June 16-18, 2007

Jun 16 03:41 Another Impressive Fred File
Jun 16 11:51 Murtha, Media Massacre Truth About Haditha Marines

Jun 17 07:17 CAIR-MN Banquet
Jun 17 08:03 Petraeus Launches Major Counterinsurgent Offensive
Jun 17 20:58 Loud Voices From Both Extremes?

Jun 18 03:01 Bad News For McCain, Romney
Jun 18 03:38 Seifert Named Runner-up for Legislator of Year
Jun 18 04:28 I'm NOT Surprised
Jun 18 18:31 The Cover-Up Unravels

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Prior Years: 2006

Another Impressive Fred File




Posted Saturday, June 16, 2007 3:42 AM

Comment 1 by Gina Ernyey at 12-Jul-07 10:15 AM
Wow. Much swayed after seeing Fred Thompson in this interview. Straight-talk, for a change, rather than running from or evading the real problems that will have to be addressed. Also, great interviewing, I might add. Great questions and commentary.

Murtha, Media Massacre Truth About Haditha Marines

John Murtha, who tried and convicted the Haditha Marines over a year ago, is about to get pummeled with the truth. That's because the truth was finally declassified. It was a little over a year ago that John Murtha talked with George Stephanopoulos about Haditha. Here's what Murtha told Stephanopoulos:
"There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed those innocent people. "
That quote is about to bite Murtha in his sizeable backside very soon. The reason why it will is explained here:
As NewsMax.com has previously revealed, the bulk of that exculpatory evidence is contained in the eight hours of videotaped testimony offered by the battalion intelligence officer (designated S2), all of which up until now has been highly classified and therefore unusable in open court and kept from the notice of the American people.
According to NewsMax, here's the significance of that information being declassified:
  • Intelligence gathered by Marine S2 officers in advance of the events of Nov. 19th, 2005, revealed that it was known that an insurgent ambush was planned for the day.
  • Although exact details of the planned ambush were not known, some important details were revealed, most importantly, that some 20 insurgents would take part, and a white car would play an important role in the ambush.
  • The intelligence was made available to the officers and men of Kilo Company including Sgt. Frank Wuterich who has been charged with, among other things, murdering the occupants of a white car that came on the scene following the IED explosion that killed one Marine and seriously wounded another. The evidence will show that Wuterich acted appropriately when he shot the passengers of the vehicle.
  • Although the media continues to report that 24 innocent civilians were killed that day, the S2's testimony shows that eight of the dead, including four of the five occupants in the white car killed by Wuterich, were known insurgents and the dead civilians therefore numbered 16, not 24.
  • The insurgents whose communications were intercepted and which revealed the planned ambush were the same two men who were the sources of the fallacious and dishonest Time magazine story, which was the source of the accusations against the Marines.
As previously reported by NewsMax, the battalion S2 officer made a full and complete report based on his monitoring of the day's events and the intelligence he and others had amassed then and previous days. As we wrote at the time, the PowerPoint after-action report he sent up the command ladder proved to all the higher officers that the incident warranted no further investigation. None!
Let's summarize by pointing out the 'inconsistencies' between Murtha's lies and the evidence.

John Murtha said:
"There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed those innocent people."
The evidence shows that:
Sgt. Frank Wuterich killed the occupants of a white car that came on the scene following an IED explosion that killed one Marine and seriously wounded another.
John Murtha said that:
"High-level reports he received indicated that no one fired upon the Marines or that there was any military action against the U.S. forces after the initial explosion."
(Ed. Who gave Murtha these "high-level reports"?)
Yet the deaths were not seriously investigated until March because an early probe was stifled within days of the incident, he said.
The battalion S2 officer's report showed this:
The PowerPoint after-action report he sent up the command ladder proved to all the higher officers that the incident warranted no further investigation.
In other words, the biggest accusations that Murtha made, that the Haditha Marines had "murdered innocent civilians in cold blood" and that there wasn't a firefight or an IED explosion have been utterly debunked by the S2's PowerPoint report. The distribution of this PowerPoint report also debunks Murtha's myth that "the deaths were not seriously investigated until March because an early probe was stifled within days of the incident."

