June 16-17, 2008
Jun 16 03:00 Gas Price Moderation Coming Soon? Jun 16 09:03 Another Haditha Marrine Cleared? Jun 16 22:15 Astonishing Jun 17 01:05 Tinklenberg Vetoed Fixing I-35 Bridge? Jun 17 10:54 Listening Week: Day 1 Interview Jun 17 12:44 The Right Direction Jun 17 13:19 BREAKING NEWS: **Chessani Charges Dropped**
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Gas Price Moderation Coming Soon?
I'm not predicting a big cost crash on oil but I'm betting we'll see lower gas prices within the next month. I'm basing my opinion at least in part on this article . Here's what stood out for me:
Saudi Arabia will raise oil production to record levels within weeks in an attempt to avert an escalation of social and political unrest around the world. King Abdullah signalled the commitment to the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, at the weekend after the impact of skyrocketing oil prices on food sparked protests and riots from Spain to South Korea.Increasing production surely will lower prices, though it's still unknown by how much. What's influencing my opinion more is this statement:
Next month, the Saudis will be pumping an extra half-a-million barrels of oil a day compared to last month, bringing total Saudi production to 9.7 million barrels a day, their highest ever level. But the world's biggest oil exporters are coupling the increase with an appeal to western Europe to cut fuel taxes to lower the price of petrol to consumers.
Saudi Arabia, which has called an emergency meeting of oil producers and consumers in the port city Jeddah next Sunday, says the energy crisis has not been caused purely by market pressures but by a speculative bubble. Saudi Arabia and Opec believe there are no shortages to justify the sudden surge in prices.TRANSLATION: Oil prices should be high because of the high demand and and inadequate supply but prices shouldn't be this high.
It's obvious that the Saudis think that prices are unjustifiably inflated because of speculators trying to make a fast dollar. If I adapted Alan Greenspan's "irrational exhuberance" cliche to today's gas situation, Greenspan's statement would likely include the phrase "irrational pessimism."
For the record, Byron Dorgan, appearing on an energy roundtable on FNS, repeated the Democrats' mantra that "you can't just drill your way out of this crisis." That means that the Democrats' presidential candidate , a Democratic senator and the Democratic Speaker have all declared that we can't drill our way out of these high prices.
I pray that they'll keep repeating that mantra. If they do, the momentum in this election will swing. If Democrats keep repeating that mantra, I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans don't lose seats in the House while keeping the losses to a minimum in the Senate.
Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 3:01 AM
Comment 1 by skep41 at 16-Jun-08 09:25 AM
"I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans don't lose seats in the House while keeping the losses to a minimum in the Senate."
Or even GAIN in the Senate and House if they are aggressive enough. They should be on the air nationally and NOW saying, "We are the party of drilling and nuclear power."
Comment 2 by Marie Devine at 16-Jun-08 09:00 PM
It was a logical decision to increase production due to facts:
There is not enough oil to continue world wide business; and if there were, it would pollute our air, water, land, food, and bodies and destroy us as God said. There is no alternative fuel that can be sufficient enough to keep us from destroying ourselves. Alternative fuels are turning food into fuel and causing a food crisis. Multitudes are going out of business or employment because of world problems we created by ignoring God's wisdom. The only fair and effective solution is to turn from employment to a retirement lifestyle and start creating our garden paradise with food producing vegetation and animals. That will be truly sustainable development. God promises rain in due season to the obedient. Leviticus 26.
Since the use of oil will fall dramatically, it is wise to produce more now and sell it at record prices because there will be a small market after a few years.
God has solutions to world problems we created by ignoring His wisdom. God can still raise up a candidate for president who will bring real change we can count on... the Divine-Way.
Another Haditha Marrine Cleared?
