August 8-10, 2007
Aug 08 10:03 Constitutional Power Grab Aug 08 13:52 We're Starving MNDoT Now??? Aug 08 17:03 Gov. Pawlenty Holding Firm On Special Session Aug 09 09:29 A Return to Normalcy? Aug 09 16:47 Gen. Mattis to Justin Sharratt: Case Dismissed!!! Aug 10 01:52 Bush to Oberstar: No Tax Increases Aug 10 07:52 Still Running for Cover Aug 10 12:00 A Page Has Turned, A Web Exposed Aug 10 16:56 Fisked By The Best
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006
Constitutional Power Grab
No, I'm not talking about President Bush's supposed unprecedented power grab. That's how Russ Feingold and other constitutional midgets characterize President Bush fulfilling his constitutional duty of protecting us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. What I'm referring to is Congress's unconstitutional power grab. Rather than remind people what I've posted in the past about a president's inherent constitutional authority, I'll simply refer readers to Andrew McCarthy's brilliant piece on the subject.
But the president, at least, had an excuse. Actually, not a mere excuse but a trump card. We call it the American Constitution. It empowers the chief executive to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign threats. Even the FISA Court of Review, the highest, most specialized judicial tribunal ever to consider FISA, has acknowledged this. So did the Clinton administration when FISA was amended in 1994. In the United States, the "rule of law" first and foremost is the Constitution.What Mr. McCarthy has brilliantly, and rightly, done is charged Democrats with ignoring the Constitution. When Sen. Feingold whines about President Bush trampling over the Constitution, he should be chastised for the Senate's trampling of the Constitution by enacting FISA in 1978.
The president's constitutional authority is inviolable; it cannot be reduced by mere legislation. When Congress passes a statute, like FISA, that purports to reduce the president's constitutional authority, it is Congress, not the president, that is trampling the rule of law. A president who ignores such a statute is not a law-breaker; he is a defender of the highest law. He is executing the responsibility vested in his office by the Framers who, as Alexander Hamilton observed in The Federalist No. 73, worried deeply about "the propensity of the legislative department to intrude upon the rights, and to absorb the powers, of the other departments."
But let's leave that aside for a moment. Whether you agree or disagree with what I just argued, it is incontestable that, under our Constitution, the president has a role, a plenary role, according to the Supreme Court, in the gathering of intelligence against foreign entities for national-security purposes.
The courts, to the contrary, have no such role. The Framers did not give them one, and the Supreme Court has acknowledged that they are institutionally incompetent to be brought into the intelligence-gathering equation, much less to manage it.
It is thus not the Constitution that has inserted judges into the intelligence-gathering business. If the Constitution were being honored, they'd be out of it. They are in the equation for one reason and one reason alone: Congress unwisely (and, I believe, unconstitutionally) interposed them when it enacted FISA.
It's worth noting that the man who sat idly by as the global jihadist movement is the same man that signed this unconstitutional legislation into law. That man's name is Jimmy Carter.
What this means is that Russ Feingold is as wrong about the Constitution as Jimmy Carter was. This also means that Russ Feingold's whimpering about President Bush's supposed power grab is either a bald-faced lie about what the Constitution says or he's too stupid to understand the Constitution. Either way, he's a man who shouldn't be in office of any sort above the rank of dog catcher.
Here's more of Mr. McCarthy's dissection of the Democrats' unconstitutional power grab:
So, what caused our present national-security crisis? A judge on the FISA court outrageously ignored the FISA statute. And it's not the first time. And, whenever it happens, the purpose is to vest our enemies with more "rights," not to protect our nation from those trying to slaughter us.This is what happens when judges choose to become part time policymakers instead of being fulltime jurists ruling on the Constitution. Let me first say that judges that fancy themselves as being part time legislators are the most dangerous type of egotists because they see themselves as above the Constitution and as being smart enough to fill the role of both legislator and jurist.
Understand this point. It's crucial. The president has a right to ignore the FISA statute if it conflicts with the higher duties that are assigned to him by the Constitution. The president has an obligation to safeguard the American people against foreign attack, including strikes ordered by al Qaeda supervisors overseas, who give direction to terrorists embedded here, as they did in the run-up to 9/11. You can argue that he has overstepped his authority. You cannot credibly argue that he is without a colorable basis for doing so.
By contrast, the judiciary has no such authority. None. The FISA court has no constitutional responsibility to manage intelligence-collection. The Framers would be spinning in their graves over the mere suggestion of something so preposterous. If the court has a proper role, an enormous if, that role absolutely cannot be any broader than what Congress has prescribed in FISA. It could very well be less. If, as I contend, Congress overstepped its bounds in enacting FISA, the role of the courts could be either nonexistent or something less than FISA designed. It can, however, in no event be greater than what is laid out in FISA.
Let's not let liberal legislators off the hook either. They've insisted that FISA be followed even if it hinders our ability to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. They've stated clearly that they're worried about the terrorists' civil liberties. They just haven't used those words.
Let's remember that Russ Feingold thought that filibustering the Patriot Act was the right thing to do.
Let's remember Harry Reid bragging that "20 minutes ago, we killed the Patriot Act."
The bottom line on FISA is that FISA should be challenged constitutionally in court. It's time that we got rid of it in its entirety. The bottom line on Democrats is that they aren't serious about preventing future terrorist attacks.
Isn't it time we got rid of FISA and the Democratic majority in the House and Senate?
Posted Wednesday, August 8, 2007 10:04 AM
No comments.
