August 1-4, 2007
Aug 01 13:28 Murtha's Upset: Congress Won't Vote For Surrender Before August Break
Aug 01 15:41 Obama Threatens Ally Musharraf
Aug 02 08:39 "A Catastrophe of Historic Proportions"
Aug 02 12:00 Morning News Conference
Aug 02 12:49 Thank You, Senator Coleman
Aug 03 08:03 The Ultimate Hypocrite
Aug 03 13:12 Money Wasn't the Issue
Aug 03 16:54 Blunt Speech: "I'm Ashamed"
Aug 04 13:27 Nick Coleman, John Murtha & Phyllis Kahn
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006
Murtha's Upset: Congress Won't Vote For Surrender Before August Break
Life is good. That's my take anytime I hear the House Democratic leadership refuses to vote on a John Murtha 'defeat through retreat' bill.
Details of the demise of Murtha's amendment are still murky, but there are indications that House leadership had a hand in it. As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Murtha had announced his plans to seek an amendment on the floor demanding that withdrawal of troops begin in 60 days, but not put a "date certain" for the withdrawal to be completed.What Murtha doesn't understand is that he's expendable. Frankly, he's pretty much outlived his usefulness to Ms. Pelosi. She's now the speaker. Murtha helped make that a reality. Now that she's the Speaker, he isn't as important. When they were trying to stop the war, he was an important part of the team. Now that they've caving into President Bush's demands, his usefulness has pretty much disintegrated.
Republican opponents of withdrawal amendments often say they won't support an "artificial timetable" for withdrawal. Murtha said his language was intended to remove that reasoning and see if Republicans still supported the administration. He also questioned whether troops can be withdrawn.
Murtha does not appear to have consulted with House progressives or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Asked if he'd talked with the Speaker at the time his committee sent the defense spending bill to the floor last week, Murtha replied, "She's always supported me before."
As I wrote here, Murtha's legislation was DOA anyway. The bigger news to me is that (a) Murtha's legislation didn't have Ms. Pelosi's blessing and (b) Ms. Pelosi undermined Murtha's legislation.
I'd doubt that these events sit well with the Nutroots.
The amendment was discussed during Monday night's leadership meeting, though no final decision was made. When votes concluded Monday night, Murtha left the floor in an angry mood. The often-talkative cardinal brushed off a reporter, saying, "I don't want to answer any questions."It sounds like there's no joy in Murthaville these days. It breaks my heart to hear Rep. Murtha sounding so upset.
Murtha met with Lee, Waters and Woolsey Tuesday morning. Afterward, Waters and Woolsey said the Murtha amendment would not come up this week. That was later confirmed by Democratic aides, who added that Abercrombie-Tanner also had been nixed.
Posted Wednesday, August 1, 2007 1:29 PM
Comment 1 by Winston Smith at 01-Aug-07 02:58 PM
Question for you Gary. Which Defeatocrat wrote the following terrorist-enabling tripe?
As important as they are in achieving security, military actions by themselves cannot achieve success in COIN. Insurgents that never defeat counterinsurgents in combat still may achieve their strategic objectives. Tactical actions thus must be linked not only to strategic and operational military objectives but also to the host nation's essential political goals. Without those connections, lives and resources may be wasted for no real gain.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 01-Aug-07 03:11 PM
Winston, I don't know. I don't care. I've never said that there's a military only path to victory. I've only said that political victories won't be won without military assistance.
Comment 3 by Winston Smith at 01-Aug-07 04:04 PM
Another question, then, in three parts: What does victory in Iraq look like, to you, what are the key ingredients to achieving it, and how long do you think the U.S. military can continue to maintain this level of footprint in Iraq?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 01-Aug-07 11:07 PM
What does victory in Iraq look like, to you?
I'll let the military people determine that. I'm not the expert on that.
What are the key ingredients to achieving it?
1. Putting AQI out of business is priority #1.
2. Putting the Mahdi Army out of commission is the next priority.
3. Getting the government moving on the needed reforms.
How long do you think the U.S. military can continue to maintain this level of footprint in Iraq?
I don't know. That's another question I'll leave to the military experts.
