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

Category: Politics

  • Plame testimony shifting?

    According to Rowan Scarborough of the DC Examiner, Valerie Plames recollection of events leading up to her husband, media whore Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger has changed;

    “This is a whole new story,” the source told The Examiner.

    A 2004 committee report quoted a CIA worker, whom it identified as a “reports officer,” as telling staff that Plame offered up her husband’s name. It also quoted from a memo Plame wrote recommending her husband for the trip.

    “We have checked the transcript of the comments made to the committee by the former reports officer and I stand by the committee’s description of his comments,” said Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I stand by the findings of the committee’s report.”

    Bond said he was willing to re-interview witnesses. Melvin Dubee, spokesman for committee chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said he has heard no such talk on the Democratic side.

    Imagine that, Jay Rockefeller’s staff knows nothing about this, even though Rockefeller was in both meetings (2004 and 2007), too.

  • Democrats propose extending tax cuts

    The Washington Times’ Sean Lengell reports that Democrats are proposing extending some of President Bush’s tax cuts set to expire in 2010;

     Senate Democratic leaders have proposed extending some of President Bush’s tax cuts for the middle class that are set to expire in 2010, a move that Republicans say is an attempt to appease centrist Democrats.
        Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, yesterday introduced an amendment to the Senate budget resolution that would provide almost $200 billion to preserve middle-class tax cuts and enhance health care coverage for poor children.
        The amendment, backed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, is aimed at extending tax cuts for married couples, people with children and those inheriting large estates, among others.
        The tax-cut extensions would have the effect of erasing a $132 billion surplus promised under the Democrats’ original budget. The amendment passed by a vote of 97 to 1. Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the lone dissenter.

    I don’t care why they’re doing, I’m just glad they’re doing it. But if they want to see me really happy, and they want to prove to me that Democrats really care about middleclass taxpayers, they’ll exempt the first $35,000 of every worker’s income from taxes. Now, that’s a tax cut, and it’s targeted towards the middleclass.

    According to Washington Post’s Laurie Mongomery the Democrats will have to resort to dirty tricks to balance the budget, though;

    Conrad and his counterpart on the House Budget Committee, Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.), resorted to gimmicks in their plans. To achieve balance, the Democratic plans, like Bush’s proposal for next year, would allocate less than $200 billion for the Iraq war over the next two years, low by most estimates.

    Like Bush, the Democrats rely on hundreds of billions of dollars over the next five years from the unpopular alternative minimum tax, which Democrats and Republicans alike have vowed to reconfigure or abolish.

    And while Conrad said his plan leaves room for extending some of the Bush tax cuts, Spratt acknowledged that his relies on the extra revenue that would result from letting them expire.

    Hmmm. Kinda sounds like what I heard in the 1992 election from candidate Bill Clinton promising middle class tax cuts, but within weeks after taking office, and working harder than he had ever worked in his life, he announced he just couldn’t find any tax cuts for working, middleclass Americans. I didn’t finish paying my taxes from his 1993 tax hike until 2002 – when President Bush cut my current taxes enough so I could pay off Clinton’s tax hike.

    So much for Democrats being the party of the working man. I guess they’re only the working man’s party during the election season.

  • Herding cats in the Democrat caucus

    According to the Washington Post’s Jonathan Weisman, the Democrats are having trouble wrangling enough votes in their own majority to get their pork-laden Iraq war spending bill;

    One of the Democrats’ chief designated vote counters, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), is actively working against the Iraq war spending bill. The leadership’s senior chief deputy whip, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), spoke passionately against it on the House floor. And one of the whip organization’s regional representatives, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), is implacably opposed.

    The disarray in the House whipping operation ahead of tomorrow’s expected vote on the bill is putting a harsh spotlight on House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), who has the task of rounding up the 218 votes needed to pass the $124 billion measure, but who has not even kept his organization in line.

    The article goes on to explain away Clyburn’s shortcoming as being “too nice” for the job. Or maybe it could be that the Democrats have come to the realization that many Americans don’t support their “slow bleed” tactics and their useless spending habits.

