October 4-5, 2007
Oct 04 06:42 Fifty-Four Words That Flattened The Democrats Oct 04 07:53 Nobody Said He Was the Brightest Bulb In the Drawer Oct 04 15:41 The Most Open Congress In History Is History, Part II Oct 04 16:40 Shield Law Must Be Stopped ASAP Oct 05 00:57 Another Apology Required? Oct 05 01:42 A Blue Star Mother Awaiting Schumer's Reply Oct 05 08:28 Matthews Goes Off the (Extra) Deep End Oct 05 10:07 He Must Love Punishment Oct 05 23:13 VoteVets' Attempt to Smear Rush Fails
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006
Fifty-Four Words That Flattened The Democrats
That's how I'd describe Fred Thompson's statement :
Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh. He is one of the strongest supporters of our troops, yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough. I wonder who General Petraeus and his troops think is most supportive?Between John Murtha's accusations that the Haditha Marines had killed "innocent civilians in cold blood" and Pelosi and Reid saying that the Surge had failed , it's clear that Democrats weren't that interested in fighting for our troops. It's clear that the Democratic leadership is perfectly willing to demoralize our troops for temporary political gain.
What's impressive about Sen. Thompson's statement is the brevity and conciseness with which he flattened Harry Reid. Fifty-four words are all it took for Sen. Thompson to make the strongest case possible while flattening Harry Reid, Senate Democrats and MoveOn.org. Anyone doubting that he's got the insight and communication skills to totally annihilate Democrats should reconsider their position.
This hasn't been a good week for Reid's Senate Democrats. They've been exposed as deceitful political opportunists. Rush has challenged Reid, demanding that Reid come on his show and make these allegations face-to-face. Last and by no means least, Rush has utterly exposed the Clinton/Media Matters mudslinging machine.
It's time that Republicans started waking up to the fact that we're in a fight against ruthless, unethical people who don't care if they have to take a man totally out of context to smear him. They're badly wrong on the policies, they're unserious about fighting the jihadists and they're among the most despicable politicians ever.
It's time to take Rush's lead and to go on the offensive. It's time to Sign the Petition & Stand With Rush . It's time to follow this outline to defeat liberals and win over undecideds.
Most importantly, it's time to unite with our politicians and put together a strong futuristic vision for Americans to sign onto. We can't just criticize the slimers like Media Matters, MoveOn.org, Harry Reid and the Clintonistas. Now's the time to put it all together. If we do that, our best days will be just ahead.
Posted Thursday, October 4, 2007 6:44 AM
Comment 1 by jesse stiefel at 04-Oct-07 12:37 PM
Rush you need to keep pushing these weak republicans who seem to have lost their guts to fight back. If it wasn't for you the republican party would have vanished by now. I write to some of these senators and it sometimes helps but ofter it does not. I hope Fred Thompson keeps firing away at the lies told by the democrats and their organizations.
Nobody Said He Was the Brightest Bulb In the Drawer
Jim McDermott hears the drumbeats of war coming from the Bush administration. After hearing that, you're probably wondering what else he's hearing, don't you? Here's what he said on the House Floor Tuesday:
Mr. Speaker:Talk about a delusional idiot. This guy might be farther out there than Dennis Kucinich. How many of you thought that possible? You've gotta chuckle when 'Baghdad Jim' says this:
Out of a sense of duty and a growing fear I stand to say that I hear the drumbeats of war coming again from this Administration. This time, Iran is in their crosshairs.
It's ironic that the alarm is sounded today, the birthdate of Mahatma Gandhi, and the United Nations' first World Nonviolence Day in honor of Gandhi's commitment to peace.
Perhaps the contrast between a man of peace and an Administration of War will underscore the need and the urgency for Congress to act before the President orders a military strike.
I listened and sounded the alarm in 2002 concerning Iraq. But the President and Vice President had already set in motion their invasion plan and those who got in their way were rendered pre-invasion casualties.
Back then, too many in the media, the Congress and across the nation were willing to accept a war without justification or justice.
Now, at least, the American people overwhelmingly recognize the tragic consequences of the Iraq war and occupation.
At least one development in 2008 may make this time different than 2002. The Internet has grown exponentially.
Today, credible and factual information is readily available. The Blogosphere is on fire sounding the alarm . And we will have no one to blame except ourselves if we let this Administration take us to war against Iran.
Go to your computer and Google "Iran War." The search returns over 74 million hits. Let me read a few of the top search results.
Day One --
The War With Iran.
Iran: The Next War: Rolling Stone.
America's Hidden War With Iran: Newsweek.
