Category: Congress sucks

  • Failed presidential candidate may replace failed presidential candidate

    michael-dukakis-tank

    In the event that failed presidential candidate John Kerry gets the call to be Secretary of State, The Hill speculates that failed presidential candidate Michael Dukakis may be resurrected to replace him;

    Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) needs to find someone to fill Kerry’s seat until a special election can be held in the late spring or early summer.

    Dukakis, who is 79, has remained politically active. He campaigned for Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) this fall and teaches at Northeastern University.

    That makes complete sense because Massachusetts is the graveyard of failed political careers, I’m sure there are plenty of political zombies roaming the streets there that aren’t Kennedys.

  • A dog ate Hillary’s homework, too

    Andy sends us a link to an article about Hillary Clinton and her inability to show up at the hearings about the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate on September 11th. Apparently she had a virus which caused her to dehydrate and pass out and then she conked her head on something causing a concussion. So she got a note from John Kerry which excused her absence;

    Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, upon being told Saturday about Clinton’s illness and injury “insisted” she not appear at the hearing, said Jodi Seth, spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Democrat.

    I guess they all figured that if she answered questions, those answers might hurt her chances for her run at the White House in 2016. So, a flunky speaking in her stead gives her a measure of insulation from those answers. or at least they can’t use those answers in a political commercial.

    The House and Senate committees said Wednesday that Clinton would testify Thursday.

    The State Department over the next two days appeared to waffle on the whether Clinton would testify on the appointed date.

    Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Thursday the agency’s Accountability Review Board report on the attacks, upon which Clinton will largely base her testimony, might not be complete. However, acting deputy spokesman Patrick Ventrell said Friday he anticipated the report will be ready and Clinton will make the scheduled appearance.

    Funny how that timeline works out. In Hillary’s favor.

  • Lawmakers push for rules on troops’ guns

    We talked about this yesterday when two retired generals supported legislation that allowed commanders to ask their troops about guns, now there’s a bipartisan group of legislators in Congress pushing to add the language to the current Defense Bill. If you think there’s nothing nefarious about their intentions, consider who is sponsoring the bill – Hank (Guam is going to tip over from all of the Marines) Johnson and John (Halp us Jon Cary) Kerry, they’ve sent a letter to leadership of the Senate and House Armed Services committees asking for the language to be added to the Defense Bill;

    “This is not an attempt to limit gun rights or an individual’s ability to own a firearm,” said Rep. Johnson. “Prohibiting commanders and mental health professionals from helping soldiers defies common sense and dangerously interferes with our obligation to ensure the health, welfare, morale and well-being of the troops. Military suicide is a complex problem that demands a range of actions to address it. This common sense provision adds another tool to help prevent tragic deaths.”

    From the Stars & Stripes;

    …mental health advocates have complained that the language has left them confused on how to discuss gun safety with troops struggling with depression, post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental illnesses.

    Johnson’s staff said the new language would clarify that commanders and counselors can have those conversations with at-risk troops and suggest – but not mandate – those individuals use gun locks or give up their private weapons.

    Yeah, that’s all bullshit. I’ll tell you why this is personal for me. I went to buy a gun one time when I was stationed in Georgia. In those days, the sheriff would check with a soldier’s commander before he’d approve the sale. My commander told him I shouldn’t have a gun…for no reason. I had no history of domestic violence or any other kind of violence. No arrests, no bad counseling statements, no problems on or off-post. But, the commander didn’t think I should own a gun – despite the fact that I was an infantryman and carried a weapon everyday. He changed his mind after I agreed to get a mental hygiene exam and the mental hygiene dweeb certified me as sane. He was the same idiot who tried to make me stand guard mount while my wife was in labor.

    Like I said yesterday, if everyone is so worried about how to talk to troops about guns and staying within the limits of this law, all they have to do is issue a proviso every week with their safety briefings – outline what a soldier can do to secure their weapons. Tell them to get safety locks, gun safes, whatever. They tell them to not drink and drive without asking who in the unit drinks and who in the unit drives.

    Counselors have more handouts than anyone in the military, why can’t they hand out a checklist for securing firearms to their clients without having to ask them if they own firearms?

    From the Johnson/Kerry letter;

    We so often hear that we must listen to military commanders “on the ground” and that those in command know what’s best for our troops. So let’s listen to what they are saying and protect our men and women in uniform from the deadly threat of suicide.

    Yeah, GFY, assholes. Listen to the commanders when the issue is gun control, but not when they’re talking about fighting a war. Hypocrites. Let’s see the letter and who it comes from.

    Like I said yesterday, less than half of suicides in the military are committed by using guns and less than half of those are committed with privately owned weapons – so you have to ask yourself, why are Johnson and Kerry and Big Army focusing on the least likely way the troops are committing suicide? Is it just because they can say that they’re doing something when they’re really doing the least they could do? Is it because they don’t want to give soldiers and Marines the treatment they deserve instead?

  • Congress not keen on Afghan trip during Christmas

    A congressman, Rep. Mark Amodei, is finding it hard to sign up colleagues for a Congressional Delegation trip to Afghanistan to visit the troops over the holidays. I guess they don’t mind having the troops deployed and away from their own families during that holiday, but can’t impose upon themselves to make a trip. From the Washington Post;

    The Nevada Republican, a freshman, sent a missive looking for folks to join him to celebrate the holiday with the troops on a trip that takes off Dec.21 and doesn’t return to Washington until Dec. 29. Not that folks don’t want to visit the war zone to light the Yuletide fires, it’s just that most already have plans with their kith and kin that time of year.

