September 26, 2007
Sep 26 05:01 Rep. Kline Report: "Amazing" Results In Iraq Sep 26 09:53 Ellison, Conyers Favor Socialized Health Care Sep 26 11:06 Fisking Franken's Op-ed Sep 26 11:49 New Liberal Smear Campaign Against Gen. Petraeus? Sep 26 15:25 "They Are Driving the Agenda Far Too Much" Sep 26 16:35 Coleman Helps Vets Get Mental Health Benefits Sep 26 23:43 Coincidence? Maybe But I Wouldn't Bet The Ranch On It
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006
Rep. Kline Report: "Amazing" Results In Iraq
Rep. John Kline just returned from his fifth trip to Iraq. Just like Keith Ellison's report in July, he's seen some amazing results. That's according to this Strib article . The funny thing is that Keith Ellison doesn't think that anymore . Here's what the Strib article reported:
Kline said the lawmakers were greeted by children who laughed, teased and asked for money. Adults smiled and gave the thumbs up. "Just a sense of normalcy, people getting on with their lives," he said.Here's what Ellison said in July:
The take by Kline, a conservative Republican, was similar to one by the state's liberal Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, who visited Ramadi in July. In that trip, Ellison noted that people were walking the streets of the city, going to the market, and he had commented on the "general level of respect and calm that I thought was good."
Ellison said that local leaders in Ramadi told him of how they partnered with U.S. and Iraqi military officials to virtually rid al-Qaeda from the city. Although the lawmakers had to travel in flak vests and helmets, "we did see people walking around the streets of Ramadi, going back and forth to the market."Here's what he said in his Sept. 10 press release:
There have been fewer anti-U.S. sermons as the violence has been reduced, Ellison said, and religious leaders meet regularly with U.S. military officials.
"The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership," he said. "So they're not trying to just bomb people into submission. What they're doing is respecting the people, giving the people some control over their own lives."
Ellison said he was particularly impressed watching Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, U.S. commander in the Anbar province, greeting people with "as-salama aleikum," meaning peace be upon you.
"The stated mission of the so-called surge was to buy needed time and space for the Iraqi government to more toward reconciliation. This has not occurred and reconciliation seems further away than ever. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office, eleven of the eighteen legislative, security and economic benchmarks set down that would define the success of the surge's mission have not been met. Key legislation has not been passed; violence remains high; and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," Ellison stated.I trust Rep. Kline's assessment because it squares with other reports I've read, reports that I've posted about. What I'd like to ask Rep. Ellison is what caused his opinion to change so dramatically. I'm positive I know but I'd still love to ask him anyway. It's worth noting that Ellison's opinion changed after he returned from Iraq and after he'd been quoted in a USA Today article.
"Instead, the military success stories we heard today from the Bush Administration, delivered by General Petraeus, were selective at best, and based on a massive concentration of American troops in those particular areas," Ellison stated.
Here's another noteworthy statement from Rep. Kline:
Kline said the surge was more than adding 30,000 troops. "What we've done is change how we're working there," he said. "Now they're interwoven with, sharing the same building with the Iraqi security forces. And I think that has really made the difference."The question I'd like to ask defeatists like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and Russ Feingold is why they think we haven't changed anything considering the irrefutable improvements that we're currently seeing, though I'm sure they'd have spin things.
That's what happens when you can't discredit the messenger and you can't deny the facts on the ground.
Posted Wednesday, September 26, 2007 5:04 AM
No comments.
Ellison, Conyers Favor Socialized Health Care
That's the word from this Daily Planet article . There's interesting quotes in the article. Here's the most interesting section of the article:
Conyers' legislative aide, Joel Segal, broke down the national health insurance plan for the audience, a packed theater of union members, legislators, members of the Minnesota State Nurses Association, health care advocacy groups and many people for whom the current health care system had failed.Mr. Segal obviously got Rep. Conyers' approval before saying this on the record. Therefore, it isn't a stretch to think that Rep. Conyers and Rep. Ellison believe in socialist economic policies rather than trusting in capitalist economic policies.
"The main barrier to care in this country is that you don't have a right to be a patient in the wealthiest country in the world," explained Segal. "You have to either get a job which has insurance, which is a big problem because a lot of people don't have jobs, and even if you do have a job you may not be able to afford the insurance, and even if you do get that insurance it's probably not going to be that good because you're going to have excessive copays, deductibles and bills at the end," he said. "What [House File] 676 seeks to do is to eliminate all barriers to care between the patient and the physician. "
The plan outlined in the bill is not incredibly complicated and simply makes the government the sole health insurer. Insurance premiums would be paid in the form of taxes.
