The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police should be congratulated on their out-of-the-box thinking and their adherence to higher principles
While local newspapers like the Post-Gazette and others continue to ragon the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police regarding officers with histories of domestic abuse, we here at 2 Political Junkies believe that it's high time for someone to stand up and defend the top brass in the department.
The P-G bemoans the bureau's "mostly hands-off policy" when it comes to police officers who are accused of domestic violence including those who have had petitions for protection-from-abuse orders (PFAs) taken out against them.
Apparently the P-G thinks that it's just fine and dandy for our own city to merely ape the behaviors of other police bureaus in some sort of blind allegiance to "best practices" completely discounting the fact that Pittsburgh is a unique city with its own distinctive customs and history.
The P-G cites so called "experts" who recommend "a range of approaches by departments, including temporarily putting alleged abusers on desk duty, taking away their guns or forbidding contact with their accusers."
They quote some guy from Newark who is "surprised" that our top brass aren't more "proactive" when it comes to handling officers accused of domestic violence.
But, we must ask what is wrong with reinventing the wheel?
Just because the International Association of Chiefs of Police says that police applicants and officers up for promotion should have a "clean record" with "no arrests, suspended sentences, diversion programs, convictions or protection from abuse orders related to child abuse, sexual assault, stalking or domestic violence" doesn't mean that we have to slavishly follow such a policy here in the good ol' Burgh.
What are we talking about anyway?
Bruises fade, broken bones mend, hair ripped out at the roots grows back.
Why would we want to handcuff our top brass and our mayor from being able to choose those officers who they obviously believe are the best suited for the job over officers who don't happen to have any history of, say, punching their teenage daughter in the stomach or breaking their wife's nose?
Let's be frank here: it would seem that there are those out their who are in favor of the pussification of our police.
If you call 911 don't you want to know that an officer will respond who is man enough to beat a woman or child down?
Don't you want junior officers to be able to know that it takes a real man to achieve a promotion within the department? Don't they need role models? Don't they need to understand that the top brass will change or break any silly rules about rank to promote officers out of order to get the very best men as lieutenants and commanders?
What about the principle of innocent until proven guilty? What exactly is the problem with swearing in a recruit last month who has already had two PFAs out against him? Don't all recruits have an absolute right to become police officers as long as they've never been actually convicted of an assault or murder? I mean, you wouldn't try to deny Britney Spears or Michael Jackson the right to baby-sit your kids when they've never been convicted of abuse in a court of law, would you? It's only small minds and conventional thinkers who have some sort of sick need to obsess over every little pimple and hiccup on an officer's record and deny them their right to walk around amongst the public with a loaded weapon.
And what about the so-called "victims?" We've seen time and again that when push comes to shove, these women and children will back down and drop charges against their loved ones when they are confronted with the power and might of the system, as well they should.
While we do not necessarily advocate punishing these women and children outright for their whining complaints, we do think that they could benefit by following the example of the following women in this hard hitting reality check of a fair and balanced news report on domestic violence:
Pittsburghers, please, ignore the nay-sayers.
Do not condemn our police chief and mayor to live in fear of being stalked by any past or future consent decrees or any questioning on their priorities and good judgment. They must remain free to operate on the principle that caving to women's and victims' rights groups and a biased MSM will only make them appear weak and womanly -- and that's not the sort of thing that we want from our leaders in a town "made of steel, made of stone".
As you've probably already seen, The Webb Amendment was killed by a threatened GOP filibuster. Proving again that our troops' best friends in the Senate is the GOP.
It means that we won't be "demeaning" our troops by getting them some realistic down time. TPMCafe has a transcript:
The reenlistment rates of those who have served in the theater are larger than those of any other. And, in fact, it is a testament to their courage, to their valor, and their sense of duty to their country. I think we would demean their service if we were to say to them that there had to be a parity between the time in service out of the country and the time at home. The goal ought to be for us not to have 15-month deployments. The hope would be that these would never be necessary. But the mandate from congress that this is how we must operate our armed forces I think is ill-conceived, it is dangerous and does not serve either the national interest of our nation nor the interest of the soldiers on the field whom it is intended to serve.
