This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: John Murtha

  • Haditha story wrapping up

    I’ve wanted to write about all of the good news coming out of the Haditha investigation, but there’s no way I could do as good a job at it as Robin, my bestest new buddy, at Chickenhawk Express (who recently added me to her Blogroll – thanks, Robin).

    Robin, who also writes at Newsbusters, has been churning out really good updates on the Haditha Article 32 investigation (equivalent to a grand jury) of Lance Corporal Justin Sharrat over the last week or so here, here and here.

    For my part, I’ve been diligently calling John Murtha’s office every morning to ask when Murtha is going to apologize for calling LCpl Sharrat and his fellow Marines cold-blooded murderers. Every morning, I get the same answer – Representative Murtha hasn’t heard anything about the investigation.

    I think that’s funny because he was so sure about the information he had before the investigation began;

    Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that “there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”

    So, why doesn’t he have information that been publicly available? A year ago, he told ABC News;

    Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., told “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” in an exclusive appearance that reports a group of U.S. Marines may have killed 24 Iraqi civilians following an IED explosion in Haditha, Iraq, was “worse than Abu Ghraib,” calling their actions war crimes committed “in cold blood.”

    Murtha, a Marine veteran who six months ago called for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, added, “There has to have been a cover-up. There’s no question about it.”

    Wouldn’t a rational person, who staked their reputation on such an damning statement, want to keep up with the story? I guess we’re not talking about a rational person here, though, are we? We’re talking about a hateful little pussbag, fatass who gives not a moment’s thought to this nation’s security or the lives of the people who defend it. I think it’s time Murtha signed his Form 180, too. I have trouble believing that this coward spent even a minute in the Marine Corps.

    And where are the headlines in the New York Times, the Washington Post and the LA Times admitting they were wrong in their initial accusations?

  • JFK terror plot was Bush’s fault, of course

     

    As soon as I heard about the busted terror plot this last weekend, I shot over to Yahoo and searched for news stories. The only national network that had anything on the internet was CBS (shiver), but I went over to read the details. At the end of the story were readers’ comments. Every comment was about how this was a story planted by “BushCo” to scare the American people into submission. I should have screen-shot the article, but I figured “Well, it’s just a fringe”. People remember 9-11 sort of, these writers were just lunatics. I mean, someone must take these stories seriously besides Republicans, right?

    But, SisterToldja reports that the LA Times says that the plot wasn’t a big deal anyway. So the terrorists that BushCo didn’t really catch in the act, weren’t going to be successful anyway. Bloodthirsty Liberal takes the NY Times to task for similar treatment of the story.

    See, here’s the way I see it. Yeah, these four dimwits and the Dix Six were pretty incompetent and borderline retarded in their planning, but the fact remains that they were committed to killing scores, if not thousands of Americans on our own soil. Left to their own devices, sooner or later they would have been successful. Maybe not as successful as they’d have liked, but somewhat successful. Even one life lost would have been one too many.

    So why are these acts being marginalized in the media? Lord help me, the media still brags about Clinton’s awesome success at stopping the Millenium LAX bombing – which was just as half-assed as any of these. And Eric Rudolph’s Atlanta, Georgia bombing at the Olympics still killed 2 and injured 111 people – again a half-assed attempt by an incompetent moron. 

    Even the Murrah Building bombing was accomplished by a gaggle of want-wits who didn’t have a plan more complicated than the old infantryman’s demolition math (P=Plenty, for the uninitiated) and parking a truck in front of the target and skee-daddling. McVeigh couldn’t even do that right – driving down the interstate with no license plate on his car.

    All criminals are stupid – that’s why they’re criminals.

    And yesterday I heard rumors about John Murtha blaming Bush for these terrorists, but I wanted to see it for myself (I’ll be damned if I’m going to waste my Sunday morning staring at that idiot George Stephanopolis and his ridiculous 12-year-old schoolboy haircut).

    So this morning, sure as it rains, I find the video at Newsbusters and Flopping Aces. Murtha claims that if President Bush hadn’t attacked Iraq, those terrorist plotters wouldn’t have been tempted to bomb JFK airport (not that it would have been successful or that the terrorists really existed in the first place).

