September 11, 2007
Sep 11 02:03 Will Democrats Repudiate MoveOn.org? Sep 11 03:20 Pawlenty Calls Special Session, DFL Sheds Crocodile Tears Sep 11 11:36 Utterly Clueless Sep 11 15:53 Armed Services Committee Highlight (What The Agenda Won't Report)
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006
Will Democrats Repudiate MoveOn.org?
That's the question that's squarely being asked in the aftermath of MoveOn.org's ad about Gen. 'Betray Us'. Specifically, the NRSC is asking that Democrats return all campaign contributions from MoveOn.org:
Senate Republicans are calling on Democrats to return political contributions they received from MoveOn.org after the anti-war group took out an ad in the New York Times calling Gen. David Petraeus "General Betray Us." Sen. John Ensign, chairman of the NRSC, attacked Democrats for not failing to condemn the ad.There isn't a chance that Democrats will return the campaign cash and Sen. Ensign knows it. That's what makes this move so brilliant. Democrats are now put in the position of ostensibly admitting that they won't separate themselves from a radical fringe organization. Democrats are now caught in a lose-lose-lose situation. If they return the campaign contributions, their warchests will be considerably smaller. Secondly, they'll risk alienating the Nutroots activists prior to next year's elections. Thirdly, if they don't get rid of MoveOn.org's money, Republicans will tie every Democrat to this ad.
"Democrat front group MoveOn.org is calling a unanimously confirmed United States General a liar and betrayer of the public trust," the Nevada Republican said in a statement. "Apparently the prospect of campaign funds is enough of an incentive for Senate Democrats to stand idly by while a respected general is maligned before he has even presented his report to Congress.
He went on: "If Senate Democrats are serious about moving our country forward, they will denounce this outrageous ad and return the campaign funds MoveOn.org has lavished on them as well as the donations made through MoveOn.org, the choice is theirs."
Democrats quickly responded by attempting to change the subject:
A Democratic aide responded: "There's a reason Senate Republicans' electoral prospects are rapidly fading and it's not just because of a bathroom in Minneapolis or a whorehouse in New Orleans. Instead of playing politics with national security, they should join Senate Democrats who are working to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home."That's one of the lamest responses I've ever seen. Why should Republicans "join Senate Democrats who are working to" unilaterally declare defeat?
Here's MoveOn.org's ad:
The biggest bald-faced lie is in this sentence:
"Every independent report on the ground situation shows that the surge strategy has failed."That isn't the conclusion that Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon reached. That isn't the opinion of Ralph Peters. Rep. Brian Baird and Rep. Keith Ellison certainly don't think that it's failed.
Here's what Col. Peters told Bill O'Reilly:
MoveOn.org couldn't care less about what's actually happening in Iraq because they're consumed with using the war to seize as much political power as possible in Washington, DC. They didn't start their campaign against the war because they thought it had turned south. They started it because they're pacifists who think that all war is wrong. Simply put, they're despicable liars who'll do anything to get their way.
Posted Tuesday, September 11, 2007 2:05 AM
No comments.
Pawlenty Calls Special Session, DFL Sheds Crocodile Tears
By now, everyone reading the blogosphere knows that Gov. Pawlenty called a special session for Tuesday, starting at 5:00 pm. I got a laugh reading several DFL quotes, especially this one:
"We continue to be pretty disappointed that we are not going to be able to deal with road and bridge safety and the needs for police and fire for our communities around the state. That seems to have eluded us and that's really too bad," said Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud.Tarryl, you only have yourself to blame.That isn't exactly true. To be certain, Tarryl bears some blame for not getting a special session called sooner. Mostly, the DFL has Larry Pogemiller to blame, although Maggie Kelliher and Steve Murphy didn't help matters either. The special session would've been called almost immediately if the DFL hadn't insisted on refighting the regular session's battles. Instead of focusing on the crises facing Minneapolis and Southeastern Minnesota, Larry Pogemiller, Tarryl, Kelliher and Murphy insisted on revisiting the tax increases in the Transportation and Tax bills, along with LGA, bonding and other payoffs for DFL allies.
In the wake of the Interstate Highway 35W bridge collapse earlier this summer, there were hopes of an agreement on more funding for transportation, said Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud. "By this administration's own estimates, we have a $2.4 billion transportation shortfall," she said. "(Pawlenty) made a lot of statements that gave people a lot of hope, but ultimately, he didn't seem to have the will to do it."Calling MnDOT part of any Republican administration is technically true since it resides in the executive branch. That technicality aside, MnDOT is like a government unto itself, and a very liberal government at that.
As for Clark's statement that Gov. Pawlenty "made a lot of statements that gave people a lot of hope" but didn't deliver on that talk, it's Sen. Clark and her DFL colleagues who should look themselves in the mirror. Immediately after the I-35W bridge collapse, Gov. Pawlenty made a statesmanlike gesture by saying he wouldn't take anything off the table.
