February 18-19, 2007
Feb 18 02:55 What's Good For the Goose... Feb 18 08:55 Spinning Pelosi's 'Victory' Feb 18 10:27 Tarryl's 'Coming Out Party' Feb 18 11:40 The Soldier's Best Friend Feb 18 13:28 When "Supporting the Troops" Isn't Enough Feb 19 16:31 When Harry Met Wolf
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006
What's Good For the Goose...
Victoria Toensing has written an op-ed in the Washington Post asking why Scooter Libby is the only person standing trial. She makes a persuasive case.
If we accept Fitzgerald's low threshold for bringing a criminal case, then why stop at Libby? This investigation has enough questionable motives and shadowy half-truths and flawed recollections to fill a court docket for months. So here are my own personal bills of indictment:As I've said before, Fitzgerald knew that Richard Armitage leaked Plame's name long before he convened a grand jury. To try a man for perjury, much less convicting him, is immoral. Especially when the grand jury where he's accused of lying shouldn't have been convened in the first place.
* * *
THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES PATRICK J. FITZERALD with ignoring the fact that there was no basis for a criminal investigation from the day he was appointed, with handling some witnesses with kid gloves and banging on others with a mallet , with engaging in past contretemps with certain individuals that might have influenced his pursuit of their liberty, and with misleading the public in a news conference because...well, just because. To wit:
On Dec. 30, 2003, the day Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel, he should have known (all he had to do was ask the CIA) that Plame was not covert, knowledge that should have stopped the investigation right there. The law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent's identity requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure, that the government be taking affirmative steps to conceal the government relationship, and for the discloser to have actual knowledge of the covert status.
I've said many times that the easiest way to tell if Joe Wilson is lying is if his lips are moving. Mr. Wilson is as big an exaggerator as John Murtha. Both hate a sitting American president because they're elitist megalomaniacs who care more about the spotlight and power than they love their country.THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES JOSEPH C. WILSON IV with misleading the public about how he was sent to Niger, about the thrust of his March 2003 oral report of that trip, and about his wife's CIA status, perhaps for the purpose of getting book and movie contracts.
On July 6, 2003, Wilson appeared on "Meet the Press" hours after the New York Times published his op-ed "What I Didn't Find in Africa," which accused the administration of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the Iraq threat. The piece suggested that Wilson had been sent to Niger at the vice president's request to look into foreign intelligence reports of Iraqi efforts to obtain yellowcake uranium. Wilson told Andrea Mitchell, "The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip there." But Cheney said he had no knowledge of Wilson's trip and was never briefed on his oral report to the CIA.
Wilson has claimed repeatedly, including on MSNBC's "Countdown" on July 22, 2005 and at the National Press Club on Oct. 31, 2005, that he was sent to Niger because of his "specific skill set" and not because of his wife. But Senate intelligence committee documents indicate that Plame suggested his name for the trip, as did a State Department report and a CIA official who briefed the vice president's office.
Make sure to read Ms. Toensing's entire op-ed.
Posted Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:56 AM
No comments.
Spinning Pelosi's 'Victory'
Yesterday, I was sent a link to this SF Chronicle article. I would've written about it then but there was so much spin to it that I got a headache from it. Here's an example of that spin:
The number of House Republicans who voted for the resolution, 17, was smaller than some had predicted. Nonetheless, it was Congress' first condemnation of Bush since the war began and another triumph for Pelosi in her second month as speaker after the swift passage of the Democrats "100-hour" domestic agenda in January.Talk about charitable spin. Almost every Agenda Media account figured 30-40 Republican defections. Seventeen isn't smaller than some expected. It was dramatically smaller than most expected.
Secondly, this is hardly a win for Pelosi. The truth is that this galvanized GOP activists to the point that NZ Bear created Victory Caucus website. It's also a defeat for Pelosi because only 17 WFR's joined Defeatist Democrats, leaving Democrats extremely vulnerable of the charges of being anti-victory and anti-military.
Another thing that this 'debate' did was it exposed John Murtha as a defeatist pawn of the most radical anti-war organizations in Washington. Even the Washington Post criticized him in this editorial:
In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill, an action Congress is clearly empowered to take, rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.Don't look now but I think that Mr. Murtha just gave GOP strategists everything they need in making their charges stick. It won't be difficult to "find fault with" what they're attempting to do. It'll be easier than talking an erstwhile hawk into authoring another earmark for his district. If you're thinking that that's their harshest criticism for Murtha, you're wrong:
Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?I'd hardly call this a victory for Pelosi when the Washington Post tells the world that Murtha is ignorant about conditions in Iraq. This isn't good for her because she's propped him up as the Democrats' expert on Iraq. It isn't good because the Washington Post cites specific examples of Murtha's ignorance of some of the most basic facts about Iraq.
