August 28-29, 2007
Aug 28 02:27 Murtha's Reaction to President Bush's VFW Speech Aug 28 02:52 Chris Wallace vs. Bill Moyers Aug 28 11:22 Thomas More Law Center Agrees to Represent Haditha Marine Aug 28 12:07 Extremist Right Wing Nut Cases? Aug 28 15:51 Prayers for a Blogger Requested Aug 29 01:22 Do Nothing Democrats Whining Again Aug 29 09:15 More Proof That the Surge Isn't Working? Aug 29 14:20 Spoiling For a Fight Aug 29 22:43 Netroots Devouring Their Own
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006
Murtha's Reaction to President Bush's VFW Speech
Based on this article, John Murtha refuses to update the information in his anti-war diatribes. Proof of that is that he hasn't stopped using the line about the Iraqi civil war. Frankly, it's past time for him to update his statistics. Here's Murtha's full statement:
President Johnson said in 1966, "the solution to Vietnam is patience."I can't imagine what it's like for an American soldier to hear Rep. Murtha's rants after the soldier has just killed off more bad guys. I can't believe that he'd like it, though. The other galling thing about Rep. Murtha's statements is that he doesn't use current, or accurate, data. For instance, Rep. Murtha has been using the 50 percent unemployment line since early in 2005.
President Nixon said in 1969, "As our commanders in the field determine that the South Vietnamese are able to assume a greater portion of the responsibility for the defense of their own territory, troops will come back."
Today, we hear the same misleading rhetoric coming from this Administration. In Vietnam, we were talking about 10 years of patience and in the end a U.S. military solution did not work. Now, five year's into the war in Iraq, the President continues to seek a U.S. military solution to an Iraqi civil war. There will be no real progress in Iraq until key political, economic and diplomatic improvements are made by the Iraqi's.
The facts on the ground in Iraq indicate that electricity is below pre-war levels (only 2 hours a day in Baghdad), oil production remains below pre-war production and at least 50% of the Iraqi population is unemployed.
All Americans realize that stability in the Middle East is important to our national security. The American people will not accept patience as a strategy while the Iraqi Government continues to ignore key political and economic benchmarks.
That statistic was blown out of the water ages ago. This CNN article reports that he's off by 30+ points:
High unemploymentGranted, 18.4 percent unemployment is bad but 50 percent would cripple Iraq's economy for a decade. It's time that we started calling into question his motives for saying such nonsense. It isn't a stretch to think that he's using such inaccurate information because he can't make his anti-war case with accurate statistics. In fact, I'd say that it's getting more difficult for him to make the case against the war every week.
While Iraq's unemployment figures were high, the survey found that most eligible workers, excluding the military, were able to keep the jobs they had held since before March 2003.
Iraq's unemployment rate was 10.5 percent of a population of 27 million people, the report found. When the figure of workers who had given up looking for a job, discouraged workers, was included, the unemployment number increased to 18.4 percent.
Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:29 AM
No comments.
Chris Wallace vs. Bill Moyers
Bill Moyers took exception to some things that Karl Rove made in his FNS interview with Chris Wallace. This Sunday, Chris Wallace decided to put Moyers in his place. Here's the transcript of to a most delicious smackdown:
WALLACE: Time now for some mail, actually, one letter from liberal commentator Bill Moyers. You may remember in my interview with Karl Rove last Sunday, I asked him about a Moyers statement that Rove is reportedly an agnostic who manipulated the Christian right for political gain.Bill Moyers has been an over-the-top nutjob for ages. He's taken cheapshots at the Bush administration since the inauguration. I'm not sure he'd believe anything that anyone connected with the Bush administration would say.
Well, Rove answered that he's an observant Episcopalian and Moyers, quote, "ought to do a little better research before he does another drive-by slander."
Bill Moyers didn't like that and sent me this letter, which he also posted on his Web site. He quoted four print stories for his contention that Rove is agnostic, none of which offer any proof other than what Rove supposedly told colleagues over the years.
Then Moyers wrote this. "Obviously, Rove wanted to blow smoke because his version of reality is undermined by his own previous statements and by the reporting and analysis of journalists who have done their homework and don't take his every word as gospel, no pun intended."
