January 31, 2007
Jan 31 11:58 Blood on Their Hands? Jan 31 17:13 Dow Jumps On GDP Revision Jan 31 18:18 Fitzgerald's Witnesses for the Defense? Jan 31 19:06 Most Ethical Congress Ever? Jan 31 21:53 Clark Report Jan 31 23:29 Franken's Running
Prior Years: 2006
Blood on Their Hands?
Yesterday I wrote about the Constitutional showdown looming over the Iraq War. Now, I'd like to examine some other things that the NY Times article brings up. The most important thing to be examined is who's hands the blood would be on if Congress cut off funds for Iraq.
Prof. Robert Turner of the University of Virginia suggested that Congress had made itself responsible for the deaths of the 1.7 million Cambodians estimated to have been slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge, by denying funds for President Nixon to wage war inside Cambodia. Similarly, he said Congress bore responsibility for the deaths of 241 marines killed by a suicide bomber in Lebanon in 1983 because it raised the question of forcing a withdrawal there.The wisdom of the Founding Fathers is proven by their insisting that the Commander-in-Chief sets and executes war policy. A Democrat congress made the major mistake to cut off funding for the South Vietnamese and Cambodia, with 1.7 million Cambodians getting killed as a direct result. If this Democrat congress cuts off funding for Iraq, there will be a bloodbath both in Iraq and here.
When we left Vietnam, we were certain that the Soviets wouldn't follow us home. If we leave Iraq in defeat, the terrorists will know that they can wear down Democrats simply by surviving. They'll know that we are a paper tiger. When that becomes proven fact, they'll become emboldened just like when Clinton pulled the troops out of Mogadishu.
One common denominator in Beirut and Mogadishu is the loudest anti-war critic today: John Murtha. He talked Reagan out of Beirut and Clinton out of Somalia. Now he's trying to run President Bush out of Iraq. You'd think that he'd feel guilty about Beirut and Somalia but you'd be wrong:
MURTHA: But the thing that disturbs me and worries me about this whole thing, we can't get them to change direction. And I said over and over in debate, if you listen to any of it. In Beirut President Reagan changed direction, in Somalia, President Clinton changed direction, and yet here with the troops out there every day, suffering from these explosive devices, and looked at as occupiers. Eighty percent of the people want us out of there, and yet they continue to say we're fighting this thing.Simply put, John Murtha's hands are bloody. They're bloody because his foolish advice, especially about Somalia, led bin Laden to conclude that America is a paper tiger. Now he's working hard to prove bin Laden right.
There are a few senators who were around when Congress cut off funding for Vietnam, namely Kennedy and Byrd. I don't know if they voted for cutting off funding but I wouldn't be surprised. If they did, the blood of the Cambodians and Vietnamese is on their hands.
Other experts testifying at the hearing said that Congress had the power not only to declare war, but to make major strategic and policy decisions about its conduct. Louis Fisher, a specialist in constitutional law for the Library of Congress, said, "I don't know of any ground for a belief that the president has any more special expertise in whether to continue a war than do the members of Congress."It isn't a matter of expertise; it's a matter of whether the military can function with 436 commanders-in-chief. It clearly can't. That's why the Founding Fathers assigned the role of Commander-in-Chief to the executive branch.
He said that the title of "commander in chief" was meant by the framers to emphasize unity of command and civilian control over the military. "The same duty commanders have to the president, the president has to the elected representatives."The Constitution demands that there be checks and balances to everything. The checks and balances in this instance is the power of the purse and the power to declare war. While I'm certain that Sen. Feingold is serious about cutting off funding for the war, I suspect that he knows his own leadership won't agree with him. I'd be surprised if they cut funding off.
Then again, these are irrational Democrats we're talking about.
Posted Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:00 PM
Comment 1 by deminn at 31-Jan-07 12:41 PM
The constitution clearly is little more than an impediment to these people, something to be molded to their whims if necessarry to consult it at all.
A genuinely sad state of the state.