    One of them had been in this country, working and retired for 30-fricken-years. He just decided in 2003 that we needed to be attacked? And how about the attack in 1993? Was that because we attacked the Iraqi Army in 1991 while they barbequeing in Kuwait? How about the embassy bombings in Africa, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attack on the USS Cole – did those attacks happen because of something we had done?

    Murtha is cranky old fool and the Democrats had better put a lid on him before he becomes the face of their party. Or before someone takes a swing at his wrinkled old mug.

    Makes me agree with Brit Hume when he said a few months ago;

    Even the “Washington Post” noted [Murtha] didn’t seem particularly well informed about what’s going on over there, to say the least. Look, this man has tremendous cachet among House Democrats, but he is not — this guy is long past the day when he had anything but the foggiest awareness of what the heck is going on in the world.

    And that sound bite is naivete at large, and the man is an absolute fountain of such talk, and the fact that he has ascended to the position he has in the eyes of the Democrats in the House and perhaps Democrats around the country tells you a lot about how much they know or care about what’s really going on over there.

    Maybe if we put Murtha’s office in Okinawa he’ll have a better idea of what’s happening in the world.

    But, put him in the group of idiots like one of my own crackpots who emails me (because I won’t let him post here) this morning that since 17 of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis we should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq. That’s just simplistic and naive – can you imagine what the Democrats would be saying if we’d attacked Saudi Arabia?

    It also demonstrates the childishness of these morons. They’re convinced that our foreign policy should be based on pure, simple revenge – an emotion – instead of reasoned insight about who are our enemies and who wishes us ill because of who we are. The Saudis are fighting the same groups that we’re fighting – for the same reasons we’re fighting them. How does it make sense that we’d turn on the Saudis?

    But no one has ever accused the Left of being reasonable people. 

  • Partisanship; the last refuge of scoundrels

    Samuel Johnson once claimed that “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels” meaning, not that all patriots are scoundrels as some on the Left have interpreted it in recent years, but that scoundrels hid behind a facade of false patriotism. Since Mr. Johnson has been dead for more than two hundred years, I’d like to change his phrase a bit; partisanship is the last refuge of scoundrels.

    Just looking through the stories at Drudge Report this morning, I see that Murtha is threatening the President with impeachment;

    Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said Sunday that Democrats in Congress could consider impeachment as a way to pressure President Bush on his handling of the war in Iraq.

    “What I’m saying, there’s four ways to influence a president. And one of them’s impeachment,” Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

    In other words, since the Democrats don’t have the power they’d like to have in Congress – since there was no real mandate from the voters last November – they’re going to try and impeach him to get him to do their bidding, effectively overturning the last presidential election and the will of a majority of American voters.

    According to the Washington Post, Russ Feingold;

    Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) said he would “absolutely” oppose a bill that doesn’t contain a “binding proposal . . . for ending the war.”

    “Absolutely oppose” – that means Russ will only agree to the Far Left wing of the Party’s supporter – 33% of 33% of voters. Doesn’t sound very bi-partisan.

    Now, over in the Washington Times, Stephen Dinan writes that John Edwards, Democrats’ pretty boy hopeful, Addressed a Democrat state party convention in California;

    …Mr. Edwards spoke, urging congressional Democrats not to let Mr. Bush push them away from their war-spending bill, which sets a timeline for troops to begin pulling out.
        “If the president vetoes this bill, they should send him back another bill with a timetable for withdrawal,” he said.

    In other words, Democrats shouldn’t be negotiating with the White House on a defense bill that both the legislative and executive branches can agree on – only the Democrat agenda is acceptable. Of course, it’s easy for Edwards to say that – he doesn’t have a job, no one to be responsible to. And he’s trying to be an outsider – he’s trying to appeal to the Democrats who forget that he’s just another shyster lawyer who became a Senator.