We're Starving MNDoT Now???
That's the 'gospel' according to former St. Cloud Mayor John Ellenbecker. John and I have had many heated exchanges on the issues of fiscal responsibility and tax increases. Here's what John accused me of a few minutes ago:
47. John Ellenbecker from St. CloudThink of the breathless accusations made in that brief paragraph. I'm accused of thinking of fiscal responsibility as "starving MnDot of funds." I'm accused, along with the MNGOP, of "allowing important bridges to collapse into the Mississippi..." Finally, I'm accused of worshiping the GOP. It's accurate to say that Leo, King and I have had plenty of disagreements with the MNGOP.
Comment Posted: 8/8/2007 11:34:03 AM
For Gary "fiscal responsibility" means starving MnDot of funds, forcing it to operate on the cheap, ignoring critical infrastructure needs, and allowing important bridges to collapse into the Mississippi, because that is what the GOP that he worships caused to happen.
Yes, I unabashedly vote Republican. No, I won't do whatever the GOP tells me to do because they're often out of touch with reality. I recently told the RNC that I wouldn't contribute to them until they promised that they wouldn't spend money to re-elect Chuck Hagel.
Let's look at the other accusations. I'd like to know what proof Mr. Ellenbecker has that I want to "starve MNDoT of funds." Here's my first comment on this thread:
35. Gary G from St. CloudIn other words, Mr. Ellenbecker has accused me of starving MNDoT when I really said that we need to look first at doing a better job of prioritizing how our transportation budget is spent before we think about raising taxes.
Comment Posted: 8/8/2007 10:23:16 AM
26. ktWhat do federal tax cuts have to do with local bridge maintenance? They don't have much in common.
Comment Posted: 8/8/2007 9:57:02 AM
This blame game accomplishes little. The overall point of the letter writer is still valid - we have neglected our future by quick tax cuts rather than wise spending on infrastructure and education. I'm *not* suggesting that there isn't waste in government. However, as our Federal taxes and programs are cut, funding burden increases on the State and Local budgets...and as State taxes are cut....well, take a look at your Property taxes. SOMEONE has to pay for our crumbling roads and inadequate schools. Minnesota used to be near or at the top in many many areas and today we are a mid-pack state at best."I'm *not* suggesting that there isn't waste in government."I'm saying that we should eliminate as much waste as possible before anyone thinks about raising taxes. Raising taxes shouldn't be reflexive. Just 15 months ago, Mike Hatch said that "we could fund our priorities without raising taxes."
Last winter, the DFL legislature said that we couldn't accomplish any of our goals without raising taxes. My question is simple: Which is it?and as State taxes are cut....well, take a look at your Property taxes.Which state taxes have been cut? The last time we got a rebate was with the Jesse checks that rebated a portion of our sales tax expenditures.We can invest in a bright future for our children (as our parents and grandparents did for us, giving us the Minnesota of a few years ago) or we can continue to cut taxes. It's up to us to let our representatives know how we feel. Personally, I'd like to have my children be better educated than me and to have them be able to drive (or ride mass transit) over well-maintained roads and bridges.What a steaming pile of BS. Investing in a bright future doesn't automatically call for raising taxes. In fact, there's plenty of proof that lowering marginal tax rates increases revenues.
Let's look at Colorado. They've got some of the finest schools in the nation. Their marginal tax rates are 2 points per bracket lower than Minnesota's.
It isn't a stretch to say that the DFL is the party of reflexively proposing tax increases of all types whether we have a surplus or whether we have a deficit.
Isn't it time to demand that they change their thinking or to move them out of majority status in the House?
I've also been accused, along with the MNGOP, of causing the I-35 bridge's collapse because we're too cheap. The reality is that our transportation budget's priorities need rethinking. Why does anyone think that applying more revenues to the same priorities is a worthwhile venture?
After his diatribe, I demanded that Mr. Ellenbecker retract his statement and apologize for his statement. Here's his response:
72. John Ellenbecker from St. CloudEven though he's a lawyer, Mr. Ellenbecker obviously doesn't know the difference between facts and opinions. What he alleges to be facts are simply his strongly held personal beliefs. It's certainly his right to post his opinions but I'll simply call him on the notion that opinions are automatically facts. Similarly, I'll call him on the carpet for blaming the GOP for last week's bridge collapse. That's simply irresponsible. I'd be just as wrong if I'd blamed the DFL's spending money on LRT for the collapse of the I-35 bridge. I take issue with the DFL's policies but I won't affix blame on them because I have a policy disagreement.
Comment Posted: 8/8/2007 1:13:53 PM
Gary - I retract nothing. This bridge disaster is the direct result of your party's tax policies and your party's administration of MnDot. Your party, in the name of creating greater "efficiency" in government, starved MnDot of funding, forced MnDot to operate on the cheap, administered MnDot very poorly and the bridge collapse was the result. Deny this reality all you want, it doesn't change the facts.
What's interesting to note is that liberals always think that government isn't funded well enough. No matter how much money is spent on whatever budget, they always think that it isn't nearly enough.
Is that the type of politician that you want spending your money? I didn't think so.
Posted Wednesday, August 8, 2007 1:55 PM
Comment 1 by Mr. Austin at 08-Aug-07 02:13 PM
"What's interesting to note is that liberals always think that government isn't funded well enough. No matter how much money is spent on whatever budget, they always think that it isn't nearly enough."
*You obviously don't know the difference between facts and opinions. What you allege to be facts are simply your strongly held personal beliefs! Isn't it funny how things can work both ways?
