September 24-25, 2007
Sep 24 03:34 Why Didn't They Pay It In The First Place? Sep 24 10:55 It's a dangerous world. And we can make progress. Sep 25 02:35 Liberals Now Criticizing Murtha Sep 25 04:40 Defiant Murtha Lashes Out Sep 25 16:53 Partisanship 101
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006
Why Didn't They Pay It In The First Place?
That's the question I'm asking after reading this article about MoveOn.org announcing that they'll pay what they should've paid in the first place:
The activist group MoveOn.org said it will pay the New York Times $77,083 to make up the difference between what it paid for an advertisement attacking U.S. Army General David Petraeus and the regular ad rate.That's professional spin and then some. The truth is that MoveOn.org paid the standby rate even though they were guaranteed to run on the morning of Gen. Petraeus' testimony. Here's the last sentence from the MoveOn.org ad:
The group acted after the newspaper's public editor wrote in a column today that the controversial full-page advertisement on Sept. 10 violated standards on content and the price given to MoveOn.org wasn't proper under Times policies.
"While we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by most organizations, out of abundance of caution we have decided to pay that rate for this ad," Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org's executive director, said in a statement confirmed by the organization.
Today , before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.
The Times originally said that MoveOn.org paid the standby rate, meaning that they weren't guaranteed a date on which it would run. I think that people are insulted by the Times giving that reason when the last paragraph of the ad starts with the word TODAY. Why wouldn't MoveOn.org simply swap out the word Today & replace it with this wording: "Sometime this week"? If they were buying a standby ad, they should've worded it that way. MoveOn.org isn't the only dishonest actor in this. Here's what Hillary said Sunday:
Clinton, of New York, said today she didn't condone the language used against Petraeus, without naming MoveOn.org.
"I don't believe that that should be said about General Petraeus, and I condemn that," she said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program. "I didn't think it should've been said about Senator Cleland or Senator Kerry."
Supposedly, Hillary's got problems with the MoveOn ad but she's perfectly willing to call Gen. Petraeus a liar :
Yesterday Clinton said the general's testimony on progress in Iraq requires a "willing suspension of disbelief."Let's see if I've got this straight. Am I supposed to think that Hillary is against the politics of personal destruction except when she's accusing the commander of troops in Iraq of being a liar? She didn't use the term liar but I don't think there's a difference between what she said and bluntly calling Gen. Petraeus a liar.
Posted Monday, September 24, 2007 3:36 AM
No comments.
It's a dangerous world. And we can make progress.
Those were the two most compelling sentences in Michael Barone's latest column . Mr. Barone's column is one which serious people must pay attention to as election season is almost upon is because it talks about a serious change in "the narrative" on Iraq and the Middle East. Here's part of Barone's column that prefaced his "dangerous world" comments:
True, some Democrats persist in saying that the aggressive surge strategy has made no difference, and large numbers of voters are not convinced that it has. But it is now possible that the added troops will, in Bush's phrase, "return on success." That's a sharp change from what has been the dominant narrative.Democrats had made progress with their defeatist rhetoric because Bush's prosecution of the war was awful. That's changed because he finally has the right man for the job, a man who literally wrote the military's book on counterinsurgency operations. It didn't help the Dems' storyline when the UN announced that it was returning to Iraq because security had improved greatly:
Another event that undermines that narrative took place on Sept. 6, but only began to be appreciated in Washington last week. That was the Israeli air attack on Syria. Israeli officials have said nothing in public about this (although opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu said he supported the action), and Bush flatly refused to comment in his press conference. But on Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens speculated that "the least unlikely possibility" was that the target was a North Korean nuclear installation.
After a meeting with Mr Ban, Mr Maliki said the security situation had "improved a lot in Baghdad".As much as Democrats didn't want to hear that, this paragraph must unnerve them the most:
"We are going to be able to provide security to the UN in a way that will allow it to perform its role in an effective manner," he said.
Mr Ban said: "There was a clear agreement that the international community cannot turn away from, or ignore Iraq. Its stability is our common concern."Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha have advocated the swift removal of troops, which would precipitate a major collapse of Middle East stability. Another thing that would affect Middle East stability is a nuclear Syria. Barone writes about that here:
North Korean technicians were known to be in Syria, and the North Korean government protested the attack. By Friday, The Washington Post reported that "Israel's decision to attack Syria on Sept. 6, bombing a suspected nuclear site set up in apparent collaboration with North Korea, came after Israel shared intelligence with President Bush this summer indicating that North Korean nuclear personnel were in Syria, said U.S. government sources."Israel won't let Iran get a nucleaer weapon; why would it let Syria get one? The American people were reminded that Democrats don't have a plan to deal with a dangerous world beyond their mantra of redeploying troops to "fight the real war on terror." Hillary certainly doesn't have any credibility in that department. She's been flippant at best in terms of America's national security.