The near unanimity of Democrats, just two of 233 voted against the resolution, and the willingness of 17 Republicans to vote for the resolution encouraged many war critics that changes in Bush's war policy are inevitable.This movement is the political equivalent of a dead man walking. They think they're winning but they've sustained a mortal wound. The truth is that they've overplayed their hand again. They were so full of fire and brimstone that they thought the American voter was defeatist like they were. People were upset with the war because they expected victory.
Originally the strategy had been to allow the Senate to build a broad bipartisan consensus for a resolution opposing the president's decision to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and let the momentum sweep through the House for a large bipartisan victory. But Senate Republicans used procedural measures to prevent the resolution from coming to a vote. Ironically, Senate Democrats now will try to ride the momentum of the House victory to push a vote through their chamber today, a prospect that appears unlikely to succeed.Enough Senate Republicans voted against cloture yesterday to kill what little momentum of Friday's 'victory' was left. Putting it mildly, that 'momentum' died a painful, agonizing death in plain sight. Another thing that this did was expose all of the so-called 'freshman hawks' as being defeatists. That won't play well in North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Florida and Texas. I'll guarantee that it won't play well in MN-1 where Friday's vote will be seen as the unofficial end of Tim Walz's congressional career.
To summarize, here's what happened as a result of this resolution debate: Pelosi's Democrats have exposed themselves as defeatists; they've overplayed their hand; the 'hawkish' freshman class was exposed as a fraud and the Washington Post ripped Pelosi's closest Iraq ally as being a doddering old fool who's ignorant of what's happening in Iraq.
If this is what constitutes a win for Ms. Pelosi, then I'm all for her stringing more 'victories' like this together. If that happens, she'll soon be Minority Leader Pelosi again.
Posted Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:11 AM
No comments.
Tarryl's 'Coming Out Party'
That's what this Lori Sturdevant puff piece amounts to. Check out this section of Ms. Sturdevant's column:
At her first solo news conference a few months ago as the new DFL Senate assistant majority leader and chief talking head, Sen. Tarryl Clark fielded an impertinent but obvious question:Having met Tarryl, I agree that she is the exception to the rule for freshmen. She is a gifted politician. That said, Sturdevant's column doesn't talk about why she's in the Democratic leadership. Here's why:
"Where's the majority leader?"
The journalists' skepticism about Clark's utility to them was understandable. She was a one-term, no, make that one-year, veteran of the Senate, having first won her St. Cloud seat in a December 2005 special election. The Senate is an institution that prizes seniority. Even the brightest freshmen are usually instructed to keep their mouths shut and wait their turn.
Larry Pogemiller is a PR disaster waiting to happen. He's abrasive & pugnacious. Putting Tarryl in front of the cameras is smart just on that basis alone. Secondly, this is the Democrats' thinly veiled attempt to elevate Tarryl so she can run against the DFL's Public Enemy #1, Michele Bachmann.
If the Legislature's DFL agenda is going to get a friendly reception outstate, it needs to have something other than a Minneapolis postmark.Let's cut to the chase on the DFL's agenda. It won't have a "friendly reception outstate" because they're telling people that the $2.2 billion surplus doesn't exist. It won't have a "friendly reception outstate" because they're telling people that they aren't taxed enough, having submitted 6 tax increases the first week in session. It won't have a "friendly reception outstate" because they're introducing so many silly pieces of legislation that King and Michael are doing entire shows on the subject.
In other words, they can put Tarryl in front of the reporters all you want but their agenda won't fly because it isn't an appealing agenda.
Clark knows what it takes for DFLers to win in swing districts, something Pogemiller has never personally experienced. She lost twice before winning her seat in 2005. She was among the swing-seat senators in 2006 who persuaded Pogemiller to shrink the tax increase in a bill that he, as tax committee chair, wanted to take into conference committee.There's the DFL's weakness in full sight. The budget surplus had been projected at $2.2 billion and Larry Pogemiller is thinking massive tax increases. Tarryl is also exposed as a liberal because she favored a smaller tax increase. As I said here, she's tipped her hand:
After the meeting, Sen. Clark stopped to talk with Leo & I. I asked Sen. Clark if adopting a zero-based budget was a possibility. Sen. Clark said that that's something they were looking into and that it might happen for the '08 legislative session but that there wasn't enough time to adopt it for the '07 session. Not willing to let it go at that, I asked if they would at least schedule oversight hearing that would identify the wasteful spending that's already there. I was assured that they would be holding vigorous oversight hearings. (I phrased the question specifically to establish the fact that waste existed & that it was just a matter of determining how big the amount was.)When the next forecast comes out at the end of this month, the surplus will be substantially bigger than originally projected. Minnesota's unemployment rate is microscopic compared to the national unemployment rate, meaning that revenues are streaming into the state's coffers in substantial amounts.