Comment 2 by Drew Emmer at 08-Aug-07 04:57 PM
Ellenbecker clearly regards himself as a player in Central Minnesota politics going forward. Since Kleis became Mayor the Ellenbecker bitterness appears to be growing. It comes out in wonderfully predictable partisan diatribes.
Blaming the GOP is inherently cowardly. Blaming MNDOT is another cheap albeit irresponsible thrill for him. Where is the statement from the former mayor owning up to his personal responsibility for neglecting bridges in his own jurisdiction? Didn't find one? Didn't think so.
Ellenbecker reveals himself thoroughly in your wonderfully crafted argument. Thanks Gary for taking him on and putting him in his place.
Let's hear it for civil debate! When the average Joe gets to read arguments like this the party of idea always fares well.
Gov. Pawlenty Holding Firm On Special Session
I just got word from Rep. Steve Gottwalt, (R-St. Cloud), that there won't be a special session if Speaker Kelliher and Senate Majority Leader Pogemiller won't agree to a "bridge only agenda." According to Steve, Gov. Pawlenty will only agree to the special session if it's a one day session with an agreed-upon agenda:
Governor Pawlenty has been very firm with House Speaker Kelliher and Senate Majority Leader Pogemiller that there will be "no special session without prior agreement on the agenda and on the bills." It must be "transportation specific"; he will not revisit the Tax Bill; he will not agree to an open-ended session. It would be one day only, and probably in September. This comes directly from Pawlenty's Chief of Staff, Matt Kramer.Hooray for Gov. Pawlenty. This is exactly the approach you should take. GOP activists statewide salute you for your demanding emergency-specific results!!! It would've been foolish to simply call a special session without Kelliher's and Pogemiller's agreement on a 'bridge-specific' agenda. Without that agreement, the DFL would've turned the session into a new spending 'feeding frenzy'. Steve had more interesting information on a potential special session:
Reconstruction of the 35W bridge would be a modern replacement, with 10 lanes. However, Mayor Rybak is trying to accomplish several add-ons, including re-configured interchanges and even a bridge that would carry light rail. Those are "extra" costs above and beyond the $250 million being discussed as federal emergency dollars for replacement.Why doesn't it surprise me that Mayor Rybak would like to put other goodies into his 'shopping cart'? I can't be too upset, though, considering most mayors would do the same thing if put into this situation.
Congressman Oberstar has made it clear the federal dollars cannot apply to such add-ons. Rybak needs to understand this is relief and replacement, not "Santa Claus comes early to Minneapolis."
Oberstar has indicated he will seek a federal 5 cent/gallon gas tax increase dedicated exclusively to bridge upkeep and replacement nationally (focused on the highest priority bridges).I'm not excited about tax increases but it's obvious that upgrading our bridges must be a high priority. I'd much rather have these projects bonded than increasing taxes, though.
Posted Wednesday, August 8, 2007 5:03 PM
No comments.
A Return to Normalcy?
According to this Strib article, Marty Seifert sees the pendulum swinging back in the GOP's direction. The basis for his opinion is Steve Drazkowski's special election victory Tuesday night.
On Tuesday night, House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, R-Marshall, celebrated the victory, calling it evidence "of a return to normalcy," particularly, he said, since significant attention from transportation advocates, unions and progressive groups had devoted so much attention to Pfeilsticker's campaign.Considering all the money that Education Minnesota, the DFL and the unions poured into the district, this is a solid victory. Part of the DFL's problem was that they ran a candidate who hadn't run for office before. Her not showing up for a Taxpayers League forum sent the message that she wasn't interested in voters who cared about low taxes.
"To win by several hundred votes in a special election when the national feeling about Republicans is the way it is, this has to be seen as a resounding victory," he said.
The major contributing factor, though, was the DFL's first mailing. You'll recall that that mailing accused Steve Drazkowski of turning "his back on her", a reference to his daughter. As I said at the time, that was the DFL essentially saying that they couldn't win the race on the battlefield of ideas. They had to do everything possible to drive GOP turnout down if their candidate had any shot at winning.
The things that factored most into the DFL's defeat were the DFL's negativity and Ms. Pfeilsticker's evasiveness. Minnesotans enjoy a lively back-and-forth but they also demand politeness. When the DFL sent out a mailing that dragged Mr. Drazkowski's daughter into the campaign, I'd bet a fistful of money that they alienated a bunch of voters. I'd also bet a fistful that they fired up GOP activists to go to 28B and knock on doors or do lit drops. They also contributed fistfuls of money so the campaign could get their message out.
The scuttlebutt that I'm hearing is that the DFL poured about $250K into the race. That isn't including all the money and people that the unions and Education Minnesota poured into the election.
Considering the effort that these DFL-oriented organizations put into this election, this is a big morale boost to the GOP. It's also vindication that our GOTV operation is effective when our troops are properly motivated. They definitely did their job, largely because Representative-elect Drazkowski touched base with all of the key constituencies of the GOP.
Some are saying that we should've expected to win this race because it's been a Republican seat for so long. There's some truth to that, though I'd point out that we lost Phil Krinkie's seat 10 short months earlier.
The pall of last November's election disaster is lifting but we need to sustain the momentum that we've been seeing. To sustain that momentum, I'd suggest that we look no further than this special election and this year's legislative session as motivators for GOP activists.