Dow Jumps On GDP Revision
GDP growth for the the 4th quarter of 2006 has been revised upward to 3.5 percent. The Dow was trading in the plus side before the Fed released its monthly report but it jumped on the Fed's assessment that the economy remains strong. Also factoring into the jump was the Fed not changing the Fed interest rate.
Stocks shot higher Wednesday, sending the Dow Jones industrials up by triple digits after the Federal Reserve answered two of Wall Street's major concerns, indicating that the economy remains healthy and that inflation pressures are easing. In midafternoon trading, the Dow was up 116.08, or 0.93 percent, at 12,639.39.I'm not an economist but I'd have to think that this likely means that tax receipts will continue pouring into state and federal coffers in healthy amounts. That should translate into a smaller federal budget deficit and larger state surpluses. The exceptions to the larger state surpluses would be Michigan and California, states that haven't heard of fiscal sanity. This article seems to support that opinion:
Budget estimates released Wednesday showed some improvement in the deficit but gave little solace to Democrats struggling to match President Bush's promise to balance the budget. The new forecast from the CBO put the deficit for the current budget year reaching about $200 billion after factoring in Iraq war costs. Last year's deficit was $248 billion. Both the White House and the top Democratic budget writers welcomed the improved outlook, but difficult disagreements remain over how to close the gap.If the economy keeps growing at this rate, we should a sizable reduction in the federal deficit for FY 2007. In fact, I'd say that a case can be made that the Bush economy is more impressive than the Clinton economy because the surpluses during Clinton's term happened while he ignored terrorism during a time of supposed peace. Bush's deficits are now dropping significantly while fighting a multi-faceted, multi-front war against the Islamofascists.
If the CBO is right, the deficit would drop by $50+ billion dollars this year. History tells us, though, that the CBO is almost always wrong. Expect further deficit projections to show even more reductions in the deficit. Don't be surprised if they revise the deficit downward another $25 billion.
The Fed, which issued its economic assessment as it decided to leave short-term interest rates unchanged at 5.25 percent, said recent indicators "suggested somewhat firmer economic growth" and tentative signs of stabilization in the housing market. Investors also appeared pleased by the central bank's comments that readings on core inflation have "improved modestly" in recent months.In other words, the Fed thinks that the Bush Recovery is on solid footings and should continue on its pace.
Posted Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:13 PM
No comments.
Fitzgerald's Witnesses for the Defense?
Thus far, all of the witnesses that I've read about have had memory problems of varying degrees. Patrick Fitzgerald saying that "it's implausible" that former Cheney Chief of Staff Scooter Libby would forget several conversations he had with officials about Plame is looking shaky at best. And that's with his witnesses testifying. If you were a moonbat who waited breathlessly for Fitzmas, you'd have to ask if Fitzgerald's trying to make the defense's case for them.
Former Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testified Wednesday that a key conversation with White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the CIA leak case was off the record, a description that appeared to be at odds with his written account of the interview.Why didn't Fitzgerald indict Cooper? After all, he indicted Libby because of conflicting statements. For that matter, why didn't Fitzgerald indict Armitage friend Marc Grossman? Grossman was the prosecution's first witness. Grossman testified that he told a different story in two FBI interviews. In those interviews, he described telephone conversations but no face-to-face meeting.
The first journalist to testify in the case, New York Times reporter Judith Miller, acknowledged Wednesday that she had conversations with other government officials and could not be "absolutely, absolutely certain" that she first heard about Plame from Libby.It'll be interesting to see if Judge Walton rules that the prosecution has met its burden so that the defense has to present a case. Regardless of that ruling, it's obvious that Fitzgerald's case is built on flimsy witnesses. I'm not surprised. I've never been impressed with Fitzgerald's prosecutorial, investigative or analytical abilities.
Miller is a crucial witness in the case. She says she had two conversations about Plame in mid-2003 with Libby, who was Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Those conversations are at the heart of the trial because they allegedly occurred well before Libby says he learned Plame's identity from another reporter.
