April 11-12, 2007
Apr 11 03:29 Censorship & Objectivity? Apr 11 04:20 Slow Motion Trainwreck Apr 11 11:52 Profiling Pogie Apr 11 13:00 Censorship & Objectivity, Part II Apr 11 19:34 McCain Comes Out Swinging Apr 12 01:57 Slow Joe Needs To Change Course Apr 12 02:33 The White Flag Of Surrender Apr 12 09:16 Cheney Takes the Gloves Off Apr 12 15:41 Speaking With The Voice Of Southern Minnesota?
Prior Years: 2006
Censorship & Objectivity?
The Arizona Republic's Dennis Wagner has exposed PBS and Washington TV station WETA for censoring a documentary for political reasons. Frank Gaffney was a producer of a documentary titled "Islam vs. Islamists." Here's the section that puts WETA's credibility at zero:
A Jan. 30 news release by the corporation listed Islam vs. Islamists as one of eight films to be presented in the opening series.It appears that Ms. Stewart chose to give a deceptive answer and that Bieber gave a straightforward, though impolite, answer. I suspect that Bieber is telling the truth. This paragraph will explain better what Bieber found objectionable:
Mary Stewart, vice president of external affairs at WETA, said Burke's documentary was not completed on time to be among 11 documentaries that will be aired beginning Sunday. Stewart said the picture may be broadcast by PBS at a later date.
"The film is a strong film," Stewart said. "I'm still hoping to see this in the Crossroads initiative."
Jeff Bieber, WETA's executive producer for Crossroads, gave a substantially different explanation. He said Burke's film had "serious structural problems (and)...was irresponsible because the writing was alarmist, and it wasn't fair."
"They're crying foul, and there was no foul ball," Bieber added. "The problem is in their film."
Key portions of the documentary focus on Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of Phoenix and his American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a non-profit organization of Muslim Americans who advocate patriotism, constitutional democracy and a separation of church and state.Dr. Jasser first appeared on the national radar about a month ago when he offered to raise money for any John Doe defendants in the Flying Imam lawsuit:
Wide media attention is being given today to the lawsuit filed by CAIR on behalf of six imams against U.S. Airways for their claims of discrimination against race and religion. Most of the imams are from local mosques here in Phoenix and were removed from a U.S. Airways flight on November 21, 2006 en route to Phoenix from Minneapolis.It's well-documented that CAIR has a history of having closer ties with Democrats than with Republicans. CAIR has always touted itself as a moderate Muslim civil rights organization. Their reputation was in danger of being ruined by Dr. Jasser. It isn't unreasonable to think that WETA decided against "Islam vs. Islamists" because the documentary would've shown AIFD to be more moderate than CAIR.
AIFD would like the American public to be aware of our following positions representing an alternative voice from the American Muslim community.
1. We will not accept the victimization agenda of organizations like CAIR. Lawsuits like the one announced today exploit the climate of political correctness and at the end of the day are harmful to the Muslim minority in America.
2. Make no mistake, this type of agenda and policy direction of organizations like CAIR only represents its own membership and its own donors. A relatively small percentage of the 5-6 million American Muslims are enrolled as members of CAIR. Recent reports of considerable donations to CAIR from foreign nations like Dubai and Saudi Arabia make these types of costly, distractive actions against domestic airlines such as US Airways very concerning in its manifestation of foreign interference.
Mr. Wagner also exposes some other troubling aspects to this censorship:
Among Burke's examples of tampering:If that information isn't troubling enough, there's the concern over censorship because...GASP...a true conservative was a producer to the documentary:"This utterly undermines any journalistic independence," Burke wrote in an e-mail to WETA officials.
- A WETA manager pressed to eliminate a key perspective of the film: The claim that Muslim radicals are pushing to establish "parallel societies" in America and Europe governed by Shariah law rather than sectarian courts.
- After grants were issued, Crossroads managers commissioned a new film that overlapped with Islam vs. Islamists and competed for the same interview subjects.
- WETA appointed an advisory board that includes Aminah Beverly McCloud, director of World Islamic Studies at DePaul University. In an "unparalleled breach of ethics," Burke says, McCloud took rough-cut segments of the film and showed them to Nation of Islam officials, who are a subject of the documentary. They threatened to sue.
In an interview, McCloud said she showed a single video frame to a Muslim journalist who was not a Nation of Islam representative.