Is a U.S.- Iran War Inevitable? -- Time.
The Iran Plans: The New Yorker.
And, US trains Gulf air forces for war with Iran.
Some see the same signs that I do and they are writing across a broad spectrum of media, trying to be heard above the drumbeats of war.
However, the President and Vice President are again using friendly fire through right-wing media to disarm the American people, while they lay the groundwork and shop for a provocation to launch a military strike.
Journalist Tim Shipman at the Telegraph in London writes: "American diplomats have been ordered to compile a dossier detailing Iran's violations of international law. Some US diplomats believe the exercise... will boost calls for military action by neo-conservatives inside and outside the administration."
In The New Yorker, renowned journalist Seymour Hersh writes: "The revised bombing plan for a possible attack, with its tightened focus on counterterrorism, is gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon.
Hirsch adds: "A Pentagon consultant on counterterrorism told me that, if the bombing campaign took place, it would be accompanied by a series of what he called "short, sharp incursions" by American Special Forces units into suspected Iranian training sites. Cheney is devoted to this, no question."
Does that sound like a diplomatic solution to you?
For at least a year, we've been lulled into believing that this Administration cannot fool the American people again. But I say that is just the kind of wishful thinking
the Administration is hoping for.
It gives them time to spin the rhetoric and plot the missile tracks into Iran. We stand on the brink of a conflagration in the Mideast, spreading from Iraq to Iran, to Pakistan, and the entire region.
The legacy of this Administration could well be wars without end and wars without borders. Waiting for the next election may be too late.
As a medical doctor, I was trained to listen to the patient. I've been listening to this President and he is telling us that Iran is his next military target.
Congress is all that stands in the way and I urge the House to act before it is too late.
Thank you.
As a medical doctor, I was trained to listen to the patient. I've been listening to this President and he is telling us that Iran is his next military target.
What on God's green earth is this idiot talking about? President Bush has consistently and rightly stated that the military option is still on the table. He hasn't deviated from that position nor should he. It's worth remembering that, with only 14 months left in his presidency, it'd be almost impossible to drum up support for this war.
Therefore, one wonders if Rep. McDermott isn't hearing other voices, voices that need immediate attention, preferably in a safe environment with padded walls. (We wouldn't want him to hurt himself, would we?)
The next thing that must be asked is what Rep. McDermott is basing that off of. Here's what he lists as the basis for his misguided beliefs:
Today, credible and factual information is readily available. The Blogosphere is on fire sounding the alarm. And we will have no one to blame except ourselves if we let this Administration take us to war against Iran.Citing Rolling Stone as a credible source for military reporting isn't just a little far-fetched. In fact, it's extremely far-fetched, which fits McDermott's political agenda.
Go to your computer and Google "Iran War." The search returns over 74 million hits. Let me read a few of the top search results.
Day One -- The War With Iran.
Iran: The Next War: Rolling Stone.
America's Hidden War With Iran: Newsweek.
Is a U.S.- Iran War Inevitable? -- Time.
The Iran Plans: The New Yorker.
And, US trains Gulf air forces for war with Iran.
Some see the same signs that I do and they are writing across a broad spectrum of media, trying to be heard above the drumbeats of war.
McDermott also cites Cy Hersh as a credible source. Cy Hersh hasn't been a credible source in ages. Frankly, I'd trust reputable bloggers like Michael Yon and Bill Roggio more than I'd trust Mr. Hersh.
As for him saying that the internet "is on fire sounding the alarm" and that their information is "credible", "factual" and "readily available" is interesting at best and totally inaccurate, and possibly delusional, at worst.
This is just the latest proof that Rep. McDermott's hearing has failed him. It's also proof that it's time for Seattle to elect someone (Steve Beren comes to mind) who doesn't hear voices to the US House of Representatives. It's time they had real representation.
Posted Thursday, October 4, 2007 7:56 AM
No comments.
The Most Open Congress In History Is History, Part II
That's essentially what Jackie Kucinich is reporting in this Hill Magazine article . Here's what Ms. Kucinich is basing her opinion on:
Despite Democratic promises that the House Rules Committee would operate much differently in the new majority, it is as partisan as ever. Furious with how the powerful panel has been directed this year, all four Republican members of the Rules Committee took to the floor Tuesday night to air their grievances publicly.This isn't surprising news considering the woeful state of the House Democrats' agenda. The Rules Committee can't afford to let Republicans offer serious amendments. If they did, their agenda would fall apart. Think about it. If there was a conservative agenda to vote on, how often would freshman Democrats, who won seats in Southern swing districts, vote with the minority and hand Pelosi a string of embarrassing defeats?