Well, to save on postage, Bill, here's my response. If you want to find out about someone's religious beliefs, a good first step might be to ask him.
If you had talked to Rove, as I did, you would have found out he reads a devotional every day and the biggest charitable contribution he ever made was to his church. Of course, you never called Rove.
That's reporting 101, but it would have gotten in the way of a tasty story line about a non-believer flim-flamming the Christian right. I guess, Bill, reporting is easier when you don't worry about the facts.
The good news is that he picked a fight with someone a whole lot smarter, and more objective, than he is. He foolishly picked a fight with Chris Wallace. You can't get a better smackdown than that last paragraph. For that matter, the last sentence is as good as it gets in smacking down Nutroots idiots like Moyers.
Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:53 AM
No comments.
Thomas More Law Center Agrees to Represent Haditha Marine
According to this article, the Thomas More Law Center has agreed to represent Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani in a civil suit against Rep. John Murtha if/when the charges against him are dropped. Here's some of the details from the article:
The Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center is representing Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani (USMC), who has been charged with not fully investigating the events at Haditha, Iraq, and failing to report a Law of War violation, in the aftermath of the November 19, 2005, incident that led to the death of 24 Iraqi civilians. Spokespersons for the legal group hope the convening officer in the investigation will throw out the charges as he already has for two of the six other men charged in the case. Chessani is the highest ranking officer charged in the case.If charges are dropped against Lt. Col. Chessani and Sgt. Wuterich, Rep. Murtha could be looking at spending alot of time in a courtroom in the near future. John Murtha should be held to account for leveling these serious accusations against the Haditha Marines. Based on this timeline, it's obvious that Rep. Murtha has a difficult time keeping his story straight. It isn't a stretch to think that he's having those troubles because he's basing his opinions on ideology instead of verifiable facts.
Congressman Murtha, a prominent war critic, last year accused U.S. Marines of shooting and killing unarmed civilians near the scene of an attack on a military convoy, then going into two homes and shooting others. According to Brian Rooney with the Law Center, Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, one of the other defendants in the investigation, is already suing Murtha for those comments. Rooney argues the Pennsylvania Democrat should be held accountable for taking the word of Iraqi insurgents and calling the Marines "cold-blooded murderers."
"Staff Sergeant Wuterich's attorneys are suing Congressman Murtha for liable for saying that the Marines were cold-blooded murderers, so that suit's still ongoing," the attorney explains, adding that the Law Center is considering taking similar action.
"We're exploring our options...in that regard because Murtha said that officers covered this up, which is explicitly naming our client as covering it up," says Rooney. "So once we get through with this court-martial, and hopefully it goes our way, then we're going to look at whether or not we should take a hard look at Congressman Murtha as well."
Here's one of the things I pointed out in the timeline:
GIBSON: Jonathan just mentioned, there's no charges yet filed against any of the Marines that were in this outfit, but Jonathan mentioned a moment ago, defense lawyers are already saying, well, there's drone video and there is actual radio traffic to higher-ups that will give a different picture than you have been talking about of this incident. What do you know about that?This point was also mentioned in the article:
MURTHA: I can only tell you this, Charles. This is what the Marine Corps told me at the highest level. The Commandant of the Marine Corps was in my office just last week, so you know, I know there was a cover-up someplace. They knew about this a few days afterwards and there's no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story. I can understand why, but that doesn't excuse it. Something like this has to be brought out to the public, and the people have to be punished.
In comments during a June 2006 interview with ABC's Charles Gibson, Murtha stated, after a meeting with high-level Marines: "I know there was a cover-up someplace. They knew about this a few days afterwards, and there's no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story."The first time I read that sentence, I couldn't believe my eyes. As I've said elsewhere, if you know that a coverup happened, you'd be able to state specifically where the coverup happened and who was involved in the coverup. You might even produce a timeline or flowchart showing who was involved in the alleged coverup.
It's my opinion that, if you can't produce such things, then you don't really know that a coverup happened. You might suspect that a coverup happened but that isn't the same as knowing it, is it? I haven't seen anything in news articles or in my personal investigation that says Rep. Murtha has any verifiable proof of his allegations. That leads me to believe that Rep. Murtha's allegations will never be proven.