Pressing forward, I then asked Sen. Clark why six tax increase bills were introduced the first week. She said that "there were really only 2 tax bills, one to lower property taxes, the other to raise them." She assured us that the other bills weren't going anywhere and that they "were introduced by individuals" legislators and "weren't part of the leadership's agenda."
Let's consider the fact that one of those proposals is a constitutional amendment to raise the Minnesota sales tax 3/8ths of a cent. That type of legislation isn't something that just happens. That's something that is carefully planned.
That won't impede the Democrats from attempting to make the case that the surplus is imaginary. Their goal is to sell voters that tax increases are needed. What they don't want people to notice is that they've got a list of spending increases that will infuriate Minnesota's taxpayers.
Not even Ms. Clark's substantial communications skills will be able to hide that agenda.
Posted Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:27 AM
Comment 1 by Eva Young at 18-Feb-07 11:33 PM
I've also been hearing Clark's name as a Senate candidate.
The Soldier's Best Friend
I can think of no higher praise for Representative Sam Johnson after Friday night's speech. If you haven't seen his speech, don't miss this opportunity:
As I wrote here,
Rep. Johnson, America salutes you for your heroism, courage and steadfastness in the face of such extreme adversity.The differences between Democrats and Republicans is as stark as the difference between Sam Johnson, a true soldier's hero, and John Murtha, the anti-war, defeatist Left's best friend.
While Sam Johnson spoke eloquently on the House floor, John Murtha told his defeatist allies that he planned on cutting off funding for the war while tying the President's hands, then disavowing any responsibility for causing the American defeat in Iraq.
I ask every American to take this weekend's images to heart and ask yourself this question:
Do you want to live in a nation ruled by defeatists or would you rather live in a nation ruled by a serious-minded majority that thinks that freedom is the best gift we can give the world?
The answer to that question is extremely simple for me. Any nation that doesn't hold freedom as precious isn't a nation that I'd hold in high regard.
If you share my opinion of liberty, then it's vital that you visit, and join, the Victory Caucus. It's time for your voice to be heard. It's time for you to make an impact for our nation and our security.
Posted Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:42 AM
No comments.
When "Supporting the Troops" Isn't Enough
If political junkies had a dollar for every time a Democrat legislator or pundit announced that they support the troops, we'd all be wealthy. Following Friday's vote in the House and Saturday's Senate filibuster, the time has come to ask if the American people are satisfied with politicians expressing their "supporting the troops" while they think of ways to undercut the troops' mission.
I suspect that the American people realize that Defeatocrats like John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton offer only lip service to the troops. I suspect that the American people know that there's only one political party that takes its national security responsibilities seriously. Yes, they know that Republicans haven't flawlessly prosecuted the War in Iraq but they also know that they're the only ones who've committed to victory in Iraq. They know that they're the only once who are committed to defeating the jihadists wherever they are.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry's response to homeland security questions was to talk about funding additional first responders to cities' payrolls. Kerry was essentially saying that he wouldn't try to prevent terrorist attacks but that he'd have lots more people cleaning up after terrorist attacks.
Following the 2006 GOP midterm disaster, Democrats took their regained majority to mean that they could push their anti-victory agenda. For awhile, it looked like they would garner massive GOP support for both the House and Senate resolutions. This weekend, that mirage vanished into thin air. House experts were predicting 30-40 Republican defections, possibly even 50. After people stopped wiping their eyes after Sam Johnson's dramatic speech, after the dust had settled and the votes were counted, 17 House Republicans had defected to the Defeatocrat side.
Earlier that week, Harry Reid was counting on a massive GOP desertion in the House to give him the momentum he needed to get a vote on the House's defeatist resolution. Everything you need to know about what a flop the House vote was can be seen by the Democrats' inability to invoke cloture.
If Democrats keep pushing their defeatist foreign policies, it's likely that they will be defeated in 2008. We can only hope.
Posted Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:29 PM
Comment 1 by elisa at 18-Feb-07 10:46 PM
Only a little OT, and well worth the read:
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 2007 By Gen LaGreca
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 2007 By Gen LaGreca
Here is a bucket of pearls. Please overlook the fact that the author asks your help in casting them before a herd of swine. They are pearls nonetheless.-GR.