Based on this article , it appears that charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani might get dropped on the grounds that there was undue command influence applied to his case. Here's what WND is reporting:
Officials with the law center today said Col. Steven Folson, the military judge assigned to the case, "informed counsel that the hearing in the Chessani case, originally scheduled for three days, June 16-18, has been changed to only one hour on Tuesday, June 17, 2008, at 9 a.m. PST.Officially, Lt. Col. Chessani has been charged with dereliction of duty. The accusation made against him was that he didn't properly investigate the firefight at Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005. The fact that the hearing was changed from 3 days to 1 hour says everything. The defense has made lots of motions, which is why they initially scheduled 3 days to get through the hearing. Here's the part that is most telling:
"Col. Folsom indicated that the only business he will address is his ruling on the defense motion to dismiss Lt. Col. Jeffery Chessani's case because of unlawful command influence," the law center said.
Folsom only recently ruled that there was evidence in the Chessani case of unlawful command influence , which is considered the "mortal enemy" of justice within the military judicial structure.If there is proof that Col. Ewers sat in "on 25 closed-session meetings", then the prosecution has a big problem.
The judge's conclusion was based on evidence two generals who controlled Chessani's case were influenced by Marine lawyer Col. John Ewers , one of the investigators assigned to the case. Ewers was allowed to attend at least 25 closed-session meetings in which Chessani's case was discussed.
The Thomas More Law Center said the officers involved in the firefight handled its aftermath according to military protocol.The notion that Lt. Col. Chessani didn't do his duty is absurd. Here's what Newsmax reported in June, 2007:
"Even though Lt. Col. Chessani promptly reported the events of that day to his superiors, including the deaths of 15 noncombatant civilians caught in the battle, nobody in Lt. Col. Chessani's chain of command believed there was any wrongdoing on behalf of the Marines," the law firm said.
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!It's absurd that Col. Chessani could be charged with dereliction of duty when a detailed powerpoint presentation was prepared and forwarded up the chain of command.
It told the full story, was supported by photographic evidence, logs of all the day's radio transmissions, and included an almost minute-by-minute narrative of the day's events.
The eight hours of testimony and cross examination offered by Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore, the S2 officer, gave full details of the intelligence passed on to the officers and men of the 3rd Battalion 1St Marine Regiment including the Marines of Kilo Company. It buttressed previous briefings which alerted the Marines of insurgent tactics such as the killing of seven reconnaissance Marines who were ambushed by insurgents in hospital beds with AK-47s hidden under the bedcovers.
The question I've longed to ask the investigators is this: How can Lt. Col. Chessani be derelict in his duties to investigate the firefight in Haditha when a detailed Powerpoint presentation was forwarded up the chain of command?
Let's remember that the charges weren't dropped against Lt. Col. Chessani after then-Capt. Dinsmore's testimony on the matter. In fact, Dinsmore's testimony was classified. It isn't a stretch to suggest that this was done in an attempt to hide this from Chessani's defense team.
According to Capt. Dinsmore's telephone testimony, given from his post in Iraq for the Article 32 hearing for Capt. Stone, intelligence showed that four of the men in the cab were among the eight identified insurgents killed that day.The fact that then-Capt. Dinsmore gave this testimony shortly after the firefight says that prosecutors and investigators knew that they were dealing with detail-oriented officers who documented the firefight. That would suggest that they weren't derelict in reporting this up the chain of command.
It also suggests that the powers-that-be had predetermined that someone had to pay a price even though these Marines followed the ROE to a T. These Marines didn't "crack under pressure", as Rep. John Murtha accused. Quite the contrary. They followed their battle plan. They noted the white vehicle that Capt. Dinsmore briefed them about. Indeed, they killed the insurgents in that car. Of the 24 'civilian' fatalities, eight were identified as insurgents.
What's most reprehensible is the fact that the Agenda Media treated Rep. Murtha's version of events like they were words written on stone tablets and brought down from Sinai itself. There is one noteable exception to that: ABCNews' Charlie Gibson. Here's an exchange between Gibson and Rep. Murtha :
GIBSON: Jonathan just mentioned, there's no charges yet filed against any of the Marines that were in this outfit, but Jonathan mentioned a moment ago, defense lawyers are already saying , well, there's drone video and there is actual radio traffic to higher-ups that will give a different picture than you have been talking about of this incident . What do you know about that?It's worth noting that Gen. Michael Hagee didn't brief Rep. Murtha until a week after Rep. Murtha made his accusations on national TV. That isn't speculation; the Marine Corps issued a statement correcting Rep. Murtha's account.