We should not have a subterfuge of policy to change direction in Iraq heaped on the back of our brave young men and women in uniform...
Greg Sargent sums it up for us:
The argument here appears to be that because the amount of service our troops have performed shows that they are heroic, it would hence "demean" them to reduce that amount of service by giving them longer rest time -- because it would deprive them of more time to be heroic.
As a consolation prize, Our Troops Best Friends (ie the GOP) offered up an alternate resolution. You can read it here.
Of course (and you know you saw this coming) Martinez voted FOR that amendment. Greg Sargent, again:
Just to savor this for a moment, consider that Martinez said above that it would "demean" the service of the troops to support Webb's measure, because we mustn't "say to them that there had to be a parity between the time in service out of the country and the time at home." But apparently it's okay to say this to them via the measure put forth by the GOP, as long as we're not voting for something that would actually make this happen.
How's this for a blog-moment? A local blogger (me) posting a blog entry (the one you're reading right now) about a show ("Off The Record") put on by some local mainstream media types (the writer's guild and AFTRA) about a (fictional) local blogger.
Before I get into any details, here's the basic set-up for the shows themselves. Each year the writer's guild and the the local AFTRA folks put on a show for the Pittsburgh foodbank. It's a good cause. Perhaps the next "hands across the blogosphere" could point some cash in that direction. There's lotsa singing and dancing and they satirize some local politicians. The local politicians then get a chance to rebut.
Mark, Bram, and Sue have all blogged on it, wondering about the title. Since I got a chance to see tonight's rehearsal and peruse the script for this year's show, I thought I'd take this opportunity to to clear up a few things.
As it's "off the record" there isn't a lot I can tell you right now - all I can say is, it's gonna be good. If you can scrape together the 20 bucks for the ticket, you'll be more than pleasantly surprised at what these folks can do. I do have to say that I was shocked shocked by something I saw tonight - Dennis Roddy has a beard! He looks like a shorter, younger, thinner, less grey (and certainly less suicidal) Ernest Hemmingway. With glasses. And a laptop.
We've all read by now that the title of this year's show is "Blogged to Death" and this has raised the question as to whether any of us bloggers will be satirized. I can't say much about what's in the show (you'll have to go see it for yourselves to find out) but I probably can say what isn't in it: me or even a fictionalized version of me. Or Maria. Or Bram. Or Sue. Or anyone from The Burgh Report or the Carbolic Smokeball. Neither Tunesmith nor Anthony. Or even Ole Froth. No Agent Ska. Or even Mark Rauterkus (sorry, Mark). And no one at all from the Women's Blogging Society. None of us.
The plot revolves around a guy who comes home from college and is faced with the ghost of his dead father who claims to have been murdered by his own brother, the college kid's uncle, who's since married the kid's mother. This ghost cries out for revenge and then the college guy--
No wait, I said I wasn't going to do that - sorry. Here's what gets satirized: local Pittsburgh politics. The singing is good, the satire is sharp and the story is easy to follow without a scorecard.
The show's next Thursday at 8. I'm gonna be there. We should all try to go. It's a good cause and it'll be a good opportunity to meet some old skool media types - and for them to meet us.
I just hope that if Jack Kelly's there, he won't be armed.
WHAT: Young Dems of Allegheny County Membership Meeting WHEN:TODAY! Wednesday, September 19th, 6:30 PM WHERE: Democratic Headquarters (810 River Ave, PGH, PA 15212
The Young Dems of Allegheny County are holding their monthly meeting at Allegheny Democratic Headquarters (810 River Ave, PGH, PA 15212) starting at 6:30.
Candidates and Elected Officials are encouraged to attend and new faces are really welcomed to join in.
As David mentioned here, I had some Internet problems (I said he should just write "Verizon sucks!" but he went with "computer/Internet challenges"). I took the advice of the 16th person I spoke with at Verizon trying to fix my DSL problem and now have Comcast -- yes, the Verizon employee admitted that I'd be better off switching to cable.
In the meantime, I caught a case of the cold/flu/monkey pox/plague going around and ended up in the emergency room but I'm back to blogging now.