When someone is born, he or she is automatically issued a national health insurance card. That person, throughout a lifetime, can visit any hospital, doctor, mental health provider, or treatment center of the individual's choosing. Physicians and other health care staff are reimbursed within 30 days of services rendered, and that reimbursement is mandated to be at current pay grade which, according to Segal, would result in a raise after the 25 percent cost of working with multiple health plans, formularies and payment systems is eliminated. Hospitals would also receive "global budgets" each year based on previous year's costs.
"Nothing is going to change except there will be no more stock market, investor-owned doctors' offices or hospitals," said Segal .
It's worth pointing out that we wouldn't have seen the types of research breakthroughs over the past 25 years if capitalism wasn't at the heart of our health care system. Does any thoughtful, informed person think that we would've seen the advances made with a socialist health care system?
Here's another interesting paragraph from the article:
Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and John Conyers, D-Mich., hosted a community forum Sunday at the Heights Theatre in Columbia Heights on the United States National Health Insurance Act (HR 676), a bill that would "expand and improve Medicare for all." The act , synonymous with single-payer health care, would cut costs for both individuals and the government and has the support of a majority of the populace , advocates said. Nevertheless, the bill faces a steep uphill battle, with a likely veto by the president.Saying that government-run healthcare enjoys the support of a majority of Americans isn't just spin; it's an outright lie. If a respected polling company like Rasmussen or Gallup polled that question, I'd be shocked if government-run health care would get more than 25 percent support nationwide.
This isn't shocking, though. Conyers has been talking down to people for fifty years and Ellison has been a radical his entire adult life. Therefore, we shouldn't expect to hear this pair advocating mainstream ideas. Listen to who attended the event:
Conyers' legislative aide, Joel Segal, broke down the national health insurance plan for the audience, a packed theater of union members, legislators, members of the Minnesota State Nurses Association, health care advocacy groups and many people for whom the current health care system had failed.TRANSLATION: The audience consisted of Democratic activists (union members, legislators), lobbyists (health care advocacy groups) and victims (many people for whom the current health care system had failed). In other words, the usual suspects. This also tells us what the DFL's agenda for the next legislative session will be. This isn't surprising; it's just something that we need to get prepared for. It's time to educate ourselves so we can defend our capitalist-based system in a coherent, compelling way.
Posted Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:00 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 26-Sep-07 01:38 PM
Actually, there is a very simple and immediate route to having universal health care for every American, without costing the taxpayers a dime. The US Government can simply mandate that all doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other health care providers offer their goods and services for free, in unlimited quantities, to anyone who wants it.
I suppose you could argue that there might be some adverse consequences to that edict, and you could very well be correct, but EVERY government health care proposal on the table is simply a half-measure of the above, with all of the same negative consequences, only in smaller doses.
"The operation was a success, but the patient died."
Comment 2 by Andy Birkey at 26-Sep-07 08:45 PM
Actually I wrote that article for the Minnesota Monitor, and you would be shocked to know that well more than 25 percent of Americans favor government run health care according to numerous polls. Try a google search.
"The public wants the government to play a leading role in providing health care for all. For example, in an October, 2003 Washington Post/ABC poll, by almost a two-to-one margin (62 percent to 33 percent), Americans said that they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program, as opposed to the current employer-based system. Similarly, in Kaiser polls from 1992 to 2000, a large majority of the public agreed that the federal government should guarantee medical care for people who don't have health insurance. In a slightly different question asked more recently by Kaiser in June 2003, more than seven in ten adults (72 percent) agreed that the government should guarantee health insurance for all citizens, even if it means repealing most of the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush, while less than one-quarter (24 percent) disagreed with this statement. Finally, the last time Gallup asked whether the federal government should make sure all Americans have health coverage, they agreed that was a federal government responsibility by 62 percent to 35 percent (November 2002).
Fisking Franken's Op-ed
I don't recall ever having the pleasure of fisking something like Al Franken's op-ed in today's Strib. Here goes:
It is, of course, ridiculous that the United States Senate spent a day debating and voting on a resolution condemning an advertisement while our troops remained in Iraq, fighting a war with no end.Why does Mr. Franken think it's ridiculous spending a day debating something as important as MoveOn.org's defamation of a commanding general in wartime? Is it because Mr. Franken thinks it's ok to smear a career officer because he hates our President?