During his speech, ranking member David Dreier (R-CA) lambasted Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Democratic leadership for failing to deliver on promises of an open, bipartisan legislative environment.
"I have to say that when we look at this record over the past nine months, it is, to me, a very, very sad commentary that every single American has had their rights undermined on dealing with substantive public policy issues," Dreier said, noting that a new website launched by the minority members would help document perceived abuses of power and procedure.
I'd bet that it'd get pretty embarrassing for Ms. Pelosi if there were more open rules.
I'd further suggest that the "most open, most ethical congress in history" was just a nice-sounding political slogan to campaign on. Let's remember that John Murtha is part of this equation. Let's remember that Murtha said that the ethics package was " pure crap ":
Ditto their complaints of Democrats' insensitivity to ethical standards, which follow the indictment on bribery charges of a prominent House Democrat, William Jefferson, and the complaint by an even more prominent Democrat, John Murtha,Let's also remember that David Obey initially rebelled against House rules about reporting earmarks, telling lawmakers to not submit earmarks until they were putting the finishing touches on the conference reports. Clearly, Pelosi's Democrats aren't interested in openness or integrity.
that ethics reform is "pure crap."
Posted Thursday, October 4, 2007 3:43 PM
No comments.
Shield Law Must Be Stopped ASAP
According to Laurie Kellmann's AP article , the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill, sending it to the full Senate. That means it's time to fill our senators' inboxes with letters telling them that passing shield law would give disreputable journalists the ability to make up sources. We should flood the Senate switchboard, too.
The House will vote by year's end on legislation that would shield reporters from being forced to reveal their sources in some cases in federal court, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.That's the biggest pile of chutzpah I've heard from Ms. Pelosi in ages and that's saying something. Since when was it "fundamental to our democracy" to give irresponsible journalists the right to hide sources? Let's start with a few basic questions, starting with this:
A similar bill is headed to the full Senate after winning approval from a committee.
"This is fundamental to our democracy and fundamental to the security of our country," Pelosi, D-Calif., told The Associated Press Managing Editors. "We will bring something to the floor this year, before the end of this session."
Would this legislation protect the NY Times reporters who broke the story about the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program? Obviously, their information came from NSA employees with inside information on the program.If the answer to either question is yes, then this bill should go down in flames. ASAP.
Would this legislation protect reporters like Judith Miller and Matt Cooper?
Despite Pelosi's announcement and the 15-2 vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the measure faces an uncertain future, especially in the Senate.Let's hope that Republican senators stop this legislation in its tracks the minute it hits the full Senate. That's the only appropriate outcome for this legislation.
The White House and several Republican senators oppose the bill because, they say, such a policy would hobble law enforcement and efforts by intelligence officials to trace the source of leaks that could harm national security.
An objection by a single senator can stall a bill in the Senate.
Posted Thursday, October 4, 2007 4:41 PM
No comments.
Another Apology Required?
With Lt. Col. Paul Ware's recommendation that the murder charges against SSgt. Wuterich be dropped heading to Gen. James Mattis' desk, it's likely that none of the Haditha Marines will be charged with a single count of murder. That means that John Murtha's unambiguous declaration that the Haditha Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" because they "cracked under the pressure" will be proven totally false.
A Marine Corps official has recommended that murder charges be dismissed against a Camp Pendleton squad leader accused in the deaths of 17 civilians killed in the Iraqi city of Haditha two years ago.If Gen. Mattis accepts Col. Ware's recommendations, it would be a big embarrassment for Rep. Murtha, especially after all the definitive statements that he's made on the subject. More importantly, the cases against the Haditha Marines will have essentially fallen to pieces.
The official, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, said in a recommendation obtained by the North County Times that rather than face murder charges, squad leader Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich should be tried for the lesser offense of negligent homicide in the deaths of five children and two women.
Ware recommended 10 other murder charges against Wuterich be dismissed.
"I believe after reviewing all the evidence that no trier of fact can conclude Staff Sgt. Wuterich formed the criminal intent to kill," Ware wrote in reference to the women and children. "When a Marine fails to exercise due care and civilians die, the charge of negligent homicide, and not murder, is appropriate."
Ware's report, issued to prosecutors and defense attorneys this week, found the evidence against Wuterich contradictory. Ware's role as the case's investigating officer is akin to that of a judge presiding over a pretrial hearing.
"The case against Staff Sgt. Wuterich is simply not strong enough to conclude he committed murder beyond a reasonable doubt," Ware wrote. "Almost all witnesses have an obvious bias or prejudice."