These events will have an impact on the presidential campaign because it provides a stark contrast between Republicans and Democrats. MoveOn.org won't let the Democrats develop a coherent strategy in fighting global jihadists. Even if the pacifist wing would let them, there aren't any indications that Democrats understand the complexity of the fight or the ferocity with which this war must be fought.
It's time that Republicans start reminding the American people that they're serious in fighting the terrorists whereas Democrats will say a few obligatory words about defeating the jihadists before returning to 'their issues'. It's time that Republicans told the American people that Nancy Pelosi's Democrats planned on stripping the intelligence budget while they increased funding for global warming :
Promise: "We all, Democrats and Republicans alike, take very seriously our responsibility to protect the American people. We know the important role that intelligence plays in that." -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Press Conference, January 8, 2007That doesn't sound like a political party that takes national security seriously. If the American people believe that it's a dangerous world out there and that we must make progress, then it's imperative that we elect people who are serious about defeating the jihadists. That eliminates the Democrats currently running for president.
Promise: "This bill contains robust funding for critical intelligence programs." -- House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvestre Reyes (D-TX), Floor Remarks, May 10, 2007
Broken Promise: Democrats pledged to provide full funding for critical intelligence programs, but just months after taking power, they took precious resources away from critical intelligence programs and used the money to fund research on global warming instead. "Led by U.S. Rep. Sylvestre Reyes of Texas, a coalition of D.C. Democrats say national security will be better served if CIA cash is used for global warming research, because apparently there just aren't enough people studying the issue out there." -- Intelligence' Committee Threatens National Security, Detroit News Editorial, May 13, 2007
My friend Bones says that Republicans aren't without fault but "at least they aren't trying to get me killed." He can't make that statement about Democrats. I wholeheartedly agree.
Posted Monday, September 24, 2007 11:04 AM
No comments.
Liberals Now Criticizing Murtha
It's hard to believe but that's the only conclusion you can draw after reading Doug Turner's column in the Buffalo News. Here's what Mr. Turner said:
On the integrity front, Democratic Rep. John Murtha, Pa., remains an embarrassment to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, DCalif., who lost a fight to make him majority leader.Turner isn't the only one taking notice of Murtha's corruption either:
Every entity that got an earmark appropriation from Murtha this year gave him a campaign contribution, according to a survey by the newspaper Roll Call and Taxpayers for Common Sense.
The lucky 26 groups gave Murtha campaigns $413,000. He ensured that these friends got $114.5 million worth of projects from his appropriations committee.
Special spending bills, wrapped in secrecy, are at the core of congressional corruption. The House Democratic leadership is blocking legislation to make them public and subject to challenge on the House floor.
And Murtha is one of 13 House members who said last week they will fight subpoenas, claiming constitutional immunity, to testify in the trial of one of the defense contractors who is accused of bribing former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., who is now in jail.
CREW, in its report, said that Paul Magliocchetti, the founder of PMA Group, a prominent Washington defense lobbying firm, worked with Murtha as a senior staffer on the defense subcommittee for 10 years. It and its clients have become major contributors to Murtha's campaign committee.Simply put, Murtha is a one man corruption broker. I'd say that he's never met an earmark he's never liked but this prevents me from saying that:
In the 2006 campaign cycle, PMA Group and 11 of its clients ranked in the top 20 contributors to Murtha, having made contributions totaling $275,000, the watchdog group said. In the 2004 and 2002 cycles, PMA and nine of its clients ranked in the top 20, contributing $237,000 and $279,000 respectively in those years.
In turn, PMA's clients have benefited significantly from Murtha's earmarks, CREW said. In the 2006 Defense appropriations bill, PMA clients received at least 60 earmarks totaling $95.1 million.
Pushing him up onto the list, Sloan said, was Murtha's "threatening a House member for criticizing earmarks. That's a clear violation of House ethics."It's likely that, prior to that incident, it's possible to say that Murtha hadn't met an earmark he didn't like. This is just the tip of a gigantic iceberg, too. I'm told that there will be some videos including documented proof that Rep. Murtha tried railroading the Haditha Marines.
In May, the congressman did not dispute claims he charged across the House floor to confront Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., after Rogers had tried unsuccessfully to strike $23 million Murtha had earmarked for the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown.
If some videos are made showing Murtha's complicity in the railroading of the Haditha Marines, that will destroy the validity of the Democrats' mantra of "We don't support the war but we do support the troops." If Murtha and other Democrats have stood in the way of our soldiers getting justice, I'll personally do everything in my power to make these Democrats the poster children of the Democratic culture of corruption.
Not surprisingly, Murtha's office refused to comment:
Murtha, through his spokesman Matthew Mazonkey, declined to comment.Murtha thinks that he's the ruler of his kingdom and doesn't have to answer other people's questions. That type of arrogance will eventually doom his party for being as corrupt as they accused Republicans of being in 2006.
Posted Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:39 AM
No comments.