With a new Congress convening, it's time to recall the ideals of America as expressed by Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence. The following is a new version of the Declaration, updated to reflect the current usurpations and threats we face. It is an urgent call for our newly elected representatives to fulfill the promise of America envisioned by our Founders and for We, The People, to insist that they do.
When in the course of human events, a people find it necessary to rid themselves of a government that has abandoned the sound principles upon which it was founded and that increasingly threatens their lives and liberties, reason requires them to declare the causes of their discontent.
When Harry Met Wolf
Yesterday, Harry Reid was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer for CNN's Late Edition. You wouldn't be wrong if you said that Harry told a few whoppers during the interview:
BLITZER: But you didn't get that resolution formally to be passed as a sense of the Senate resolution, which according to your critics seriously raises questions. Let me read to you from what The New York Times wrote in an editorial the other day.I've said before, Reid's not about to let the Gregg Resolution come to a vote because it would get more votes than the Democrats' Resolution would get, which would be a huge embarrassment for Democrats. Gregg's Resolution would prohibit the Senate from defunding the troops.
They said: "The right way for the Senate to debate Iraq is to debate Iraq, not to bar proposals from the floor because they might be passed. By changing the issue from Iraq to partisan parliamentary tactics, Reid's leadership team threatens to muddy the message of any anti-escalation resolution the Senate may eventually pass."
Why not let the Republican resolutions, the alternative resolutions, come up for a vote as well? The Republicans say if you do that, they won't try to impose the filibuster rule.
REID: Wolf, the Republicans, at least the Republicans minus seven, did everything they could to delay, to divert attention from the issue before the American people. The issue before the American people is whether or not the surge in Iraq is something the American people want.
The answer is "no." It's no in the House, it's no in the Senate. And all the procedural harangue that went on was an effort to avoid this vote. Now, the Republican seven courageous senators who voted with us, we have a bipartisan recognition that the president's plan in Iraq is absolutely wrong.
BLITZER: So, but I'm still, maybe I'm confused, but what about Senator Judd Gregg's resolution? Because the Republicans maintain that was what they wanted. They would have stopped their own roadblocks, their own obstacles, if you had let that resolution come up for debate and a vote.Reid clearly wants to limit 'debate', which is a disgrace to the Senate's rich history. Reid's goal is to limit debate in an attempt to score political points, which will eventually backfire on the Democrats. Americans disagree with the President's surge plan but they want the Senate debating this issue in a fair, unlimited manner. They want the facts to come out. They want spirited, yet dignified debate, something that's in extremely short supply these days.
REID: That amendment had nothing to do with the surge. It's whether we supported the troops. Reading the resolution, we support the troops. All they wanted is an effort to not have to vote, not to embarrass the president on whether or not the American people support sending 48,000 troops, whether the United States Senate supports sending 48,000 new troops to Iraq. The answer is "no."
They did everything they could to impede a direct vote on that. But the Senate spoke today clearly, along with the House yesterday.
REID: Wolf, you editorialized it a little. That is not what the National Intelligence Estimate says. What it says is that rapid withdrawal would cause problems. Of course it would. But there isn't a Democrat calling for a rapid withdrawal. We're calling for redeployment. Does that mean move all the troops out? Of course it doesn't. It means that they would have a role that would be changed to train the forces there, to counterterrorism, I'm sorry. It's not a rapid withdrawal. It's a redeployment along with, if you're talking about where we need a surge, we need a surge not in the number of troops going to Iraq, but in diplomacy. That's where the real surge should take place.It's safe to say that Harry Reid is one of the most dimwitted Senate leaders in modern history. For him to say that Iraq is the worst foreign policy blunder in American history is hyperbole of epic, Gore-like proportions.
BLITZER: Some Democrats, like John Murtha in the House of Representatives, they want a pretty speedy, you can call it redeployment or a withdrawal. But they want to move relatively quickly to get those troops out, especially the combat troops.
REID: Is that a question, Wolf?
BLITZER: Well, if you wanted to respond to that, you could.
REID: Yes, I would say I'm not familiar with what Congressman Murtha wants. You know, I have 99 senators here to worry about what they want to do. But any proposal, I think, offered by any member of Congress, I think we should look at it very seriously. This war is a serious situation. It involves the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country. So, we should take everything serious. We find ourselves in a very deep hole. We need to find a way to dig out of it.
BLITZER: So, maybe I misheard you, but you're saying this is the worst foreign policy blunder in American history?
REID: That's what I said.
BLITZER: Worse than Vietnam?
REID: Yes.
Reid's rating Iraq ahead of Vietnam is understandable considering their current rant but rating it ahead of the Iran Hostage Crisis is unforgivable.
Posted Monday, February 19, 2007 4:37 PM
No comments.