Like most Americans, I admire the integrity and the candor that General Petraeus showed in his hearings before Congress. And the attacks on him by MoveOn.org in ad space provided at subsidized rates in The New York Times last week were an outrage.
And this is what the Times said about the ad last Friday:
Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman for The New York Times Company, said the advertising department does not base its rates on political content. She also said the department does not disclose the rates it charges for individual advertisements. But she did say that “similar types of ads are priced in the same way.” She said the department charges advocacy groups $64,575 for full-page, black-and-white advertisements that run on a “standby” basis, meaning an advertiser can request a specific day and placement but is not guaranteed them.
I heard Mike Pintek make the same false claim about the Times subsidising the Moveon.org ad. I wonder if he'll, you know, correct his error.
Yea, I doubt it too.
Anyway, considering the poll done by Fox News immediately after General Petraeus' testimony (the one that found only 35% of those polled found the General's report "truthful and objective") there's actually TWO lies in Cheney's paragraph. Look again, he started with:
Like most Americans, I admire the integrity and the candor that General Petraeus showed in his hearings before Congress.
An astute (though he only claims to check the blog "from time to time") reader sent me a link to an MSNBC article under the subject heading "correction."
I'm not sure how much of a "correction" it really is, however.
For instance, in the video (about a minute in) Greenspan says some rather intruiging things. Matt Lauer first states that "liberal bloggers" are going nuts over one sentence in the 500 page book and says that those bloggers are saying it's proof that the administration lied. He then asks the former head of the FED of that was fair:
Greenspan: Utterly unfair. I was expressing my view. Saddam Hussein was obviously seeking to get a chokehold on the Straits of Hormuz where about 18 billion barrels a day flow from the Middle East to the Industrial world. Had he been able to get a hold of a nuclear weapon and indeed move through Kuwait and into Saudi Arabia and indeed control the Straits of Hormuz, it would have caused chaos in the international economy.
Lauer then asked if it was just a semantic question, pointing out that "the administration went to war saying it was all about Weapons of Mass Destruction"
Greenspan: I believe that they believe that. I'm not saying that they believed it was about oil. I'm saying it is about oil and that I believe it was necessary to get Saddam out of there.
It was all for stability of the region - a region full of oil. See? Not much of a correction.
Something, however, doesn't fit with his assessment about Saddam Hussein seeking control of the Straits of Hormuz. Reed Hundt over at TPMCafe pointed it out. First, take a look at a map. It's a little small, but I think it works. See that box in the lower right-hand corner? That's the Straits of Hormuz. See the little teeny tiny grey area in the upper left? Thats where Iraq begins.
Here's what Hundt had to say about Greenspan's geography:
So Iraq has no port or border on the Strait. Saddam had no naval capability of consequence after the first Gulf War. He had no air force. On the ground, he would have had to fight his way through a legion of enemies to approach the Strait from either side, and plainly would have been crushed. The U.S. Navy is invincible in those waters.
Tell me again how Saddam, hamstrung from the first Gulf War and a decade or so of sanctions would have been able to do it? March through Iran? March through Saudi Arabia?
Wait, wait - I know. He was going to give one of his nuclear weapons to Al-Qaeda and THEY were going to destroy the shipping lanes at the Strait of Hormuz.
Except we all know (and have known for a long time) that there were no nuclear weapons, no WMD, no ties to al-Qaeda.
Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is quoted in the Washington Post:
I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.
He's also got a few choice words about DC at the time he left office. DC, in his words was:
harboring a dysfunctional government
And for the GOP:
Greenspan accuses the Republicans who presided over the party's majority in the House until last year of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. The Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of the Senate and House in last year's elections. "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan writes. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither."
He singles out J. Dennis Hastert, the Illinois Republican who was House speaker until January, and Tom DeLay, the Texan who was majority leader until he resigned after being indicted for violating campaign finance laws in his home state.
"House Speaker Hastert and House majority leader Tom DeLay seemed readily inclined to loosen the federal purse strings any time it might help add a few more seats to the Republican majority," he writes.
Mr. Greenspan also spelled out his own views about the war in Iraq: he supported the invasion, he says, not because Saddam Hussein might have had weapons of mass destruction, but because Saddam had shown a clear desire to capture the Middle East’s oil fields.