Let's also remember that Murtha didn't accuse these brave Marines once of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood." He repeatedly told reporters this stuff. One of the ways that he kept this accusation going was with this quote:
"I will not excuse murder, and this is what happened," he said. "This investigation should have been over two or three weeks afterward and it should have been made public and people should have been held responsible for it."
This is disgusting stuff. I'm unable to point to a single part of Murtha's story that's accurate. What's more disgusting is that Murtha made these accusations before he was officially briefed on the incident. Furthermore, Murtha accused the Marines of not investigating the incident because they tried covering the incident up. Also, Murtha said that there wasn't a firefight and that there wasn't an IED explosion.

We now know that those things are bald-faced lies. We know that they couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a civilian court. I'd bet the proverbial ranch that this strengthens Sgt. Wuterich's libel lawsuit against Murtha to the point that Murtha's attorneys will want to settle this before trial. I suspect that the blogs, FNC and talk radio will be the only people that will talk about Murtha's lies, which have undercut the war effort and that have besmirched these Marines.

It's also time to start an ethics investigation into Murtha's accusations of the Haditha Marines. He attempted to play judge, jury and executioner in this case. He made accusations that he should've known wouldn't hold up. worst of all, he did all this to score cheap political points.

I can't find a single honorable characteristic about Rep. Murtha. Murtha needs to step down so that the people of PA-12 will finally have an honest representative. Murtha needs to step down so we can get rid of one of the most corrupt politicians in this nation's history.


Posted Saturday, June 16, 2007 5:00 PM

Comment 1 by yojoe at 19-Jun-07 01:02 PM
This does not even take into account that NCIS did a 1-hour investigation. That is 2 min per homicide. that should be plenty of investigation, right? Also, NCIS "lost" the suitcase of AK-47 and Jordanian passports that were found at the scene.

http://hlime.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/haditha-update-one-hour-investigation/

Hope to see more for the FOIA request.

yojoe

Comment 2 by John at 21-Jun-07 01:11 PM
I hope these marines are found to be inoccent of all charges but your article is complete political BS.

"there wasn't a firefight or an IED explosion have been utterly debunked by the S2's PowerPoint report." That statement is simply a flat out lie. Murtha did not say there was no IED involved in all of time, in all of Iraq, he said there was no IED or gunfight that killed those people. That is 100% in line with everything else in this article. He clearly was reffering to the deaths of the Iraq's as your well aware of.

The united states Military is holding a trial right now on this, are you condeming them for there "accusations"too? This is what is wrong with you right wingnuts today, you think it's OK to lie and deliberatley mislead each other as long as your War on the left is served. Your not interested in the itegrity of the military, you just want political clout, you are using our military that people like you put into these positions, that they should never have been in the first place.

Your a disgrace to our country, a threat to our freedom, and a death warrant for our Heros fighting for our country.

CAIR-MN Banquet

It's safe to say that they're pulling out all the stops for CAIR-MN's first annual banquet and fundraiser because Keith Ellison, Nihad Awad and Ibrahim Hooper are the featured speakers tonight. It's been a busy month for Ellison in terms of speaking engagements. He was a featured speaker at the MAS-MN banquet on Memorial Day weekend.

At the time, Joe Kaufman, the chairman of Americans Against Hate, asked Ellison to renounce the anti-semitic remarks found on MAS-MN's website. Here are the specific anti-semitic statements:
  • "The Holy Prophet (and through him the Muslims) has been reassured that he should not mind the enmity, the evil designs and the machinations of the Jews, but continue exerting his utmost to establish the Right Way in accordance with the Guidance of the Quran."
  • "In view of the degenerate moral condition of the Jews and the Christians, the Believers have been warned not to make them their friends and confidants."
  • "If you gain victory over the men of Jews, kill them."
  • "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'"
  • "May Allah destroy the Jews, because they used the graves of their prophets as places of worship."
Mr. Ellison still hasn't renounced MAS-MN for those vile, anti-semitic statements. Ellison's silence is deafening. Ellison's silence is just one of several political missteps recently, with his not denouncing those vile remarks being a major blunder. Another misstep is him speaking at this event. I understand that he was essentially obligated to speak at the event. I also understand that he likely wanted to speak at tonight's event. That said, the timing of him speaking at this event couldn't be worse, considering the fact that CAIR was recently named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial that's soon to start.