    At the same convention, Maxine Waters, leader of the misinformed “Out of Iraq Caucus” in Congress, said;

       “Democrats, your presidential candidates and elected officials must stop nuancing, politicizing, sound-biting, benchmarking and playing it safe,” she said. “Democrats must have the courage to tell this president, ‘No, Mr. President, not another nickel, not another dime, not another soldier, not this time.’ “

    Bow down to the god of Leftism, drink the koolaid and do the bidding of MoveOn.org, the KosKids and Code Pink. Even though most Americans don’t want what the insane wing of Democrats are selling.

    Jeff Jacoby (by way of Hang Right Politics’ COgirl) wrote on the naked partisanship after the House vote to withdraw from Iraq last month;

    Yet when the House of Representatives voted last month to force a withdrawal from Iraq, Democrats were jubilant.

    “Many House Democrats stayed on the floor, reveling in their victory,” reported The Hill on March 23. “House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey and Representative John Murtha hugged each other while a smiling [majority leader Steny] Hoyer shook every hand he could find. . . . [majority whip James] Clyburn joked with members as [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi kissed and hugged her colleagues.”

    According to the Washington Examiner, David Obey understands that the Democrats must appeal to Republicans in Congress;

    “The President is still standing in the way of the change the American people called for in the last election,” the congressman said. “We have to put enough pressure on the president’s Republican allies to leave him. That’s not going to happen overnight.”

    At least Obey is realistic enough to know that Democrats can’t coerce the President into turning moonbat overnight. Even though he can’t get it through his thick skull that most Americans stand foursquare against immediate withdrawal from the war against terrorists – and the Democrats only “mandate” is only in their rhetoric.

    Where were the Democrats when we had troops in Haiti. Remember that? At first our Navy showed up in Port Au Prince and was driven off by shirtless, shoeless thugs on the pier waving machetes. And then while Jimmy Carter was promising the “Generals” a big cash payoff for their expeditious exit from Haiti, President Clinton launched the 82d Airborne Division. Luckily for Jimmy Carter and the generals, Clinton recalled the 82d and coughed up Carter’s negotiated big cash payoff and sent civil affairs and special operators.

    Was anyone demanding a time schedule for withdrawal from that fiasco? Did it solve the Haitian exodus to Miami? In fact, when did the last US soldier leave Haiti? Was it in any of the newspapers? But I remember on September 20th, 1989, Charlie Rangel demanding a time schedule for the troops withdrawal from Panama before the air had cleared of gunsmoke.

    But for all of their incessant yammering over the last six years of “bipartisanship” and “coming together” the Democrats still hide behind their “mandate” of the November election to try and impose their will on the American people. But can Americans trust Democrats to do our bidding?

    Remember their baseless charge that the Bush economy was the worst since Hoover (made by MoveOn.org during the 2004 election and Hillary Clinton)? Did Hoover enjoy a 4.4% unemployment rate or a Dow Index that went from below 8,000 to over 13,000 in 5 years? If we can’t trust Democrats on things we can see with our own eyes, how can we trust them with our future and our security?

  • More common sense from Joe Lieberman

    This morning’s Washington Post has another op/ed from Joe Lieberman – one that I find hard to argue with.

    Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians — innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school.

    If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism.

    Well, if it had been perpetrated in the US, it would depend on which party was running the White House that would determine where the blame would be placed. When Bill Clinton was president and the World Trade center was attacked, Americans generally blamed Islamic terrorists. When the WTC was attacked a second time while George W. Bush was President, Americans generally disagreed about who was at fault. Not that anyone is playing politics with American lives or anything (eyes roll skyward).

    Fortunately, former Democrat Joe Lieberman sees the same political game playing out in this case, too;

    Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus’s security strategy has failed and that the war is “lost.”

    In fact, a skeptic might say that al Qaida and the Democrats are acting in tandem to defeat our policy in Iraq.

    And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq.

    This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there.

    What is needed in Iraq policy is not overheated rhetoric but a sober assessment of the progress we have made and the challenges we still face.

    Unfortunately, overheated rhetoric is the only thing we get from Democrats because the place politics before our national security. That was illustrated in the 218-208 vote in the House yesterday to pass a bill that the President has declared dead on arrival. The Democrats know what the President will and will not sign, they’re the ones who are constantly whining about the lack of bi-partisanship, so why didn’t they craft legislation that they know the President will sign instead of some political payment to the extremes of their party’s contituency?

