GIULIANA SGRENA: She lied about the incident that resulted in the death of Italian commando Nicola Calipari and her wounding:

A US satellite reportedly recorded a checkpoint shooting in Iraq last month, enabling investigators to reconstruct how fast a car carrying a top Italian intelligence official and a freed hostage was traveling when US troops opened fire.
The report, which aired Thursday on CBS News, said US investigators concluded from the recording that the car was traveling at a speed of more than 60 miles (96 km) per hour.

Giuliana Sgrena has said the car was traveling at a normal speed of about 30 miles an hour when the soldiers opened fired, wounding her and killing Nicola Calipari, the Italian agent who had just secured her release from a month's captivity.

US soldiers said at the time of the March 4 incident that the car approached at a high rate of speed and that they fired only after it failed to respond to hand signals, flashing bright lights and warning shots. ...

CBS, citing Pentagon officials, said the satellite recording enabled investigators to reconstruct the event without having to rely on the eyewitness accounts.

It said the soldiers manning the checkpoint first spotted the Italian car when it was 137 yards (meters) away. By the time they opened fire and brought the car to a halt, it was 46 yards (meters) away. CBS said that happened in less than three seconds, which meant the car had to be going over 60 miles an hour.

It has been suspected all along that Ms. Sgrena was being somewhat deceptive about the incident, and now it has been confirmed that she has outright lied.

(Via Captain's Quarters)

INDECENCY IN THE MEDIA: Americans are generally supportive of measures that would reduce indecency in the mass media:

"... there is broad public support for several proposals now being considered for curbing indecent material in the media. Fully 75% favor tighter enforcement of government rules on TV content during hours when children are most likely to be watching. Sizable majorities also back other anti-indecency proposals currently before Congress, including steeper fines (69%) and extending network standards for indecency to cable television (60%)."

SHARI’A LAW AT WORK IN YEMEN:

EUROPEAN leaders are making desperate pleas to spare the life of a 21-year-old mother who is expected to face a firing squad in Yemen on Monday. The lawyer for Amina Ali Abduladif will visit her in prison today to break the news that her execution is imminent.

Mrs Abduladif was spared two years ago when she was facing her executioners and told them she was pregnant after being raped by a prison guard. But her lawyer, Shada Nasir, told The Times: “Now that her son has reached his second birthday the law here says the death sentence should be carried out.

“I don’t know how I am going to tell her.”

Mrs Nasir said the authorities had also told her to remove the boy from the Sanaa women’s prison as his mother was due to be taken back to her home village to face execution.

International pressure is mounting on Yemen to halt what Amnesty International has called “a barbaric sentence”. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office said: “We are well aware of this case and the EU is urgently discussing the matter with a number of ministers in Yemen.”

Mrs Abduladif was convicted of murdering her husband when she was 16 and the mother of two daughters. There was no forensic science or other evidence and prosecutors in her home town, Mahaweet, relied on her confession which she says was tortured out of her.

Until now she has refused to identify the guard who raped her for fear of reprisals.

(Via Little Green Footballs)

IRAQ'S NEIGHBORS are finding it - despite grudgingly by a few - increasingly in their best interest to support the interim Iraqi government:

Iraq's neighbors are increasingly supporting the interim government and opposing the Sunni Arab and al Qaeda terrorists. Most of them are more or less are opposed to radical Islamist movements, so that is one thread linking them together. But there are also other issues affecting the stance taken by the various countries surrounding Iraq. Turkey seems in favor of a strong centralized Iraqi government so that the Iraqis can keep the Kurds under control. The Gulf Arabs want to see a strong Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran, though the Kuwaitis are somewhat concerned that a revived Iraqi military might threaten them. Jordan sees the potential need for a strong ally in the event of problems with Syria, while Syria seems inclined to support the new Iraqi regime if only as a way to improve ties with the U.S. Two countries are less committed to the new Iraqi government. Saudi Arabia is tentative about supporting Iraq, since it has to balance its brand of conservative Islam with the certainty that a successful democratic -- or at least representative -- government in Iraq will probably be strongly secular. The Iranians don't want Iraq to fall under the control of either the Sunni Arab dominated Baath Party, or the Sunni Islamists (represented now by al Qaeda), both their blood enemies, but have reservations about a secular, democratic Iraq and about American influence in the region. The Iranian situation is complicated by the fact that their country is a clandestine conduit for the movement of Islamist personnel and money among Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.

