February 1, 2007
Feb 01 00:38 Trouble Within the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Feb 01 03:03 Defeatist Resolution a "Disgrace" Feb 01 04:02 Proof Positive That Bipartisanship Is Dead Feb 01 15:37 Classic CAIR Doublespeak Feb 01 18:13 Arkin Inserts Other Foot in Mouth Feb 01 19:35 Hatch Loses Again
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006
Trouble Within the Congressional Hispanic Caucus
According to this Politico article, there's a huge rift in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. If Rep. Loretta Sanchez's accusations are true, the rift is bound to get bigger.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez has quit the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, accusing the chairman, Rep. Joe Baca, of telling people she's a "whore." Baca denied the charge.If that's true, Mr. Baca needs to be run out of the House immediately. At minimum, a full investigation should be conducted, starting immediately. Baca didn't take long to respond to Ms. Sanchez' accusations:
In a statement to The Politico, Baca said Sanchez "has decided to resign from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), and has chosen to air baseless statements. Let me be clear; her comments are categorically untrue."We'll see which of these opposing statements is the truth. Ms. Sanchez does seem to have a leg to stand on:
She said she was surprised and insulted when she learned that Baca had made the disparaging personal comment about her to California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and other legislators last year. Nunez "is a friend of mine. Did he think he wouldn't tell me?" Sanchez asked.The Ethics Committee needs to address this type of boorish behavior if it wants to have any credibility or purpose. If this type of ethical lapse isn't investigated, then this committee is useless.
Posted Thursday, February 1, 2007 12:39 AM
No comments.
Defeatist Resolution a "Disgrace"
That's what the Washington Times' Charles Hurt is reporting. I wholeheartedly agree.
"This resolution is a resolution of defeat and disgrace," said Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who, as a member of the House, voted in 2002 for the war. "There's no other way it could come out," Mr. DeMint said of the two resolutions that have been authored. "That is the choice that they're making. That is the decision they're making because we know if we withdraw and leave this to the Iraqis when they're not ready, that we will lose all."It appears as though Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's coming out against the Hagel-Biden resolution on Face the Nation has stemmed the Republican tide. The American people will take note of that when they vote next. They will have seen that Republicans stood on principle when it would've been easy to cave. They'll also know that the Democrats will have chosen expediency over victory. I can't picture that as a winning position to take in 08.
Sen. John Cornyn, (R-TX), was not serving in the Senate for the vote authorizing the war but has been an ardent defender of it. He said Congress is sending mixed messages to the troops, to voters and to the world with a "no confidence" vote that carries no force. "We can't claim to support the troops and not support their mission," he said in a floor speech yesterday. "If we don't support the mission, we shouldn't be passing nonbinding resolutions. We should be doing everything in our power to stop it."That's the only logical, defensible position to take. To vote for the Biden-Hagel resolution is declaring yourself as a defeatist. Voting for Biden-Hagel is declaring that the US military can't defeat the terrorists anywhere. That's some message to send to American troops serving in harm's way. Forgive me if I don't think that's a good idea.
Instead, Mr. Cornyn said, "we should send them the message that, yes, we believe you can succeed and it's important to our national security that you do." He has been drawing up a resolution to do that.
"That's just nonsense," said Sen. Tom Harkin, (D-IA), who voted for the war in 2002. "What undermines the troops is keeping them fighting in a civil war, to keep them fighting for a mistake."Sen. Harkin is a disgrace and an idiot. He's a political opportunist who doesn't believe in the U.S. military's ability to win wars. That's a difficult position to hold in light of our military record in wars. The only war we lost is Vietnam. That war wouldn't have been lost if the counterculture hadn't split this country like it's doing today.
"One thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops but not the war," one soldier interviewed said. "If they're going to support us, support us all the way." Spc. Tyler Johnson said, "You're not supporting what they do. They died for you. It don't make sense to me."Democrats have said that they support the troops thousands of times by now but by what do they measure their support? Have they prayed for the soldiers? Have they praised them for the victories in battle that they've won? Have they recognized the intelligence, perseverance and courage that they've shown? Here's how the Washington Post's William Arkin responded to Spc. Johnson:
"These soldiers should be grateful that the American public ... do still offer their support to them, and their respect," wrote Mr. Arkin. "Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order." The NBC report "is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary; oops sorry, volunteer; force that thinks it is doing the dirty work," he added.Let's hope that the Washington Post fires this jackass before noon Thursday. If they won't rein in their anti-war haters, then they should expect their circulation to drop precipitously. If they tolerate that type of behavior, they'll deserve to lose credibility and readership.