    Lieberman also summarizes what no one else on the Left cares to admit;

    Al-Qaeda’s strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. It is trying to kill as many innocent people as possible in the hope of reigniting Shiite sectarian violence and terrorizing the Sunnis into submission.

    In other words, just as Petraeus and his troops are working to empower and unite Iraqi moderates by establishing basic security, al-Qaeda is trying to divide and conquer with spectacular acts of butchery.

    It makes all of us intellectually honest people wonder why the Democrats would buy into such a defeatist and ill-considered strategy if their motives weren’t purely political.

    Senator Lieberman sums his piece up nicely;

    Al-Qaeda, after all, isn’t carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn’t to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table — along with everyone seated at it.

    The Democrats know that, even if the Code Pink and KosKids don’t. But their answer to complex problems is simple. S.A. Miller of the Washington Times quoted David Obey this morning in the Washington Times;

    “This bill gives the president the exit strategy from the Iraqi civil war that up until now he has not had,” said Rep. David R. Obey, Wisconsin Democrat and House Appropriations Committee chairman.

    See? The war in Iraq is just politics as usual. Disregard the lives, disregard that the downtrodden and oppressed of the world will toss away all hope when we leave the Iraqis to the will of the Islamist extremists – like we left the South Vietnamese in ’75, the Iraqi Shi’ites in ’91, the Somalis in ’93, the Haitians in ’95. Just to appease al-Qaida and the Code Pink crybabies.

    John Murtha as much as admits that its purely political to AP’s Anne Flaherty (via the Washington Examiner);

    Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said Democrats were still considering their next step. He said after Bush’s veto, one option would be funding the war through September as Bush wants but setting benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet.

    “I think everything that passes will have some sort of condition (placed) on it,” he said. Ultimately, Murtha added, the 2008 military budget considered by Congress in June “is where you’ll see the real battle,” he said.

    So they sent this to the President knowing it’d get vetoed. If they were serious about ending this war successfully, they would have hammered out something the President would sign, or something they could over-ride his veto with a 2/3 majority. Instead, they want to make empty political, pointless statements. Just wasting time. How many troops will get killed, how many more attacks will be planned against us while the Democrats play partisan towel-snapping? 

  • The war is still lost

    So, the war is still lost according to Reid’s defenders in Congress – despite the fact that his press office told me on the phone that Reid was misquoted on Friday. John Murtha, afraid that Reid might steal his title as the biggest troop-hater is reported by Fox News as saying;

    “I am proud of these troops and what they have done,” said Murtha, D-Pa. “They won the war and the mission was accomplished. We cannot win it militarily. It can only be won diplomatically.”

    In typical Democrat fashion, Murtha tries to have it both ways. The troops have done a great job losing the war.

    Not to be out done, Dennis Kucinich, who has been stoned since August 1, 1990, apparently, yips;

    “Our soldiers didn’t lose the war,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. “I maintain the war was lost the minute the White House fabricated a cause for war.”

    How did the Bush White House fabricate a cause for war when we’ve been at war with Hussein since he invaded Kuwait, Dennis?

    But at least fewer Republicans are jumping ship like they did earlier this year;

    “Whether or not some choose to acknowledge it, we are at war with militant Islamists who seek our destruction,” Ros-Lehtinen said. “Yet some on the other side of the aisle today announced that the war is lost in Iraq. This comment shows little understanding of the ability and determination of our men and women in the Armed Forces.”

    But other Republicans, like Chuck Hagel, can’t help themselves from caving in to the anti-war rhetoric from Reid, like he did this morning in the Washington Post;

    We are at a crossroads at home. One option is that Congress can pass and the president can sign a war-funding bill that gives our troops the resources they need and places responsible conditions on that funding that will press the Iraqi government to perform and make the tough choices. President Bush should not see this as a threat from Congress but as a reasonable progression of events after four bloody and costly years.