MURTHA: I can only tell you this, Charles. This is what the Marine Corps told me at the highest level. The Commandant of the Marine Corps was in my office just last week, so you know, I know there was a cover-up someplace. They knew about this a few days afterwards and there's no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story. I can understand why, but that doesn't excuse it. Something like this has to be brought out to the public, and the people have to be punished.
I'd call this
Frankly, this has been a disgrace to the military because they attempted to railroad eight American heroes into the brig for purely political purposes. That will be apparent when the dust settles by this summer's end. That's when citizen journalists will hold the political class accountable for their actions.
That can't happen soon enough.
UPDATE: Welcome Michelle Malkin & Gateway Pundit readers. I've said before that the minute Chessani's case gets dropped, the charges against SSgt. Wuterich will be dropped shortly thereafter. The last thing they want is to have that exoneration happen in late Septetmber or early October.
Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 9:47 PM
Comment 1 by dking at 16-Jun-08 09:31 PM
So what does this mean for Frank when 4 out of the 5 in the cab turn out to be insurgents?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 16-Jun-08 09:40 PM
It's good news. SSgt. Wuterich acted according to the ROE. It's difficult, if not impossible, to argue against a man who followed instructions.
Astonishing
There's only one word that perfectly describes the SurveyUSA-KSTP poll of the Coleman-Franken race . That word is astonishing. Here's the first poll question and the results:
Minnesota will elect a United States Senator in November 2008. If the election for United States Senator were today, and the only two candidates on the ballot were Republican Norm Coleman and DFL candidate Al Franken, who would you vote for?That isn't the astonishing part. This is:
Coleman 52%
Franken 40%
Undecided 8%
What if the only two candidates on the ballot for United States Senator were Republican Norm Coleman and DFL candidate Mike Ciresi ?Regardless of the matchup, Sen. Coleman holds a double digit advantage. What that tells me is that Mike Ciresi doesn't have a reason to jump in. It also tells me that Jesse won't jump in either. Jesse's a narcissist. His ego couldn't handle defeat, which is where he'd be headed if he got in. When he defeated Skip Humphrey and then-mayor Coleman in 1998 for the governorship, Sen. Coleman didn't have the list of accomplishments that he has now. Also, people didn't know how erratic Jesse was. Now they do.
Coleman 50%
Ciresi 40%
Undecided 10%
Now, what if there were three candidates on the ballot: Republican Norm Coleman, DFL candidate Al Franken, and Independent candidate Jesse Ventura?
Coleman 41%
Franken 31%
Ventura 23%
According to the polling, Mike Ciresi has nothing to gain by mounting a primary challenge to Franken. While a number of bloggers would like seeing him jump in, other activists wouldn't appreciate his ignoring their endorsement. Ciresi stands to gain little in terms of political capitol. If he jumps in, he's sure to lose. Why would Ciresi want to jump in and fight an uphill battle just to win the primary, then face another uphill fight to defeat a popular incumbent.
Tonight, the Coleman campaign released this statement on the SurveyUSA-KSTP poll:
"This poll clearly shows that Minnesotans are connecting with Senator Coleman's positive message of bringing people together to get things done," said campaign manager Cullen Sheehan. "It also shows that Minnesotans have taken a good, hard look at Al Franken's record, and they believe his qualifications as a comedian who thinks jokes about drugging and raping women are funny and his policy positions such as raising taxes on gas make him unfit, unprepared and unqualified to serve in the U.S. Senate. Polls go up and down and we continue to expect this to be a very close race, but the clear choice between Norm Coleman and Al Franken has emerged in the minds of Minnesotans."The Coleman campaign is taking the right approach to this race. They've properly concluded that their positive message is resonating with voters. They're also right in thinking that Al Franken isn't playing well because he's perceived as not walking in Paul Wellstone's footsteps. Wellstone was combative. Franken is downright mean-spirited. Minnesotans have noticed the difference.