This year's legislative session was a disaster in terms of getting any part of the GOP agenda passed. The DFL ran roughshod over the GOP. That was caused by the DFL's 'my way or the highway' approach more than anything else. I'd suggest that had it been on the merits of whose legislation made more sense, the DFL wouldn't have gotten many of their bills passed.
That's why it's time for GOP activists to get active in recruiting independents and Lieberman liberals into the party.
Posted Thursday, August 9, 2007 9:29 AM
Comment 1 by mike at 10-Aug-07 03:03 AM
lieberman liberal?
that's right up there with honest conservative... or is it compassionate conservative...
Gen. Mattis to Justin Sharratt: Case Dismissed!!!
My good friend Darryl Sharratt just posted the good news on Freepers. Here's what Darryl posted:
At 7:00 PST, 9 August 2007 Justin and his attorney met with a Marine Corps representative in an office at Camp Pendleton, CA. At this time, my son LCpl Justin Sharratt, was handed an official Marine Corps Disposition of Charges document declaring the charges stemming from the 19 November 2005 Haditha engagement have been officially dismissed. The last line of the two page Disposition Of Charges document ended with these words from the General, "And as you have always remained cloaked in the presumption of innocence, with this dismissal of charges, you remain in the eyes of the law- and in my eyes- innocent." Lt. Gen James T. MattisI can't wait to talk with Darryl again. I can't imagine the joy that's sweeping through the Sharratt family this instant. This has been an arduous, emotional ordeal for their family, especially since the charges appeared shaky from the beginning.
Jim Robinson-My family would like to offer you a sincere and deep felt thank you. During our darkest days you allowed us to publish our story here on Free Republic. When others went deaf, you listened and you heard. Our belief in God, our belief in the innocence of our son and the support and prayers of the American people helped us through this rough ordeal. Our family has met a group of American patriots here on FR that my words fall short in thanking. You helped us through these trying times with your support, thoughts and financial assistance. My family is truly proud to be an American family. You took us in and made us part of Your Family. For that I can never thank you enough.
With the General's announcement of the exoneration of my son, LCpl Justin L. Sharratt, part of our journey has ended. Another has just begun. We will put our lives together and continue the fight for the remaining Haditha Marines. By now, you know these men. They are part of my family and I know you have made them part of yours. My son served with these men and he would have given up his life for them. I hope to find justice for these Marines and the battle has just begun. God Bless.
Redrover, Madison Marine, Girlene, Marine Uncle, Eagles6, Semper Fi Mom, Jazusamo, 4 woodenboats, LanceyHoward, brityank, pinkpanther, Chickenhawk Warmonger, RaceBannon, xzins, velveeta, freema and others- names, with no faces. You helped my family through this and we may never be able to express our gratitude. Thank You!!!!!!
Knowing Darryl a little bit, I know that he's committed to getting justice for all of the Marines in Kilo Company. Capt. Randy Stone also had his charges dropped:
All charges were dropped against a captain accused of failing to investigate the deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha, the Marine Corps announced Thursday. Also, all charges were dropped against Marine Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt, who had been accused of killing three Iraqi brothers in response to a roadside bomb attack in Haditha in 2005.Talk about good news coming in bunches!!! This is indeed great news. This is also proof that seemingly ordinary men who tirelessly seek the truth will be rewarded. One man that fits that description is Tim Harrington. Tim has worked so hard on digging out evidence of these men's innocence that he's become an 'adopted' member of these Marines' families. Justice-loving people should thank Tim for his role in exposing the holes in the prosecution's cases.
Capt. Randy W. Stone, 35, a battalion lawyer from Dunkirk, Md., was one of four officers charged with failing to adequately probe the killings. "It is clear to me that any error of omission or commission by Capt. Stone does not warrant action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice," Lt. Gen. James Mattis wrote.
Gen. Mattis did the right thing in dropping the charges against LCpl. Justin Sharratt and Capt. Stone. I wish he'd just done it sooner.
There's more than a few 'down arrows' to go around. One of them goes to Rep. John Murtha. On May 17, 2006, Rep. Murtha declared that these Marines had " killed innocent civilians in cold blood." We now know that that's been proven false beyond all doubt. Furthermore, Rep. Murtha declared that these Marines had covered this up and that "It's much worse than was reported in Time magazine."
Two groups of people deserving of swift boots in the pants are the NCIS investigators and JAG prosecutors. They've wrongly accused these American heroes of horrific crimes. What's worse is that they kept going after hearing Jeffrey Dinsmore's testimony:
As previously reported by NewsMax, 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.Here's what we know from Capt. Dinsmore's testimony:
- Intelligence gathered by Marine S2 officers in advance of the events of Nov. 19th, 2005, revealed that it was known that an insurgent ambush was planned for the day.
- Although exact details of the planned ambush were not known, some important details were revealed, most importantly, that some 20 insurgents would take part, and a white car would play an important role in the ambush.
- The intelligence was made available to the officers and men of Kilo Company, including Sgt. Frank Wuterich who has been charged with, among other things, murdering the occupants of a white car that came on the scene following the IED explosion that killed one Marine and seriously wounded another. The evidence will show that Wuterich acted appropriately when he shot the passengers of the vehicle.
- Although the media continues to report that 24 innocent civilians were killed that day , the S2's testimony shows that eight of the dead, including four of the five occupants in the white car killed by Wuterich, were known insurgents and the dead civilians therefore numbered 16, not 24.
- The insurgents whose communications were intercepted and which revealed the planned ambush were the same two men who were the sources of the fallacious and dishonest Time magazine story, which was the source of the accusations against the Marines.