(Via Instapundit)

IRAN: It doesn't matter how much "progress" has been made during negotiations with the Iranians. They are intent upon resuming enrichment of uranium and nothing -- short of a credible threat or the actual use of military force -- is likely to cause them to seriously reconsider. The negotiations were never likely to have gone anywhere, and were most probably a stalling tactic by the Iranians to buy some time.

Those who are deluding themselves that negotiations with Iran have even a remote chance of success must face up to reality. The choice is this: Accept an Iranian nuclear program which will lead to the production of deliverable nuclear weapons or issue the Iranians an ultimatum to dismantle their uranium enrichment, and other nuclear related facilities, along with a serious threat of military force that will destroy their capacity to enrich uranium and produce nuclear delivery vehicles.

If the Iranians -- as is expected -- shortly resume the enrichment of uranium, you can bet that it will not be long before the Israelis come to believe that they have no choice but to act to neutralize the Iranian danger. The Israelis are simply never going to accept a potentially nuclear armed Iran, and it would be wrong for the United States to directly - or indirectly - suggest that they do so by dissuading them from taking military action should it become necessary. In any event, the Israelis are not likely to be receptive to such a message if they believe that the Iranians are on the verge of producing a deliverable nuclear weapon.

The current situation with Iran cannot be resolved diplomatically. It is inevitably headed toward either the acceptance of a nuclear Iran or the neutralization - by the Iranians or by outside force if necessary - of any capacity Iran possesses to produce a deliverable nuclear weapon.

SEN. BILL FRIST lays out the case against judicial obstruction.

THOSE TOLERANT SAUDIS: They're arresting people. The crime? Christian religious activity:

On April 23, 2005, Saudi newspapers reported that 40 Pakistanis were arrested by the Saudi religious police in a Riyadh apartment for conducting Christian religious activity. The following are excerpts from the reports:

The Saudi daily Al-Jazirah reported that 40 men, women, and children with Pakistani citizenship were arrested on April 21, 2005 after performing Christian religious rites in an apartment in the Thaharat Al-Badi'a neighborhood in western Riyadh. The arrest was part of a sweeping police operation by the Riyadh District Police, at the order of Riyadh Governor Prince Salman bin Abd Al-'Aziz.

The paper reported that the operation came after Saudi religious police – known as the Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice [1] – followed and collected information on the activity of the 40, who listened to a proselytizing lecture by a Pakistani minister.

The paper also noted that during the police operation, which lasted nearly 10 hours, a cross and a large number of proselytizing books and cassettes were found [in the apartment]. The detainees themselves stated that they had come to listen to lectures by the minister. One of the detainees was a Muslim Pakistani, who acknowledged that he had been influenced by the Christian ideology. [2]

The Saudi daily Al-Riyadh said that the detainees had set up a church in the apartment, equipped with crosses, pictures, and statues. Likewise, it was said that during their religious activity, one of them was found praying, as the others present repeated their words, and one of the women arrested was listing the people's confessions and distributing writs of absolution. The Al-Riyadh report included a photo of the detainees and of a large cross and the group which was arrested.

A Saudi religious police source explained the reason for the arrest: "These people tried to spread the poison and their beliefs to others, by means of distributing pamphlets and [missionary] publications." He said that all the detainees "had been transferred to the relevant bodies for investigation."

TOM DELAY: The Washington Post had a headline the other day titled "DeLay Is Likely to Be Found Culpable." This created the impression that House Majority Leader Tom Delay was much more likely to be found in violation of one or more House ethics rules as a result of the Republican rollback of rules that were widely pereived to have been changed to benefit Delay.

The Post admits that it overstated the opinions of legal experts cited in the article, and that it should not have used the word "likely":

The headline on an April 28 analysis about ethics allegations against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay overstated the opinions expressed by legal experts. The experts said that DeLay is in danger of being declared in violation of House rules, but they did not characterize such a finding as "likely."

(Via Michelle Malkin)

THE CEDAR REVOLUTION: "It's over":

Chalk up another, final, victory for the Cedar Revolution.

The Lebanese government formally announced the election will be held on time - on May 29th 2005.

The million-person demonstration, the two-month sleep-in at the tent-city, the countdown campaign, the village campaign, the media pressure, the international pressure - it all came together. It's a new era in Lebanon now. The time of post-war occupation and oppression is over. The Cedar Revolution is now over, too.

(Via Glenn Reynolds)

BENEDICT XVI: He will preserve orthodox Catholic teachings because he is a Catholic. It is just that simple:

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI will disappoint only those Catholics who want changes that disrupt the integrity of the Catholic faith, said a U.S. priest who has spent decades making available in English the writings of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before the 78-year-old German was elected to the papacy April 19.