What's delicious is how Franken turns from predator to victim:
Frankly, I'm used to this kind of smear; it's what happens when you speak truth to power in George W. Bush's America. But I think Minnesotans have had enough of this kind of political gamesmanship.Poor little baby. Why should Mr. Franken get away with not speaking out against a radical fringe organization accuses Gen. Petraeus of lying before they've even heard what he said a word? Let's flip this around. Would Franken stay silent if a Republican called Hillary a liar? Of he wouldn't stay silent nor would anyone expect him to.
It's interesting that Franken immediately employed the 'speaking truth to power' gambit, aka the Joe Wilson Defense. Saying that you're "speaking truth to power" is how scoundrels like Mr. Franken try sounding honorable after they've cheapshotted someone.
Here's how Franken weaves in MoveOn.org's talking points:
We should honor their sacrifice by refusing to allow this president to keep them there in the middle of a civil war. And we should honor them by taking seriously the difficult debate about the best way, or at least the least bad way, to end our engagement in Iraq.Why shouldn't we honor their sacrifices by letting them win? That's what the vast majority of troops want. It doesn't look like that's important to Mr. Franken. It appears as though he's only concerned with mouthing anti-war talking points. He hasn't shown even a slight interest in defeating the jihadists or in securing the Middle East.
Minnesota deserves a senator that takes issues seriously, thinks things through and makes the right decisions independent of what fringe special interest groups say. Minnesota deserves a senator who isn't beholden to fringe special interest groups.
The good news is that we have Sen. Coleman, who is as mainstream as they get.
Posted Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:09 AM
No comments.
New Liberal Smear Campaign Against Gen. Petraeus?
I just googled David Petraeus' name. As I scanned the links, I noticed two editorials that essentially called Gen. Petraeus a mouthpiece for the Bush administration's policies. Call me cynical but I'm having trouble believing that the MoveOn.org types aren't orchestrating a campaign to discredit Gen. Petraeus. Here's what Thomas LaPointe said in his Des Moines Register editorial :
As a former Marine, it is difficult for me to argue with a four-star general and a distinguished ambassador. However, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker failed to use their recent appearances before Congress to offer a total reassessment on Iraq. They offered an amended version of "stay the course."Obviously, Mr. LaPointe hasn't been paying attention to events on the ground in Iraq. In fact, I'd bet that he doesn't realize that they're shifting their mission from eliminating AQI terrorists in Anbar and Diyala provinces to killing al-Sadr's militias in the south. Saying that Gen. Petraeus "offered an amended version of 'stay the course'" is insulting. It's also factually indefensible.
There seems to be little success getting the Iraqis to secure themselves or govern with a sense of national reconciliation. Now, even with the president's proposed 30,000-troop draw-down, troop levels will remain at the January 2006 levels. We are where we were 18 months ago; we have not moved decisively.
Here's the key graph from David Mendenhall's editorial in the Arizona Republic:
Gen. David Petraeus has been so politicized in the past several months that he has become identified with the executive branch of government. As such, he is subject to the same scrutiny as any other political figure, and pejorative comments are to be expected from opposing factions.When Mr. Mendenhall says that "Gen. David Petraeus has been so politicized", what is Mr. Mendenhall basing his opinion on? Just because his testimony was seen as central to President Bush's war strategy doens't mean that Gen. Petraeus is a political animal. Regardless, it doesn't mean that he should be subjected to the "same scrutiny as any other political figure."
It wouldn't surprise me if similar editorials are showing up around the country. MoveOn.org won't quit with their anti-war campaign just because their first attack failed miserably. I suspect that they've switched to a low profile, editorial-driven campaign.
Posted Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:50 AM
No comments.
"They Are Driving the Agenda Far Too Much"
That's a quote from Brian Baird in this article on CBS's website . That isn't the only thing he's said that I found noteworthy but it's why Rep. Baird should get a Profile in Courage award. Unfortunately, that's isn't likely considering the Democratic Party is the mouthpiece to MoveOn.org's ventriloquism.
"They are driving the agenda far too much, and it's the wrong direction for this country," he said. "We all agree that we can't stay forever there, but how we withdraw and when we withdraw and why we withdraw matters a great deal to ourown security, the legacy we leave in Iraq and our public image internationally."If the Kennedy Center won't give Rep. Baird a 'Profile In Courage' award, I will. Frankly, he's earned it and then some. That isn't the only impressive display of political courage. Listen to this impressive quote:
"There were a few who felt I undermined the message, but I could really care less," he said Tuesday. "Some were mad at me that I was going off message. In fact, even some of the people who had been pro-war said that to me. ... They were so quickly jumping to criticism of someone with a different position. It's unfortunate that we're being driven by such an extreme wing right now."This type of certitude is what drove Dennis Miller from the Democratic Party immediately following 9/11. It isn't a stretch to say that Rep. Baird's principled stand is similar to that of Sen. Leiberman's. While I'm certain I don't agree with Rep. Baird on many issues other than this, I can't turn my back on him after he's taken such a steadfast position on the defining issue of our generation. Such steadfastness should be heartily applauded.