    Christina Bellatoni of the Washington Times chronicles the House’s inability to get their agenda to the president’s desk;

    None of the elements of the newly minted Democrats’ congressional agenda have made it to President Bush’s desk, and the prospects of signature bills such as federal funding for stem-cell research or homeland-security improvements becoming law any time soon are doubtful.
        Much of the Democratic agenda — dubbed “Six for ’06” — sailed out of the House with bipartisan support, but all of it has stalled in the Senate as leaders scramble to deal with the Iraq war.
        “I don’t think they’ve gotten anything done,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio said of the Democrats. “How many bills have they sent to the president? None? Somewhere around there.”

    So I can guess what’ll happen next; the Democrats will blame the voters for not sending more Democrats to Congress. Just like their excuses for everyting they can’t accomplish, it’s Americans’ fault Democrats are bumbling boobs with a vacant intellect and a dying political philosophy.

    They didn’t tell voters what their plan was before the election and they’ve let themselves be sidetracked by meaningless investigations in their haste to make points with the Bush Derangement Syndrome crowd. Democrats enjoy press conferences more than they enjoy doing their job (not that the Republicans were too much different after the “Republican Revolution” got their Contract with America completed).

    They’re more interested in pandering to the diverse pack of malcontents that put them in office than doing what’s best for the nation. A constituency reminiscent of the bar scene from “Star Wars”.

    But, in truth, I’m damn awful glad they’re ineffective and useless. That means I get to keep more of my own money for now.

  • Courage and resolve

    The President called for courage and resolve to end our fight against jihadists in Iraq according to Jon Ward of the Washington Times;

    President Bush yesterday told the country — on the fourth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq — that America can still achieve victory there, while Democrats in Congress said the United States has already failed.
        “Four years after this war began, the fight is difficult, but it can be won. It will be won if we have the courage and resolve to see it through,” Mr. Bush said in an eight-minute speech from the Roosevelt Room in the White House.
        Mr. Bush, who decided over the weekend to mark the Iraq war’s fourth anniversary, said that his plan to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq and Afghanistan must be given “months, not days or weeks” to succeed.

    Not understanding either word, Dingy Harry Reid ran over three Congressional pages to get to a microphone;

        But Democratic leaders in Congress said they want the roughly 140,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq to begin leaving soon.
        “After four years of failure in Iraq, the president’s only answer is to do more of the same,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat. “To succeed in Iraq, we must have a new direction.”

    So what’s your recommendation, Harry? I haven’t heard any plan other than immediate and unconditional surrender to al Qaida from the Left.

    While Steny Hoyer “slavishly” parrots the party line about a time schedule;

    “Many of the same Republican leaders to plead about time frames were saying we need an exit strategy in Bosnia before we go,” Hoyer said.

    And, Slavish Steny, the Democrats also had an opinion counter to the one they hold now on time schedules for withdrawal. Where are the Democrats on a time schedule to withdraw from Bosnia and Kosovo today?

  • Left’s dinghy beginning to leak?

    Janet Napolitano has seen the light, apparently. According the Arizona Republic;

    Gov. Janet Napolitano’s recent statements supporting military operations in Iraq and saying she has no plans to call for a troop withdrawal are drawing criticism from members of her own Democratic Party who’ve lost patience with the war.

    Napolitano made her first visit to Iraq this month at the invitation of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. After two days of conversations with soldiers, military commanders and other officials, she came away cautiously optimistic about the country’s security situation and the potential for success with the recent decision to increase troop strength in Baghdad.

    “People that I met with were cautiously optimistic that they’re at least seeing improvement,” Napolitano told reporters at the time. “I think we’re restoring stability.”

    Ain’t it funny that Democrats who actually GO to Iraq, Democrats who actually TALK to the troops (as opposed to talking AT the troops) come away with a good feeling about the job they’re doing over there. I guess that’s probably why Democrats stay away from Iraq and stay away from conservations with the troops. Why be honest now at this late stage.

    “As a mom whose son is once again going to be asked to put his life on the line, his future on the line, I’m puzzled,” said Bohlen, co-chairwoman of the Arizona Progressive Democratic Caucus.

    Well, maybe you’re puzzled because you’re clueless. Think maybe your son and your governor might have an edge on you because they’ve seen Iraq for themselves? Naw, that couldn’t be it.

    Arizona Democratic Party Vice Chairman Randy Camacho was less pointed but noted just the same that Napolitano “missed a great opportunity to provide a definitive position on the war.”