I've often reminded commenters here that "allegations aren't proof." Allegations that aren't backed up by eyewitness accounts or a taped conversation or an email are simply allegations. Let's turn this around to see what the Haditha Marines can verify. Here's what I wrote awhile back that fits into this conversation:
The battalion S2 officer made a full and complete report based on his monitoring of the day's events and the intelligence he and others had amassed then and previous days. As we wrote at the time, the PowerPoint after-action report he sent up the command ladder proved to all the higher officers that the incident warranted no further investigation.Jeffrey Dinsmore is the name of the S2 intel officer. Capt. Dinsmore testified that he heard gunfire coming into his observation station. He also scanned the video coming in from the UAV that was filming the firefight. That would be the firefight that Rep. Murtha said didn't happen.
If the charges are dropped against Sgt. Wuterich and Lt. Col. Chessani, then I'd say that Rep. Murtha will be staring at a mountain of verifiable proof that contradicts the allegations he's made against the Haditha Marines.
Based on this information, it's isn't surprising that Matt Mazonkey, his press person, won't return my phone calls. The last thing that Mr. Mazonkey wants to do is try and defend Rep. Murtha against someone who's got a command of the issues surrounding the Haditha Marines.
Unfortunately for his boss, his days of denial might soon end. The days of his having to defend himself in court might just be beginning.
Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:23 AM
No comments.
Extremist Right Wing Nut Cases?
AAH Chairman Joe Kaufman has issued a press release condemning the Civil Rights Coordinator of CAIR-Los Angeles (CAIR-California), Affad Shaikh, for calling "Senator Joe Lieberman, Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former head of the CIA James Woolsey, Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation, Lt. General Thomas McInerney, and Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity and Sheppard Smith as 'Extremist Right Wing Nut cases.'"
I'd never heard of Affad Shaikh before this morning but I don't think he'll be used as a spokesman for CAIR again anytime soon, especially if this is the quality of his work product. First of all, using the term "extremist right wing nut cases" isn't the way to win friends and influence people. Secondly, calling Joe Lieberman, Sheppard Smith, Bill O'Reilly and Jim Woolsey extremist right wing nut cases is wildly inaccurate. I couldn't tell you how O'Reilly or Sheppard Smith vote. I know that Joe Lieberman isn't an extremist right wing nut case because he's still part of the Democratic Party.
I strongly recommend that you read the entire press release.
Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2007 12:08 PM
No comments.
Prayers for a Blogger Requested
Jim Addison from Wizbang just emailed me to ask bloggers to pray for the blogger at Florida Masochist. Here's what Jim wrote :
We've often depended upon The Florida Masochist for news and tips on developments in the Sunshine State. A registered Democrat, Bill also skewers the ridiculous of all political stripes with his "Knucklehead of the Day" feature, so his blog is always worth a read. Last week he underwent surgical tests. Sadly, today he is reporting some bad news on the personal front :It's always my policy that I'll ask readers of this blog to rally around bloggers when they need prayer support. Thanks in advance for keeping Bill in your prayers.Going from no cancer for 12 years to having a recurrence is a big shock. Stage III melanoma stats aren't bad but they are much more iffy than Stage II. Then that's based if this is the only node with cancer, which we don't know yet. Five year survival rates range from 25-65%.Read it all at the link above. My thoughts and prayers are with you, Bill - and I'd ask the same of all our readers.
I'm depressed right now, and not in the mood for blogging. I may take a rest from it for a few days, or permanently. Right now I don't know.
Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:52 PM
No comments.
Do Nothing Democrats Whining Again
Led by Harry Reid and Joe Biden, Democrats are whining that President Bush is painting a rosy picture of Iraq. While it's true that he's pointed to the successes of the surge, it's absurd to think that he's painting an unjustifiably rosy picture of what's happening in Iraq. Here's what Joe Biden said about President Bush:
Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee told reporters that Bush's logic on the Iraq war was flawed, but a key House of Representatives Republican leader backed the president.Slow Joe isn't the only Democrat to allege that President Bush's prosecution of the war has created more extremists or terrorists. In fact, it's difficult to find a Democrat not named Lieberman who doesn't take that position. Thus far, I haven't heard anyone offer proof or statistics that that's happening. In fact, I can't think of a single Democrat that's offered even anecdotal evidence to support their claims.