However, in a January e-mail, McCloud told Crossroads producers that she had spoken with Nation of Islam representatives and "invited them over to view this section." She also wrote that they were outraged "and will promptly pursue litigation."
In the making of Islam vs. Islamists, Burke's co-producers were Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, and Alex Alexiev, the non-profit organization's vice president. Both men are neo-conservatives who have written on the threat of "Islamofascism" to the free world.In other words, Bieber told the public that the film's objectivity would be undermined because Gaffney isn't objective. That smokescreen was exposed by Bieber's questioning Burke about checking a man's political credentials.
Before filming began last year, Burke says, Bieber asked him, "Don't you check into the politics of the people you work with?"
Bieber said PBS was concerned that the Center for Security Policy is an advocacy group, so its leaders could not produce an objective picture. Because of that, he suggested that Gaffney be demoted to adviser.
Let's hope that another network picks up Burke's documentary. That would go a long ways towards exposing CAIR for who they are.
Posted Wednesday, April 11, 2007 3:31 AM
Comment 1 by Christi at 11-Apr-07 05:16 PM
Great post. We're on the same page today.
Slow Motion Trainwreck
Based on this Washington Times article, it's difficult to imagine how the Democrats' leadership team could look more like a bunch of spoiled brats:
Democratic leaders rebuffed the invitation, saying they would not enter talks that include "preconditions" set by Mr. Bush. The offices of both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said they will not meet under the current conditions. "It is difficult to imagine a meeting," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley, adding that the president would have to reword his invitation before the congressional leaders would attend talks.Jim Manley should tell his boss that he's about to become political roadkill. He should tell Harry Reid that the American people aren't amused by politicians playing games with troops fighting a war. Reid's refusing President Bush's invitation is likely to be seen as the actions of a spoiled brat.
C-SPAN ran the Senate Democrats' press conference several times today. The thing that surprised me was Harry Reid acting like he had the bigger bully pulpit than President Bush had. He's about to get taught a lesson the hard way. Reid is a somebody in Nevada but he's a nobody nationally. He doesn't even come close to having the name recognition that Nancy Pelosi has.
Mr. Bush was diplomatic when he invited members of both parties to the White House next week in an effort to move forward a pair of competing $100 billion bills passed by the House and Senate. The president had rejected both because each sets a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal next year. "At this meeting, the leaders in Congress can report on progress on getting an emergency spending bill to my desk. We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal and without handcuffing our generals on the ground," he said.The American people don't like the results of the Iraq War but they certainly aren't as defeatist as the Democrats. That translates into a bad beating for the Democrats on this issue.
The White House, though, was more blunt about what it is looking for in the meeting. "This is not a negotiation," said deputy press secretary Dana Perino.Reid is kidding himself if he thinks that he speaks for the American people. He doesn't even speak for Senate Democrats. Barack Obama, Carl Levin and Chuck Schumer all have said that they expect the troops to get funded. Reid better start paying attention to Schumer or they'll have a single session majority. Schumer knows that playing chicken with President Bush over the troops will turn Democrats into roadkill in 2008.
But Democratic leaders, who have sought to wield the power of the purse, said Mr. Bush must negotiate if he wants to find a compromise. "He has got to deal with Congress," said Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat. "He's got to listen to us. We are speaking for the American people. He is not."
"The Democrats who pass these bills know that I'll veto them, and they know that this veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation. And as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field," said Mr. Bush, who maintains Congress is encroaching on his role as commander in chief. "These actions are only the beginning. And the longer Congress delays, the worse the impact on the men and women of the armed forces will be."I wish President Bush had cast the issue in this light long ago because he would've put Democrats on the defensive with this type of push.
"Our commanders have said they need the funds now," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, adding that the Defense Department is preparing to reshuffle $1.6 billion to cover the immediate shortfall for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. "The shortage has begun to kick in and to create problems in supplying adequate funding," said the Kentucky Republican.This will cause some serious divisions between Senate Democrats and their MoveCongress.org supporters. That food fight won't be pretty but it will be beautiful to Republicans watching Democrats form a circular firing squad.
Mr. McConnell also said the delay may increase divisions among Democrats, who are split on how to move forward. "I know it's kicked off a debate among Democrats on the advisability of cutting off funds for the troops," he said. "This debate among Democrats is another reason why this could be dragged out entirely too long and needs to be dealt with now."