Comment 5 by Winston Smith at 02-Aug-07 08:19 AM
Then I guess we'll have to rely on Adm. Michael G. Mullen, President Bush's nominee to head the Joint Chiefs, and Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, nominated to be vice-chair.
When asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham about the prospects of winning in Iraq during his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Mullen said:
"Based on the lack of political reconciliation at the government level . . . I would be concerned about whether we'd be winning or not."
About by Sen. John Warner about the sacrifice troops are being asked to make during this surge in light of the Iraqi parliament's decision to take August off, Cartwright said:
"They believe in their mission . . . but there comes a point at which they're going to look at that and say, 'How much longer and for what price?' if progress isn't seen."
Oh, and the surge? Mullen acknowledged it can't be maintained past April without extending troop rotations yet again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100990.html
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 02-Aug-07 11:14 AM
Whatever you say, Gen. Smith. Frankly, I'm not impressed with Gen. Mullen. First of all, he's a Navy man making assessments about the Army & Marines. Secondly, he isn't on the ground in Iraq. He's far from being the expert that Gen. Petraeus is. Him, I'll trust.
Obama Threatens Ally Musharraf
Providing proof that he's unfit for commander-in-chief duties, Barack Obama threatened a military strike inside Pakistan. Obama also threatened to withhold US foreign aid money if Pervez Musharraf doesn't do more to kill terrorists:
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.Clearly, Obama is saying this to sound tough. He isn't sounding tough; he's sounding terribly naive. He certainly isn't sounding like a commander-in-chief. This isn't a time for on the job training. It's time for someone who's thought his way through the implications of his policies.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Obama might as well have said that he'd turn Pakistan's nuclear stockpile over to radical Islamic jihadists if Musharraf didn't do more. These types of threats don't help a leader who's walking on eggshells, especially after he's survived numerous assassination attempts. Cutting off aid to Pakistan would unnecessarily cause turmoil inside Pakistan, turmoil that might well topple that shaky government.
It isn't clear that Obama has thought through the fact that he'd be giving Taliban sympathizers in Pakistan the ammunition to topple an American ally in a most troubled part of the world. What happens if someone like the Taliban gets their hands on Pakistan's nuclear weapons? They'd be able to threaten anyone in the Middle East. They'd certainly be able to threaten India. They could destabilize the entire region.
Those are a few of the possibilities should a President Obama follow through on this threat. The good news is that Democrats never follow through on their campaign promises.
Obama's speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.One thing about this makes sense. Obama knows that he's got to do something to pull more nutroots for him to have any chance of winning. Attacking President Bush makes good political sense even though it makes no sense in the real world.
Posted Wednesday, August 1, 2007 3:41 PM
Comment 1 by Nikol at 27-Oct-07 02:13 PM
Consider this, too http://www.samsonblinded.org/news/muslim-world/pakistan
"A Catastrophe of Historic Proportions"
That's how Gov. Tim Pawlenty described the I-35W bridge's collapse. Eyewitness descriptions of what happened left me feeling nauseous. One eyewitness said that they heard a rumbling just before the bridge collapsed. Another person said that they were in their apartment a quarter of a mile away but they could clearly hear the rumbling sound just before the collapse.
As is usually the case, Minnesotans helped the victims get off the bridge. Two college age students were interviewed on Fox. They said they helped carry school children off the bridge for almost half an hour. The children, ages 8-14, were in a school bus when the bridge collapsed. The bus was caught on the bridge. Fortunately, that section of the bridge dropped 'only' a few feet because it was close to the edge of the bridge.
Miraculously, there were numerous survivors who were on the middle section of the bridge. I say miraculously because the bridge dropped an estimated 64'.
Here's how Jay Danz described what happened:
"I heard it creaking and making all sorts of noises it shouldn't make," Danz said. "And then the bridge just started to fall apart."Danz had just driven under the bridge on W. River Parkway.
I briefly listened to MSNBC's coverage. Frankly, their coverage was appalling. When Joe Scarborough interviewed Craig Crawford, Crawford had the audacity to say that Minnesotans were to blame for the catastrophe because they wanted a baseball stadium more than a structurally sound bridge. What a blithering idiot. The new Twins stadium is being financed by a sales tax in Hennepin County with a down payment from the Pohlad family. The I-35W bridge is part of the interstate highway system. Therefore, the federal government is totally responsible for funding the maintenance of the bridge. They're also supposed to inspect the bridge.