    The other option is that the president can veto the funding bill, Congress can overplay its hand, and both sides can get locked into a political standoff — with U.S. troops caught in the middle. This would not produce constructive pressure on the Iraqi government to reconcile its differences, and it would ensure that the United States would remain trapped in Iraq, doing ever-greater damage to our force structure and military capabilities.

    See? If the President just signs on to the Democrats’ $40 billion of pork and wasteful spending everything will be just fine. If the President capitulates and surrenders to the Democrats (and their al Qaida allies), we all win, sort of. Nevermind that a withdrawal timeline was never part of the trumpeted ISG study, and is the major point of contention between the Democrats and the President.

    When Democrats don’t fund our troops, it’ll be the President’s fault that he’s still leading the nation instead of sticking his finger in the wind like Hagel.

    The Democrats are adamant that the President sign their ill-crafted and cobbled-together legislation even though they, themselves, don’t believe in it. But it’s all they can get passed – and they aren’t sure what Plan B should include. From Reuters via WaPo;

    But when a Democratic-controlled panel of Senate and House of Representatives members meets on Monday to iron out differences between their respective bills, the product is expected to contain 2008 withdrawal dates.

    Many lawmakers have been speculating those dates might be nonbinding, as sketched out by a Senate-passed bill.

    More non-binding BS. And the President told them a month ago he was going to veto their sludge, so why are they just now getting around to “mulling” their options as AP reports;

    Democrats are considering their next step after President Bush’s inevitable veto of their war spending proposal, including a possible short-term funding bill that would force Congress to revisit the issue this summer.

    Another alternative is providing the Pentagon the money it needs for the war but insisting that the Iraqi government live up to certain political promises. Or, sending Bush what he wants for now and setting their sights on 2008 spending legislation.

    This is what is considered “leadership” by the Democrats. Instead of dictating what they’ll accept, they navel-gaze and pontificate and keep their fingers crossed that more troops will die in Iraq so the American people will back their assanine duct-tape and baling-wire spending plans.

    But they can’t dictate, because what they won’t admit is that the majority of Americans don’t trust Democrats with foreign policy. If the majority of Americans had the opinions on the war that the Democrats claim we have, they’d have a bullet-proof majority in Congress instead of a razor-thin majority. And Nancy Pelosi’s poll numbers wouldn’t have tanked after her ring-kissing exercise in Syria.

    But don’t worry. When Hillary is President, she’ll appoint her husband to be a roving diplomat, according to AP via the Washington Times;

     Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday that if she is elected president, she would make her husband a roaming ambassador to the world, using his skills to repair the nation’s tattered image abroad.
        “I can’t think of a better cheerleader for America than Bill Clinton, can you?” the New York Democrat asked a crowd jammed into a junior high school gymnasium. “He has said he would do anything I asked him to do. I would put him to work.”

    Isn’t that what got us into this mess in the first place? Half-assed engagements with our nation’s enemies like Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, Serbia, Bosnia, East Timor, Iraq again, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Rwanda. And don’t forget his apologies to Africans for our role in the slave trade.

    And then to provide some comic relief, Clinton makes this bizarre statement;

    “They have shown contempt for our government,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We’ve got to get back to having qualified people, not cronies, serving in the government of the United States.” 

    As if Whitewater, the missing FBI files, the Travel Office firings, Vince Foster’s death, the IRS investigations, the Kathrine Willy seduction, the Juanita Broadrick cover-up and all of the other, more obvious and famous corruption, crony-ism and deception never happened.

    Yeah, we need more of that.  That’s real Democrat leadership.

    At Hang Right Politics, COgirl reports Nevadans’ opinions of Harry Reid’s comment.

    Dafydd at Big Lizards analyzes the events in Iraq that Reid used to support his pre-emptive surrender.

    No rant against Reid is complete without Joe Lieberman’s response;

    With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Senator Reid’s statement is not based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there.

    Michele Malkin has anti-war quotes from John Edwards, email responses from troops and pointed me towards Mohammed from Iraq the Model who asks;

    Instead of telling us to stop fighting back, I’d like to see some people stand up and protest the crimes of the terrorists and tell them to stop the killing and destruction…turn the stop-the-war campaign against the terrorists, is that too much to ask for?