- As previously reported by NewsMax, 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. None!
- Considering they knew about Capt. Dinsmore's testimony, why did they continue onto other Article 32 hearings?
- Considering Capt. Dinsmore's testimony, isn't it impossible to sustain the charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani for dereliction of duty?
- Considering the fact that LCpl. Sharratt and Sgt. Frank Wuterich are accused of the same crimes, shouldn't his charges be dropped, too?
Posted Thursday, August 9, 2007 4:52 PM
No comments.
Bush to Oberstar: No Tax Increases
During Thursday morning's news conference, President Bush drew a line in the sand of sorts. Though he didn't use Rep. Oberstar's name, President Bush told Rep. Oberstar that his gas tax increase was DOA should it even reach his desk.
"The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first," Bush said. "That's not the right way to prioritize the people's money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities."Talk about not pulling punches. OUCH. That's a definite shot across the House Transportation Committee's bow. These congressmen rule the Transportation budget in much the same way that John Murtha rules over the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. These politicians rule over it like it's their private kingdom where they have all the power. Crafting great transportation policy isn't their main concern. Getting re-elected is.
About $24 billion, or 8 percent of the last $286 billion highway bill, was devoted to highway and bridge projects singled out by lawmakers. The balance is distributed through grants to states, which decide how it will be spent. Federal money accounts for about 45 percent of all infrastructure spending.I'd love to see which areas got the most earmark money and which ones got the least. Generally speaking, I'll bet that Republicans will get less than Democrats this year. I'll also bet that the Republicans that behave like Democrats will get far more earmarks than will reform-minded conservatives.
The Democratic chairman of the House Transportation Committee proposed a 5-cent increase in the 18.3 cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax to establish a new trust fund for repairing or replacing structurally deficient highway bridges.Until these politicians reprioritize the Transportation budget, taxpayers should tell these politicians that their voting for a gas tax increase guarantees a campaign contribution for their opponent. It's time that these autocrats realized that we're mad as hell and that we won't take it anymore. It's high time that they understood that they can't get away with the things that they did a decade ago.
These politicians are essentially in denial after we blew their little kingdoms to smithereens during the
It will likely take a few more of those types of responses but we will eventually get their attention. President Bush doesn't need a few more shots across their bow, though, to get their attention. I'd bet that Thursday morning's news conference got their undivided attention.
Posted Friday, August 10, 2007 1:53 AM
Comment 1 by Jeremy Gunderson at 10-Aug-07 01:45 PM
You might take a lesson in how earmarks are approved in the federal transportation bill. The bill gets authorized every six years. Your Republicans, former Chairman Don Young (R-AK) approved all those earmarks, not the Democrats.
Still Running for Cover
Yesterday, Gen. Mattis dropped all charges against Capt. Randy Stone and LCpl. Justin Sharratt of the so-called Haditha Marines. In light of this fact, does Rep. Murtha wish to make a statement about this development?When I posed this question to Rep. Murtha's DC office, the woman answering the phone said that Rep. Murtha didn't have a comment. Before I could ask another question, this woman hung up. That's when I called Murtha's DC office back and asked this question:
Considering the fact that Rep. Murtha accused these men during the initial NCIS investigation, why doesn't Rep. Murtha have a statement?Her steely-voiced response was "There won't be any statements until all of the investigations have been completed."
Undeterred, I asked why they were taking this approach. The woman essentially gave a 'no comment' answer. I said that I'd keep checking back until Rep. Murtha did make a statement, to which she replied "That's just fine, Sir." before hanging up on me a second time.
Murtha's staffer is essentially taking an indefensible position because Rep. Murtha has repeatedly made irresponsible and indefensible statements about these Marines. This highlights an obvious double standard on Murtha's behalf. He didn't think twice about making these unfounded accusations while the initial NCIS investigation was being conducted but he won't say a word now when two of the men he accused of cold-blooded murder have been totally exonerated.
Rep. Murtha's actions throughout this make believe scandal have been reprehensible. As I've stated before, his accusations were made before charges had been filed against any of these Marines is a clear violation of their due process rights. Similarly, he violated their right to a fair trial. To top that off, he attempted to have them presumed guilty instead of giving them the benefit of being presumed innocent.
It's time that this corrupt politician to resign his seat in the House of Representatives and to apologize to the Haditha Marines and their families. Finally, it's time he apologized to the Marine Corps itself for assuming the worst behavior of these Marines.
UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers. Make sure & check California Conservative's coverage of Murtha, too.
UPDATE II: Check back in about an hour. I'm working on a related article involving Murtha, Bill Delahunt & other Appropriation Committee pubahs.
Posted Friday, August 10, 2007 11:22 AM
Comment 1 by JeanneB at 10-Aug-07 08:11 AM
Don't hold your breath. Murtha's big mouth has made him a hero (again!). In certain quarters his "truthiness" is irrelevant...as long as he's skewering the right targets.
Comment 2 by great unknown at 10-Aug-07 08:18 AM
Hardly an "indefensible position." As long as MSM allows them too - i.e., until the Last Trump - Murtha's staff can do whatever they please; to them, you are an insignificant annoyance. If MSM does not take this issue up, do you think it will adversely affect Murtha's reelection chances in the least?
By definition, the staffer's postion is highly defensible - actually, impregnable.
Comment 3 by Jimm at 10-Aug-07 09:24 AM
When president Nixon made a pre-trial comment implying that he believed Charles Manson to be guilty, the MSM - led by the NYT - dumped a coal car of criticism on him. Will they do the same to the odious Murtha?