Defiant Murtha Lashes Out
Based on John Murtha's op-ed in the Johnstown Tribune Democrat , it's obvious that, not only isn't he repentant; he's downright defiant:
Since 1974, I have had the privilege of serving the people of our area in the U.S. Congress. My title is representative, and I try to represent our area and people well.That's spin of the highest order. It's also a pile of BS. Earmarks in the hands of men like John Murtha are re-election slush funds:
Under the Constitution, Congress has the sole responsibility for appropriating funds to the executive branch, and, as such, it is my constitutional responsibility to direct those federal funds.
Earmarks are a tool Congress uses to change the budget in a way that provides a more positive and direct impact at the national and local levels.
Every entity that got an earmark appropriation from Murtha this year gave him a campaign contribution, according to a survey by the newspaper Roll Call and Taxpayers for Common Sense.You know that earmarks are a form of legalized corruption when a Soros-funded organization like CREW says that Murtha belongs on their list of most unethical legislators in Washington.
The lucky 26 groups gave Murtha campaigns $413,000. He ensured that these friends got $114.5 million worth of projects from his appropriations committee.
It's understatement to say that Murtha's op-ed isn't showing him in his best light. In fact, I think it's an indicator that he's feeling the heat we've been putting on him. Check out this BS from Murtha:
In Congress, I also have the privilege of serving our military as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. In August, the House passed a $459 billion Defense Appropriations Bill, and as chairman, my name is the only one that appears on this bill. I take this responsibility very seriously and I believe the bill we produced this year is one of the best we have ever passed.Let Rep. Murtha talk about the defense budget increases if that's what he wants to do. It doesn't change the fact that Murtha trampled the Haditha Marines' constitutional rights when he accused them of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood " , then covering it up. I've watched public officials do some utterly despicable things in my lifetime. I watched LBJ lie to the American people about winning in Vietnam. I watched Nixon lie about the coverup of Watergate. I've seen Dan Rostenkowski literally brag about the gifts and trips he got from lobbyists because he chaired the House Ways and Means Committee.
With that said, I can state without hesitation that Murtha's tossing the Haditha Marines' constitutional protections under the proverbial bus for political gain is the most reprehensible thing I've ever seen. Murtha deserves a serious reprimand for that alone. That's before considering his threatening Mike Rogers on the House floor. Rep. Rogers challenged the usefulness of the NDIC in Murtha's hometown of Johnstown. Rogers should know about that since he's a former FBI special agent.
It's time that Murtha was sent packing. It's time that W e T he P eople dumped a bunch of chlorine into the House's 'gene pool'.
Posted Tuesday, September 25, 2007 4:44 AM
No comments.
Partisanship 101
When Nancy Pelosi sat down for an interview with Boston Globe reporter Scott Helman, she certainly was doing so as the hyperpartisan that she is. The image she left behind wasn't flattering.
In an hourlong interview with the editorial board of The Boston Globe, Pelosi said responsibility for the war no longer lay just with President Bush but with her Republican counterparts on Capitol Hill, who she said are more interested in protecting Bush than working to redeploy the 169,000 American troops now in Iraq. "We have to make it very clear to the American people that it was George Bush's war [but] it is now the Republicans in Congress's war," she said.Democrats know that they'd get killed in 2008 if they simply didn't act to fund the troops. They've tried enticing Republicans into voting with them for political cover, especially in the Senate. Give Mitch McConnell credit for keeping Republicans together. Democrats haven't been profiles in courage, either, instead choosing to voice the words of their MoveOn ventriloquists.
The perception among many Americans, she said, is that Democrats, despite leading Congress since January, had failed to make meaningful progress toward ending the war, which they promised to do after winning both chambers of Congress in last fall's elections. "They think we just aren't doing it, and that's good for Republicans," Pelosi said.
Pelosi said Democrats had been willing to work with Republicans to find common ground on Iraq, but that a turning point came last week when Republican senators blocked a war measure sponsored by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. Webb's proposal would have required that troops get as much time at home as on the war front.The common ground that Ms. Pelosi is talking about isn't common ground. She tried to get Republicans to capitulate and vote for the Democrats' surrender legislation. That's what this charade has been about. In fact, Democrats thought that Republicans would return from their August recess chastened and willing to vote for surrender. They thought wrong.
Republican support for victory increased when they went home. It was further bolstered when Gen. Petraeus testified two weeks ago. Now republicans are on the offensive because Gen. Petraeus was able to talk about the considerable progress being made in Iraq, especially in Anbar Province.
While the administration envisions a lasting troop presence in Iraq, Pelosi said she wants to see a troop redeployment begin soon, with a goal of having the bulk of American forces out of Iraq within a year or so. Until then, she said, the United States will continue to be distracted from its more worthy fight against terrorism, including operations in Afghanistan, and to see its reputation stained.This is typical MoveOn.org talking points. The reality is that beating a hasty exit from Iraq would create a new safe haven for terrorist training. The American people have figured that out. They can't be fooled by the Democrats' talking points because they now believe that Iraq is winnable.
Technnorati: Nancy Pelosi Boston Globe Democrats David Petraeus August Recess MoveOn.org Anbar Province
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Tuesday, September 25, 2007 5:11 PM
No comments.