Posted Wednesday, April 11, 2007 4:21 AM
No comments.
Profiling Pogie
Yesterday, I posted something from the P-Press about Margaret Anderson Kelliher. Today, I'm using the same P-Press article to talk about Larry Pogemiller. There's one quote from the article that immediately caught my attention:
"He certainly recognizes other points of view but, I believe that he believes that if he talks to you long enough, you will be on his side," said Sen. Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope. Rest thinks Pogemiller has done a good job of managing the Senate and the caucus.It's pretty well known that Pogemiller has a temper & that he's willing to push the envelope in getting people to vote his way. I'm betting that Sen. Rest's answer is designed to keep her out of Pogemiller's doghouse.
Here's another section that's 'massaged' to cast Pogemiller in the best light possible:
Pogemiller also has won praise from Capitol insiders for something he's not doing, being Senate DFLers' public spokesman. Although traditionally the majority leader is the caucus spokesman, Assistant Majority Leader Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, has filled that role so far this year. Clark's delivery is more moderate and less acerbic than Pogemiller's, and he may be a better messenger for the Senate.As I alluded to earlier, acerbic is a good adjective for describing Pogemiller. Abrasive would also fit. The truth is that Pogemiller isn't well-loved, even by his DFL colleagues. He's admired for his ability to get things done & they agree with him on policy. that's as far as any of the Capitol insiders I've spoken with would go with that.
"The facts are: This is what you can do without a tax increase," Pogemiller told Senate DFL colleagues in late March. "That's the point."The facts are that the Senate has gone tax crazy, especially lowering the boom on the smallest of small businesses. That's the fastest way of killing job creation & economic growth. In other words, people can't judge Pogemiller by his management skills. They have to judge him on his policies, too. Right now, his policies would lead to economic disaster.
Then, just before senators left the Capitol for a spring recess, the Senate came out with the tax-increase proposal to fund education programs. The increase would create a new 9.7 percent income tax rate for couples earning $250,000 a year or more in taxable income and single filers earning $141,250 or more.
"We've told them this is unacceptable," Gov. Tim Pawlenty said in late March.Pogemiller is wrong about Pawlenty needing to budge. I think Mr. Pogemiller knows that they're on the wrong end of a 70-30 issue, which doesn't bode well for the DFL. If Pogemiller insists on playing hardball with their tax increases, then expect the DFL to take a beating in November, 2008. People aren't buying into the DFL's talking point that the $2 billion surplus doesn't exist. They certainly aren't buying into the need to increase government spending by 17+ percent.
Pogemiller insists Pawlenty will need to budge. "He has to compromise, too. He can't just say no new taxes and property taxes keep going up," Pogemiller said. "He was sent a signal by the voters, too."
The worst news of all is that businesses are starting to take an adversarial position to a number of Pogemiller's tax increases, especially against the proposed tax increase on commercial property taxes. St. Cloud Chamber President Teresa Bohnen & Doug Fulton of the Minnesota Chamber have written articles in the St. Cloud Times talking about the adverse effects that tax increase would have. Getting on the bad side of the Chamber of Commerce isn't a smart thing in any circumstance but it's especially stupid in this situation.
But that doesn't mean Pogemiller intends to drag the legislative session past the May 21 deadline for adjournment. "We will be out of here on time. That's a certainty," Pogemiller said. Then he paused. "As certain as you can be."That's pure Barbra Streisand. Don't these reporters challenge any statements? They DFL has passed these bills with the intent of forcing a showdown. Pogemiller's management style hinges on confrontation. If they wanted to finish their work by May 21, they wouldn't have proposed such exorbitant tax & spending increases. During their Final Word broadcasts, King & Michael have been predicting a special session for months now, with King saying that the possibility of a government shutdown being a distinct possibility.
Capitol insiders that I've talked with have told me that it's more likely that the House DFL will compromise first, leaving the Senate to twist in the wind. That makes sense because they're up for re-election alot sooner & because they've got a large freshman class that's vulnerable in November, 2008.
I haven't seen any polling on this yet but I can't imagine the DFL House freshmen are in good position for re-election. Their position will only decline if Pogemiller plays hardball on their tax & spending policies.
Posted Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:52 AM
No comments.