Comment 4 by Neal Scroggs at 10-Aug-07 09:41 AM
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the exonerated Marines may have a slander case against Murtha, or at least a case of wantonly inflicted psychological cruelty.
Comment 5 by Dave in Pa. at 10-Aug-07 09:48 AM
"It's time that this corrupt politician to resign..."
Don't hold your breath. That would presuppose Leftard Murtha being a patriot and having both a sense of responsibility and honor. (In other words, a gentleman and a statesman.)
All those traits are notable by their absence in both John Murtha and in the Leftards running the Democratic Party.
Comment 6 by George Dixon at 10-Aug-07 10:11 AM
Murtha is a democrat...one should not expect honesty.
Murtha is a modern "Hero of Ticonderoga"....
The democrats will sell this nation and their mothers for power. They started the last civil war too......
Comment 7 by Andy Freeman at 10-Aug-07 10:41 AM
Are any investigations still on-going? Ask the staffer what investigations Murtha is waiting for.
Comment 8 by JSM at 10-Aug-07 10:42 AM
I called, too. The woman who answered kept repeating "The investigation is ongoing." She didn't seem to grasp that if you say that the group killed in cold blood, and some members of the group are exonerated, then the decent thing to do is at least apologize to those you wrongly defamed. But that would take decency, humility, and a sense of shame. So I'm not holding my breath.
Comment 9 by chsw at 10-Aug-07 12:23 PM
IIRC, congressmen are shielded from libel and slander suits only when they are make statements from the Capitol and the surrounding House and Senate office buildings. If Murtha made any pronouncements from a TV studio or any locale other than the Capitol and the office buildings, then the cleared Marines may be able to sue him.
chsw (not a lawyer)
Comment 10 by NICK at 10-Aug-07 12:43 PM
duh
ITS STILL ONGOING
YOU moron
Comment 11 by William Paul at 10-Aug-07 04:49 PM
Talk about knee-jerking pre-mature ejaculations! Do you not understand that this was just the dismissal of 2 of the defendants? Do you not understand that the squad leader has a hearing later this month? And, that one of his squad has testified that he watched his squad leader shoot 5 civilians who were trying to surrender?
I'm not a fan of Murtha's, but what he said was aimed at the ACTIONS of those allegedly involved, and the INACTIONS of those who allegedly covered it up; not at Marines who were NOT involved. His comments were in the CONTEXT of bemoaning the very difficult situation that our policymakers have put our servicemembers into.
Also, on the subject of suing Murtha, he HAS been sued, by the squad leader whose hearing is coming up this month. Wuterich sued Murtha 53 weeks ago. He served him in March (apparently). Murtha filed motions to dismiss and to substitute the US as the correct defendant (Wuterich was trying to find out who gave info to Murtha, and said he wasn't trying to get money - according to Wuterich's atty.) There is a hearing scheduled for 9/28, 2:00pm. (Start making your clever signs.)
Our Marines ARE in a very difficult situation. They are trained to not shoot off until they are sure that they should. They may or may not have in this case. It is too bad you have not received the same training before shooting off your mouth (keyboard).
Comment 12 by Gary Gross at 10-Aug-07 05:24 PM
Talk about knee-jerking pre-mature ejaculations! Do you not understand that this was just the dismissal of 2 of the defendants? Do you not understand that the squad leader has a hearing later this month? And, that one of his squad has testified that he watched his squad leader shoot 5 civilians who were trying to surrender?
1. I certainly know that Frank Wuterich still has a hearing in a couple weeks. I know something that you don't: that the evidence against him is the same as it was against LCpl. Sharratt.
2. Yes, I know that Sanick de la Cruz testified against Sgt. Wuterich. His testimony has changed several times. It isn't credible anymore.
3. According to the man that's done the research into these allegations, Tim Harrington, none of these men could be convicted in a civilian court of law because the 'evidence' against these men is riddled with inconsistencies. Frankly, it's difficult for me to consider it proof at this point. I'd say that conjecture or theory might be more descriptive at this point.
I'm not a fan of Murtha's, but what he said was aimed at the ACTIONS of those allegedly involved, and the INACTIONS of those who allegedly covered it up...
What he said was said without first having been briefed. He first made his accusations on May 17, 2006, 7 days before Gen. Hagee briefed him. In fact, I put together a timeline which I've posted here. The day after Murtha made these accusations, he said that he was briefed by commanders, "people who knew what they were talking about."
Later, he said that he'd been briefed by Gen. Hagee, who was the Marine Corps commandant at the time. Commanders serve in the field. The Marine Corps commandant serves in the Pentagon. MAJOR OOPS!!!
Immediately after Murtha's claim that he'd been briefed by Gen. Hagee, Hagee issued a statement saying that he hadn't briefed Murtha. ANOTHER MAJOR OOPS!!!
Eventually, on May 24, 2006, Gen. Hagee finally briefed Murtha.
Finally, Murtha's statements weren't nuanced or conditioned; they were categorical. He meant all of the men of Kilo Company.
Next time you challenge me, you'd better have your facts straight because those comments were easy to fisk.
Comment 13 by William Paul at 10-Aug-07 07:09 PM
GG, thanks for your response. I'm not sure what you mean by "fisk", but I think you must be saying that you ripped my "challenge" apart. Maybe that's true, but I would like to see a few of your "facts", that I was unable to verify. In addition, I have some reactions to your points.
