.

"Any comment, matter or document signed by Saddam Hussein, and it has been proven that the handwriting and the signature are his, then I take the responsibility," he replied.

He demanded an international body examine signatures alleged to be his on documents the prosecution has presented concerning the crackdown. Some of Saddam's co-defendants have insisted signatures said to be theirs are forged.

"You should resort to an impartial, international body" and not a body "that kills thousands people on the streets and tortures them ... the Interior Ministry," Saddam told Abdel-Rahman, referring to the now Shiite-controlled ministry, which some Iraqis accuse of backing Shiite militias that have assassinated Sunni Arabs.

"Don't venture into political matters," Abdel-Rahman replied.

"If you are scared of the interior minister, he doesn't scare my dog," Saddam retorted.

Iraq has seen a wave of killings and attacks between Shiites and Sunnis since the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in the city of Samarra.

At the beginning of the session, Saddam launched into a speech in response to the prosecutor's first question, bringing repeated demands by Abdel-Rahman that he answer the question.

Saddam denounced the court as illegitimate, saying "a body whose base and formation is illegitimate and unjust can't pronounce justice. How could anyone imagine that it could issue a verdict on the Iraqi president, who stood as a sharp spear inside the eyes of those who planned and worked to poke Iraq's eyes?"

Saddam had been due to testify and be questioned in the previous session of the trial, on March 15. But instead, he gave a rambling speech calling on Iraqis to stop sectarian violence and unite to fight American troops. After arguing with Saddam, Abdel-Rahman closed most of the session to the public to allow Saddam to finish his speech.

Saddam and the seven former members of his regime face possible execution by hanging if they are convicted in connection with the Dujail crackdown launched following a July 8, 1982 shooting attack on Saddam's motorcade in the town.

Tuesday's indictment paves the way for a second trial of Saddam in which he would also likely face execution if convicted, though prosecutors have not yet said what sentence they will seek.

He and six other former regime members will be tried for Operation Anfal, the 1988 military campaign launched in the final months of the war with Iran to crush independence-minded Kurdish militias and clear Kurds from the sensitive Iranian border area of northern Iraq.

A memo released by the tribunal Tuesday said the Anfal campaign included "savage military attacks on civilians," including "the use of mustard gas and nerve agents ... to kill and maim rural villagers and to drive them out of their homes."

Operations against the Kurds included the March 1988 gas attack on the village of Halabja in which 5,000 people died. However, court spokesman Raid Juhi told The Associated Press that the Halabja attack would be prosecuted separately and was not considered part of the charges filed Tuesday.

Others accused in the Anfal case include Saddam's cousin, Ali Hassan Majid, or "Chemical Ali"; former Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmad; former intelligence chief Saber Abdul Aziz al-Douri; former Republican Guard commander Hussein al-Tikriti; former Nineveh provincial Gov. Taher Tafwiq al-Ani; and former top military commander Farhan Mutlaq al-Jubouri.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=1807629
 

2.  Criminal Alien Exception Blocked - Washington Times

By Charles Hurt

Published April 5, 2006

Senate Democrats refused to allow consideration of an amendment yesterday that would bar illegal aliens convicted of felonies from obtaining U.S. citizenship.

Democrats said the amendment would "gut" the immigration bill under consideration in the Senate and refused to allow a vote on it.

"It hurts the bill," said Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "It hurts the very foundation and what I believe is the spirit" of the legislation.

Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas restated the purpose of their amendment and appeared incredulous that anyone would object to it.

"I do not have to explain in any more detail than what I have as why I don't want to move forward," Mr. Reid said. "I don't agree with the amendment. I don't think it's going to benefit this legislation that is pending before the Senate and I'm going to do what I can to prevent a vote on it."

Later, Mr. Reid added, "We're not going to allow amendments like Kyl-Cornyn to take out what we believe is the goodness of this bill."

The entire bill is "in effect being blocked by the other side," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican.

After debate over the bill ground to a halt last night, Democrats filed a "cloture motion" that could set up a final vote before the end of the week on an immigration bill that many conservatives view as "amnesty." The bill allows illegal aliens to pay a $2,000 fine and remain working in the U.S. while applying for citizenship.

The Kyl-Cornyn amendment would have barred from U.S. citizenship any illegal alien who has been convicted of a felony, three misdemeanors or refused a court order to leave the country.