Censorship & Objectivity, Part II
This Washington Times article lays out a different perspective on how PBS censored a documentary titled Islam vs. Islamists. Here's Frank Gaffney's take on this case of blatant censorship:
The producers of "Islam vs. Islamists" say their taxpayer-funded film has been shelved by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in "an ideological vendetta," and because the production team includes conservative columnist Frank Gaffney Jr., founder of the Center for Security Policy.PBS is defending itself by saying that the film might air in the future. As I pointed out last night, their official statements are contradicted by Jeff Bieber's statement:
"This is a well-documented, textbook case of the abuse of taxpayer funding by elements in the public broadcasting system to advocate their agenda and ensure that people who have different agenda don't get on the air," Mr. Gaffney said yesterday. "The public ought to be allowed to see a film which PBS doesn't want them to see."
Jeff Bieber, WETA's executive producer for Crossroads, gave a substantially different explanation. He said Burke's film had "serious structural problems (and),was irresponsible because the writing was alarmist, and it wasn't fair. They're crying foul, and there was no foul ball," Bieber added. "The problem is in their film."I agree that Mr. Gaffney's tone is alarmist. There's a good reason for that: There's lots of things happening here in America that are very alarming. People have a right to be alarmed when CAIR files a lawsuit that intimidates airline passengers. People have a right to be alarmed when Speaker Pelosi and Chairman John Conyers co-sponsor a bill that would ban religious or racial profiling in airports. People should be alarmed when CAIR can masquerade as a reputable civil rights organization when it's really a front group for Hamas:
CAIR was co-founded in 1994 by Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad, and Omar Ahmad, all of whom had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and functioned as Hamas' public relations and recruitment arm in the United States. Awad and Ahmad had previously served, respectively, as IAP's Public Relations Director and President. Ibrahim Hooper was also an employee of IAP. Thus it can be said that CAIR was an outgrowth of IAP.PBS doesn't have any credibility left after this:
Before filming began last year, Burke says, Bieber asked him, "Don't you check into the politics of the people you work with?"That's how Bieber let it be known that an accomplished national security expert like Frank Gaffney could be disqualified because he wasn't a liberal.
My question to Mr. Bieber is a simple one: If Gaffney's information is accurate, why does political affiliation mean anything? The obvious answer is that if the information is accurate, it shouldn't make a bit of difference what a person's political affiliation is.
Here's Dr. Zuhdi Jasser's statement, which I think is the final nail in the PBS coffin:
"I am incredulous that PBS would invest so much of our tax money into contracting professionals for a documentary on a subject, the struggle for the soul of Islam, which is one of the most vital debates of the 21st century and then censor its release," said Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, chairman of the Arizona-based American Islamic Forum for Democracy who is featured in the documentary.I can't put it any better than that. I totally agree with Dr. Jasser.
"Until mainstream media and mainstream America understands the need to help this debate and expose the plight of moderates who push back against the Islamists within the Muslim community, we will continue to lose ground against militant Islamism," Dr. Jasser said. "The censorship of this documentary tells us a great deal about the level to which our government is facilitating the ideology of Islamism which runs directly counter to our foundations of Americanism."
Posted Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:00 PM
No comments.
McCain Comes Out Swinging
Sen. John McCain took the gloves off today in a speech in Arlington, VA. Here's one of the best shots Sen. McCain took at the Pelosi-led House:
"So long as we have a chance to prevail, we must try to prevail," he said, adding that he wondered when Democrats cheered on the House floor passage of a timetable bill: "What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender?"Pelosi's Democrats are a disgusting bunch. At a time when we need Winston Churchill, Pelosi and Murtha give us Mr. and Mrs. Neville Chamberlain. At a time when our soldiers need a Bob Hope concert to bolster morale, Pelosi and Murtha give them a Cindy Sheehan and Ramsey Clark intellectually vacant anti-war protest.
America, take notice of this moment in history. We're standing at a critical crossroads in this fight against violent jihadists. We need more patriots like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and George Bush. The last thing we need is Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and Harry Reid undercutting the war effort.
We went through that during Vietnam, when Sen. McCain spent five and a half years in the Hanoi Hilton. That was the ugliest time in America's history. People spat on soldiers returning from combat. Anti-war protesters called these servicemen "baby killers" and worse.
Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat, a candidate for his party's presidential nomination who was not in Congress at the time the war was approved but has opposed it from the beginning, said Mr. McCain was engaging in "the same ideological fantasies that got us into this war. What we need today is a surge in honesty," Mr. Obama said, adding that it should start with Iraqis themselves, who must be pressured by the threat of withdrawing troops to find a political solution.Sen. Obama is a charming speaker but he's an idiot when it comes to foreign policy. The sad part is that he doesn't get brighter when he talks about the military. What Sen. Obama needs is a surge of expertise if he wants to join a serious discussion on the greatest challenge facing Western civilization. Sen. Obama hasn't proven to me that he's capable of holding his own in a debate about the war with serious men like Sen. McCain.
I'd further suggest that Sen. Obama apologize to Sen. McCain for insinuating that McCain's speech was based on blind "ideological fantasies" rather than on the information that Sen. McCain gathered on his recent trip to Baghdad. Sen. Obama's pronouncements are based more on his pandering to the insane left than on him doing his due diligence on the subject.
It's a good thing that we have serious-minded adults like Sen. McCain providing oversight on the most serious issues of our generation. the true worth of men like John McCain is seen when you compare him to Sen. Obama, who clearly isn't ready for primetime in setting military policy.
Posted Wednesday, April 11, 2007 7:35 PM
No comments.
Slow Joe Needs To Change Course
Based on this Washington Post op-ed, I'd say that Joe Biden has picked up where Harry Reid left off. It looks as if Biden thinks that this strategy will propel him into the presidential race. He couldn't be further from the truth. Here's what Biden said that made me say he sounds like Reid:
Sen. John McCain is right to warn about the consequences of failure in Iraq. But he is fundamentally wrong when he argues that those potential consequences require us to stick with a failing strategy. It is precisely because the stakes are so great that we must change course in Iraq, now.Biden uses a combination of different Clintonesque techniques in this op-ed. One that's immediately recognizable is Biden's saying all this has been reported. First off, it hasn't been. That's why Sen. McCain titled his op-ed "The War You're Not Reading About." If people had been reporting this, Sen. McCain wouldn't have given it that title. I called this Clinton strategy the "Old news strategy." Mike McCurry was particularly good at it, though Joe Lockhart was good at it, too.
McCain wrote that the president's strategy is beginning to show results but that most Americans don't know it because the media cover the bad news, not the good news. Of course, reporting any news in Iraq is an extraordinary act of bravery, given the dangers journalists must navigate every day. But the fact is, virtually every "welcome development" McCain cited has been reported, including the purported anti-al-Qaeda alliance with Sunni sheikhs in Anbar, the establishment of joint U.S.-Iraqi security stations in Baghdad and the decision by Moqtada al-Sadr to go to ground -- for now.
Biden used another Clintonesque technique when he makes it sound like Moqtada al-Sadr's fleeing to Tehran as a temporary thing. He's trying to downplay the good news by hinting that this won't last. The truth is that Sadr's been humiliated. I think back to the time right after we toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan. People were talking about all the tips flowing in being a result of the military victory. The catchphrase was that nothing wins like winning. The flip side of that is that nothing fails more in the Arab world than getting humiliated. In other words, it's obvious for all of Iraq to see that Sadr is a coward who wouldn't fight for his cause.
The problem is that for every welcome development, there is an equally or even more unwelcome development that gives lie to the claim that we are making progress. For example:That's what a defeatist sounds like.
- While violence against Iraqis is down in some Baghdad neighborhoods where we have "surged" forces, it is up dramatically in the belt ringing Baghdad. The civilian death toll increased 15 percent from February to March. Essentially, when we squeeze the water balloon in one place, it bulges somewhere else.
- It is true that Sadr has not been seen, but he has been heard, rallying his followers with anti-American messages and encouraging his thugs to take on American troops in the south. Intelligence experts believe his militia is simply waiting out the surge.
Biden is essentially saying that every positive development that Sen. McCain has reported is offset by even worse news that McCain isn't reporting. What Sen. Biden hopes you won't notice is what he's trying to hide. When violence was high in Baghdad, Biden whined that the capitol wasn't secure. He'd whine about how 16 of the 19 provinces being stable didn't matter as long as Baghdad wasn't secure. Now he's shifting the goalposts, saying that stabilizing Baghdad isn't enough, that the Petraeus Offensive isn't making progress because it hasn't stopped all violence.
Biden also argues that Sadr is still powerful because he's still able to encourage "his thugs to take on American troops in the south." Then he says that "Intelligence experts believe his militia is simply waiting out the surge." Which is it? Is he telling his troops to take on American troops? Or is he telling them to wait out the Petraeus Offensive? Let's hope that they attempt to fight.