It's smart of the Coleman campaign to approach the rest of this campaign as though they're 2 points behind with a month left in the campaign. Candidates that run with that mindset are the people that win races.
Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 10:15 PM
Comment 1 by Mike at 17-Jun-08 12:33 AM
The Republican spin machine sure isn't convinced he won't run. Dean Barkley accepted a CEO position the day after golfing with Ventura.
You may be right that he won't enter a race where he will likely lose, but he will enter this race.
Tinklenberg Vetoed Fixing I-35 Bridge?
H/T: AAA Good job, Andy.
Based on this article in the Strib, it appear as though Elwyn Tinklenberg said no to replacing the gusset plates on the I-35 bridge all the way back in 2000. Here's what the Strib's Mark Kaszouba is reporting:
Seven years before the Interstate 35W bridge fell, a consulting firm sent Minnesota officials a proposal to shore up the aging structure that included examining its gusset plates, the connections that federal investigators now believe likely played a role in the collapse.This ECM article by T.W. Budig states clearly that Jesse Ventura named Tinklenberg as his transportation commissioner on January 6, 1999. HNTB's memos were sent in 2000 and 2001, meaning El Tinklenberg had more to do with the I-35W collapse than did the various scapegoats offered by the DFL. Had Tinklenberg listened to the experts, there's every reason to believe that the I-35W bridge wouldn't have collapsed.
The preliminary plan from HNTB Corp. of Kansas City, which was buried among hundreds of documents released at a recent legislative hearing, has gone largely unnoticed in the debate over the disaster. The company did its study at no cost in an attempt to gain a state contract for the bridge work but, in the end, wasn't hired by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT).
A series of follow-up memos in 2000 and 2001 featured drawings of how HNTB planned to strengthen areas immediately surrounding the gusset plates and included renderings of "supplemental plates" and a "new oversize gusset." Other drawings called for adding supplemental supports in the vicinity of the gusset plates.
Now Mr. Tinklenberg wants the voters of the 6th District to send him to Washington, DC to represent them in Congress. Why should 6th District voters do that, especially considering this newest revelation?
What's worse is that Tinklenberg tried placing the blame for the I-35W bridge collapse on the Pawlenty administration. Here's one of the things he said about the collapse:
Elwyn Tinklenberg, who served as the state's transportation commissioner under Jesse Ventura, says the I-35W bridge collapse is emblematic of an eroding, underfunded transportation system.That's insulting. The only thing that the I-35W bridge collapse is emblematic of is El Tinklenberg's refusal to take action in repairing the bridge in 2000-2001.
He points to a recent MNDOT assessment, which concludes that the state is underfunding transportation maintenance by a billion dollars a year.
"That is not sustainable," Tinklenberg says. "We can't afford to do that and expect our system to continue to perform safely."
So, what to do? Tinklenberg calls for a gasoline tax hike. The last time the state raised the gas tax, which stands at 20 cents a gallon and is a key component of the state's transportation budget, was in 1988. In May, Governor Pawlenty vetoed a five-cent gas tax increase, saying such a hike would be "untimely and misguided." -Jonathan Kaminsky
It isn't just that Mr. Tinklenberg is inept, it's that he isn't a leader. This article lays that out pretty nicely:
In response to a recent department internal audit, Mn/DOT will improve project oversight to ensure that contractors and public agencies working under department supervision meet state and federal regulations.Project oversight is the first thing cited on the MnDOT's website. In fact, here's something contained in the OLA's report:
The audit, which covered the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001, was part of Mn/DOT's annual review of its financial statements and federal programs. The department forwards the results of its internal audit to the Office of the Legislative Auditor each year for review. The legislative auditor publicly released its report about Mn/DOT's findings on March 26.
