Given that Drudge has splashed a dated “US Used White Phosphorus in Iraq” alarmist headline (referencing this story), it is worth linking to OTB’s discussion of this whole episode.

Read the whole thing.

A bit more at Say Anything and Wizbang. And of course, our earlier post on the subject.

Michael Yon put a great piece up on Monday about Walt Gaya, who is in the US Army but is not yet a citizen. He was wounded in battle.

Many American soldiers are not actually citizens of the United States, but the “foreigners” in the US Army I got to know in Mosul didn’t fight with any less commitment than those born in the US.

Shortly after the attack, when Walt was in the hospital in Mosul, Robert Prosser, the Command Sergeant Major of the “Deuce Four” battalion, came to check on his men. He found Walt more concerned about missing his citizenship ceremony than losing his eye. Walt had post-war plans to become a photo-journalist. Shortly after the blast, he’d written off that damaged eye, and his camera had been battered; but what mattered to Walt was his citizenship. When they flew Walt back to America he did miss the ceremony in Baghdad.

The power of the press has come to his aide, and now Yon reports:

When I arrived at Fort Lewis, I found Walt standing in his commander’s office. They were a pair: the commander still on crutches recovering from a few gunshot wounds–but expected to make a full recovery–and Walt with his semi-closed eye, planning for a career in photo-journalism. I asked about Walt’s citizenship, and they assured me that the Army had taken control of the situation and there would be no further problems or delays.

If you are convicted of DUI in Florida, Sen. Mike Fasano, of New Port Richey, Florida, wants you to have a pink license plate.

I like the idea. The ACLU, on the other hand, thinks it might hurt the drunk drivers’ feelings.

A Republican senator wants a law to require bright pink license plates on vehicles driven by people with restricted driving privileges due to convictions for driving under the influence.

Sen. Mike Fasano, of New Port Richey, filed a bill earlier this month that requires the first three characters on the plate to read “DUI.”

“Maybe it will embarrass people and keep them from drinking and driving,” Fasano said. “Maybe they’ll think twice.”

The bill also says police “may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver.”

Ohio and Michigan have similar laws in place. Other states have debated the issue, but failed to pass it due to privacy reasons.

“Pink plates would hold out individuals for punishment as well as ridicule. We are very opposed to it,” said Larry Spalding, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida.

UPDATE: It appears there are lots of good license plate stories hitting the news. Check out 666-KEN.

Ken Hasenmueller says he doesn’t want anyone to get the wrong idea about him, so he plans to trade in the licence plates assigned to his red Oldsmobile.

The number 666-KEN was randomly selected for his car by transportation officials.

The RNC has just released a video chronicling Democrat hypocrisy.

Check it out here.

UPDATE: Paul M. agrees, it’s powerful.

The Washington Times continues the deception on Roe v. Wade. (I’m having flashbacks to the Ferraro Reuters story with a similar misleading headline).

Who edits these stories? Here is the opening paragraph.

Liberals said yesterday that Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s 1985 claim that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion” proves that he would try to outlaw the practice.

Bill Sammon and Charles Hurt then go on to quote many of the liberals speaking on the issue, never once did I find the quote “outlaw the practice.” (Did I miss it?)

***

Mr. Sammon, Mr. Hurt:

Sincerely,
Eric.
http://myopiczeal.blogsome.com

***

UPDATE: The Washington Post is much more accurate, this time.

Opponents charged that the documents offer further evidence that Alito would vote to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision recognizing a constitutional right to abortion and would roll back civil rights and protections of religious freedom. Defenders said that Alito would put aside personal views and base his rulings on the law and a respect for Supreme Court precedent.

UPDATE 2: Others discussing include Ian, Stop the ACLU, B4B

UPDATE 3: Nate over at Another Attempt has more.

Bryan Preston (blogging at Michelle Malkin’s site) says “Google it.”

He goes on to elaborate in his TCS column today:

Google is not just a search engine; it’s also something of a wayback machine. It can take us back to the last time prior to 2003 that the United States waged a campaign against Saddam Hussein.