1) If the evidence against Wuterich is the same as "it" was against Sharratt (which apparently wasn't much!), then why didn't Mattis dismiss the charges against Wuterich at the same time? Hey, you might still be right on that, though. We'll see.
2) Likewise, we'll see (maybe) about the credibility of de la Cruz.
3) My main questions about your (and other bloggers who either followed you or came up with similar facts) timeline are that they don't appear to provide any true factual support for your claims. I challenge you to show me actual source material that MURTHA (not the LA Times, not the Philadelphia Inquirer, but Murtha) claimed that Hagee briefed him before 5/24/06. I reviewed the Inquirer article - as I am sure you did - and it did not make that claim. (You also state that "Hagee issued a statement saying that he hadn't briefed Murtha;" I found no such statement, just a blogger ("patterico") posting that a Hagee spokesperson said the first time he briefed Murtha was 5/24. Not quite the same.)
Further, you try to play "gotcha" (or "major oops") with "commanders" or "commandant", seemingly without acknowledging that he might have spoken with commanders in the field before he made his May 17 comments (remember, the initial reports had been several weeks earlier), and that he might THEN have spoken with the Commandant (Hagee). Actually, come to think of it, I guess Murtha never uttered the word "commandant"; it is you ASSUMING that he misspoke and caught himself in a weird web of fibs.
Finally, you're right that Murtha's words were not nuanced. But, he didn't say anything that could be interpreted to refer to any in that company that did not participate. Nor, for that matter, did he criticize all Marines, as many (not you, specifically) tried to suggest. (Please be specific if you believe that is incorrect.)
Look, Gary, I wouldn't bother to do this research and respond again if I didn't have some respect for your efforts. I'm glad to see you have some substance behind your heated rhetoric. If you can back up everything and make a solid case why Murtha should be strung up, that's fine with me. I just haven't seen it yet. Respectfully, WP
Comment 14 by Gary Gross at 10-Aug-07 08:54 PM
Further, you try to play "gotcha" (or "major oops") with "commanders" or "commandant", seemingly without acknowledging that he might have spoken with commanders in the field before he made his May 17 comments (remember, the initial reports had been several weeks earlier), and that he might THEN have spoken with the Commandant (Hagee). Actually, come to think of it, I guess Murtha never uttered the word "commandant"; it is you ASSUMING that he misspoke and caught himself in a weird web of fibs.
Think this through. The only commanders that would've had firsthand knowledge of what happened are the commanders in Kilo Company. Everyone else would've merely been speculating on what happened.
Furthermore, Jeffrey Dinsmore, the S2 intelligence officer watched the entire 8 hour firefight. Remember that that's the firefight that Murtha claims didn't happen.
Let's also remember that Capt. Dinsmore testified about the firefight under oath at an Article 32 hearing. He was able to watch it because a UAV was on the scene filming the entire thing.
You're right that Murtha didn't use the word commandant. I did & I stand by it. That's because Gen. Hagee, the man who briefed Murtha on May 24, 2006, was the Marine Corps commandant at the time.
The day after Murtha first made his accusations, Murtha said "All the information I get, it comes from the commanders, it comes from people who know what they're talking about."
I called Gen. Hagee commandant because he was Marine Corps commandant at the time. Murtha said that he'd gotten his information from "commanders".
It's my opinion that that's an important distinction.
Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely that Murtha spoke with any commanders that were serving in the field. The people that he's most familiar with serve in the Pentagon.
He wouldn't know many battlefield commanders because battlefield commanders don't often work in the Pentagon.
Finally, the initial reports of the incident didn't come several weeks earlier, as you suggest. They came almost 6 months before because the firefight (yes, the firefight that Murtha said numerous times didn't happen) took place in mid-November, 2005. He didn't accuse the Haditha Marines until May 17, 2006.
One last thing: Another of the things that Murtha talked about was that "It's much worse than was reported in Time magazine..." Actually, Time reported that 15 civilians were killed in the firefight that Murtha said didn't happen & that 8 insurgents were also killed in the firefight that Murtha said didn't happen. Kilo Company's after-action report counted 24 deaths, including 8 known insurgents.
In my opinion, Murtha got more wrong than right. Murtha got so many facts wrong that I don't believe that the man has a bit of credibility left.
Comment 15 by Josh at 10-Aug-07 09:00 PM
Hey, we can do something about this. Call Murtha's office. I've got his phone number up at my blog, or you can go to the Congressional website for it. Let's exert some pressure and get him to do the right thing.
A Page Has Turned, A Web Exposed
As you know, Gen. Mattis dropped all charges against Capt. Stone and LCpl. Sharratt. That's only part of what's been happening within the military judicial system. I believe this article is a preview of things to come in other cases brought against our military.
Tim Harrington is a personal friend of the Hutchins family who has worked tirelessly on the case.Don't be surprised if Gen. Mattis changes Sgt. Hutchins' verdict. I talked with Tim last night. He sounded guardedly optimistic. One of the reasons for Tim's optimism is his belief that previously classified information, which wasn't allowed into Sgt. Hutchins' court martial, will likely be considered by Gen. Mattis. This classified information will allegedly exonerate Sgt. Hutchins due to the fact that it couldn't be used in his court martial. Sgt. Hutchins' attorney had access to some classified information that the court martial judge wouldn't allow into testimony.
Advocates of Hutchins like Harrington say the Marine is not the only American combat vet dealing with the "scapegoat" issue; the case of an Army Ranger, SSgt. Ray Girouard, bears unusual similarities to Hutchins'.