Intellectual honesty demands as much.
Posted Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:27 PM
No comments.
Coleman Helps Vets Get Mental Health Benefits
Teaming with Blanche Lincoln, (D-AR), Pete Domenici, (R-NM) & Kit Bond (R-MO), Norm Coleman helped ensure that veterans wouldn't get shortchanged. Here's Sen. Coleman's official statement on the legislation :
In an effort to improve mental health services for military personnel and their families, Senators Norm Coleman (R-MN), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Kit Bond (R-MO) and Pete Domenici (R-NM) successfully included an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008 in response to a recent reduction in reimbursement rates received by mental health professionals who treat military servicemembers. Specifically, the amendment gives the Secretary of Defense the flexibility to increase mental health reimbursement rates for TRICARE, the healthcare program for members of military and their families, if access to mental health services is threatened. The amendment is also cosponsored by Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI).I applaud this group for their looking out for the troops. The last thing we should do is limit their ability to get help for the problems that war causes.
"Providing our returning men and women in uniform with the best healthcare available is one of Congress' most important responsibilities," said Coleman. " Mental health services have become an increasingly important component of this effort as we continue to see more cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other psychological difficulties confront our troops as they return from abroad. The last thing we should do right now is make it more difficult for mental health professionals to provide treatment for these troops and their families as they deal with the challenges associated with reintegration. Our amendment gives the Secretary of Defense new authority to increase reimbursement rates for mental health professionals who take care of our wounded warriors and I commend my Senate colleagues for joining this effort and passing the amendment."
"We must take every step we can to honor the commitment of our troops," said Lincoln. "Our brave servicemen and women returning from overseas are increasingly affected by mental health issues such as Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. These brave men and women deserve the very best care a grateful nation can provide, and I believe this much-needed legislation goes a long way toward providing them access to the mental health care they need."
"Combat stress and its impact on our troops and their families are serious problems that continue to grow. We must ensure our all-volunteer force receives the care they need to cope with long and often multiple deployments. This amendment will Increase the reimbursement rates for behavioral health specialists, which is an important step in improving our troops' access to care," said Bond.
"We increasingly understand that mental health issues are growing in frequency and severity, particularly with so many serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is that access to mental health services for our military personnel and their families is inadequate. Cutting reimbursement rates has only compounded the problem. This amendment takes an essential step to begin removing barriers to mental health care and treatment," said Domenici.
Earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reduced its reimbursement rate for psychologists and social workers by 9 percent. Because the Department of Defense bases its reimbursement rates for TRICARE providers on the rates designated by CMS, this rate reduction led to an equivalent decrease of 9 percent in rates for mental health providers who treat servicemembers and their families. Since psychologists and social workers provide almost all of the TRICARE psychotherapy and testing services, this cut in reimbursement rates has had the detrimental effect of limiting access to mental healthcare for soldiers and their families. Many psychologists and social workers have indicated they may have to reduce their caseloads or leave the TRICARE program altogether.
TRICARE is a health care program designated for soldiers and their families. It relies on a network of civilian health care professionals to provide better access and high quality health care services.
Posted Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:37 PM
No comments.
Coincidence? Maybe But I Wouldn't Bet The Ranch On It
Earlier today, I posted something on a pair of editorials attempting to discredit Gen. David Petraeus. I said then that I didn't think it was coincidental. I asked if it was the New Liberal Smear Campaign Against Gen. Petraeus . I googled Gen. Petraeus' name again this evening. Here's another editorial spewing the same vitriolic garbage. Here's the key section of the editorial:
The war rages on but the only plan the minority party can come up with is one of misdirecting the public away from its inability to deal with ending it.This still isn't conclusive proof that MoveOn.org is behind this batch of editorials but I'd bet that it isn't a coincidence either. Let's examine this editorial in the Seattle Times with David Mendenhall's editorial in the Arizona Republic:
The MoveOn.org ad ["MoveOn.org's demeaning attack," Times, Editorial, Sept. 23] asks if Gen. David Petraeus will tell the truth based on his history of following the Bush administration's practice of manipulating the facts, and concludes, correctly, that he most likely would not. Woe be to those who thought their speech was protected by the First Amendment when they actually do speak out.