"It's been (Bush's) misguided policy and his mismanaged war that have actually fueled extremism and extremists in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond," Biden said. "The president, in my view, likes to confuse the American people by conflating Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11."
The more I think about it, the more I believe that allegations like what Slow Joe just made aren't based on verifiable facts. Think about it this way: If you knew of a study from a think tank that researched whether the Iraq war had created more terrorists, wouldn't a Joe Biden state that as the basis for their allegations? Wouldn't such a study from a respected think tank like the Brookings Institution strengthen or validate their case?
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid accused Bush of pursuing a bankrupt strategy in Iraq as "Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda grow stronger." "Most Americans, and a bipartisan majority in Congress, believe this strategy is not in our national interest and the time for a major change in strategy is now."Sen. Reid, if a "bipartisan majority in Congress" believe that the President's surge strategy isn't in our national interest, why hasn't funding for the war been cut off yet? Furthermore, what's the basis for Sen. Reid's claim that "Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda" are growing stronger?
Not only don't they lack evidence or even a study that proves their theories as being valid, they're now claiming that President Bush is painting a rosy scenario. Again I ask "Based on what"? What statements can they specifically point to? For that matter, can they point to any specific statements that prove their point?
"The most important and immediate way to counter the ambitions of Al-Qaeda and Iran and other forces of instability and terror is to win the fight in Iraq," he said in Nevada.How is this debatable? President Bush didn't say that Iraq is the only place where al-Qa'ida must be defeated. He simply said that defeating al-Qa'ida in Iraq is a big part of their mission.
At the end of the day, their whining is nothing more than annoying chatter.
Posted Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:23 AM
No comments.
More Proof That the Surge Isn't Working?
Yesterday, Slow Joe Biden and Harry Reid whined about Bush's failed Iraq policy. Today, we receive more news that Bush's Iraq policy, as implemented by Gen. David Petraeus, has failed:
Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered a six-month suspension of activities by his Mahdi Army militia in order to reorganize the force, an aide said Wednesday. The aide, Sheik Hazim al-Araji, said on Iraqi state television that the goal was to "rehabilitate" the organization, which has reportedly broken into factions, some of which the U.S. maintains are trained and supplied by Iran.It was predictable that Sadr's Mahdi Army would fracture in the absence of his leadership. It's difficult, if not impossible, maintaining discipline when Sadr and his top generals are hiding in Tehran. It's even more difficult now that Shiite politicians can't protect these groups like they were able to in the past.
"We declare the freezing of the Mahdi Army without exception in order to rehabilitate it in a way that will safeguard its ideological image within a maximum period of six months starting from the day this statement is issued," al-Araji said, reading from a statement by al-Sadr.
Bit by bit, it's getting more difficult for Democrats to deny that the surge isn't working. If the Iraqi Parliament is able to pass an oil revenue sharing plan when they return, it'll be apparent to the American people that political progress is being made.
Democrats went from saying that the surge wasn't working to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi saying that the Surge had failed to saying that the surge was showing signs of working but that political progress was nowhere to be found. If Sadr's militia is shown to be dysfunctional and the Iraqi Parliament passes the oil revenue sharing legislation, Democrats won't even have that fig leaf of cover to hide behind.
Here's a reminder of what Reid and Pelosi said in their letter to President Bush:
"As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote. "The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.Rather than asking President Bush for his opinion on whether "the escalation has failed to produce the intended results", someone should ask Muqtada al-Sadr if he thinks the surge is producing "the intended results." That is, if they can find Sadr, who's acting like a scared little boy hiding behind his mommie.
If more information comes out about political progress from Iraq, Democratic presidential candidates will have to shift tactics totally. They've been having a contest to see which one can make the most disparaging statements about Iraq. They've talked about how President Bush's policies have been proven to be failures.
By comparison, Republican presidential candidates haven't wavered from their beliefs that the war must be won.
Based on what might be called the 'presidential campaign rule of simplicity', I'd say that Democrats will have a difficult time talking about Iraq. They'll have an even more difficult task defending their positions. The 'presidential campaign rule of simplicity' can be defined this way: the longer the explanation, the less traction you'll get on that issue.