    Doncha mean she missed an opportunity to kowtow to the intellectually vacant Democrats? That’s OK, she’ll be dragged back to the plantation soon enough. Or hung out to twist in the breeze like Lieberman.

  • Gathering of Eagles

    I gotta tell ya, I haven’t felt so much at home before in DC as I feel today. I’m going to leave the crowd counting to the experts – but not the Washington Post who wrote this crap this morning;

    Thousands of protesters, marking the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq, began gathering this morning for a march to the Pentagon, but many of them were met by a peaceful rally of veterans groups and war supporters near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

    It was a classic example of grass-roots politics in Washington and of the strong emotions that the Vietnam War still exerts more than 30 years after fighting there ended.

    Get that? THOUSANDS of protesters were met by a “rally” of veterans. Sounds like the veterans were outnumbered, doesn’t it?

    The only “grassroots” were on the side of the veterans who had come at their own expense and with very little organization. I met four veterans who had driven up in a car from the Florida Gulf Coast and got into town the night before – that’s grassroots!

    Anyway I got there at about 8:30 this morning (after my regular Saturday morning breakfast of SOS at the Walter Reed messhall) and here’s the video I took of the THOUSANDS of protesters. As opposed to this video I took of the Gathering of Eagles a few minutes before. Quite a difference from what the Post reported, huh?

    Here’s what the protesters saw across the street that separated the two sides;

    There were this many veterans;

    And this many protesters;

    Pretty intimidating huh?

    As the morning went on the crowds on both sides grew and the Park Police began putting up barracades to keep the sides separated;

    Let me just pause here to tell ya’all that the Park Police were real pros. The Wall was well protected – they’d set up metal detectors and hand searched everyone who went to the Wall. This in effect kept the protesters away because they didn’t want to wait in a long line to get to the Wall. The Park Police stayed out of the way, but kept a close eye on the event. Real pros.

    Now, back to the event.

    Apparently age doesn’t always bring wisdom, in the case of these folks;

    And despite the fact that ANSWER and the coalition of weasels have tried to deny that the Truthers are a part of their movement, the Truthers were there;

    And I don’t even want to think about what makes some “Queers” more radical than others;

    The only TV interview I saw being taped was with a supposed “Iraq veteran” who opposed the war. He looked a little old and pudgy to be a recent veteran, though, so I have my doubts. We all remember the Stolen Valor vets of the Vietnam Era, and the media that was more interested in their anti-war comments than their acceditation.

    A few times, the veterans would chant “USA” so loud it could probably be heard at the White House. The protesters tried to shout them down (in those testosterone deficient high pitched squeals that make them the moonbats that they are), but when that failed, they just turned up the music on their speakers – a weak answer to the real passion they faced over the police barriers.

    I’ve been to veterans rallies before. The “Kerry Lied” rally in September 2004 outside the Capitol comes to mind. But this one was so different. There was so much more backslapping, hugging, handshakes, “Welcome home” wishing than I’d ever seen.

    In my opinion, this Gathering of Eagles rally has done more for the healing of the wounds these veterans have been burdened with for forty years than any wall or memorial could ever. It was if they’d finally been given the opportunity to face their oppressors. There were no sorrowful stares, no sympathetic words. It was all smiles and laughter.

    All of those years of anger that had been bottled up was directed against their common enemy – moral and intellectual laziness. The world had to listen to them, the citizens who had sacrificed and paid the price and came home to the disapproval of the citizens who had never spent an uncomfortable moment in their lives.

    One veteran told me, “We’re here because those guys who are fighting in Iraq deserve better than what we got when we came home. No one stood up for us, but by God, we’re standing up for them. And if we don’t, who will?”

    Welcome home, brothers.

    UPDATE: Welcome LGFers and Sweetness and Light folks

    Michele Malkin has photos up on her “blog burst” now. Curt at Flopping Aces has a round up of several blogs.

  • Another shot in the dark

    I’ve been following this story about the Justice Department lawyers for a couple of days, but I’m still confused about what the big deal is. I even emailed the Washington Post reporters on Tuesday, Dan Eggan and Paul Kane, and mentioned the Clinton purge. Dan Egan emailed me back and tried to explain that they had mentioned the Clinton purge in their article, but that they were more focused on the Karl Rove connection and the political undetones of the firings.