The DFL then did what they usually do: they overplayed their hand by thinking that they could bully Gov. Pawlenty into calling a widely-focused special session. Gov. Pawlenty stood his ground, thanks in part to a KSTP-SurveyUSA poll and calls from GOP activists. He knew that opening a special session like the 2005 special session would've been a disaster.
Pogemiller displeasedGetting lectured by Larry Pogemiller on what's conservative is akin to being lectured by Robert Mugabe on human rights. Larry Pogemiller doesn't know a thing about conservatism. Pogemiller is upset because drawing down the reserves would make it easier for Democrats to argue for their tax increase agenda. I suspect that was a big consideration for Gov. Pawlenty.
Earlier in the day, Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, sent Pawlenty a frosty letter saying that he would not stand in the way of a special session that included borrowing, but did not see the need for it when the state has more than $300 million in surplus funds.
Pogemiller said he also did not understand Pawlenty's decision last week to redirect the $31.8 million in budget appropriations to flood relief. Calling that decision "unwise," Pogemiller said the more fiscally conservative approach would be to tap the surplus first.
Posted Tuesday, September 11, 2007 3:20 AM
No comments.
Utterly Clueless
That's the only way I can think of Dennis Kucinich after he was interviewed on Syrian TV. Among the most ludicrous things that he said was that the Iraq war is an illegal occupation", that the United States should pay reparations to the Iraqi people, that Bashar Assad is interested in stabilizing Iraq. Give me a break.
Prior to today, I didn't realize just how stupid Dennis Kucinich was. Check out this quote:
"The effort against Iraq was dishonest, or crooked from the beginning, and nothing good can come of it, except: The international community is needed to become involved and to put a peace-keeping and security force that can move in as the US that they must end the occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home. That's the direction we must take. But we must understand that the policy was based on a lie."Other than the first Gulf War, when has the "international community" put together a peace-keeping force?
As foolish as that statement is, it isn't the most foolish statement that he made. Here's another gem:
Interviewer: So, you were talking about the moment of decision. When it's time to withdraw George Bush sends in more troops - the "surge." How do you find that? How useful was that surge?Inviting Syria and Iran to be part of the peace-keeping force is stupid enough but to think that they'll prevent a vacuum from forming is the embodiment of silliness. We're fighting to prevent the Iranians from having any influence in Iraq. This idiot wants to invite them in to destabilize Iraq. The worst part is that he thinks they'll help stabilize Iraq.
Dennis Kucinich: I've repeatedly challenged the thinking behind the surge. What I have said in offering a plan to our Congress, embodied in a resolution known as House Resolution 1234, is that the United States must end the occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home, but we must have a parallel political process that reaches out to the international community, with the help of Syria and Iran, that would bring an international peace-keeping force , move it in as our troops, so there is no vacuum. That's the beginning...it's not the whole plan...but that's the beginning of a plan. Certainly, increasing the occupation with a surge is counter-productive. It can only result in more deaths.
Almost everything that Rep. Kucinich said is either foolish or outright stupid. To get the full measure of his ideas, you must read the transcript.
Posted Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:37 AM
No comments.
Armed Services Committee Highlight (What The Agenda Won't Report)
There's a recess right now in the Senate Armed Services Committee so that senators can participate in a roll call vote so I'm taking the time to relate the most stunning exchange in the hearing thus far. Here's Sen. Byrd's question and the first part of Gen. Petraeus' answer:
Sen. Byrd: Gen. Petraeus, you've recently touted the success in Anbar Province. Just a few months ago, the tribes in Anbar Providence were shooting and killing Americans. Recently, they disliked the terrorists more than they disliked Americans. Now they're cooperating with us while we give them money and guns. This recalls to my mind our policy in the 1980's in Afghanistan in the arming of the Taliban...As Gen. Petraeus more fully answered Sen. Byrd's question, his face showed beyond a doubt that he was utterly dumbfounded. It was like someone had told him something that he didn't know before today. I don't doubt that that's the case. The only thing I can say is that it's apparent that he isn't mentally fit to serve in the United States Senate anymore. I don't wish him bad luck but I can't think of him as having the mental faculties anymore.
Gen. Petraeus: Senator, first of all, we are not arming the tribes...
Prior to that question, Sen. Byrd said that the American people were "confused as to whether Iraq" was involved in 9/11, to which Gen. Petraeus said that the weren't. Which Americans think that Iraq was involved in 9/11? Has anyone seen this tiny group of people?
UPDATE: Follow this link to C-SPAN's Defense/Security page. Then click on the link titled Senate Armed Services Cmte. Hearing on the Petraeus Report - Part 1 and fast forward to the 1:23:00 mark to watch Sen. Byrd look completely disheveled with Gen. Petraeus' answer. Trust me when I tell you that Byrd's facial expression is priceless.
Originally posted Tuesday, September 11, 2007, revised 12-Sep 3:10 AM
No comments.