Democrats said the amendment is not necessary because crimes of "moral turpitude" such as rape and murder already prevent an illegal from obtaining U.S. citizenship, as would violations of drug laws.

Mr. Kyl came to the floor and listed the crimes he said would not be included without his amendment, such as burglary, assault and battery, possession of an unregistered, sawed-off shotgun, kidnapping and alien smuggling.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060404-105601-5010r.htm
 

3.  The real 'party of the rich' - Washington Times

By Lynn Vincent and Robert Stacy McCain
Published April 5, 2006

The media's haste to blame the Bush administration, inaccurately, for the Enron scandal was largely a product of a decades-long propaganda effort by Democrats to convince Americans that Republicans are the "party of the rich." Much evidence, however, contradicts this stereotype.

Democrats certainly have shown no aversion to contributions from corporate America. One needs to look no further than Federal Election Commission records for the 2006 campaign season.

Seven of the top 10 candidates for U.S. Senate in fundraising were Democrats, as of the reporting period that ended Sept. 30.

Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York came in at No. 1 with $15.4 million, followed by Bill Nelson of Florida, fourth at $5.4 million; Maria Cantwell of Washington, fifth at $5.1 million; Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, seventh at $5 million; Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, eighth at $4.1 million; John Kerry of Massachusetts, ninth at $4.1 million; and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, 10th at $3.7 million.

A list of top corporate political action committee (PAC) donors to Democrats for the 2006 campaign season as of Nov. 30, meanwhile, featured most of the same blue-chip companies that were giving to Republicans.

They include United Parcel Service ($226,173), AT&T ($199,000), defense contractor Northrop Grumman ($198,500), insurance giant Aflac($193,500), General Electric ($193,350), defense contractor General Dynamics ($168,500), BellSouth ($166,100), defense contractors Boeing ($166,000) and Raytheon ($161,250), and cable giant Comcast ($153,950).

Reformers who promise to rid politics of the corrupting influence of big money have had little success in keeping wealthy donors from spending millions to elect Democrats.

Consider the PACs that contributed to the party's top fundraiser, Mrs. Clinton. The biggest chunks of Mrs. Clinton's PAC money through Sept. 30 came from organized labor ($141,170), law groups ($71,087) and single-issue advocates ($66,918). However, she also collected substantial sums from the health care industry ($62,900), finance and insurance interests ($59,000), the communications industry ($42,687), the retail and service sectors ($39,000), real estate and construction ($24,840), and defense ($19,000).

After the Enron scandal helped boost the issue of campaign-finance reform, President Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act into law in March 2002. The key provision limited previously unregulated "soft money" that the parties collected from big contributors.

When it looked like Democrats might suffer, though, rich friends soon found a loophole in nonprofit "issue advocacy" organizations -- called "527s" for the IRS code that regulates them. During the 2004 election cycle, a group of wealthy liberals donated more than $80 million to 527s supporting Democrats.

The top 527 donors -- financier George Soros (who gave $23.4 million), insurance mogul Peter Lewis ($23 million), Hollywood playboy Stephen Bing ($13.9 million), and mortgage bankers Herb and Marion Sandler ($13 million) -- were all Democrats. Gateway computer founder Ted Waitt gave $5 million to Democratic 527s; venture capitalists Andy and Deborah Rappaport gave $4.3 million.

Democrats who smear Republicans as the party of the greedy rich have to overlook more than just a few big-money Democratic donors. There's also the so-called "red state-blue state" divide. The "blue" states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 are far richer than the "red" states that voted for Mr. Bush.

"States with the highest per-capita income trend Democrat; the states with the lowest per-capita income trend Republican," Jerry Bowyer reported for National Review Online, summarizing research by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. "The top 10 'blue states' ... had an average per-capita personal income of $36,327, which is 20 percent higher than the top 10 'red states,' which had an average of $30,275."

Mr. Bowyer found another difference: The Republican red states, despite lower average incomes, had substantially higher rates of economic growth than the pro-Democrat blue states. While the rich people in Democratic states are "old money," he wrote, Republican voters in the red states are "immune to class guilt because they didn't inherit their wealth."

Democratic politicians themselves are, in many cases, stupendously wealthy. Nothing wrong with that, but rich Democrats sometimes get their money, and protect it from taxes, in ways that directly contradict their political rhetoric.