Ellison's speaking at CAIR-MN's dinner has gotten the attention of Joe Kaufman. In this press release, Kaufman asks that Rep. Ellison resign from Congress:
"Being that Keith Ellison refuses to denounce the Muslim American Society, and being that he is now going to be speaking at an event sponsored by a group named by the U.S. government as a co-conspirator to Hamas, we have no choice but to call on Keith Ellison to resign from his held office as United States Representative. Congressman Ellison, by openly cavorting with bigoted and pro-terrorist elements in our society, can no longer work for the best interests of our nation."
Keith Ellison knows that CAIR has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal trial against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. I'm sure he knows that MAS-MN has anti-semitic remarks on its website. Yet he speaks at their events. Why did he still speak at their events? Isn't he in a position to speak out against these things? Until he speaks out, we should assume that he doesn't find MAS's statements objectionable. Until he disassociates himself from CAIR, we should assume that he believes in their mission.

I'll ask this simple question: Which other congressman could have ties to bigots like MAS and CAIR and remain a congressman?


Originally posted Sunday, June 17, 2007, revised 02-Sep 4:07 AM

No comments.

Petraeus Launches Major Counterinsurgent Offensive

With all of the surge troops finally in theater, Gen. David Petraeus has launched a major offensive against al-Qa'ida strongholds near Baghdad. Here are some of the noteworthy details and quotes:
The U.S. military, which just days ago completed its latest troop buildup in Iraq, has launched a large offensive operation in several al-Qaida strongholds around Baghdad, the top U.S. commander said Saturday. Gen. David Petraeus said the operation began in the last 24 hours and will put forces into key areas surrounding Baghdad that, according to intelligence, al-Qaida is using to base some of its car bomb operations.

"There's never been a military commander in history who wouldn't like to have more of something or other-that characterizes all of us here," he told reporters traveling with Gates. "The fact is frankly that we have all that our country is going to provide us in terms of combat forces. That is really it right now."
Gen. Petraeus is the counterinsurgency expert in the military. For that reason alone, I'm willing to give him the time to target the terrorists and insurgents. I'm a firm believer in the US military's superiority, which is why I think this offensive will work. That isn't to say that I think violence will be non-existent after the surge. That is to say that I think this will eliminate alot of insurgents and terrorists, which will make Baghdad relatively safe.

As you'd expect with any AP article, this one has its negative paragraph. Here's this article's negative paragraph:
Underscoring the challenges ahead, Gates arrival Friday night for his unannounced visit, brought him to a city all but shut down by a security lockdown. Iraqi leaders imposed a strict curfew this week after a bombing of an important shrine north of the city.
What isn't in this article is that violence is significantly lower this time than when they last bombed the Samarra mosque. I'm not arguing that this isn't a challenge. I am arguing that they could've compared the two incidents.

It seems to me that the reporting should be more balanced because Americans have a right to know the successes and failings of this counterinsurgency. Without accurate information, they can't form an informed opinion on the surge's effectiveness.

Don't we owe Gen. Petraeus at least that much?


Posted Sunday, June 17, 2007 8:04 AM

No comments.

Loud Voices From Both Extremes?

John King sat in for Anderson Cooper this past Thursday night. That's also the night that the news broke that the failed immigration hoax bill had been revived. The first interviews on the subject were with Chris Simcox, the founder of the Minuteman Project and Frank Sharry of the National Immigration Forum. Here's the Q and A between King and Sharry:
KING: Well, Frank Sharry, you could here Chris Simcox there clearly has not changed his position.

I want to read you a statement tonight from Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, another critic of the bill, who says, in part: "I can't fathom why they seem so obsessed to ram through this flawed bill that the American people overwhelmingly reject. While guaranteed expenditures can certainly help with enforcement, it will do little to change the fundamental flaws of this legislation." So, the opponents tonight are saying, Frank, we're not moving.

Can you get this bill through?

FRANK SHARRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM: We can and we will. And I will tell you why. Because, while there's many loud voices on both extremes that are saying no, the majority of the American people are saying yes. They want their leaders to step up and solve this problem.

It's a pressing problem. Everybody knows the status quo is broken. And the only way to solve it is to get tough at the border, get tough on employers, and bring immigration out of the shadows. If we don't do all of it at the same time, we're going to solve none of it.

Poll after poll says that two-thirds of the American people favor a plan that walks and chews gum at the same time, that has carrots and sticks. Those who say all we want are sticks and those who say all we want are carrots are the extremes that have polarized this debate for a long time. But the silent majority wants a solution. And that's what the senators are responding to.
Mr. Sharry's right that the system is broken. He's wrong in saying that "the majority of Americans are saying yes." That's contradicted by Scott Rasmussen's polling on the issue:
Pollster Scott Rasmussen found that 50 percent of voters opposed the immigration bill, while only 23 percent approved of it. "The immigration bill failed because a broad cross-section of the American people is opposed to it," Rasmussen wrote. "Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters are opposed. Men are opposed. So are women. The young don't like it; neither do the no-longer-young. White Americans are opposed. Americans of color are opposed."
Based on Rasmussen's polling, opposition to this immigration bill (a) is widespread, (b)isn't limited to one political party, (c) is found in almost every demographic group and age group. I'd like to know what information Mr. Sharry is basing his opinion off of. I suspect that he isn't basing it on any objective information. I'd bet a substantial amount of money that he's simply spinning this issue to create that impression with legislators.