Something else worth noting is that, if Gen. Mattis accepts Col. Ware's recommendation, the only charges pending against the Haditha Marines will be the dereliction of duty charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani and First Lt. Jeff Grayson , accused of failing to investigate the incident. Since it will have been determined that a major incident hadn't occured, it isn't likely that they'll be able to sustain charges against First Lt. Grayson or Lt. Col. Chessani.
It's worth noting that the only statement that Rep. Murtha was right about was this one:
There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people," Murtha explained.Even that needs some clarification. The bomb he's referring to killed a Marine. Here's that statement in context:
"It's much worse than was reported in Time magazine," Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill. "There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people," Murtha explained, adding there were "about twice as many" Iraqis killed than Time had reported.The first logical question after finding out that he hadn't been briefed would be to ask Rep. Murtha how he knew that it was "much worse than was reported in Time magazine". It's clear that Rep. Murtha was attempting to characterize the Haditha Marines as cold-blooded murderers. First, Murtha says that the Time Magazine article wasn't accurate, that the bloodshed was far worse than Tim McGirk reported.
Next, Rep. Murtha said that a firefight didn't happen. That's a bald-faced lie. Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore testified that he briefed the 3/1 Marines of a planned IED explosion and that a white vehicle would play a vital role in the ambush. That information proved accurate. That's now fact because of the video from the UAV and because Capt. Dinsmore listened to the firefight coming in on his radio.
Let's fill out the timeline a bit. Here's what I've pieced together:
Asked about his sources during a midday briefing on Iraq policy in the Capitol, Murtha confidently replied, "All the information I get, it comes from the commanders, it comes from people who know what they're talking about." Although Murtha said that he had not read any investigative reports by the military on the incident, he stressed, "It's much worse than reported in Time magazine."That sounds pretty authoritative, doesn't it? First impressions can be deceiving. They are in this instance. Hint: Keep in mind that Murtha said that his sourcing was from commanders. You'll see why that's importantly shortly. Here's what Murtha later told ABC's Charlie Gibson:
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?That interview happened on May 30, 2006, meaning that the Marine Corps commandant gave Murtha his briefing well after Murtha first went public with his accusations on May 17, 2006. We later found out that Hagee's briefing happened on May 24, 2006:
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.
Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is being sued by one of the accused Marines for libel. He had told The Philadelphia Inquirer that Gen. Michael Hagee had given him the information on which he based his charge that Marines killed innocent civilians.After Murtha's first round of accusations, he said that commanders who "knew what they were talking about" had told him what happened. When pressed on it, though, he said that the Marine Corps Commandant, then Gen. Michael Hagee, had briefed him. Here's why that's important: Commanders serve in the field, usually in theater. Murtha would know that. Later, he said that he got his information from Gen. Hagee, who was serving as Marine Corps Commandant in the Pentagon.
But a spokesman for the Marine Corps said Hagee briefed Murtha on May 24 about Haditha. Murtha had made comments on the case as early as May 17 . On May 17, for example, he said at a news conference, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
A spokeswoman for Murtha was not immediately available.
Isn't it odd that a old soldier like John Murtha would offer such contradictory verification? I find that extremely odd. My theory is that Murtha made his first claims hoping that he wouldn't get challenged. It's also my theory that he changed stories after the Marine Corps issued a statement saying that Murtha had his facts wrong.
There's more deception that Murtha is caught up in. He's also on record as saying that he "knew there was a coverup someplace." If you know that a coverup has happened, it's logical that you'd know where it happened and who was involved. Since he said that it happened "someplace", it's a fair bet that Murtha didn't knkow if a coverup had happened. At best, he might've guessed that these Marines had covered something up.
Having a hunch that something happened isn't the same as knowing that something happened, is it?
When you put all the pieces of this puzzle together, you realize that the pieces don't fit together at all. It's like Murtha borrowed puzzle pieces from other puzzles to make something work.
When a high profile case like this has this many pieces that don't fit, it's extremely likely that the puzzle will end up a disaster. That's certainly what looks likely to happen here. The only question left is whether Murtha will ever apologize to these Marines and their families and to the Marine Corps itself.
I won't hold my breath on that.
Posted Friday, October 5, 2007 1:35 AM
Comment 1 by Stephen MacEwan at 05-Oct-07 09:24 AM
Naw, man. What this means is what everyone else has known about Iraq for a long time - American troops can get away with murder there, and escape any consequences.