I'd also argue that Biden accidentally has exposed a flaw in the prevailing Democrat policy. If it's true that the Mahdi Army is waiting out the Petraeus Offensive, isn't that an argument for keeping our troops there longer? How could he say that Sadr's militia is waiting us out, then suggest that we leave immediately?
Biden says that President Bush needs to change strategies on Iraq, which sounds alot like Reid. Then he says that American troops are focusing more on clearing out Baghdad's trouble spots, something that they didn't do before. Call me crazy but it sounds like Gen. Petraeus has changed American strategy.
Too bad that Biden hasn't changed his strategy of whining about everything that President Bush is doing. That would be the most welcome change of course we could get.
Posted Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:58 AM
No comments.
The White Flag Of Surrender
Democrats must've realized that they were taking a pounding by not accepting President Bush's offer of meeting to get a clean supplemental passed because they've agreed to meet him next Wednesday. Of course, they're still trying to save as much face as possible but the truth is that they looked foolish in resisting the President's invitation.
"We will be at the White House on Wednesday to talk with the president," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a joint statement released last night. "We will listen to his position, but in return we will insist that he listen to concerns of the American people that his policies in Iraq have failed and we need to change course," they said.The Democrats' surrender is proof that the American people weren't interested in denying our troops the supplies they need to win in Iraq, which is what I've said all along. Their saying that they're holding President Bush's feet to the fire is purely for effect. They know he's got the upper hand but they can't back down from their original defeatist position without the appearance of a fight.
Earlier in the day, Mr. Reid balked when the White House announced that the Nevada Democrat had agreed to attend the meeting and discuss the $100 billion war-funding bill that Mr. Bush has vowed to veto. Reid spokesman Jim Manley had said the Nevada Democrat would rebuff offers to talk until he gets "a signal from the White House that they are prepared to drop their demand that this meeting is a listening session only and this meeting will not include negotiations."Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can stomp their feet all they want but the fact is that they've gotten beat because they're on the wrong side of the issue. Their protestations notwithstanding, here's the truth about Wednesday's meeting:
Mrs. Pelosi, (D-CA), also began the day declining Mr. Bush's invitation, reiterating the stance the leaders took Tuesday after the White House characterized Congress' role in the meeting as listeners not negotiators.
There was no indication from the White House last night that the president had altered the terms of his invitation.President Bush is sticking to his guns. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have thrown hissy fits because he hasn't backed down but that's just reality. Here's another blast of reality:
The White House had said it was "perplexed" by the dispute over the regularly scheduled Wednesday meeting with congressional leaders, which it said would focus on the war-funding bills with veto-provoking timetables to pull out troops from Iraq. "Our legislative affairs staff was explicit when extending the invitations," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino told The Washington Times. "The meeting on Wednesday is a meeting to discuss the supplemental."Then there's this touch of fantasy:
He said Mr. Bush was as isolated as President Nixon "hunkered down in the White House" during Watergate.That statement is so over-the-top that Harry Reid sounds like he's taking lessons from Al Gore. That's a scary thought.
Posted Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:34 AM
No comments.
Cheney Takes the Gloves Off
No, I'm not talking about Vice President Cheney. I'm talking about daughter Liz Cheney's Washington Post op-ed. Her opening paragraph alone chastises Ms. Pelosi for her ill-advised comments while in Syria. Here's what Ms. Cheney said:
Anyone familiar with the past two years of Lebanese politics would never claim, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did in Damascus last week, that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace." Her assertion must have seemed especially naive to the people of Lebanon, where the list of the slain reads like a "Who's Who" of Syria's most vocal and effective opponents.Used in this setting, naive is relatively gentle. Here's how I would've written that sentence:
Her assertion must have seemed particularly boneheaded to the people of Lebanon, where the list of the assassinated reads like a "Who's Who" of Syria's most vocal and effective opponents.Here's another shot that Ms. Cheney takes at Speaker Pelosi:
Following Hariri's assassination, Lebanon's freedom forces, known as the "March 14 movement," demanded an end to Syria's military occupation. They won a majority in the country's parliamentary elections.I'd love to hear Ms. Pelosi tell us how she figures "the road to Damascus is a road to peace." How can she look at all this evidence and still make that statement? My bet is that Ms. Pelosi either won't look at that evidence or she'll pretend it doesn't exist. Well, she can pretend all she wants. The reality is that she's looking more like the backbencher that she really is.