The first tipoff that Sharry is spinning this was this statement:
"While there's many loud voices on both extremes that are saying no, the majority of the American people are saying yes."
He's partially right. There are "many loud voices saying no". They just aren't "voices on both extremes." Most are people that will be ok with normalization of illegal aliens once they're certain that the government is serious about defending the border. Once that's secured, everything else will quickly fall into place. By characterizing average citizens as "voices on both extremes", he reveals that he isn't interested in having a reasonable dialog about the issue. Mr. Sharry revealed that he's interested only in vilifying anyone that disagrees with him.

In Washington, that's called spinning. Where I come from, that's called lying.

John King then attempts to win the argument with Chris Simcox. As you see here, that didn't go well for King:

KING: Well, Chris Simcox, how would you answer that? The grassroots energy was clearly on your side of the debate, opposing this legislation.

But there is polling that supports Frank's position. Sixty-three percent in some poll, a clear majority of Americans, think illegal immigrants should have a path to citizenship, as long as they meet certain requirements.

So, isn't this a key piece of support, the compromise now, that has grass...widespread public support? Excuse me. While the grassroots and your organization might be against it, why not let it go through?

SIMCOX: Well, because it's bad legislation. There's so many holes in it. And no one is talking about what this is going to cost the American people.

Look, we just... they just suspended the passport proposal for Canada and Mexico, because they cannot administrate it. And they're trying to sell the American people on the fact that they're going to somehow magically document 20 million people? It would take decades and trillions of dollars.

We want the border secured first. We're not going to be deceived this time. This grand compromise is nothing but a grand deception. And the American people should not buy it.
That exchange is why this legislation will likely fail. The truth is that the only place where there's widespread support for this bill is in Washington, DC. I'm certain that that isn't a winning 'coalition'. When the bill is revived, the opposition will be more intense and more organized than before and the arguments against the legislation will be more convincing than before.

Mr. Simcox is exactly right in calling this legislation a "grand deception." He's especially spot on in citing the inability of USCIS to process the passports that are needed for travel to Canada and Mexico. He's right in pointing out why it's impossible to think that this administration is serious about enforcing the borders or in conducting background checks or in tracking aliens after they've been granted visas.

The $4.4 billion 'enforcement' package is just political cover for politicians to hide behind. Let's hope that they stand strong instead. Contact your senators to tell them that you're watching. Tell them that you expect them to vote against cloture. Tell them that you know that a piece of paper doesn't protect the border. Reinforce in their minds that actions like genuine enforcement, not the appeasing words of this legislation, are the only things that will change the dynamics of the situation and public opinion.


Posted Sunday, June 17, 2007 8:59 PM

No comments.

Bad News For McCain, Romney

I just looked at RCP's polling data for South Carolina. It isn't good news for Mitt Romney or John McCain. Here's what stood out for me:

In the most recent polling, done by Mason-Dixon on 6/13-6/15, Fred Thompson leads with 25 percent, Rudy's in second with 21 percent, Romney clocks in at 11 percent while John McCain is at 7 percent. The next most recent poll, done by Winthrop University on 5/16-5/27, had Rudy at 19 percent,McCain at 14 percent, Romney at 12 percent and Fred Thompson at 6 percent.

Think of what's happened in between these polls. Fred Thompson's been telling voters about his positions. He's also been having a conversation with them. I suspect that that's why Romney's numbers in South Carolina have dropped ever so slightly. The other thing that's happened in between those polls is the immigration debate. That's why McCain's support has dropped off the proverbial cliff.

The other thing that's noteworthy is that Romney's leads in Iowa and New Hampshire don't translate into momentum in the South. Whether Romney can win both Iowa and New Hampshire remains to be seen. That leads to this question: If he doesn't win both, will any momentum that he'd built up to that point dissipate as things head south? Another question that must be asked is how friendly the South will be to Rudy and Fred. I suspect that the South will be kind to Fred, partly because of his native son status, partly because he's a rock solid conservative.