Comment 2 by madmatt at 05-Oct-07 09:28 AM
No, what it means is that the military refuses to charge anybody with murder...regardless of how many men women and children they butcher...welcome to a pr war which is causing us to lose what little face we still had.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 05-Oct-07 09:29 AM
Naw, man. What this means is what everyone else has known about Iraq for a long time - American troops can get away with murder there, and escape any consequences.
Comment by Stephen MacEwan 05Oct2007 I don't know which country you live but here in America, we require proof of wrongdoing before convicting them.
We don't convict people because a corrupt, glory-seeking politician makes unfounded allegations, especially when that glory-seeking politician's story has changed as often as it has.
Comment 4 by ME at 05-Oct-07 10:10 AM
"will be proven totally false."
That is incorrect. It will simply not be proven true.
There's a difference.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 05-Oct-07 10:13 AM
"will be proven totally false."
That is incorrect. It will simply not be proven true.
There's a difference.
Comment by ME 05Oct2007Not in this instance.
Comment 6 by iaintbacchus at 05-Oct-07 10:20 AM
This wasn't a declaration of innocence, this was a motion to reduce the charge to a lesser, included, and therefor easier to prove, offense. The "marine official" was the officer assigned as counsel for the defense.
This is what defense council gets paid to do and it happens in nearly every criminal trial, military or civilian, in the civilized world.
There isn't any question that 24 Iraqi civilians were killed that day in Hidatha. Nor that they were killed by Marines from a particular unit. Nor that the killing of some or all of them was counter to the rules of engagement. Nor that some of them were women and children killed in cold blood.
In short, the atrousity that Murtha and others were talking about did occur. And it was much worse than originally reported. And you're tuning this around, on the basis of a defense counil motion for a plea bargain, to make a US congressman and decorated combat veteran into some kind of liar and traitor because that's what fits your particular political ideology. Shame on you.
Comment 7 by happywash at 05-Oct-07 10:41 AM
And Sen Craig didn't cruise in bathrooms because that's not what he was charged with, and OJ is innocent of murder, there's no way he could have done it, because a jury found him not guilty. You're a little early in saying that no one will get charged with murder, and even if they don't get charged, it doesn't mean anything. How many murder suspects in America have not actually been charged for myriad reasons.
I don't want to think soldiers are capable of doing such a thing. And I will go so far as to say that I can, in some way, understand what they did considering the pressure that they are under, but many people on your side of the fence need to put away the rose-colored glasses and realize that soldiers can get ugly and do bad things. Aby Ghraib (sic) for example.
You know, you should really spend your outrage on things like soldiers coming home from the war with a total lack of proper medical care and no money to make house payments. Jesus, Murtha again?!!!? Yes, you hate him so, wow, we get it. Try to focus on the totally innocent, hard-working soldiers.
Oh, yeah. That's right. It's not fun to talk about the ugly side of the war and the VA. That would mean you might have to admit that the war isn't as beautiful and "winning" as you make it out to be.
Comment 8 by jschultz at 05-Oct-07 12:39 PM
Since when does the US military not prosecuting or not convicting one of their own mean that they didn't commit the crime?
Anyone ever heard of the My Lai Massacre?
350-500 civilians, mostly women and children were butchered by a US army unit in My Lai, Vietnam in 1968.
After an initially successful coverup, only ONE person was convicted of murder. That person ultimately only served 3.5 years of home arrest.
Since when does the military protecting its own mean that an atrocious crime didn't occur?!
Comment 9 by Gary Gross at 05-Oct-07 12:44 PM
You know, you should really spend your outrage on things like soldiers coming home from the war with a total lack of proper medical care and no money to make house payments. Jesus, Murtha again?!!!? Yes, you hate him so, wow, we get it. Try to focus on the totally innocent, hard-working soldiers.
Oh, yeah. That's right. It's not fun to talk about the ugly side of the war and the VA. That would mean you might have to admit that the war isn't as beautiful and "winning" as you make it out to be.
Comment by happywash Shame on you for assuming that I don't get outraged about soldiers not getting proper care. You made an assumption based on my being an evil conservative rather than relying on verifiable information.
If you don't get rid of your biases, you won't think clearly.
Comment 10 by Jack Black at 05-Oct-07 05:14 PM
Hey man, I'm with you.
1. Anyone is presumed innocent unless proven guilty (unless they are foreigners or American citizens accused of terrorism; then they are presumed guilty unless proven innocent).
2. Our soldiers are human beings. Sometimes some of them witness comrades die and then "loose it", killing innocent civilians and going on a rampage. Stuff happens. I bet if your family got killed in such a fashion you'd understand.
3. John Murtha is clearly a traitor. So what if he's risked his life for this country in combat, has numerous military decorations, etc. I'm sure you have done the same and know what you are talking about, man.