Another example of 'experts' getting something wrong was when David Asmun interviewed a retired FBI agent, who said that DHS shouldn't have said that it wasn't the work of terrorists so soon. This came hours after it had been reported that there were "stress fractures" found in the trusses during the last inspection. DHS based their opinion on those verified facts. They made this statement after talking with engineers, too.
The confirmed death toll as of 4:00 am CDT was 9, with authorities saying 60 people have been treated with injuries. These authorities expect the death toll to rise during the day.
Not surprisingly, the Daily Kos is blaming it on Republicans:
Funny thing, tho (4+ / 0-)Talk about people with a predisposition for hating. They don't know the details but they've already determined that it's all Republican's fault? That's despicable.
that the exact same big, corporate, well-connected engineering and construction firms (such as Bechtel) that failed to build anything workable in Iraq, yet made billions in profits, were behind the screw-ups in the Big Dig.
No way that is a mere coincidence.
Exactly...... (2+ / 0-)
this is why the Reagans and Bushes of the world love DE-regulation. No rules to follow. Slipshod work, cheap materials, and no rules on who can and cannot do the work.
The miners who died in W. Virgina paid the price. And because so many just have to have McMansions and they are the people who do not want to pay their fair share means less taxes, so less hiring people to make sure the infrastructure on bridges, less time spent on checking buildings, and repairs are not made in a timely fashion. Everything is always a battle.
Rules are relaxed and if big companies are fined, what do they care since they are making such huge profits anyway.
I feel bad for the innocent victims. But for those in charge I hope this is a wake up call.
Check back as more updates become available.
Posted Thursday, August 2, 2007 8:41 AM
No comments.
Morning News Conference
Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, Gov. Pawlenty, Sens. Coleman and Klobuchar, Rep. Ellison and US Transportation Secretary Mary Peters finished a news conference about half an hour ago.
One of the first questions asked was about the 50 rating that the Transportation Department gave the bridge. Sec. Peters immediately clarified what that meant, saying that that didn't mean it was unsafe. Gov. Pawlenty said that the rating meant that the bridge would have to be replaced by 2020:
Engineers determined that the ill-fated span, part of the Interstate 35W highway, would need replacement only in about 2020, he said. "Structurally deficient does not mean immediately close the bridge," Pawlenty told Fox News television.Here's what Secretary Peters said about the rating:
"It by no means that this bridge was not safe," said US Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, who traveled to the disaster site. "None of those ratings indicated that there was any kind of danger here."The economic impact that this collapse will have is major. Not only is I-35W a major highway but the Mississippi River is a major source of commerce, too. With the bridge laying in the water, barge traffic bringing commodities into the Twin Cities will have to be rerouted.
The cause of the collapse is still unknown:
NTSB chairman Mark Rosenker, head of the government's National Transportation Safety Board, said it was too early to say what caused the disaster. Experts will review video of the collapse and may reconstruct part of the bridge to understand what happened, he said.What is certain is that it'll take several years to rebuild this bridge. Like I said, the economic impact on Minnesota will be felt for quite some time.
UPDATE: One of the things that was pointed out at this morning's news conference was that Minnesota has a very good rating in terms of bridge maintenance. Rep. Jim Oberstar, (D-MN), says that about 40 percent of bridges nationwide have a rating in the 50 range. Gov. Pawlenty said that only 3 percent of Minnesota bridges have that low of a rating.
Here's what the Hartford Courant has to say about Minnesota's inspection standards:
All bridges in the state are supposed to be inspected at least once every two years, in line with standards set by the Federal Highway Administration and the recommendations of bridge safety experts. And of Minnesota's nearly 14,000 bridges, the state inspects almost a third of them more often than that federal standard, with many undergoing routine inspections every 12 months or less.This speaks well of Minnesota's transportation system. It also speaks well of the job that Carol Molnau has done as Lt. Gov./Transportation Secretary.
UPDATE II: KSTP has some fantastic interviews & videos up. Be sure to check them out.
This video isn't for the fainthearted though.
Posted Thursday, August 2, 2007 3:04 PM
No comments.