Oil - it was about the oil. And:
“I’m just very disappointed,” he said glumly, as he sat in his living room. “Smaller government, lower spending, lower taxes, less regulation — they had the resources to do it, they had the knowledge to do it, they had the political majorities to do it. And they didn’t.”
In the end, he said, “political control trumped policy, and they achieved neither political control nor policy.”
The war's about oil, Republican governance is "dysfunctional" and the Republicans were too eager to trade principle for power. Political control trumped policy.
Yes, friends, it's Sunday. That means we get to further analyze the non-existent limits of Post-Gazette columnist Jack Kelly's political mendacity.
This week's column? General David Petraeus.
Let's set the rhetorical table with some numbers. Here's a sentence from J-Kel's fourth paragraph:
When asked in a New York Times/CBS poll who they trust the most on Iraq, 21 percent of respondents chose Congress. Sixty-eight percent chose the U.S. military.
Ok. Good. Let's take a look at that poll. Here's the coverage in the New York Times.
But take a look at the art the Times has included. Notice something? Notice something that J-Kel dutifully left out?
While "U.S. Military Commanders" scored much higher with 68% of those polled (and, by the way, note that the question is about successfully resolving the war not winning it) than Congress' weaker 21%, the Bush Administration scored an even lower with a measly 5%!
Tell me again, who's the Commander-in-Chief? Who's administration it is?
That's right, that would be George W. Bush and 4 times as many people trust Congress to resolve his war than trust his administration to do it.
Something I guess Jack Kelly decided not to tell his readers. He just decided to tell his readers the part that they trust the military a whole lot more than Congress.
That's what's called a "lie of omission." Just so you know.
Here's some more data from the poll Commando Kelly liked so much he opened his column with it:
In making its case for war in Iraq, do you think members of the Bush Administration intentionally misled the public? 60% said yes, 36% said no.
Again Jack, for some reason known only to him, decided not to tell his readers about that bit of information.
I wonder why.
Let's move onto Kelly's surge statistics. (Get it? Get the pun?? I know Dennis Roddy will.).
The situation in Iraq is much better now than it was before the troop surge began in January, Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker told the House on Monday and the Senate on Tuesday. Civilian deaths have declined by 45 percent since December; sectarian deaths by 55 percent. There were half as many car bombings and suicide attacks in August as there were in March.
But if you can't refute the message, you can slime the messenger. Democrats accused Gen. Petraeus of being a shill for the Bush administration.
And why would we think that General Petraeus is a "shill" for the Bush administration? Maybe because he was "hard wired" into Ed Gillespie's PR campaign? From the Washington Post:
Another new arrival in the West Wing set up a rapid-response PR unit hard-wired into Petraeus's shop. Ed Gillespie, the new presidential counselor, organized daily conference calls at 7:45 a.m. and again late in the afternoon between the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the U.S. Embassy and military in Baghdad to map out ways of selling the surge.
Huh. Imagine that.
I want to take a closer look at that first paragraph. The second sentence, specifically. Where does that information come from? We know from the first sentence that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker told Congress that the "situation in Iraq is much better." But what about the stuff that follows? Did Jack Kelly find an independent confirmation supporting what was told to Congress?
Well, no. Although he doesn't say so, Kelly is just continuing the quotation. From the CNN transcript:
Civilian deaths of all categories, less natural causes, have also declined considerably, by over 45 percent Iraq-wide since the height of the sectarian violence in December. This is shown by the top line on this chart. And the decline by some 70 percent in Baghdad is shown by the bottom line.
Periodic mass casualty attacks by al Qaeda have tragically added to the numbers outside Baghdad in particular. Even without the sensational attacks, however, the level of civilian deaths is clearly still too high and continues to be of serious concern.
As the next chart shows, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths, an important subset of the overall civilian casualty figures, has also declined significantly since the height of the sectarian violence in December. Iraq-wide, as shown by the top line on this chart, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by over 55 percent, and it would have come down much further were it not for the casualties inflicted by barbaric al Qaeda bombings attempting to reignite sectarian violence. [Emphasis added.]