"Our internal audit findings indicate we have areas in which we need to improve," Commissioner Elwyn Tinklenberg said. "Fortunately, we have already defined processes to make us more efficient and accountable and are taking measures to address all of the concerns raised."
The audit identified seven areas of concern, including suggesting that MnDOT did not provide adequate oversight to Hennepin County engineers in properly disposing of lead paint residue removed from the Washington Avenue bridge in Minneapolis. According to the original audit report, the Hennepin County contractor improperly disposed of 117 tons of bridge lead paint blasting residue at a landfill instead of disposing it at a hazardous waste treatment facility.
1. The Department of Transportation (MnDOT) did not ensure compliance with federal and state reporting requirements for the removal and disposition of hazardous building materials.In other words, Tinklenberg's MnDOT wasn't just inattentive in terms of making necessary repairs, they also didn't do their job in terms of oversight in general.
According to MnDOT's internal audit report, MnDOT project engineers did not exercise effective oversight to ensure that contractors filed required reports or other documents related to the removal and disposition of asbestos and lead. The MnDOT Office of Audit identified numerous violations of reporting requirements in its review of six different state projects, which included 40 building removals and one force main pipe. The total contract amount for all six projects exceeded $79.4 million, and the federal share exceeded $66.7 million. The contract amount allocated to the removal and disposition of hazardous building materials was significantly lower but was not quantified.
It's obvious that Elwyn Tinklenberg wasn't held accountable during his time as Transportation Commissioner. It's time that he was held accountable for his ineptitude. If he'd done his job, the I-35W Bridge collapse might've been avoided.
Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:05 AM
No comments.
Listening Week: Day 1 Interview
At about 2:30 am this morning, I stopped in at St. Cloud City Hall to talk with Mayor Dave Kleis. The bonus was meeting with City Administrator Mike Williams, too. It's understatement to say that I learned alot of Mayor Kleis' governing philosophy.
For instance, Mayor Kleis has what I'd call a welcome libertarian streak in him. It's obvious that he's also a pragmatist who strives to be accountable to the citizens of St. Cloud. Budget hawk is another term that applies to Mayor Kleis.
One of the primary ways that Mayor Kleis stays accountable is through not overspending. According to City Administrator Mike Williams' official statement, here's the situation that St. Cloud faced in early 2008:
The City's General Fund is faced with flat property tax revenues, flat aide from the State and declining permit and fee revenues. This information was the impetus to look more closely at the 2009 Budget in early 2008. In that early projection, we assumed no increase in LGA, a 2.5% growth in the property tax base and declining permit fee revenue. We also assumed a reasonable (but unrealistic, we are told) increase in our health insurance costs (12%), a practical increase in employee wages, a moderate increase in supplies and services (2%)...This is just a portion of the budget items that needed addressing. The bottom line is that Mayor Kleis is working diligently with the City Council to keep spending under control. This sets St. Cloud apart from other cities that whine about adjusting to LGA cuts.
Here's another portion of Williams' statement:
The targeted savings in the changes was $150,000. We looked carefully at ll the programming offered by the Recreation Department. The Heritage Nature Center was clearly one of the least used facilities and the programs associated with it the least attended. The actual hours of operation for the Nature Center in the summer were limited to six hours on Staurdays because the staff associated with the building was providing programming during the weedays. It made sense to not only discontinue the programming but to close the facility.In other words, St. Cloud decided to discontinue a few sparsely attended programs so that they could continue to provide a wide range of popular, highly attended programs without raising taxes.
The savings amount to over $180,000 annually. These savings will allow us to continue to provide the many other quality programs and opportunities for the youth that our Recreation Department has typically offered within the tax dollars allocated. We know that there are many other oppportunities for St. Cloud families within the myriad of programming offered by our Recreation Department and other entities.
That's a pretty straightforward approach to budgeting, one which needs to be told to the citizens of St. Cloud. I'm betting that people whose wallets are stretched thin with unnecessarily high gas prices and rising health care costs will appreciate that St. Cloud government chose to go on a diet instead of raising taxes.