Their victory did not go unanswered. Three days after the first round of elections, on June 2, 2005, Lebanese journalist Samir Kassir, an outspoken opponent of Syria, was murdered by a car bomb. In response, hundreds of Lebanese journalists gathered in Martyr's Square and held aloft black pens inscribed with Kassir's name as they chanted, "We will not kneel." One of those in attendance said, "When you read Kassir's work, you will know who killed him." His last column criticized the Syrian regime for imprisoning a group of civil activists.
On Dec. 12, 2005, the United Nations issued a report concluding that it was unlikely that Hariri's assassination could have been carried out without Syria's knowledge. That same day, Gibran Tueni, editor in chief of An Nahar newspaper, another influential opponent of Syria, was killed by a car bomb. Tueni, who had been among the first at the scene after Samir Kassir's murder, knew he was risking death by vocally opposing Syrian oppression. He did it anyway.Ms. Pelosi, why are you choosing this overwhelming mass of information that clearly shows the thuggish nature of the Syrian government? Why do you insist on talking politely to that bunch of thugs? You can't be any more clueless about foreign policy.
I'm not certain that Ms. Pelosi isn't as big of a foreign policy disaster as Zbigniew Brzezinski or Jimmy Carter. Isn't it time that we demanded that people in leadership positions have a coherent foreign policy? Clearly, Ms. Pelosi doesn't have a clue on how to deal with a dangerous world.
Here's Ms. Cheney's parting thoughts on Ms. Pelosi:
After Pierre Gemayel's assassination, I received an e-mail from a Lebanese member of parliament. "It is so awful," he wrote. "Pierre was such a promising young man, and he was afraid of nothing. They will try to kill all of us in the end, but we will keep fighting. We will never surrender."Exactly.
Conducting diplomacy with the regime in Damascus while they kill Lebanese democrats is not only irresponsible, it is shameful.
Posted Thursday, April 12, 2007 9:17 AM
No comments.
Speaking With The Voice Of Southern Minnesota?
According to this MPR article, Tim Walz thinks that he speaks "with the voice of southern Minnesota." That's just one of the laughable sections in the article. Here's the full quote:
"I think I'm speaking with the voice of southern Minnesota," Walz explains. "I think there's a clarity of kind of that pragmatic populous, and it doesn't tend to be overly partisan. I don't check my DFL credentials but I also don't check the ability to use common sense and listen to the other side. And I think what's happened is in Washington, it really feels different."That quote won't fly in Southern Minnesota. Walz has voted for everything that Nancy Pelosi has told him to vote for. The last I looked, the people of southeastern Minnesota didn't think much like Nancy Pelosi. There isn't alot of pragmatism in the Pelosi House. There isn't alot of wisdom, either. And Tim Walz has voted and sounded like Nancy Pelosi's puppet while in Washington.
The stump speeches he gives when he's back in his district sound like he's one of them. That isn't the problem. The problem lies in the fact that he sounds like San Francisco when he gets to Washington. There's a name for that: Tom Daschle Syndrome. Remember that Daschle sounded like George Bush's best friend when he was in Rapid City but he was George Bush's most strident opponent the instant his charter touched down in Washington.
Reporter Aaron Blake writes for the D.C. newspaper "The Hill." He says since Walz's election the Democratic Party has pushed Walz and other veterans as the public face for its new approach to the War in Iraq. Blake says that's given Walz more attention than most freshman legislators. That could be both good and bad. He says some Republicans already call him "Washington Walz."That's certainly a risk, isn't it? The fact is that the Washington Tim Walz is his real persona. He's perfectly at ease voting Nancy Pelosi's brand of liberalism. He carried her water on the corrupt minimum wage bill. As far as we can tell, he didn't object to the exceptions in the bill, exceptions that scream corruption from the Speaker's office.
"When you kind of start to make yourself a national figure you risk the other side saying you're not paying attention to your constituency," Blake says. "And so when Tim Walz is on Hard Ball with Chris Matthews, there might be some people in Rochester who say he's doing this for his party, he's not doing it for his constituents."
His actions in Washington run totally contrary to his words spoken in Southeastern Minnesota. That's because his actions are who he really is. This just proves the old axiom that actions speak louder than words.
Posted Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:41 PM
No comments.