Anyway, you can refute the message. And who's done that? Oh, lotsa folks. The GAO, the nation's Intelligence Community, the AP. Here's what Greg Bruno over at the Council on Foreign Relations had to say. After summarizing Petreaus' sunnier picture he wrote:
Independent reports published before Gen. Petraeus’ appearance on Capitol Hill paint a far bleaker picture than the military’s assessment. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded in August 2007 the average number of daily attacks against “coalition, Iraqi security forces, and civilians” remained relatively static—at about 170—between October 2006 and July 2007, with a slight drop between June and July. An August 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) made a similar conclusion, without offering statistics. A third report on the readiness of Iraqi Security Forces concludes the country’s soldiers and police largely are incapable of protecting its citizens.
Nongovernmental analysis of civilian attacks and casualties has been even more critical; it also contradicts military numbers. An Associated Press analysis of civilian casualty statistics, published September 1, 2007, concluded “at least 1,809 civilians” were killed in August 2007, the second-highest monthly level in 2007. The AP, which based its analysis on Iraqi police reports, said 27,564 Iraqi civilians have been killed since April 2005, when the news service began collecting data. Iraq Body Count, a British group that monitors civilian deaths, has counted more than 71,000 civilian deaths from violence since 2003. The Economist says the civilian death toll “almost certainly exceeds 100,000.”[All links from the original - the Yahoo-AP link is dead here's the story from MSNBC]
Bruno, after looking to explain the discrepancy in numbers between Gen. Petreaus and the GAO (and according to Karen DeYoung in the Washington Post - the GAO's methology is also the CIA's and the DIA's), adds a few final expert opinions:
Rand Beers, a counterterrorism adviser to both Bush presidents and President Clinton, says he believes Gen. Petraeus has selectively focused on trends beginning in December 2006 to enhance the perception of military progress. Beers, who heads the Washington-based National Security Network, also suspects the military of inflating pre-December 2006 violence numbers to paint its surge efforts in a more positive light. Lawrence J. Korb, a former senior Pentagon official in the Reagan administration, is equally skeptical: “It’s a selective use of statistics to buttress his case,” Korb says.
See? It is possible to refute (or at least question) the numbers. And from real live National Security correspondents, too.
I'm sorry - was that last bit a little too snarky? I apologize if I hurt Jack Kelly's feelings by backhandedly reminding everyone that he's no longer the P-G's "National Security" Correspondent. Nowadays, he's just a run-of-the-mill wingnut.
Anyway, back to his column. J-Kel next tackles the Moveon.org ad.
Let me point just out that a poll by Fox "News" (Slogan: "It's from Fox News, so you know it's Right.") done after General Petreaus testified showed that only 35% of the American people thought he was being "truthful and objective" in his testimony. 40% (and that's more than 35%) thought he was "slanted towards the Administration."
Yesterday, Congressman Boehner tried to weasel out of things - by spinning and misleading, of course. Here's what can be found in The Politico's Crypt (h/t to Think Progress) where they got a comment from Kevin Smith, Boehner's Communications Director:
Wolf asked about the money spent in Iraq, and that’s what Mr. Boehner was referring to when he said our troops’ efforts are critical for the safety and security of our country. To attempt to put a dollar figure on what we are doing in Iraq does a disservice to the work our troops are doing to make our children and theirs safer.
Smith added: There isn’t a Member of Congress who appreciates the sacrifices of our troops more than Mr. Boehner. In fact, the reason he visited Iraq was to thank our troops for their service on behalf of our country and take a firsthand look at the progress on the ground that Democrats are so desperate to ignore. He had lunch with troops from Ohio today. Mr. Boehner is doing everything he can to ensure our troops come home after victory, not defeat, and General Petraeus has outlined a responsible strategy to do just that.
But we need to take a look at exactly what Wolf Blitzer asked the Congressman. Here it is again:
Mr. Leader, here is the question. How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure, the loss and blood the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment, is going to require?" [emphasis added]
Blitzer, at the very least, was not asking about just the money spent, but also about the number of American servicemen killed or wounded. The fact that Boehner is now trying to ignore that part of the question qualifies as a major spin.