Keep on writing this great stuff!
Comment 11 by Robert at 08-Oct-07 09:02 AM
Murtha will be denounced and forced to apologize at the same time as Ann Coulter.
Save the Date: The 10th of Never.
Comment 12 by Robert at 08-Oct-07 01:36 PM
happwash,
That was low blow on Gary Gross.
Can you imagine anyone being stupid enough to be a conservative anymore?
One would have to have been brain dead for the last 20 years to follow a failed ideology like conservatism.
A Blue Star Mother Awaiting Schumer's Reply
After reading this letter , I wouldn't want to be Chuck Schumer. Here's why:
Dear Senator Schumer:Ms. Pearlson has every right to be upset with Sen. Schumer. For someone who supposedly supports the troops, it's awfully disrespectful of him to not make time for this woman. I can understand why he'd avoid meeting with the Vets For Freedom. They're on the opposite side of the war. Not meeting with a woman whose son is fighting in Afghanistan is simply unforgiveable.
I am the mother of a Soldier currently serving his 4th deployment in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne. He is 24 years old and very brave. He is the recipient of the Bronze Star and many other medals.
On September 18th, I was in Washington, DC to support my Son and the recommendations made by General Petraeus. I was present for a meeting with your "agriculture representative" and 9 representatives from Vets For Freedom. The Vets For Freedom are Veterans and active duty Soldiers, and I thought you were very lucky to have these "Soldiers" visit you and take the time to share their "boots on the ground, first hand" information with you. Frankly, I am confused and very disappointed that you did not participate in this meeting yourself. As you espouse to "support our troops", I am very confused by this slight on your part toward these deeply dedicated Soldiers with vital information directly from the battlefield?!
Your "agricultural representative" took these fine Soldiers out in the hallway to have this little get-together. Toward the end of the meeting someone came up and handed her an onion and that is when she informed us that her area of expertise is really "agriculture." She was concerned that we knew it was okay for her to accept the onion as it was grown in the district! She ended the meeting by telling us she would let you know their concerns.
This is how you collect pertinent information regarding decisions affecting my Son and all our Soldiers? Senator, this is downright reckless. It is one thing to say you "support our troops" but your actions do not show support at all. Frankly, as the mother of a Soldier, I am horrified that you did not make arrangements to hear what these Soldiers had to say. Surely, they are the ones you legislators should be listening to as they are the ones fighting on the ground????
I ask that you consider giving the Vets For Freedom another appointment and listen to what they have to say. You owe that to my Son and all the fine Soldiers serving. If you "support the troops" you yourself should be LISTENING to them!
The Very Proud Mother of a Soldier serving in Afghanistan, 4th deployment,
Beverly Perlson
As you'll recall, Democratic senators avoided VFF all week. They wouldn't meet even though VFF offered to go to their offices.
Considering the Democrats' huffing and puffing about how Rush dissed the troops, isn't it a bit hypocritical of them to refuse meeting with VFF? After all, a significant portion of them either are serving in Iraq or have returned from serving there.
Posted Friday, October 5, 2007 1:44 AM
No comments.
Matthews Goes Off the (Extra) Deep End
Based on this article , I'd be hard pressed to say that Chris Matthews had gone off the deep end. I wouldn't have a problem saying that he'd gone off the extra deep end, though. here's what happened that drives my opinion:
Chris Matthews had barely finished praising his colleagues at the 10th anniversary party for his "Hardball" show Thursday night in Washington, D.C. when his remarks turned political and pointed, even suggesting that the Bush administration had "finally been caught in their criminality."When Little Chrissie says that the Clinton camp never put pressure on his bosses to silence him, what he's really saying is that he's so in the tank liberal that they don't need to pressure him. It's documented fact that the Clintons aren't against threatening media outlets when it suits their purpose:
In front of an audience that included such notables as Alan Greenspan, Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy, Matthews began his remarks by declaring that he wanted to "make some news" and he certainly didn't disappoint. After praising the drafters of the First Amendment for allowing him to make a living, he outlined what he said was the fundamental difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations.
The Clinton camp, he said, never put pressure on his bosses to silence him.
"Not so this crowd," he added, explaining that Bush White House officials, especially those from Vice President Cheney's office, called MSNBC brass to complain about the content of his show and attempted to influence its editorial content. "They will not silence me!" Matthews declared.
"They've finally been caught in their criminality," Matthews continued, although he did not specify the exact criminal behavior to which he referred. He then drew an obvious Bush-Nixon parallel by saying, "Spiro Agnew was not an American hero."