Mr. Kerry campaigned for president saying that the "super-rich" should pay more taxes. However, as Peter Schweizer of the Hoover Institution writes in his book "Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," the Massachusetts senator and his heiress wife had a net worth exceeding $700 million but "were paying only 15 percent of their income in taxes."

Mr. Kerry called for raising the taxes of those earning $200,000 a year -- people who, according to the IRS, already were paying 25 percent of their income in taxes.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi supports organized labor and "affordable housing" for the poor and says that "the environment is a core value," Mr. Schweizer notes.

However, Mrs. Pelosi and her husband, a California real-estate magnate, didn't build a $50 million fortune by investing in affordable housing. The Pelosis invested instead in such upscale projects as a private golf development that damaged the environment in Santa Clara County.

If Republicans were really the party of the rich, it might be expected that all the fat cats and high rollers would be happy to donate generously to Mr. Bush, whom Democrats denounced as favoring "tax cuts for the rich."

All told, Mr. Bush collected nearly $375 million for his re-election bid, about $26 million more than Mr. Kerry. (In other words, Mr. Kerry raised about 93 percent as much as Mr. Bush.)

But wait a minute. Although Mr. Bush had no real rivals for the Republican nomination, Mr. Kerry got the Democratic nomination only after defeating a large pack of other contenders. And each raised substantial sums: former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean raised almost $53 million and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina raked in nearly $34 million. Even Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who ran as a socialist in all but name, managed more than $13 million.

Combine the coffers of the top seven Democratic candidates (who also included retired Gen. Wesley Clark, former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut) and the total raised comes to $518 million. Which means that the Democratic candidates raised $144 million more than the Republican incumbent.

If Republicans are the "party of the rich," how could they be outspent by the party of the poor?

http://washingtontimes.com/culture/20060404-095646-9691r.htm
 

4.  The Party of Police-Haters - RealClearPolitics

By Michelle Malkin

There's only one thing more damning than the recent caterwauling of cop-bashing Rep. Cynthia McKinney and her race-mongering mob:

The stone-cold silence of Beltway Democrats.

While McKinney and her ilk sling wild charges of racism and conspiracy at the police, national Dems have yet to utter one clear word in defense of the men and women who protect their privileged backsides day in and day out in Washington.

But, hey, don't question their patriotism.

McKinney, who is black, is having the mother of all Beltway snit fits because, she claims, a white Capitol Hill police officer "inappropriately touched" her last week. After asking her several times to stop when she traipsed around a security checkpoint without proper identification, according to police accounts, the officer reportedly touched McKinney's arm or shoulder. In response, she struck the officer.

You know, Rep. McKinney, as a fellow "woman of color," I have been pulled aside by government security agents numerous times for secondary screening at airports over the last few years. I've had my bra straps snapped, my thighs pawed, and my torso wanded. I've had my cell phone tested for bomb residue, my laptop inspected, and my handbags manhandled.

My response was not to go postal or do a Naomi Campbell on the gropers. My response was to ask why they aren't doing more security profiling.

McKinney is spitting venom about "double standards" of justice. But if I had done what McKinney did to the police officer just doing his job, I would be marking time in the slammer. Caught in an imperial act of lawlessness, McKinney is now conducting her own victim Olympics to deflect blame and responsibility:

Lawyer James W. Myart Jr. called McKinney "a victim of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials because of how she looks and the color of her skin. Ms. McKinney is just a victim of being in Congress while black." Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover, admittedly ignorant of what McKinney did on Capitol Hill, were on hand to add their tribal "uh-huhs" and "amens" to the blanket condemnations of white police officers.

On Monday, an entire contingent of black leaders in Atlanta inveighed against law enforcement officers and lent McKinney their unconditional political support at a meeting of the Concerned Black Clergy of Metropolitan Atlanta in the Community Church of God. (Hello, church-and-state separatists?) "Racial profiling is a well-thought-out and planned attack on black political leaders," fumed state Rep. Roberta Abdul-Salaam. "It's going from the gold dome down to the White House. It's happening and it's wrong."

Another instigated the crowd: "We know what time it is, and that's why the most progressive of us are standing here. Because we know that if you can come and get Cynthia today, you'll come and get us tomorrow." Yet another McKinney supporter rattled his tinfoil and asserted: "I believe this incident with Cynthia McKinney is a setup . . . I say the politicizing of this event was planned and staged! They decided to set this brave sister up!"