Needless to say, that decision set off a flurry of negative editorials to the St. Cloud Times. If you just listened to the tone of those editorials, you would've thought that Mayor Kleis and the City Council had made draconian cuts to vital programs, which wasn't the case at all.
I wish more city governments took this approach. For that matter, I wish all units of government employed this approach. It would save taxpayers alot of money each day.
Finally, this proves that it's possible to eliminate government programs once they've been appropriated. That isn't thought possible in the federal budget, which isn't that much different than the mindset in St. Paul either.
St. Cloud should thank Mayor Kleis and the City Council for Listening Week events. Listening Week wraps up this Saturday with Listening Day, which will be held at Whitney Senior Center from 10:00 a.m. until noon. I wish more politicians took the opportunity to listen more often.
Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:54 AM
No comments.
The Right Direction
My representative, Michele Bachmann, is telling people that their anger over $4 a gallon gas should be directed at the political class, which makes sense since they're the people who've contributed most to the gas crisis. She's also telling people that we need to increase drilling domestically :
You may feel a quiet rage if you're tempted dwell on Big Oil's profits as you fill your tank to the tune of $4 a gallon. But Congresswoman Michele Bachmann argues you should redirect that anger at the folks who sit under the Capitol dome in Washington DC. "Congress is the problem. Congress put us in this mess," Rep Bachmann told reporters Monday.Environmentalists say that there's only a few months of oil in each of these reserves. Jeff Rosenberg even takes me to task on that issue in this post :
She summoned the media to a Sinclair service station in Woodbury to say we could cut prices in half, all the way to $2.00 per gallon, if only the government would get out of the way. "We don't have a famine of energy," Bachmann declared, "We have a wealth of energy. Congress has just made it illegal to access this wonderful resource."
Bachmann has joined other Republicans on Capitol Hill touting a bill known as the "No More Excuses Energy Act." It would open up the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling, and it would pave the way for more off-shore exploration in the continental shelves surrounding the US.
Because I likeFirst, I appreciate Mr. Rosenberg saying that LFR is an "ever-so-rational blog." That's always the goal.fighting with conservativesdebating the issues, I posted a redux of my analysis of Senator Bush's energy bill as a comment on SCSU Scholars . I received the following comments from Gary Gross, who runs the ever-so-rational blog Let Freedom Ring .Ask yourself this: If an oil company was only going to get revenue from a reserve for 135 days, would they waste capital on harvesting it? Of course they wouldn't.This is such a great example of conservative math: "Well, the market is always right, so your math must be wrong. These other numbers I made up are probably more accurate."
As for the 2.8 billion barrels, I'm betting that that's a typo. I'm betting that what he meant is that we could get 2.8 million barrels per day out of these reserves for the next 15 years.
It's more than a little sarcastic to say that conservatives think that "the market is always right." I certainly don't believe that and I'd bet few conservatives believe that 100 percent of the time. It's fair to say, though, that conservatives think that markets sort things out better than people with political agendas sort things out.
That being said, the most important points that must be made repeatedly are (a) conservation won't get us out of this mess and (b) drilling in now-forbidden areas must increase. Once people know, especially speculators, that we're getting serious about increasing supply, gas prices will drop significantly. How much it drops is anybody's guess but it's certain that the drop will be noticeable and appreciated.
Thus far, Democrats have stood in the way of increased energy production. They've also been joined by a few spineless Republicans who think they can vote against drilling with impunity. That was possible when gas was $1.25-1.50. That isn't possible with gas at $4 a gallon.
Predictably, El Tinklenberg has responded negatively to Rep. Bachmann's photo-op:
Bachmann's likely DFL opponent in the upcoming election, Elwyn Tinklenberg, called it an political gimmick. "I suppose the response should be that, well I can give us $1.75 a gallon gasoline in three years! But that's just irresponsible."That's some of the most flawed thinking I've ever seen.