Democratic presidential candidates are at that tipping point right now. Another nudge in the right direction and they'll be without a defense on Iraq. Considering how big an issue that was for them, that wouldn't be good news for them.
Posted Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:16 AM
No comments.
Spoiling For a Fight
The anti-war left has announced that they'll descend upon our nation's capitol on Sept. 11 to protest the Iraq War. According to a quote in this Michelle Malkin column, International ANSWER won't have the stage to themselves:
As retired Army Col. Harry Riley explains, "Unlike the '60s and '70s, the anti-war lemmings will not have the streets or the political stage to themselves. This time, Eagle Americans; we who support our troops, understand the stakes in the War on Terror and the true nature of our enemy, who aren't blinded by an insane hatred of our way of life and our form of government; will also be in Washington, D.C., to show Congress that we will not tolerate another betrayal of our own forces or our allies...While the anti-democracy forces are well-funded by pro-left, anti-Americans, we Eagles have steadily been building our own coalition to stop ANSWER in its tracks, and keep Congress focused on winning the war, not their political ambitions."In addition to the numerous articles I've written about the troop surge, I've also talked about the implications of the announcement that al-Sadr's Mahdi Army taking a six month 'leave of absence'. The simplest conclusion to draw is that anti-war groups are increasing their visibility right when the Surge seems to be having its biggest effect both militarily and politically.
Knowing GOE like I do, I don't think it's wise for anti-war (and anti-American) organizations like International ANSWER to criticize our nation's military. That won't stop them from doing just that. It just means that they're stirring up some people that won't take kindly to their anti-war diatribes.
GOE won't be the only pro victory organization in DC during Gen. Petraeus' and Ambassador Crocker's testimony. Here's a partial list of other organizations that will be in DC then:
Eagles Landing, Move America Forward, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Free Republic, Vets for Freedom and the Victory Caucus.I can't wait to see how this fight turns out. Let's just say that I don't think International ANSWER will win this battle.
Posted Wednesday, August 29, 2007 2:21 PM
No comments.
Netroots Devouring Their Own
Brian Baird's statements that the surge is actually working has drawn the wrath of the Netroots. According to this article in the Hill, MoveOn.org is calling Baird a flip-flopper in a series of ads:
Rep. Brian Baird's (D-Wash.) recent conversion on the Iraq war is beginning to affect more than the national dialogue. On Wednesday, liberal group MoveOn.org announced an ad campaign against the congressman in his own district.Here's the striking sentence in that section of the article:
Baird recently returned from a trip to Iraq and reversed his position on a withdrawal timetable, citing military progress in the four-year-old war.
MoveOn is calling the move a "flip-flop" and says it goes against the views of his constituents.
The ad does not make specific reference to Baird's conversion. Instead, it features a soldier who served in Iraq talking about the amount of resistance troops encountered and at the end asks viewers to tell Baird to bring the troops home.
MoveOn is calling the move a "flip-flop" and says it goes against the views of his constituents.What's striking is that it doesn't say that Baird lied about the improving conditions on the ground. It didn't bother addressing that because they don't care about what's happening in Iraq. If that were a consideration, they would've addressed that immediately.
Rep. Baird should wear their attack as a badge of honor. At least he's come around to the side that wants to win, which is far more than I can say about MoveOn.org.
Baird voted against the war in 2003 and had opposed it until last month. Republicans have been quick to key on his remarks as evidence of progress in Iraq.Ms. Chaudhary can't be paying attention to the people. If she was paying attention, she'd notice that support for the war is increasing. She'd notice that more positive reports are getting published. With the trend pointing towards more successes, isn't it reasonable to think that MoveOn.org's ideological beliefs, coupled with their hatred for President Bush, have everything to do with their anti-war position?
MoveOn disagrees, calling the war "unwinnable."
"So far this has been one of the bloodiest summers in Iraq, and voters don't want to continue down a failed path," said MoveOn campaigner Nita Chaudhary. "They want representatives who will stand up to President Bush's reckless policy and bring our troops home."
It's a sad commentary when a political organization's hatred for President Bush prevents them from cheering for a military victory in Iraq.
Posted Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:44 PM
No comments.