What The Times and those distraction-seeking Republicans in Congress failed to report is that MoveOn's biggest sin was not questioning Gen. Petraeus's veracity, but its plagiarism of the exact word used to describe Petraeus by officers on the ground long before the ad was published.
Gen. David Petraeus has been so politicized in the past several months that he has become identified with the executive branch of government. As such, he is subject to the same scrutiny as any other political figure, and pejorative comments are to be expected from opposing factions.The message that Patrick Stults tried conveying in his Seattle Times editorial isn't substantially different than the message David Mendenhall tried conveying. Mendenhall said that military figures are fair game if the Left chooses to politicize them whereas Patrick Stults cuts to the chase by saying that Gen. Petraeus is a liar and that MoveOn.org's ad wasn't bold enough for him.
Mr. Stults's comment that "Gen. David Petraeus...has become identified with the executive branch of government" is laughable for its stupidity. In case Mr. Stults hasn't noticed, the military has always been part of the executive branch of government. Therefore, it should be "identified with the executive branch of government."
These editorials aren't all that's being done to discredit Gen. Petraeus. Here's Jerry Ferrier's comment left in response to Patrick Stults's editorial:
Gen. David Petraeus demeaned himself long before MoveOn.org and its ad. This is the same general, who as commander of the 101st Airborne, made no attempt to protect the munitions in three ammunition dumps of which the contents have been used in the killing of hundreds of our servicemen and women.Then there's this comment by David Barash:
He has allowed himself to be used by the White House spin machine just as Gen. Colin Powell was used in the run-up to the war. I suspect that some day he will look back on his testimony with great regret, just as Powell now does about his U.N. testimony. No one who has read the independent assessments coming from other sources such as the Government Accountability Office or any of the media stationed in Baghdad and such places as the much touted Anbar province can have any real confidence in the statements by this general.
As with his infamous op-ed piece in The Washington Post, just six weeks before the 2004 election, Petraeus continued to place his own career advancement over care for his troops, telling his civilian bosses what they want to hear rather than what is true. It's not treason, but it certainly is a betrayal, and during a time when truth-telling about Iraq, even if it hurts, has been unforgivably rare, MoveOn.org was right on.Mr. Barash's statements aren't based on objective facts but on subjective criteria. As such, they should be ignored.
What ties this all together is this little bit of information :
Americans Against Escalation in Iraq is a national campaign comprised of a variety of groups from across the political spectrum that are committed to opposing the Bush plan to escalate the war in Iraq and to work for the responsible redeployment of American forces. Americans Against Escalation in Iraq includes Veterans, students, some of the nation's leading anti-war voices, and progressive organizations which traditionally confine their activity to domestic issues.In other words, AAEI is committed to doing whatever it takes to stop the war in Iraq. Considering the fact that their stated goal is to stop the war, it isn't a stretch to think that they're having their members write editorials discrediting Gen. Petraeus.
AAEI is a coalition made up of these organizations:
Service Employees International Union, MoveOn.org Political Action , VoteVets.org , Center for American Progress Action Fund , USAction , Win Without War , Campaign for America's Future , the United States Student Association , Working Assets , Americans United for Change , Campus Progress Action and Nation Security NetworkThough I haven't found proof of MoveOn.org's orchestrating these efforts, this information tells me that these editorials aren't coincidental:
The coalition consists of tax-exempt educational and advocacy organizations, as well as political action committees and "527" organizations. Each entity, working on its own or with other legally permissible coalition members, will conduct activities appropriate to its tax and election law status, all under the umbrella of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. Americans Against Escalation in Iraq is a coalition of organizations including a wide range of political and nonprofit organizations that are working to change our current policy in Iraq.In other words, various organizations are limited as to what they can do because of IRS regulations while others have more 'flexibility', allowing them to do more things. All, though, are capable of telling their members to write editorials in an attempt to discredit Gen. Petraeus. In their minds, their battle isn't on the battlefields of Afghanistan or Iraq; it's inside the Beltway.
It hasn't been a secret that MoveOn.org's goal is to persuade senators and/or representatives to abandon the troops. One way to do that is to discredit Gen. Petraeus.
The question that every decent, ethical person should ask themselves is this: Shouldn't we demand that these hate groups stop with their character assassinations, especially on those who aren't politicians?
After all, what kind of nation do we want to live in?
Posted Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:49 PM
No comments.