    Like there were no political motives in the Clinton purges. Sweetness and Light reprints the New York Times article about the Reno firings.

    Well in their own article, on Page 2 this morning, Eggan and Kane admit that Rove was opposed to the firings;

    The three e-mails also show that presidential adviser Karl Rove asked the White House counsel’s office in early January 2005 whether it planned to proceed with a proposal to fire all 93 federal prosecutors. Officials said yesterday that Rove was opposed to that idea but wanted to know whether Justice planned to carry it out.

    Of course they (Kane and Eggan) don’t believe that.

    The first e-mail, dated Jan. 6, 2005, is from a White House counsel’s office assistant. It indicates that Rove had stopped by that office to ask lawyer David Leitch whether a decision had been made to keep the U.S. attorneys in their jobs. The e-mail does not suggest that Rove advocated one outcome over another.

    So if there’s no evidence he was opposed or not, then we must assume the worst (or best, depending on your perspective and who butters your bread).

    And ABC News buries the fact that these firings are really no big deal in the middle of their story making a big deal of the firings;

    Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said Gonazales “has no recollection of any plan or discussion to replace U.S. attorneys while he was still White House counsel.” She said he was preparing for his attorney general confirmation hearing and was focused on that.

    “Of course, discussions of changes in presidential appointees would have been appropriate and normal White House exchanges in the days and months after the election as the White House was considering different personnel changes administration-wide,” Scolinos said.

    Curt at Flopping Aces lays the whole thing out better than I.

    Jon Ward at the Washington Times tells us that Howard Dean and Chuckie Schumer are taking advantage over the confusion the public has with this;

    Democrats smell blood — and campaign cash — in the uproar over the Justice Department’s firing of eight federal prosecutors last year.
        “This could be George Bush’s Watergate,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean wrote in an e-mail soliciting campaign funds yesterday.
        Senate Democrats said their investigation into the firings is intended to preserve independence for federal prosecutors and keep them from being used as political foot soldiers for the executive branch.

    If this is President Bush’s “Watergate”, is that all they’ve got? They get exercised over a non-covert CIA agent being “outed” (while her husband has been outing her all over town), some dusty buildings on an Army base and now this? If only they’d get this exercised about their own shortcomings. Like FBI files lost for years that suddenly turn up with the fingerprints of an unelected, uncommissioned person, or the travel office employees getting fired to pay off political allies.

    Arlen Specter discovers he’s still a Republican and speaks out against Schumer’s conflict of interest in the Senate’s investigation;

    Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, was using information gained in congressional inquiries he directed to attack Republicans through the Senate Democrats’ fundraising arm, which Mr. Schumer chairs.
        “I believe there is a conflict of interest between Senator Schumer’s position as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the leader of this inquiry,” said Mr. Specter, the Judiciary Committee’s top Republican.
        Mr. Schumer rejected Mr. Specter’s criticism during a low-key but tense exchange in a Senate Judiciary Committee session.
        “I fail to see any conflict whatsoever,” said Mr. Schumer…

    Yeah, well, we’re used to Little Chuckie Schumer not seeing a conflict of interest on his side of the aisle.

    If ever there was “much ado about nothing”, this is it.

  • Republicans find their voice in the Senate

    I see from MyWay (AP in drag) that the Senate Republicans have figured out which side of their bread is buttered;

    In the Senate, after weeks of skirmishing, Republicans easily turned back Democratic legislation requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days. The measure set no fixed deadline for completion of the redeployment, but set a goal of March 31, 2008. The vote was 50-48 against the measure, 12 short of the 60 needed for passage.

    I guess the Congressional Democrats are valuing rhetoric over substance;

    Anti-war Democrats prevailed on a near-party line vote of 36-28 in the House Appropriations Committee, brushing aside a week-old veto threat and overcoming unyielding opposition from Republicans.

    “I want this war to end. I don’t want to go to any more funerals,” said New York Rep. Rep. Jose Serrano.

    I called Representative Serrano’s office and I asked the young lady how many funerals of his constituents who died in Iraq he’s been to - she couldn’t tell me. When asked if he’d been to even one, her answer was “One is too many, isn’t it?” So you tell me how many he’s attended. Sounds to me like he may or may not have attended one funeral. That wasn’t even worth the bandwidth it took to post.