The former state transportation commissioner told reporters in Saint Paul that's it's not just a simple matter of upping the supply to meet the growing demand. "The Saudi's have added 300,000 a barrels a day to the supply," Tinklenberg said, "Now they're talking about adding another 500,000 barrels a day. It's had no effect whatsoever on the price of a barrel of oil."
Tinklenberg said the most optimistic experts estimate it would take at least seven years for that new American oil to hit the market, and even all of the nation's untapped reserves would still amount to only a small percentage of the world supply.
He warned that concentrating on exploration of new oil off America's shores and in the Alaskan wilderness will only take the focus off conservation, alternative fuels and efforts to reduced driving through mass transit. "All of those things can have the effect of reducing consumption, and if we reduce consumption of oil we will see the prices start coming down."
He said if more drilling in this country were really the answer to the energy crisis, the Bush Administration would've made it a priority before now. "It's only going to produce greater dependency on oil, greater dependency on foreign oil, and ultimately higher and higher gas prices."
Tinklenberg says that focusing attention on drilling will "take the focus off conservation, alternative fuels and efforts to reduced driving through mass transit" as though conservation, alternative fuels and mass transit have been successful in keeping gas prices down. Perhaps his campaign staff should point out that we're doing alot in each of those areas but we've still got $4 a gallon gas.
I'm not saying that these ideas are failures. I'm just saying that they haven't been huge successes.
Mr. Tinklenberg also says that "if more drilling in this country were really the answer to the energy crisis, the Bush Administration would've made it a priority before now."
NEWSFLASH TO MR. TINKLENBERG: The Bush administration has tried repeatedly in increasing drilling but Democrats have filibustered that. During the runup to the 2004 nominating process, John Kerry vowed to filibuster against drilling in ANWR.
It's worth pointing out that Mr. Tinklenberg's statement that the increased Saudi production "hasn't had an effect" is wrongheaded thinking. Without that increased production, the price would be skyrocketing more than it already is. I'd say that's having an effect.
Finally, saying that "the most optimistic experts estimate it would take at least seven years for that new American oil to hit the market" is pessimistic. Nonetheless, let's stipulate for the sake of this discussion that that estimate is accurate. We know that we can't keep this situtation going where production is flatlining and demand is increasing. That dynamic will just keep prices climbing.
If we don't loosen the self-imposed bottleneck ASAP, prices will cripple the American economy. If that happens, the world economy will tank.
It's time that Mr. Tinklenberg and likeminded liberals got out of the way and let serious people solve this problem. This isn't the time for rank amateurs to be cowtowing to special interests that aren't serious about fixing this problem.
That's why I'm thankful that Michele Bachmann represents me.
Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:46 PM
No comments.
BREAKING NEWS: **Chessani Charges Dropped**
Just a few minutes ago, this report crossed the wires:
A military judge has dismissed charges against a Marine officer accused of failing to investigate the killings of 24 Iraqis.Here's what WND is reporting :
Col. Steven Folsom dismissed charges Tuesday against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani after defense attorneys raised concerns that a four-star general overseeing the prosecution was improperly influenced by an investigator probing the November 2005 shootings by a Marine squad in Haditha.
The charges were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they can be refiled, but Folsom excluded Marine Forces Central Command from future involvement.
Chessani was the highest-ranking officer implicated in the case.
A judge in the U.S. military court system today tossed out the charges against a Marine officer whose soldiers were caught in a bloody firefight with insurgents in 2005 in Haditha, Iraq.Later in their article, WND says this:
The decision from Col. Steven Folsom came in the case against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani after defense lawyers from the Thomas More Law Center raised the specter of unlawful command influence by confirming an "investigator" in the case also met dozens of times with commanders deciding the course of the prosecution.
Folsom's ruling dismissed the charges without prejudice, which means prosecutors could restart the case, but the judge said the Marine Forces Central Command could not be involved if that happens, according to the Associated Press.
Folsom's ruling followed up on his earlier decision, on which WND reported , in which he confirmed there was evidence of unlawful command influence, which is considered the "mortal enemy" of justice within the military judicial structure.That means 7 of the 8 Marines unjustly accused by Rep. John Murtha have been acquitted or had their charges dropped. The only case still pending is that of SSgt. Frank Wuterich.