    It’s ten days out of your lives, folks. The troops who will be there when you arrive will still be there when you leave. Their families will have celebrated Christmas without them. And most of them probably had other plans for the holiday season before they were called. So Ranger up, assholes.

  • Reid hinders Benghazi investigation

    We mentioned the other day that former general David Petraeus told the House Intelligence Committee behind closed doors that his initial report on the Benghazi consulate attack that he suspected it was inspired by al Qaeda but that line was removed by someone in the White House circle. The Associated Press reports;

    The retired four-star general addressed the House and Senate intelligence committees in back-to-back, closed-door hearings as questions persist over what the Obama administration knew in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and why its public description did not match intelligence agencies’ assessments.

    After the hearings, lawmakers who questioned Petraeus said he testified that the CIA’s draft talking points in response to the assault on the diplomatic post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. Petraeus said that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn’t sure which federal agency deleted it.

    According to the Washington Times, the White House denies that they edited the report;

    White House national security council spokesman Ben Rhodes instead suggested that the CIA itself may have made “adjustments” to remove references to terrorism from the agency’s early, unclassified reports to the administration about the assault that killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Mr. Rhodes told reporters the only change made by the White House to the CIA’s initial reports was to change the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility.”

    Well, to my mind, this seems like something that needs to be investigated, but Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, the draft dodger (using the same standard that the Left uses to label Republican draft dodgers) says that he’s not going to allow an investigation in Benghazi in the Senate, says Politico;

    “I refuse to allow the Senate to be used as a venue for baseless partisan attacks,” Reid wrote in the three-page letter, released Friday evening.

    Ya mean like the two years of baseless political attacks that were sponsored by the Senate during the Bush Administration, there, Harry? Like trying to de-fund the Iraq War no less than seven times in those years while totally ignoring the Senate’s responsibility to pass a federal budget? Baseless attacks like Reid announcing that the surge in Iraq had failed before it had even begun? In fact, the Senate hasn’t done anything except be a venue for baseless partisan attacks since Reid assumed the helm in 2006.

    You’d think that the needless deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, the death of an American border guard by a weapon supplied by the US government to drug cartels in Mexico are things that would require a little bit of an oversight investigation, but Harry Reid isn’t in the business of doing what he’s supposed to do. In fact the Senate under Reid has only been known for it’s irrational involvement in political hackery.

  • Reid won’t work with Romney

    Well, so much for bi-partisanship. Harry Reid announced that eh won’t work with Mitt Romney. I know, it was a Big Duh, wasn’t it? I mean, after all, Reid can’t even work with his own President – he hasn’t passed a budget through the Senate since he became the Senate Majority Leader. From the Washington Times;

    “Mitt Romney’s fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his ‘severely conservative’ agenda is laughable,” Mr. Reid said in a statement on Friday, trying to puncture Mr. Romney’s closing election argument that he’ll be able to deliver on the bipartisanship President Obama promised in 2008 but has struggled to live up to.

    Reid accused Romney of not paying taxes in the last ten years, which didn’t pan out for him. In the last administration, Reid worked hard to undermine the security of our troops by declaring that the surge had failed before it started. He also spent the last two years of the Bush Presidency trying to de-fund the troops deployed in the war against terror, but couldn’t find room in his schedule for passing a budget.

    Thanks, Nevada.

  • Bernie Sanders’ blind spot

    This is a headline at Huffington Post today;

    While Social Security may be the “most successful” government program, I don’t think Sanders should be bragging about it since the news last month that the program pays out more than it takes in.

    To keep Social Security’s finances sound in the future I have introduced legislation — identical to a proposal that Obama advocated in 2008 — to apply the payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 a year. Under current law, only earnings up to $110,100 are taxed. The Center for Economic Policy and Research has estimated that applying the Social Security payroll tax on income above $250,000 would only impact the wealthiest 1.4 percent of wage earners.

    That makes complete sense, Bernie, you old commie, tax the people who will never collect a penny of Social Security. That’s not a transfer of wealth or class warfare at all, is it?

    I’ve been haunted by Sanders since I taught ROTC at UVM in Burlington, VT when Sanders was just the funny little carpetbagger communist mayor of Burlington. Who would have guessed that Vermonters would have inflicted him on the rest of us?

    There’s a guy back home who was fired from his job for smoking pot in the parking lot. Now no one will hire him, so he went on welfare, went through the dry out program, still can’t find a job, so he’s on SSI and started before he turned 50. I can’t imagine that he’s the only one like that, but it’s easier to keep people like that on the program and raise taxes on the rich than to make him get a job filling the ketchup baskets at McDs.

    While I’ll admit that, yeah, there’s a need for Social Security, there doesn’t need to be one that takes my money to pay a living wage to people who made bad choices.

  • Barbara Lee’s attempt to cut money off to engaged troops fails

    Yeah, the usual suspects tried once again to cut off funding for the war in Afghanistan led by head moonbat, Barbara Lee, according to the Associated Press;

    “The American people are far ahead of Congress,” said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., sponsor of the amendment, who called on Congress to stand squarely with the American people. “It’s past time to end the war and bring the troops home.”

    Well, I guess the American people want the war to end is because this administration isn’t committed to victory, the White House and the Congressional Democrats are only committed to withdrawal. Barbara Lee and her band of half wits tried throughout 2007 and into 2008 to un-fund the war in Iraq and the surge – all the while unable to pass a national budget. What’s that old saw about the definition of insanity?