Posted Wednesday, January 31, 2007 6:19 PM
No comments.
Most Ethical Congress Ever?
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has his doubts about that based on this post:
Remember the ethics and transparency issues? Oh, come on. You know -- they were going to be the most ethical and transparent Congress ever and they would get rid of earmarks, cure global warming, and re-solve the Pythagorean theorem in a more holistic, Montessori style approach -- all for the children. Remember?In other words, Democrats are all hat and no cattle to borrow a Texas cliche. The truth is that Democrats are addicted to earmarks. If you need any proof of that, look at West Virginia, where there are more public highways, buildings, etc., named after him that it feels like there's a state law saying you can't go more than a couple blocks without being reminded of Byrd's bringing home the bacon.
Well, sorry.
Today the House Democrats are pushing their omnibus appropriations continuing resolution and spending more than Republicans ever dreamt of spending. Oh, and with a 137 page bill that only came out yesterday in an unsearchable PDF format, the Dems only want 1 hour of debate in the House (just remember last week they did the same thing and were forced to write amendments on paper napkins on the House floor).
Here's the curious part. The Senate requested, and the House agreed, to not really touch the Department of Energy's budget. Why? There aren't any major new energy initiatives needing funding. Well, if we dig into this continuing resolution that the Democrats are trying to push through in a hurry we might just find the answer, which might just go something like this (stay with me on this):
The Senate wanted the Department of Energy largely protected in the bill. After that was done, the Department of Energy said it would fund a bunch of earmarks with the money.
Want to wager on which state a lot of those earmarks are allocated to? Take a gamble? How about Nevada? You know, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's home state. Why, what do you know. There are tens of millions of dollars worth of earmarks designated for various institutions and universities in Nevada.
That's why red flags went up when Byrd came out in favor of earmark reform. Byrd's the poster child for earmark addiction. He's been literally addicted to them for decades. You don't change overnight after an addiction like that.
Democrats tidying up a cluster of unfinished spending bills dumped on them by departing Republican leaders in Congress will start by removing billions of dollars in lawmakers' pet projects next month.When I read that the first time, I wondered if anyone had been injured by Byrd's and Obey's rapidly expanding noses. Pelosi, Reid, Obey and Byrd wouldn't be fiscally restrained if their lives depended on it. Don't expect to find that out from the Agenda Media, though. They aren't reporters anymore. They're propagandists. It's just that simple. Democrats lie and the Agenda Media turns a blind eye.
The move, orchestrated by the incoming chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees, could prove politically savvy even as it proves unpopular with other members of Congress, who as a group will lose thousands of so-called earmarks.
"There will be no congressional earmarks," Rep. David Obey, (D-WI), and Sen. Robert Byrd, (D-WVA), said Monday in a statement announcing their plans, which were quickly endorsed by incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-NV).
This Congress doesn't have a long ways to go to become the most ethical Congress in history. In fact, it's already impossible for them to be the most ethical Congress in history.
Posted Wednesday, January 31, 2007 7:08 PM
No comments.
Clark Report
I just got this week's e-letter from Tarryl Clark, my state senator. Here's a section of the report that jumped out at me:
Senate passes bill to return honesty into budget forecast processI decided to check into the Wilder Foundation to see if it had a political leaning. Here's what they say about their mission:
Inflation has not been included in budget forecasts for expenditures since 2002, when the Legislature passed a bill banning its inclusion. The Governor's budget creates the misimpression that the state is swimming in surplus dollars. Many economists have questioned the exclusion of inflation in Minnesota's budget forecasts.
Paul Anton, a member of Minnesota's Council of Economic Advisers and the chief economist for the research unit of St. Paul's Wilder Foundation, testified before the Senate Finance Committee that he believed that if the Legislature did not pass this bill legislators would be "making a conscious and deliberate choice to mislead the public about the true financial condition of the State of Minnesota."
If approved by the Governor, the new law could be put into place in time for the February Forecast next month.