    If we can’t even blame the lone guy that gunned down 32 people last week, how are we gonna summon the testicular fortitude to condemn an entire organization of psychopaths? I guess those poor Iraqis must be laboring under the misperception that we’re a rational people.

  • Why Gonzalez?

    I was watching Fox News Sunday and Joe “are my hair plugs straight?” Biden while Chris Wallace asked him if his call for investigations into the firing of federal prosecutors are somewhat diluted by his refusal to investigate the firings of 93 investigators by the Clinton Administration as requested by then-Minority Leader Bob Dole. The first thing I remembered was last week’s rant by newly-admitted “Truther” Rosie O’Donnell when she announced that “just about every high level member of the Bush administration is under indictment from Rove to Gonzalez”.

    Well, we know that’s not true – not that it matters to Rosie or her View-ers.

    The only staff member who’s been indicted is Scooter Libby. There’s not even an investigation of any member of the Administration, except by the partisan committees in the House and Senate who are looking real hard to find something, anything they can find to fuel the idiots and morons of the O’Donnell fan club.

    You’ve got the Washington Post reporters Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggan with the “shocking” news today that this President has been giving prosecutor jobs to people he’s worked with and whom he knows shares his views;

    The people chosen as chief federal prosecutors on a temporary or permanent basis since early 2005 include 10 senior aides to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, according to an analysis of government records. Several came from the White House or other government agencies. Some lacked experience as prosecutors or had no connection to the districts in which they were sent to work, the records and biographical information show.

    The new U.S. attorneys filled vacancies created through natural turnover in addition to the firings of eight prosecutors last year that have prompted a political uproar and congressional investigations.

    Apparently that’s considered news at the Washington Post – the fact that Presidents hire people they know and trust. I guess they’d be happier if he just rounded up the hobos in Lafayette Park to fill the vacated lawyer positions. Or even happier if they hired the various and sundry lawyers who hold political views diametrically opposed to the Administration.

    Then they go on to announce that is clearly a violation of no law, except the Law of No One Has Done This Before;

    No other administration in contemporary times has had such a clear pattern of filling chief prosecutors’ jobs with its own staff members, said experts on U.S. attorney’s offices. Those experts said the emphasis in appointments traditionally has been on local roots and deference to home-state senators, whose support has been crucial to win confirmation of the nominees.

    Of course they don’t name “experts” or bother to compare the hirings of other “administrations in contemporary times”. Eggan’s weakass explanations on this issue in emails to me hardly bare repeating with bandwidth for which I pay. His defense to me on nearly every issue related to this case includes the word “unprecedented”. So because there’s no precedent, it must be wrong. Wanna discuss the Travel Office firings? That was unprecedented, too. Apparently these investigations are unprecedented, too, if there was no investigation by Biden’s committee when Dole asked for them.

    The President shares partial blame for the Democrats’ targeting his staff by asking for Rumsfeld’s resignation  for no good reason. But the Left thinks they can cause disarray at the Bush White House by investigating every burp from his cabinet and declaring it was, instead, a fart. The Rumsfeld incident only made Democrats think he was being weak and now they’ve gone for the juglar on every issue that comes up in the Administration. Much like the terrorists are emboldened by the Congress’ weakness in dealing with them.

    The Left can’t find any real corruption, so with their willing accomplices in the press, they manufacture some corruption.

    I think it’d be more appropriate for the Bush Administration to start it’s own investigations of Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, William Jefferson, John “Unindicted co-conspirator” Murtha apparently REALLY corrupt politicians, instead of people who hire qualified and connected prosecutors. That would be a domestic corollary to the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emption. 

    So in the meantime, the Defense Budget sits languishing and gathering dust somewhere on Capitol Hill while Congress takes off for their Spring Break and the Rosie O’Donnells and Dan Eggans do the Democrats’ heavylifting with repetitious, tedious and pedestrian blather.

  • Where are the Human Rights Democrats?