McKinney later appeared on CNN to insinuate that the entire Capitol Hill police department had "problems inside with the treatment of -- or the respect for diversity -- let me say." She adamantly refuses to apologize for her treatment of the officer she hit.

Two Capitol Hill cops died in the line of fire in 1998 defending politicians and government workers from an intruding gunman who waltzed passed a checkpoint in the same manner McKinney did. The Democrats' refusal to condemn the McKinney mob's smear campaign against the Capitol Hill police sinks to a new level of political cowardice. And stupidity. Republicans have already announced plans to introduce a bill defending the 1,700-member Capitol Hill police force -- reinforcing the Donkey Party's haplessness on public safety and national security issues.

Contempt for law enforcement is a hallmark of the party of Ted Kennedy, Al Sharpton, Chuck Schumer, Jesse Jackson and the Clintons. New Yorkers won't forget the shameful attack on members of the Albany Police Department honor guard, who were cursed at and spat on by participants in the state Democratic Party convention in 2000. It's all of a piece. To quote a certain now-quiet Democrat senator from New York pandering to her black constituents:

"And you know what I am talkin' about."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/the_party_of_policehaters.html
 

5.  Not Another Clinton Presidency - Human Events

Iby Nathan Tabor
Posted Apr 04, 2006

There are some celebrities who simply cannot bring themselves to shy away from the spotlight-even years after their popularity has faded. Of course, there's pop singer Britney Spears, who can't seem to stay out of the tabloids...actor Alec Baldwin, who somehow believes that his political utterances are being followed by millions...and actress Sharon Stone, who's still making headlines on the Drudge Report long after her movie career faded.

And then there's Bill and Hillary.

Politics' number-one odd couple appears to be determined to return to the White House. Pundits talk breathlessly of a Hillary Presidency, with her helpmate Bill serving as the First Man. All the talk for 2008 seems to be focused on Hillary, and will she or won't she run.

We, as a nation, simply cannot afford another Clinton Presidency-be it male or female. The Clintons' brand of politics was poison for our country and we cannot run the risk of moving backward at this critical juncture in our nation's history.

Perhaps most seriously, Bill Clinton helped set the stage for the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. He had the opportunity to neutralize Osama Bin Laden-and he failed. As a result, he made our country vulnerable to radical extremists determined to inflict as much pain on America as possible.

Then, there's the issue of Bill Clinton trying to turn the White House into the Playboy mansion. Now that we have a President who's devoted to his wife and family, it may be hard to remember the days when the Oval Office served as Clinton's pleasure palace. He disgraced the dignified office of the Presidency-not simply through his extra-marital conquests, but also by lying to government investigators. The Clinton Administration was an "Anything Goes" regime-and one of the first things to go was ethics.

Bill Clinton-the man who dared "to inhale"-set the nation back, as far as the drug war was concerned. Drug use by our young people escalated during the Clinton years. Given the horrendous impact that drugs can have on a family, it's outrageous that anyone would entertain the notion of bringing a Clinton back to the White House.

Unfortunately, some people are under the illusion that a Hillary White House would be different. After all, we wouldn't have to worry about Hillary entertaining gentleman suitors when she should be attending to Cabinet meetings. But don't forget that Senator Hillary is the same Hillary that brought you Whitewater and Travelgate. There's nothing in the record to suggest that her administration would be any more ethical than her hubby's was.

Also, believe it or not, I am not convinced that Hillary is the smartest woman in the U.S. In fact, in the intelligence department, I don't think she holds a candle to Condoleeza. I have also seen nothing in the Senate record to suggest that she is a brilliant stateswoman.

No matter how much Hillary attempts to portray herself as a centrist, she is a liberal through and through. In Hillary's world, abortion is tantamount to a sacrament; religion is only for the confines of your house; and the ACLU is deserving of a Congressional medal of honor. She has been pushing liberal causes for most of her adult life-and I doubt that would change if she returned to the White House.

The '90s are history. I trust that the voters of the 21st century are a great deal smarter than those who risked national security and government ethics to elect Bill Clinton to the White House. We've barely recovered from his non-leadership. Let's not return to those bad old days.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=13760
 

###