To promote the social welfare of persons resident or located in the greater Saint Paul metropolitan area by all appropriate means, including:In other words, they sound like a left-leaning organization. There's nothing illegal or sinister about that but I think it's worth noting if we're going to understand which groups are testifying in committee hearings. Knowing that Mr. Anton holds a liberal perspective tells me to view his testimony in light of his desire for more social spending.and in general the conservation of human resources by the provision of human services responsive to the welfare needs of the community, all without regard to, or discrimination on account of, nationality, sex, color, religious scruples or prejudices.
- relief of the poor
- care of the sick and aged
- care and nurture of children
- aid of the disadvantaged and otherwise needy
- promotion of physical and mental health
- support of rehabilitation and corrections
- provision of needed housing and social services
- operation of residences and facilities for the aged, the infirm and those requiring special care
The truth is that Democrats are trying to sell Minnesotans that the surplus isn't nearly as big as it was reported. That's their right but I don't think it'll fly. Here's what King said about the current system:
The bill should be rejected -- the current system actually works quite well, protecting almost all of government spending while allowing gradual adjustment of the budget to shifting priorities.That's close enough for me. Common sense tells you that we should have a substantial surplus because we're in the midst of a longlasting recovery. Unemployment is low, too, which can't help but add to Minnesota's financial health. The truth is that Democrats want to get this passed and signed into law so that their tax increases don't look laughable.
One thing that's definitely missing from the DFL's agenda is cutting out wasteful spending. Nothing I've seen indicates that Democrats are looking for wasteful spending. Likewise, I've seen nothing that indicates that Democrats are thinking in terms of saying no to anything on the transportation or education wish list. It's fair to say that they're taking an attitude that whatever is on their list is what they'll get.
It's my opinion that Democrats have a long ways to go to live up to Margaret Anderson-Kelliher's claim of being a fiscally moderate bunch.
Originally posted Wednesday, January 31, 2007, revised 03-Feb 5:40 PM
No comments.
Franken's Running
By now, that's the worst kept secret in Minnesota political history. Still, I loved reading the Strib's article, which can be termed a semi-official announcement.
Comedian and radio talk show host Al Franken has begun calling Democratic members of Congress and prominent DFLers to tell them he will definitely challenge Republican Sen. Norm Coleman in 2008, the Star Tribune learned Wednesday.It's difficult not to call Franken the frontrunner at this point. He's got instant name recognition & lots of campaign cash. He doesn't have a message other than "I hate Bush; I hate Republicans" but then again, neither does any other Democrat these days. One thing that MOBsters will be watching is Franken's temper.
On Monday, Franken announced that he is quitting his radio show on Feb. 14, and he told his audience that they'd be the first to know of his decision. But Franken has been working the phones, telling his political friends he's ready to declare his candidacy.
Franken made calls to at least two members of the Minnesota congressional delegation in Washington and one member of the Legislature to break the news. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity, not wanting to be identified as pre-empting Franken's announcement.
He lost it bigtime at the 2004 Republican National Convention, picking a fight with Laura Ingraham's producer (shown here):
He even lost his temper with Michael Medved, who is about as mild-mannered a person as you'll ever meet. I'll guarantee that that temper won't play well in Minnesota where the name of the game has an official name: Minnesota Nice.
This should be one of the most publicized races in the country, though I agree with
Captain Ed's statement:
The DFL will run a hard-left Franken against the centrist Coleman, and the sources of his contributions will reinforce his extremist tendencies in a state that dislikes lock-step thinkers.Let's hope that Franken is still as shrill then as he was during his time with Air America. That won't play well. All the proof you need is how repulsed Minnesotans were with the Wellstone memorial. That's the only time that Walter Mondale lost a Minnesota election.
Posted Wednesday, January 31, 2007 11:29 PM
Comment 1 by Andrew at 02-Feb-07 09:36 PM
I know what a far right republican looks like...but a hard-left Liberal??? What is that? Seriously, what exactly is a hard left liberal?