If Rudy is to do well anywhere in the South, it's Florida. With a large population of tax-hating ex-New Yorkers living there, Rudy should do well there. The other state where I can envision Rudy doing well is Georgia, where the population is solidly conservative but also sophisticated. Don't underestimate Rudy's ability to inspire voters across the country for being the hero of 9/11.

It should be a fun election year, especially on the presidential side. I say this because I think Fred Thompson's gravitas and Rudy's charisma outshine Hillary. Let's also remember that Hillary has to flip several red states in order to win the election. She starts with a 17 electoral vote deficit.

If Rudy's the nominee, that puts every northeastern state up for grabs, which gives Democratic strategists lots of sleepless nights. If Rudy is the nominee, the base will want a conservative with unquestioned credentials. In my opinion, the man that best fits that description is John Kasich. Kasich is a reformer and a budget hawk. The other reason why I think he's a perfect fit is because he puts Ohio firmly in the Republican column.

If Fred Thompson is the nominee, he'll have several options. One smart pick would be my governor, Tim Pawlenty. He's a skilled communicator with a fresh face and executive experience. Not only that but he's also coming off a strong year where he stared down the DFL (that's Minnesotan for idiot liberals) and defeated them in a budget fight. Kasich would be a great choice for Thompson, too. Kasich and Pawlenty both fit the outsider profile, which is what I think people will want this year.

As I explained here, every indicator points to a 'Pox on all their houses' election season. Here's why I think that:
This week's polls that showed Harry Reid's JA rating at 19 percent illustrates that point. The fact that President Bush's JA rating is in the low 30's is proof that his policies aren't well-liked. The fact that Congress' JA rating is 5 points lower than President Bush's rating tells me that people see Washington insiders like Trent Lott, Ted Kennedy and John McCain as not worthy of their trust.
In other words, people aren't impressed with Washington's policies from either end of Pennsylvania Ave. One of the biggest reasons why people returned Democrats to power last year was because Republicans weren't fiscal conservatives. That said, people are noticing that Democrats have been a 'do almost nothing' congress. They've noticed that almost no new legislation has passed. They've noticed that most of what Democrats pass off as work is really just carping about 'the rotten Bush administration.'

They've also noticed that this year's Democrats are as ethically challenged as last year's GOP was. They'll soon notice that Democrats are (a) more addicted to pork than last year's GOP was, which is quite a 'feat', and (b) in love with tax increases. This gives the GOP an opportunity to talk up the Bush tax cuts and the strong economy and stock market.

Fiscal responsibility will be a winning issue with either GOP ticket, especially if John Kasich is the running mate. Kasich's credentials as a fiscal hawk can't be questioned, especially in light of his submitting balanced budget proposals all the way back in 1990. Kasich is generally credited with the balanced budgets of the late 1990's because he drove the discussion as House Budget Committee chairman.

Of course, events will influence the race, whether they're half way around the world or if they're in Washington. That said, I like our top tier of candidates because they're good communicators and because people get the sense that they aren't distant like Hillary.

Either way, it'll be an interesting race. May the best man win.


Posted Monday, June 18, 2007 3:02 AM

No comments.

Seifert Named Runner-up for Legislator of Year

I agree that Marty Seifert deserves lots of recognition and accolades for his leadership in accomplishing a stunning victory over the DFL. What I don't agree with is Marty Seifert finishing as the runner-up to Margaret Anderson-Kelliher. I like what the Politics in Minnesota (PIM) says about the year Mr. Seifert had:
"Seifert had the unenviable job of trying to restore morale after the 2006 election's devastating loss of the majority," PIM wrote. "He did that and structured awesome staff and leadership teams, while at the same time humanely managing a 50 percent staff reduction (and Seifert saw almost every displaced staffer into a new job by the end of January). On the House floor, Seifert organized great debates and offered solid and attractive amendments that forced vulnerable DFLers to take bad votes. Most important of all, Seifert kept his caucus together on veto overrides, culminating in the closing moments of the session when all seven Republicans who had voted for the gas tax increase and transportation funding package cast their votes in support of the Governor's veto," PIM wrote.



"Keeping the caucus together gave GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty the bulwark he needed to be tough in budget negotiations with the DFL. Finally, as we and many others have noted, Seifert is simply, smartly, deliciously wicked when it comes to good quotes. [He works on ideas on the long drive back and forth from Marshall to St. Paul.]"
Frankly, I think that Seifert deserved the top prize, not the runner-up. I especially think that considering the fact that Maggie Kelliher won the top honor after the disastrous clock management that the DFL had and the beating they took at the hands of Seifert's troops & Gov. Pawlenty's veto pen.