Early this summer, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign for president learned that the men's magazine GQ was working on a story the campaign was sure to hate: an account of infighting in Hillaryland.For all of Little Chrissie's attempts to deify the Clintons, they're still the slimiest First Couple we've ever had. I'd love to see Matthews explain why what the Clintons did wasn't censorship. Furthermore, I'd like to know what criminal behavior the Bush administration was involved in. Criticizing a show's content, especially the content of a show run by a lunatic, certainly doesn't constitute criminal behavior.
So Clinton's aides pulled a page from the book of Hollywood publicists and offered GQ a stark choice: Kill the piece, or lose access to planned celebrity coverboy Bill Clinton.
Despite internal protests, GQ editor Jim Nelson met the Clinton campaign's demands, which had been delivered by Bill Clinton's spokesman, Jay Carson, several sources familiar with the conversations said.
If he's calling for the Bush administration to be locked up, shouldn't he be calling for the Clintons' arrest, if for no other reason than to be intellectually honest? There's verifiable proof that the Clintons sought to silence the media. There might be merit to Matthews' claims but that doesn't mean a crime has been committed. Complaining about the coverage isn't criminal.
Isn't it interesting that he'd accuse the White House of criminal activity without telling what crime they committed? My theory is that this was just another desperate attempt to get attention for a ratings-starved show.
Looney Tunes gave us Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. Now MSNBC seems intent on giving us the Lunatic Twins in the characters of Little Chrissie Matthews and Obtuse Keith Olbermann. Thank God we've got a remote to avoid those idiots.
Posted Friday, October 5, 2007 8:30 AM
Comment 1 by cali_sun28 at 06-Oct-07 06:25 AM
The GOP Contenders should boycott this next debate, moderated by thjis lunatic. I can already imagine the dumb, and ignorant questions coming their way!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-Oct-07 07:42 AM
The GOP Contenders should boycott this next debate, moderated by this lunatic. I can already imagine the dumb, and ignorant questions coming their way!
Comment by cali_sun28 06Oct2007 I totally disagree. Instead, they should show up prepared to embarrass the little twerp.
Personally, I prefer broadsiding little twerps rather than running from them but that's just me.
He Must Love Punishment
That's the only explanation I can think of for Harry Reid continuing his fight with Rush . Either that or he's incredibly stupid. (It isn't that I doubt that he's stupid; it's a matter of determining which level of stupidity he's at .) Here's how Sen. Reid is pressing the fight today:
On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter, signed by 41 Democrats, to Clear Channel Chief Executive Officer Mark P. Mays demanding he repudiate Limbaugh's comments and extract an apology from him. Mays responded the same day in a letter to Reid defending Limbaugh's right to express his opinions openly on the airwaves.Here's some things that Reid should've picked up on:
But Reid is not dropping the matter.
In an e-mail to Democrats today, he urges the public to inundate Mays with similar demands.
'The people' have spoken. They've sided with Rush. It wasn't close. Inundating Mays' inbox won't do any good. He isn't about to punish Rush, especially after noticing the flimsiness of Media Matters' and Sen. Reid's 'case' against Rush's.
Frankly, Sen. Reid would be wise to cut his losses before he's utterly humiliated. That said, there's a reason why Sen. Reid is considered the most incompetent majority leader in Senate history. Here's the content of Sen. Reid's letter:
"I normally ignore Rush Limbaugh, but his comments last Wednesday went too far for me to remain silent," Reid wrote. "It's one thing to call me 'Dingy Harry' ; it's another to insult our men and women in uniform, calling those who oppose the war 'phony soldiers,' as Rush did during his Sept. 26 broadcast."While it's possible to argue who Rush was referring to, it isn't difficult refuting that statement. A simple look at the transcript shows that Rush wasn't criticizing soldiers who oppose the Iraq war.
There's other reasons why Sen. Reid should drop this:
1. Rush's listening audience is 20+ million a week. It's been that big for more than a decade because his listeners overwhelmingly approve of him.
2. Harry Reid is part of one of the most unpopular congresses in history.
3. As recently as June, Harry Reid's JAR was 19 percent . That isn't Nixonesque low but it's within whispering distance of Nixon's JAR.
4. Rush has used this opportunity to highlight the fact that Hillary started the Media Matters 'watchdog group'. That isn't what Hillary wanted known. In fact, I'd bet that she's fuming that Rush publicized that fact.
This week hasn't been a good week for Democrats in general and Reid in particular. In fact, it couldn't have been much worse for them. Thanks to Harry Reid throwing more gas on the fire, it isn't likely to get better anytime soon.