Calling the new pope a theological hard-liner is "absolutely false," said Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio, founder and editor in chief of Ignatius Press, which has published 25 books in English by Cardinal Ratzinger.

"He has a tremendous breadth of vision that is recognized by his critics," said Father Fessio, provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla., and a former student of the new pope.

"But he's a Catholic. He believes in Catholic truth. He wants to preserve the integrity of the deposit of faith," he added.

"Will he allow women priests? No, because he can't," Father Fessio said.

He met the future pope in the early 1970s when then-Father Ratzinger was Father Fessio's adviser for his doctoral thesis in theology at the University of Regensburg, Germany.

I watched Fr. Fessio face a hostile Tim Russert on Meet The Press this last Sunday. He held his own quite nicely, even while Tim Russert managed to slightly lose his cool when Fessio -- quite properly -- suggested that people go read the books written by Cardinal Ratzinger, which would be much more educational about the man than a one hour television show.

AMEN!

"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid doesn’t seem to get the fact that George W. Bush won the presidential election last November. He also doesn’t get that the Republicans picked up five seats in the Upper Chamber. That’s called a mandate. Despite this, Reid believes he can negotiate, or even dictate, which judicial appointments can be voted on in the Senate.

That’s utterly preposterous, and it’s one of the many reasons why Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist must put Reid and the rest of the filibustering Senate Democrats in their place once and for all.

There is no political or constitutional reason why every presidential judicial nomination should not be voted on. That includes nominees for the Supreme Court, the appellate courts, and on down the line. But the Senate Democrats are now standing in the way of near every nominee the president sends over, vowing even to re-filibuster many that the president nominated in his first term."

Go read the whole thing.

JOHN BOLTON: Think the president is backing away from John Bolton? Think again. From tonight's press conference:

"Well, John Bolton has been asked the questions about how he handles his business by members of the United States Senate. He's been asked a lot of questions, and he's given very good answers.

John Bolton is a seasoned diplomat. He has been serving our country for, I think, 20 years.

He has been confirmed by the United States Senate four times. In other words, he's been up before the Senate before. And they've analyzed his talents and his capabilities. And they've confirmed him.

John Bolton is a blunt guy. Sometimes people say I'm little too blunt. John Bolton can get the job done at the United Nations.

It seemed like to me it made sense to put somebody who's capable, smart, served our country for 20 years, been confirmed by the United States Senate four times and who isn't afraid to speak his mind in the post of the ambassador to the U.N.

See, the U.N. needs reform. If you're interested in reforming the U.N. like I'm interested in reforming the U.N., it makes sense to put somebody who's skilled and who's not afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations.

Now, I asked John during the interview process in the Oval Office — I said, "Before I send you up there to the Senate, let me ask you something: Do you think the United Nations is important?"

See, I didn't want to send somebody up there who said, "Well, that's not worth a darn. I don't think I need to go."

He said, "No, it's important, but it needs to be reformed."

And I think the United Nations is important."

Good answers to a LOT of questions will not, of course, be good enough for the Democrats. They're too busy inquiring about allegations from all kinds of interesting characters - some more interesting than others - that this highly competent individual just may have rubbed a person or two the wrong way. Yikes, he might even have yelled at subordinates a few times!

Fortunately, the president does not appear to have lost confidence in Mr. Bolton's likelihood to eventually be confirmed, despite the nonsensical charges being thrown at him.

More from the Washington Times.

JUDICIAL NOMINEES: Captain Ed thinks that Sen. Frist has cleverly "flushed out" the Democrats with his offer for 100 hours of debate on each of the president's judicial nominees before cutoff, but that perhaps the senator's office should get a calculator before tendering such offers.

SEN. HARRY REID says that Sen. Bill Frist's offer of this morning to break the judicial stalemate was throwing a "big wet kiss" to the Right. That was real constructive, wasn't it? The comment is certainly indicative of the fact that Reid knows the Republicans have the votes to stop his filibuster of judicial nominees, and that he knows he is going to lose.

Sen. Reid is actually accomplishing the difficult feat of making Tom Daschle look good by comparison.

CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION UPDATE: The stage is still set for invoking the constitutional option on judicial nominees. The Democrats had a - not surprisingly - cool reaction to the latest offer by Sen. Bill Frist this morning. Republicans appear to have the votes, or expect that they will have them at the necessary time, to change Senate rules on filibustering judges.

UPDATE: John Hinderaker over at Powerline is more optimistic that the Democrats may back down before the constitutional option is invoked.