The article doesn't say if PIM gives out an award for Freshman legislator of the year but if I had a vote for such an award, I'd vote for Steve Gottwalt. By the end of the session, Steve was one of the go to guys on education & health insurance issues. I'm proud to call Steve my 'adopted' state representative. He was always responsive to my questions. He learned alot about some complicated & difficult issues. Most importantly, he voted for the same core conservative principles that Marty Seifert voted for.

You can't do better than that.


Posted Monday, June 18, 2007 3:38 AM

No comments.

I'm NOT Surprised

The Washington Times' Donald Lambro is one of my favorite reads when it comes to the world of DC politics. This article is a good example of why he's getting a strong reputation.
The Democratic Congress' job approval score is now worse than President Bush's, plummeting to 23 percent, a drop of eight points since April. House Democrats have been forced to retreat in the face of a furious assault by Republicans on pork-barrel spending, an issue that hurt the Republican Party in November. And Republican recruiting has produced plenty of candidates eyeing weak Democratic freshmen in Republican-leaning districts that swept them into office last year. "Republican recruiting seems to be progressing at a reasonable pace. GOP strategists have about half a dozen seats that they know the party should never have lost...and eight of the nine most vulnerable House seats currently are held by Democrats," elections analyst Stu Rothenberg wrote last week in his Political Report newsletter.
Mr. Rothenberg is exactly right in saying that there's about "half a dozen seats that they know the party never should have lost." I'd say that Tom DeLay's old seat, Bob Ney's seat in Ohio, Mark Foley's seat in Florida and Gil Gutknecht's seat in Minnesota are seats that will return to the GOP in 2008. I'd also rate Heath Shuler's seat as vulnerable.

As I've said before, people have noticed what the Democratic 'do almost nothing congress' has done. They've noticed that Pelosi's group is long on wind and earmarks and short on accomplishments. Thus far, they've managed to rename several libraries and pass a minimum wage bill with tax cuts in them for small business That said, they had to tuck the minimum wage bill into the Iraq supplemental spending bill.
Strategists at the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) confirm that a larger than expected number of House seats are now being targeted by the NRCC and that a surprisingly larger-than-expected number of seasoned candidates from state legislatures and other elective offices are coming forward to challenge Democrats who took over Republican districts.

"A lot of Republican candidates are seeing an opportunity for higher office for the first time in a while. They've been waiting in the wings with a lot of pent-up ambitions, hoping that a Republican incumbent was going to retire, and now see that it's held by a Democrat," said NRCC press secretary Ken Spain.

"These candidates are smart and realize that 2006 was a wave election and it's highly unlikely that Democrats will get back-to-back cycles like that in a row," he said.
I suspect that GOP activists will be anxious to support fresh faces, especially if they campaign as tax-cutting fiscal conservatives. It sounds like a number of the people stepping forward have won elections and are seasoned legislators.
In a strategy aimed at blunting the Republican Party's comeback bid, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), "is focused on expanding the playing field," said Jennifer Crider, the DCCC's communications director. "There will be more than 60 seats in play in this cycle, and we already have more than 30 candidates who have filed," she said. "When you look at the issues environment, whether the war in Iraq or Republicans trying to obstruct the mainstream agenda Democrats are pushing, like the minimum wage and fiscal accountability, the Democrats are going to have a formidable agenda to run on," she said.
That's some of the lamest spin I've ever heard. As Robert Novak points out here, President Bush plans on getting alot of mileage from his veto pen:
Addressing a Republican fund-raising dinner at the Washington Convention Center last Wednesday night, President Bush declared: "If the Democrats want to test us, that's why they give the president the veto. I'm looking forward to vetoing excessive spending, and I'm looking forward to having the United States Congress support my veto."
By vetoing a bunch of Appropriations bills, President Bush will get people's attention. When voters look at the difference between President Bush's budget and the Democrats' budget, they'll have to decide which agenda they prefer. I doubt that they'll choose the party that wants to raise taxes on small businesses. By vetoing a number of bills, President Bush will cast Democrats in the image of spendaholics. I'd also say that it's a stretch to call Pelosi's Democrats as mainstream. They've got many miles to trek right before they're mainstream. Many, many miles.
But Mr. Spain and Mr. Rothenberg also pointed to a change in the political environment that, if it continues into next year, would work to the Republicans' advantage. "Recent polling suggests that [the Democratic] Congress's standing has slipped again, and Congress's apparent inability to deal with immigration reform could add to public frustration," Mr. Rothenberg said in his newsletter. "At the same time, the defeat of immigration reform could well be a net plus for congressional Republicans, many of whom can and will run against 'amnesty' and illegal immigration next year," he said.
If I were a Democratic strategist, I'd be very worried about immigration. Rasmussen's polling shows that the comprehensive approach isn't popular:
A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 51% would like their legislators to "take smaller steps towards reform" while 16% believe they should wait until next year. The survey was conducted on Monday and Tuesday night as the President was publicly attempting to rally support for the legislation.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on "exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration." Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.
Compare these polling results with where Congressional Democrats are at. Based on this information, I don't see how immigration is a winning issue for Democrats.
In Florida's heavily Republican 16th District, for example, where Democrat Tim Mahoney narrowly won the seat after Republican Rep. Mark Foley resigned in the House page sex sandal, the Republican Party is now widely favored to get the seat back.