The truth is that they've tried and convicted the Haditha Marines before investigations were completed. They've accepted awards from groups that harass military families as they visit their loved ones at Walter Reed. They've sat embarrassed while Sgt. Mark Seavey told two pompous jackasses off:
"Yes sir my name is Mark Seavey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seavey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you, (applause)That isn't support; that's lip service.
"Like yourself I dropped out of college two years ago to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and I went and I came back. If I didn't have a herniated disk now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq. I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. (applause) The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan.
"And Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just returned from Afghanistan. We never got a letter from you; we never got a visit from you. You didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got from any of our elected officials was one letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high."
Sen. Durbin compared the military personnel who serve at Gitmo to Pol Pot, Hitler and the KGB who guarded the Soviet gulags. That isn't support; it's the epitome of loathing the military.
Ted Kennedy said that Abu Ghraib wasn't that different from when Saddam ran it, saying:
"On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?'" said Sen. Edward Kennedy, (D-MA). "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."That isn't supporting the troops; it's berating them and hating them.
The truth is that today's Democrats aren't much different than Vietnam Era Democrats. They've even returned to their 'glory days' by spitting on soldiers. The only thing missing from their counterculture days is calling soldiers baby killers.
There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq.Democrats desperately need a patriotism transplant ASAP. Democrats need to stop thinking of the American military as a loathsome bunch. In short, they need to stop acting like Jane Fonda, John Kerry and Bill Clinton. They need to stop acting like post-JFK Democrats.
Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protesters spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.
Posted Thursday, February 1, 2007 7:52 PM
No comments.
Proof Positive That Bipartisanship Is Dead
Senate DFLer's have flexed their muscles again, this time voted along party lines to withhold support from Iron Range Resources Commissioner Sandy Layman. I knew that this mirage of bipartisanship was over a week ago when told of Cy Thao's comment to Rep. Steve Gottwalt:
"You guys won't get one thing passed this year; you know that, don't you?"The notion that Democrats are interested in bipartisanship is nonsense. So is the notion that they're fiscal moderates.
Stopping short of an outright rejection, the move in the Business, Industry and Jobs Committee signaled trouble for Layman and was seen by Republicans as an effort to pressure GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty for more funding for Range projects. Layman is the third Pawlenty commissioner to have her confirmation threatened in recent days.Whenever you hear of a Pawlenty appointee being treated like that, you can bet that it's because Democrats want him to spend more money. Think in terms of a cash register sound. Think of your wallet feeling lighter. Think in terms of liberal spendaholics.
Layman, appointed in 2003, faced harsh criticism from Iron Range senators, who said they were frustrated by what they called her failure to advocate aggressively enough with Pawlenty for Iron Range issues at a critical time for the region, hard hit by downturns in the mining and timber industry.
In the past two weeks, the DFL-dominated Senate has signaled its intentions to question two other Pawlenty appointments: Public Safety Commissioner Michael Campion and Transportation Commissioner Carol Molnau, who also serves as lieutenant governor.These Democrats don't care what's been accomplished. Their only benchmark is a willingness to spend money. Sen. Clark told me last Saturday that they'd be scrutinizing Molnau. I didn't get the impression that it was purely about job performance, either. I got the impression that this Democratic Senate wants to 'mark off' their territory & establish themselves as the dominant force in St. Paul.
Before Wednesday's vote, Layman outlined some of what she said were the agency's accomplishments, including 4,500 jobs retained or gained in the last four years.
Posted Thursday, February 1, 2007 4:02 AM
Comment 1 by John Orlowski at 11-Feb-07 08:10 PM
So, are you saying that the totalitarian assholes who ran Congress for two years were fiscal moderates? What is practical about spending billions of dollars on a war which has obviously failed? Frivilous spending is undertaken by your party, sir, and personally your comments about the Democrats is giving off a partisan vibe, by the way.
Comment 2 by John Orlowski at 11-Feb-07 08:15 PM
The bloodshed that ensues in the halls of Congress is YOUR party's fault, not the Democrats. With having complete control of all three branches of government for two years, the recent complete conservative control killed bipartisanship. It wasn't one comment from a representative that killed it.
OBAMA 2008... VOTE FOR CHANGE!
Classic CAIR Doublespeak
CAIR is telling its members to support the Biden-Hagel resolution. After recommending support for Biden-Hagel, they add this:
CAIR noted that the non-binding resolution, introduced by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., stated that "greater regional and international support would assist the Iraqis in achieving a political solution and national reconciliation" and "the United States should transfer, under an appropriately expedited timeline, responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq to the government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces."This is classic CAIR doublespeak. CAIR wants the United States to turn control over to Iraqis "under an appropriately expedited timeline" but they make no stipulation that that should happen when Iraqis can defend themselves. It's worth asking if they don't care whether their Iraqi brethren can defend themselves? Or is it that they'd prefer seeing al Qaeda and Iran use the sectarian violence to take control of Iraq? They certainly know that Iran is behind the sectarian violence. Surely they know that al Qaeda is looking for a new training base after getting run out of Afghanistan in 2002 and Somalia a couple weeks ago.