Girouard was convicted in March of three counts of negligent homicide for the deaths of three detainees after an Army raid in Iraq in May 2006. Girouard maintains that he was only following orders, as does Hutchins.
Lawrence Hutchins has been in solitary confinement in the Camp Pendleton brig since his conviction and sentencing by a military panel last month. He is now out of solitary confinement. It is reported that he will remain in a multi-man cell until the government decides where he will serve his 15-year sentence.
But a lawyer for Hutchins is preparing papers seeking clemency. It seems there were many questionable aspects to his General Court martial. The case was also automatically forwarded to the Navy-Marine Court of Criminal Appeal for review.
Tim points out that formerly classified information was declassified that the truth came out about Haditha. We're now seeing the importance of that information in vindicating the Haditha Marines.
Adding to the intrigue surrounding Sgt. Hutchins' case is what's best described as the 'Deloitte Connection'. Warren Bonesteel did the research into Deloitte's participation in Sgt. Hutchins' court martial. Here's his quote:
Former Marine Warren Bonesteel alleges that they were involved in the outcome of Hutchin's court martial.According to Mr. Bonesteel, Deloitte also plays a significant role in financing campaigns:
"What we do know for certain is that Deloitte was, and is, directly and indirectly involved in Al Anbar province, and, for our present purposes, specifically in Haditha. We also know that NCIS uses contracted Deloitte psychologists. The same psychologists may have been used by both defense and prosecution legal teams in order to examine the Marines in question. We know that NCIS operatives, 'managers', and even the NCIS director himself, have gone to work for Deloitte in the two and some odd years since the incident in question."
NCIS also has several other contracts with Deloitte and its subsidiaries. He says his research also shows that men like William Delahunt, John Murtha and others, including most of those who sit on various appropriations committees, receive more than half of their campaign contributions from Deloitte and from its subsidiaries or "alliances."The unholy alliance between Murtha and Delahunt is bad enough. What one wonders is whether an unscrupulous man like John Murtha is simply doing Deloitte's bidding. Considering Murtha's ethical problems in the past, we can't rule anything out.
"We know that men like Delahunt also have direct and indirect connections to known terrorist supporters and to lobbyists with both direct and indirect ties to Deloitte. Among these groups and lobbyists are individuals, banks, and groups directly and indirectly associated with CAIR, the ISNA, MAS, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Muslim individuals, groups and organizations on a national and international basis. Deloitte is also involved directly and indirectly handling financing for those same groups and organizations."That list is the 'Who's Who' of terrorist-sympathizing organizations. ISNA and MAS are offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is one of the most radical Islamic extremist organizations. The question must be asked why Rep. Delahunt would be tied to these types of organizations. Another question that must be asked is why Rep. Delahunt is such good friends with Hugo Chavez.
It's apparent that Delahunt isn't too picky about who he associates himself with. What's more is that Delahunt's daughter Kara is a lobbyist for the Saudi Economic and Development Company. According to the article that I linked to, here's what the the Saudi Economic and Development Company is about:
Its Web site says it helps Saudis invest in socially responsible ways, meaning, at least sometimes, that it helps investors comply with Shari'a law.Only inside the Beltway is this type of behavior not considered unethical. With this type of mindset, is it any wonder why our politicians are as corrupt as they are?
"It's certainly interesting that again his daughter's working for ultimately oil interests. That's where all the money in Saudi Arabia comes from, after all," says Bill Allison, spokesman for the Center for Public Integrity, a non-partisan government-ethics watchdog organization.
Posted Friday, August 10, 2007 12:01 PM
Comment 1 by Kevin R.C. \'Hognose\' O\'Brien at 10-Aug-07 02:10 PM
Funny Delahunt comes up in this. You know that he's a phony vet, right? He has claimed all his life to have been a vet, but it turned out in his last campaign that this claim is based on... a week or so... in the Coast Guard Reserve or Coast Guard Auxiliary.
The guy running against him was an actual, combat vet. Who lost... it is Massachusetts, after all. Their idea of a vet is Delahunt, Kerry, or Jesse Macbeth.
Fisked By The Best
Jim Oberstar tried pushing a gas tax increase by saying " God help you " if you don't support a gas tax increase. He shouldn't have done that because that got Michael Brodkorb's dander up. The last thing a liberal should do is say anything that gets Michael's investigative juices flowing. This post should be all the proof you need to trust me on that:
Congressman Jim Oberstar, who is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, did a great job of leading the charge and getting the 35-W bride repair relief package passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. The legislative process worked and every Minnesotan should be proud of how Minnesota's congressional delegation responded to this tragedy.I can't improve on Michael's fisking of Oberstar's diatribe so I'll just tell Rep. Oberstar that he's been skewered by the best in the business. This one will leave a mark for a very long time.
But I'm curious what people think of this article from the Bemidji Pioneer . I've pulled the below section from the article:Oberstar wrote the legislation in 1991 that first allowed Highway Trust Funds to flow to states for bike trails. Until then, the 50 states combined for the past 20 years had spent only $40 million on bike trails.
The 1991 law required each state to have a bicycle coordinator, funded from the Highway Trust Fund, to have a state bicycling plan, and would be given the authority to use abandoned railway grade beds as bicycle, pedestrian and in-line skating trails.
In the next six years, $1.3 billion was invested in bicycling facilities nationwide, Oberstar, an avid biker, said." Source: Bemidji Pioneer, August 9, 2007
Posted Friday, August 10, 2007 4:57 PM
No comments.