In Georgia's 8th District, Democrat Jim Marshall squeaked through with less than 1,800 votes in what Mr. Spain called "the worst Republican environment since Watergate." The Republican Party is rallying behind Rick Goddard, the former commanding general at the Warner Robins Air Logistics base, who is expected to give Mr. Marshall a tough race.
These are just a few of the seats the GOP should take back.
"In order to win back the majority, we don't have to conquer new territory. We just need to reclaim old territory," Mr. Spain said.
Exactly right, Mr. Spain.


Posted Monday, June 18, 2007 4:29 AM

No comments.

The Cover-Up Unravels

Earlier this afternoon, NewsMax posted Phil Brennan's latest article about the Haditha Marine scandal. Here's the 'money section' of the article:
According to one intelligence officer who had viewed the entire video and who was talking to some on the defense counsel who had been shown part of it, the tape cuts off just as they see the insurgents fleeing the neighborhood - they were denied any further views of the video.

"To me, there was an obvious agenda to cover up the true nature of the day, and only focus on that piece which could be used to implicate battalion officers," he told NewsMax.com.

He added that of the hours of video shot by the UAV, the NCIS showed only a few minutes of what was filmed and acted as if that was all there was. The media eagerly picked up that fiction and ran with it, and the public was prevented from knowing the full story.
As I posted here, we now know about the 8 hour taped testimony by the S2 at the scene. We're in the process of filing an FOIA request for that taped testimony and we've contacted a filmmaker who will make a YouTube-like video of the most damning statements made against the prosecution's case. According to Phil Brennan's earlier article:
  • Intelligence gathered by Marine S2 officers in advance of the events of Nov. 19th, 2005, revealed that it was known that an insurgent ambush was planned for the day.
  • Although exact details of the planned ambush were not known, some important details were revealed, most importantly, that some 20 insurgents would take part, and a white car would play an important role in the ambush.
  • The intelligence was made available to the officers and men of Kilo Company including Sgt. Frank Wuterich who has been charged with, among other things, murdering the occupants of a white car that came on the scene following the IED explosion that killed one Marine and seriously wounded another. The evidence will show that Wuterich acted appropriately when he shot the passengers of the vehicle.
  • Although the media continues to report that 24 innocent civilians were killed that day, the S2's testimony shows that eight of the dead, including four of the five occupants in the white car killed by Wuterich, were known insurgents and the dead civilians therefore numbered 16, not 24.
  • The insurgents whose communications were intercepted and which revealed the planned ambush were the same two men who were the sources of the fallacious and dishonest Time magazine story, which was the source of the accusations against the Marines.
As I said in that post, this directly contradicts John Murtha's accusations against the Haditha Marines. There are indicators that this story's profile is getting bigger. Here's a reminder of some more of Murtha's past statements:
A decorated Marine colonel turned anti-war congressman has said Marines killed at least 30 innocent Iraqi civilians "in cold blood" in Haditha in November, suggesting the death toll may be twice as high as originally reported.

Rep. John Murtha, (D-PA), told reporters Wednesday that he got his information from U.S. commanders, who said the investigation will show that the Marines deliberately killed the civilians.
Murtha then repeats the unfounded accusations that he first made on This Week With George Stephanopoulos:
"There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," Murtha said.
Then there's this footnote in CNN's article:
( Watch Murtha level accusations against the Marines -- 1:58)
Let's establish one key point before going further: There's no mention in any article I've read that suggests that the S2's testimony was discredited in any way by the prosecution. The implications that this S2's testimony might have with regards to John Murtha are breathtaking.