If you go to Google and run a search using “Clinton Iraq 1998,” you will find at the time of this writing 3,010,000 hits. Time stands still for no net surfer, so your mileage may vary slightly. But you won’t need all those three million hits anyway. You can just click on the very first one, which will take you to a CNN story dated December 16, 1998 about President Clinton warning Iraq that its failure to comply with UN weapons inspections left him no choice but to attack. And attack he did, launching Operation Desert Fox, which destroyed Iraq’s intelligence headquarters and a few other points of concern. President Clinton’s reasons for the operation:

“Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,” Clinton said.

And:

“Earlier today I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces,” Clinton said.

“Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,” said Clinton.

For the “Bush Lied” mantra to have any logical or factual force, one must believe that Desert Fox not only destroyed every single WMD Saddam had, but also cowed him sufficiently that he never built a single WMD or lab in the five years that remained of his rule. And that knowing all of this, Bush took us to war anyway. No serious person believes that.

UPDATE: Edited to correct the fact that I attributed this writing to Michelle, not noticing that Bryan Preston was guest blogging on her site.

UPDATE 2: Bryan has a new graphic up at MM and his own site.

UPDATE 3: If you’re going to be in DC tonight, you may want to stop by this meeting to see what it’s about. (Via DGITL)

UPDATE 4: JYB has added a new animated graphic. Here it is, for your enjoyment.

Mark Tapscott says maybe.

“The legislature will make a determination on that. Very frankly, we’ll have to see how this thing plays out,” Murkowski said of the project that would erect a bridge comparable in size to the Golden Gate to connect Ketchikan with Gravina and Pennock islands. Ketchikan has about 8,000 residents, the islands less than 100.

That comment about the legislature sounds like a politician looking for a way out to me.

UPDATE: Tapscott was right. But the Agitator says it’s all smoke and mirrors.

It’s a cheap stunt by the GOP to deflect public criticism that doesn’t really change much of anything. All the conference committee did was remove the earmark for the bridges. Alaska will still be getting the same obscene amount of money from the federal government, it’s just that the state won’t be required to use it to build those two particular bridges. It’ll be up to the executive and the state legislature to decide how to spend it.

GayOrbit adds:

It is as much of a victory as a father taking back the money he gave his underage son for liquor and giving it back to him so he can spend it on cigarettes.

But Glenn has a different perspectives.

[I]t’s a small victory, really. But it’s a victory nonetheless, and in this battle you take ‘em where you find ‘em.

UPDATE: Will Ted Stevens resign, like he threatened? (Via OTB)

Jay is working hard to keep focus on this issue, and I’m happy to help do my tiny part. It’s absolutely critical.

Regardless of what Congressman Bradley says (if anything), I will NOT give up my right to speak freely on politics — or anything else that I chose to, for that matter. I am torn between taking “Patterico’s Pledge” and willfully violating what I see as an unconstitutional action, or simply taking up two of my online friends who blog from other countries up on their offers to give me “guest posting” privileges. Regardless, I will not be silenced.

Congress is scheduled to take up 1606 and 4194 this week. Don’t let this slip by unnoticed in all of the excitement about Bush finally getting up off of the mat.

For more info, go to the Online Coalition.

Problems with 4194:

• It offers no guidance as to the treatment of group political activity, potentially treating all group websites that discuss federal candidates as political committees

• It would stifle technological innovation. H.R. 4194 specifically mentions “blogging”, but ignores such as already-widely used technologies like podcasting, wikis and peer-to-peer networks, let alone the technologies of tomorrow.

• Its alleged protection to incorporated bloggers offers no real protection. In comments filed before the FEC, supporters of H.R. 4194 have stated explicitly that those websites which endorse, expressly advocate, and urge readers to donate funds to the election of preferred candidates do not qualify for protection under the law. This would force bloggers that speak forcefully about politics to seek legal counsel – a complete disaster.

Tapscott:

The genuine article is The Online Freedom of Speech Act, H.R. 1606. Make sure your blog readers and your congressman know all the facts on the differences between H.R. 4194 and H.R. 1606. Your freedom of speech could depend upon their knowing the difference.