Posted Friday, October 5, 2007 10:10 AM
No comments.
VoteVets' Attempt to Smear Rush Fails
Just watch this video and see how long it takes to spot the first deceptive line. I'm betting it won't take long.
Brian McGough: More and more veterans from Iraq believe that George Bush's policy on Iraq is a disaster. I'm one of them. Rush Limbaugh called soldiers like me "phoney soldiers" for telling the truth about Iraq.My response to Brian McGough is simple. Rush has never said that Iraq war veterans who've argued against the Bush administration's policy were phoney soldiers. That's a myth started by Hillary Clinton's propaganda machine, aka Media Matters. Harry Reid used this misinformation in a speech on the Senate floor. That backfired miserably. After that, it was picked up by MSNBC and CNN. It's since backfired on them.
Rush, the shrapnel I took to my head was real. The traumatic head injury was real and my belief that we are on the wrong track in Iraq is real.
Rush, until you have the guts to call me a phoney soldier to my face, stop telling lies about my service in Iraq.
At best, this was an uban myth just waiting to be debunked. Rush didn't just debunk that myth this week. Rush used the roadgrader of truth to demolish that little myth. While demolishing Harry Reid, he also exposed Media Matters as a Hillary Clinton creation. Rush also showed that VoteVets aren't interested in the truth :
Rusty Humphries says, "Why are you doing this, honestly? What is your reasoningDon't look now but Mr. Friedman's motivation was just exposed. That was the first Rusty Humphries clip. Here's the other clip:
behind this?"
FRIEDMAN: The problem I have with Rush Limbaugh is that he enables policy makers who have gotten our country into a lot of trouble. We're in a lot of trouble. I mean, we've got some serious problems with Islamic extremism globally, and we can't address those problems correctly --
HUMPHRIES: Why?
FRIEDMAN: -- because we're bogged down in another country's religious civil war.
HUMPHRIES: Okay, so it's not what Rush said, it's who Rush supports, and because he helped get them elected, he needs to be taken down, is that --
FRIEDMAN: No, it's a pattern of what he does. I mean, this guy has a voice, and he affects people.
HUMPHRIES: Again, he talked about this Jesse MacBeth the day before, he talked about him on that show, the day of the show, the day after the show. He's explained himself and still you're going to continue, and you support what Harry Reid said, taking this out of context?This is proof positive that Mr. Friedman isn't versed in the truth. He's just another man on a mission because he disagrees with President Bush. That's certainly his right as an American. It isn't his right, though, to use a different 'truth'. Like Daniel Patrick Moynihan said ages ago, "Everyone's entitled to their own opinions. They just aren't entitled to their own facts."
Come on, Brandon, that's not fair. That's not right. I could take what you said out of context. I mean this guy explained, and explained, and explained, and you're still spreading these lies, saying that he called a soldier a suicide bomber? And what about Tom Harkin? Do you think it was okay for Tom Harkin to accuse Rush Limbaugh to be on drugs?
FRIEDMAN: Yeah, maybe it's not appropriate for the Senate floor, but it's true.
Rush granted an interview to a Miami newspaper refuting Friedman's claim that Rush was using drugs. Here's the key portion of that interview:
A corrections spokesman this week confirmed Limbaugh has been a good boy and that the drug tests his doctor has conducted have been negative.That information alone is reason enough for Mr. Friedman to apologize. I'd be surprised if he did, though. BDS-afflicted liberals aren't into apologizing. They're just into moving onto their next victim. That corrections spokesman's report is enough justification for Ssen. Harkin to apologize, too. That's wishful thinking, too. There isn't a chance that Sen. Harkin will do the right thing and apologize for hypothesizing that Rush was using drugs at the time he made his phoney soldiers comment.
In the final analysis, the VoteVets' advertisements will fail because the public knows what was said. They know that VoteVets is a partisan organization that's tried peddling a pack of lies.
The public also knows VoteVets' motivation because Rush went on a weeklong offensive that exposed them as a Democratic propaganda front group. Had they simply said that they disagreed with President Bush's policies, their opinions would've carried some weight. When Brian McGough made the same accusations against Rush that Media Matters and Harry Reid made, they crossed the line in terms of partisanship.
In other words, VoteVets is guilty of overstepping their limits just like Democrats do on an almost daily basis. In the end, that's why this campaign will fail miserably.
Posted Friday, October 5, 2007 11:15 PM
Comment 1 by cali_sun28 at 06-Oct-07 06:20 AM
Thanks, a really great post. I am wondering whether Rush could sue Harkin for slander, libel with malicious intent?