Murtha has repeatedly stated:
"There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people."
The S2 at the scene says that the Haditha Marines were briefed about an impending attack. Here are some of the specifics of their briefing:
  • It was known that an insurgent ambush was planned for the day.
  • Some 20 insurgents would take part, and a white car would play an important role in the ambush.
  • The intelligence was made available to the officers and men of Kilo Company including Sgt. Frank Wuterich who has been charged with, among other things, murdering the occupants of a white car that came on the scene following the IED explosion that killed one Marine and seriously wounded another.
The S2's testimony allegedly includes this important fact:
Eight of the dead, including four of the five occupants in the white car killed by Wuterich, were known insurgents.
Finally, the NewsMax article includes this stunning information:
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.
Remember that Murtha has accused these Marines of attempting to cover this event up and that this cover-up "goes up the chain of command." If that isn't bad enough, Murtha also stated in categorical fashion that "They actually went into the houses and killed women and children."

Rep. Murtha frequently mentions his visits to Walter Reed with the purpose of touting himself as the soldier's friend. That might play with people who don't pay particular attention to the news but it won't sit well with people of conscience once they read about his inaccurate accusations. Frankly, I haven't found any part of Murtha's accusations that are accurate.

What kind of man is capable of accusing our soldiers of killing "innocent civilians in cold blood"? What kind of man is capable of accusing our soldiers of going "into the houses" and killing "women and children"?


Originally posted Monday, June 18, 2007, revised 20-Jun 8:54 PM

No comments.

Popular posts from this blog

January 19-20, 2012

Image
Jan 19 02:57 Minnesota Majority report an indictment against Minnesota's election integrity Jan 19 03:41 Ron Paul's Logic Jan 19 08:08 Newt thrives despite Mitt's hatchet job efforts Jan 19 09:19 Potential Game-Changer: Perry dropping out this am Jan 20 05:12 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Jan 20 00:56 ABC, CNN, crawl into bed with National Enquirer Jan 20 04:00 Child Care small businesses file federal lawsuit Jan 20 04:41 Mitt's biggest policy blunder Jan 20 18:58 Gingrich, Reagan re-united Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Rick Santorum was really feeling it Thursday night. Then he said something that's certain to cause him pain this morning. Here's what he said that got him in trouble: SANTORUM: But you also have to admit that this freshman congressman who wasn't supposed to win a race came and did something you never did, which is blew the li...
Read more

December 2011 Posts

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 01-Dec-11  Why did Common Cause MN get involved with TakeAction Minnesota? 01-Dec-11  Was this week the turning point? 01-Dec-11  Mitt's attacks are stale, predictable, ineffective 01-Dec-11  Minnesotans hear good news on budget, whining from Rep. Winkler 01-Dec-11  Mitt sends in Chris Christie to attack Newt 02-Dec-11  Hugh's missing something vitally important 02-Dec-11  Dayton, SEIU, AFSCME are rigging child care unionization vote 02-Dec-11  That's President Obama's definition of prosperity? 02-Dec-11  BREAKING NEWS: Romney won't debate Newt one-on-one 03-Dec-11  What Romney, Obama don't get about elections 03-Dec-11  Cain Suspends Campaign 04-Dec-11  Will's longstanding hatred of Gingrich boils over 05-Dec-11  Judge Lindman scuttles Gov. Dayton, SEIU, AFSCME forced unionization sche...
Read more

November 1-2, 2017

Image
Nov 01 06:50 Refugee resettlement, Masters' question Nov 01 08:07 Why Ed Gillespie will win Nov 01 13:27 The refugee resettlement racket Nov 02 08:07 Civility at a City Council meeting? Nov 02 08:45 Why Ed Gillespie will win, Part II Nov 02 09:32 Donna Brazile vs. Hillary Clinton, DWS Nov 02 10:48 Newt: the experts are wrong Nov 02 17:35 Let the tax battle begin Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Refugee resettlement, Masters' question Much has been written about the controversial finish to the Oct. 23 St. Cloud City Council meeting. One thing that's been the topic of discussion is that the Goerger resolution felt like an ambush. That's certainly the position most of Councilman Johnson's supporters have. After Councilman Goerger's introduction of his resolution and after it was seconded, Councilman Johnson rightfully complained that h...
Read more