CAIR also knows that most of the countries in the region don't want to see democracy flourish in Iraq because Iraq's democracy would endanger their kingdoms. Iran and Syria aren't interested in dealing with a democratic Iraq. Iran's students have protested against the mullahs' rule. These students want a democracy but the mullahs are vehemently opposed to it.
Furthermore, what other countries would assist Iraq? Would France? Or Spain? The facts speak for themselves. CAIR isn't an honest broker in all this. It's time we stopped treating them as such.
Posted Thursday, February 1, 2007 3:38 PM
No comments.
Arkin Inserts Other Foot in Mouth
William Arkin has posted a rebuttal to the people who took him to task for being an anti-American, military-hating SOB. His rebuttal seems to have caused him to caused him to take one foot out of his mouth and putting the other in instead. It also sounds awfully defensive. Let's start with his offensive post:
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?Arkin is full of it if he thinks that the soldiers that NBC interviewed told the rest of America to shut up. They simply said that they were sick and tired of hearing the Agenda Media say that they "support the troops but they don't support the mission." These soldiers simply said that they want people to support them and their mission.
Here's what Arkin said today:
I said I was bothered by the notion that "the troops" were somehow becoming hallowed beings above society, that they had an attitude that only they had the means, or the right, to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor.This is the best way of digging himself a new hole. By saying that he's bothered that the troops were becoming hallowed beings, he's sounding like they aren't heroes who should be put on a pedestal. I'd further suggest that Mr. Arkin isn't doing himself a favor by saying that these troops shouldn't be treated as experts on "the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor." Why shouldn't they be treated as experts since they're there, seeing things firsthand? Why shouldn't their opinions carry greater weight than an anti-military narcissist warming a chair in Washington, DC?
I understand people need to believe that the United States is engaged in a grand and noble mission to continue to support the deaths and sacrifices being made by American forces. Nonetheless, there is also an equally valid opinion that not only is the United States NOT involved in some fight for our lives in Iraq but that our military actions merely increases and complicates our insecurities tomorrow.
I'd like Mr. Arkin to tell us why he thinks that the Iraq war is making us less safe. I'd like him to explain why he thinks that the Iraq war making us less safe is "an equally valid opinion."
Just because a bunch of Democrats say that it's making us less safe doesn't make it fact.
Posted Thursday, February 1, 2007 6:35 PM
No comments.
Hatch Loses Again
This time, he lost when the Minnesota Supreme Court said "that it wouldn't hear a request from the attorney general's office to replace William Leary III as the Ramsey County District Court judge presiding over a debt-collection lawsuit." Here's the link to the AP article.
Leary said Hatch made improper and hostile contact with him on a pending case. Republicans used the public dispute to stoke the perception that Hatch was a bully.It isn't just perception that Hatch is a bully. It's reality. Republicans merely brought attention to that truth. Mike Hatch has had a history of blind political ambitions. He's shown that he doesn't care who he has to throw under the proverbial bus to advance his political goals. Remember that Hatch threw Judi Dutcher under the bus after her E-85 gaffe.
Here's what I wrote about Hatch's bullying this past August:
Here's what we know thus far:When Judge Leary produced proof that Hatch was lying, Hatch spun it this way:
- Ramsey County District Judge William Leary has accused Hatch, the DFL nominee for governor, of impropriety in suggesting during a call that a TV news crew was going to look into the judge's handling of the cases.
- In denying impropriety, Hatch last week said he never indicated to the judge that he had alerted the news media to the cases. Hatch said he believed it was proper to call the judge because one of the cases was in mediation, and he quickly ended the call after the judge told him that settlement talks were over.
- To bolster his argument that no improper conversations occurred, Hatch said that the call lasted only one minute, explaining, "You can't say much more in one minute." The attorney general released telephone billing records showing a one-minute call was placed at 4:21 p.m. on June 12 from a cell phone he uses.
- But Leary Tuesday produced his own records that showed his chambers received a seven-minute call that began at 4:22 on June 12 from another cell phone. Leary concluded it was the cell phone that Hatch used in their conversation, and the judge included its number in a legal document filed Tuesday.
"Whether it was seven or one, it doesn't matter as long as there was nothing improper said," Hatch said Tuesday.Mr. Hatch isn't trustworthy or liked. He's as close to a bitter partisan as there is. Minnesota's Republicans didn't have to "stoke the perception that Hatch" was a bully. All they had to do was release the information & let the facts speak for themselves.
Posted Thursday, February 1, 2007 7:35 PM
No comments.