    According to John at Powerline, the Democrats are sitting on HR 267 that would condemn the Iranian capture and treatment of 15 British sailors and marines. The Democrats keep preparing for their Spring Break.

    Meanwhile the Iranians are broadcasting video footage of the capture and propaganda footage of the Brits along with the public release of their mail, a clear violation of the laws of land warfare.

    Dick Durbin couldn’t wait to call our own troops SS guards, so where is on this? Why is Pelosi so retiscent about being on the side of our closest and oldest ally? Where’s Amnesty International and the Red Cross who’ve spent reams of paper trying to convince the American public that the US is the worst terrorist in the world?

    Jimmy Carter called Israel an apartheid government. So where is the little cretin now? You’d think he’d have lots of advice and thoughts on dealing with hostages in Iran, but apparently not. I guess he’s still a little gun shy about Iran.

    John Murtha said our troops were cold-blooded murders. What has he got to say about this illegal capture and mistreatment of British troops by the Iranians?

    Not a friggin’ peep from the self-righteous Left.

    Pound sand you hypocritical freaks.

    Read the Right Wing Nut House’s Iran tries the old bait and switch.

  • Webb defends Iran, House caves on Iraq

    According to Christina Bellatoni of the Washington Times, freshman Senator Jim “Snippy” Webb is about to introduce legislation to prevent the President from defending us against Iran;

    Freshman Sen. James H. Webb Jr. yesterday introduced legislation to force President Bush to seek congressional authorization before using force against Iran.
        Democratic leaders, who indicated general support for the Virginia Democrat’s plan last week, are still deciding whether they will attach it to an upcoming spending bill.
        “This presidency has shot from the hip too many times for us to be able to trust it to act on its own,” said Mr. Webb, a decorated Vietnam veteran who won a hotly contested Senate race last fall in part because of his opposition to the Iraq war. “We need the Congress to be involved in any decision to commence military activities absent an attack from the other side or a direct threat.”

    Yeah, the Democrats have proven themselves so valuable in this war against terror that we need them to distinguish the events in Iraq from the events in Iran. Like I’ve said, it’s the same war – just like Cambodia was the same as the war in Vietnam. The Left kept us from cutting off the NVA from their supplies in Cambodia with their incessant chatter about “illegal war” and so on. Are they planning to get more US troops killed by preventing us from ending the threat from Iran, just so we can see this;


     

    While Webb is busy shielding his allies in Iran, the cut-and-run Democrats in Congress are busy working on another half-wit scheme to hamstring the president in Iraq. Since they can’t summon the testicular fortitude to come right out and defund our efforts, the Washington Post reports that;

    Senior House Democrats, seeking to placate members of their party from Republican-leaning districts, are pushing a plan that would place restrictions on President Bush’s ability to wage the war in Iraq but would allow him to waive them if he publicly justifies his position.

    Under the proposal, Bush would also have to set a date to begin troop withdrawals if the Iraqi government fails to meet benchmarks aimed at stabilizing the country that the president laid out in January.

    The plan is an attempt to bridge the differences between anti-war Democrats, led by Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), who have wanted to devise standards of troop readiness strict enough to force Bush to delay some deployments and bring some troops home, and Democrats wary of seeming to place restrictions on the president’s role as commander in chief.

    So what kind of magic bullet do they craft?

    The new plan would demand that Bush certify that combat troops meet the military’s own standards of readiness, which are routinely ignored. The president could then waive such certifications if doing so is in “the national interest.”

    Democrats hope the waiver and benchmark proposals, whose details were confirmed by aides and senior Democrats close to the House Appropriations Committee and leadership, will keep the policymaking responsibilities on Bush. That should allow the committee to move forward next week with a $100 billion war spending bill.

    Since the Democrats can’t even agree on the single issue that they believe got them in office, they’re punting. Probably because they’re coming to realize that it wasn’t their opposition to the war and the president that got them into office at all. Or maybe it’s because they never had a plan to end the war until the last three plans since January.

    They were too busy gloating, partying and attacking the President’s every word to actually put a moment’s thought into what their policy would look like. Now they have to cobble together SOMETHING…ANYTHING to save their stupid faces.