The judge's conclusion then was based on evidence two generals who controlled Chessani's case were influenced by Marine lawyer Col. John Ewers, one of the investigators assigned to the case. Ewers was allowed to attend at least 25 closed-session meetings in which Chessani's case was discussed.
I don't think those will be pending much longer because the politicians, especially Rep. Murtha, will want that ruling made in late September when people will be paying alot more attention to these types of events.
It's my opinion that people would be outraged if it was proved that politicians and corrupt generals trumped up charges against true American heroes for a shortterm political gain. That's precisely what Rep. Murtha did.
What isn't opinion is that military brass exerted inappropriate pressure during the investigative stage of this process. Today's ruling makes that a finding of fact.
What's appalling to me is that Congress has turned a blind eye towards Rep. Murtha's egregious misconduct. Democrats have marched in lockstep against starting an ethics complaint against Rep. Murtha. This shouldn't be a partisan issue because Rep. Murtha violated some of the most sacred principles of the American judicial system. I'd hoped that defending the Constitution hadn't become a partisan issue. Obviously, that's what happened.
When Rep. Murtha went on national TV and said that the Haditha Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood", he stripped these men of the presumption of innocence, which is the cornerstone of their due process rights. What's most repulsive is that he did this before being briefed on the investigation at that point.
It's time for Congress to do something to right this wrong. It's time for them to officially chastize Rep. Murtha for his unethical and appalling actions in this case. It's time for them to say that the Constitution's protections aren't a partisan issue.
If they don't swiftly move in that direction, then voters should fire those 'representatives' who put partisan politics ahead of the Constitution.
UPDATE: Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center is quoted in this WND article as saying:
"We are grateful for the judge's ruling today. He truly was the 'last sentinel' to guard against unlawful command influence," said Richard Thompson, president of the law center. "Tragically, our own government eliminated one of its most effective combat commanders. The insurgents are laughing in their caves."Here's TMLC's article on Chessani's victory:
Military Judge Colonel Steven Folsom, USMC, this morning dismissed all charges against Lt Colonel Jeffrey Chessani on the grounds of unlawful command influence. He blistered the prosecution's case in an opinion he read from the bench that lasted an hour. The ruling was without prejudice. Colonel Folsom gave prosecutors 72 hours in which to notify him whether they would appeal.It's good to hear that Col. Folsom heard the evidence of wrongdoing and ruled appropriately today. This is a shot across Rep. Murtha's bow, not to mention a shot across the investigators' bow, too.
The ruling was greeted with tears of joy from Chessani's wife and several spectators in the courtroom.
Make no mistake about this ruling. Col. Ewers acted inapprorpriately in this case. That isn't opinion. That's a finding of fact.
UPDATE II: Welcome Instapundit readers.
Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:39 PM
Comment 1 by Mark L. at 17-Jun-08 02:31 PM
"It's time for Congress to do something to right this wrong."
Ain't gonna happen. Partisan politics trumps everything for the Democrats. It trumps justice, decency, and the national interest. An American not ruled by Democrats is an America worth destroying, if that's what it takes to get the Democrats back in control. Laws are for the little people and Republicans.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 17-Jun-08 02:37 PM
Ain't gonna happen.
Don't bet on it. You're right that "it ain't gonna happen" without alot of pushing. I'm part of a group that's preparing to do just that though.
Essentially, we're 'watching the watchers'.
Comment 3 by aloysiusmiller at 17-Jun-08 02:49 PM
Yet one more article that doesn't hold anyone (except a peripherally involved congressman) responsible for this mess. The Internet and the blogosphere will not live up to their potential until they provide a way for citizens to express their disgust not just to politicians but also to the bureaucrats that claim bureaucratic immunity from scrutiny. Names please. Those responsible must not escape igmoniny.
Comment 4 by Sam at 17-Jun-08 04:15 PM
It will not happen while Dems have control.