So far there's been little coverage from the MSM (even CNN). At least it's not a botched joke from John Kerry - now that would have been news! Karen Tumulty at Time, after quoting Senator John McCain excusing Boehner's comment as a "he misspoke" moment, says:
Meanwhile, over at Think Progress, they have Boehner's response to the criticism he is getting, as well as the full question he was asked. Looking at the transcript, it appears this is one where it's going to be hard to take a mulligan.
For those who don't play golf, a "mulligan" is a "do-over."
House Republican Leader John Boehner’s comments yesterday are deplorable and he should apologize immediately. Our brave men and women who have given their lives in service to our country and their families have made the ultimate sacrifice, and to say anything less is insulting to their memories and service. Republicans stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that their Iraq policy is a failure, our troops are mired in a civil war and we’re not making the necessary political progress on the ground. Bohener’s comments show how truly out of touch the Republicans are. The loss of a son or daughter is never a small price to pay, especially for a policy which was initiated by Republicans who misled the nation about why we are there. The war in Iraq must end. We need to bring our troops home.
What a stunningly cavalier statement about the lives of the young men and women who serve our country.
Whether you support or oppose the Bush escalation, no American should ever for even a moment think the cost of war is small.
A single life is a large price to pay for any endeavor. Sometimes, in our national interest, we choose to pay that awful price, but we must always make sure that the policy is worthy of it.
Visit our wounded warriors at Walter Reed hospital and ask whether the price they paid was small. Talk to the mothers, fathers, husbands and wives of those who have been killed and ask them to measure the price of war. Young lives stopped short, children who won't have a mother or father there as they grow up, when they graduate, when they get married -- that loss is many things, but it is not small. Where is Representative Boehner's apology? And where is an Iraq policy equal to our soldiers' tremedous sacrifice?
We already have a reaction from Boehner's office. No apology is necessary because he's trying the best he can to spin his way out from under his reprehensible statement. Why take responsibility (and apologise) when you can just spin it away? That's how things work for Washington DC Republicans.
BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?
BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.
To which Greg Sargent adds:
This is an obvious point, but it bears making again, anyway: It's really uncanny how often those who aren't sacrificing anything for the Iraq war, aside for perhaps their health in the polls, are willing to...
(a) Describe the very real sacrifice being made by others as not being such a big deal
...while simultaneously...
(b) Describing the sacrifice others are making as their own.
Leave it to a Republican to say that as of 9/13/07, 3,768 confirmed American deaths (not to mention the tens of thousands injured or maimed) are a "small price" to pay.
And as far as I can tell, it seeks to answer the question: Who is this "Ron Paul guy, what are people saying about him - good and bad?"
While I'm not a Paul supporter (if I were, would that make me a "Paulist"? Just checking.), the article paints a balanced portrait - using sketches from supporters and detractors alike.
Earlier this year, for example, South Sider Maria Lupinacci authored a post titled "Ron Paul Sucks" on the blog she co-writes, "2 Political Junkies" (2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com).
"Yeah, yeah, Republican candidate and darling of the Libertarian wing Ron Paul is good on Iraq," Luppinaci's post concedes. "But I just want to remind anyone who cares about women's reproduction freedom that he is anti-choice . . . I expect more from 'freedom-loving, keep-the-government-off-of-me' Libertarians. But, too often I find that the same Libertarian males who kick and scream over the thought of the government taking one thin dime of their money have no problem whatsoever with the thought of that very same government crawling up into a woman's womb." Lupinacci also questioned the wisdom of trusting issues like gay rights and even product safety to the states, and concluded:
"I say: Fuck Him."
You can find that blog post here, by the way. Dietch gives the Congressman a chance to respond as this follows right after:
Paul accepts such criticism as his due.
"There's a big difference in paying a lot of lip service to supporting the Constitution and actually going out and supporting it with your vote," says Paul. "The Constitution stands for something and I will support it. I'm not going to go out there with my vote and go along just to get along."
On the otherside of the aisle, there's my buddy Mark Rauterkus:
"He's definitely the best candidate out there right now for this country," says Mark Rauterkus of the South Side, a vice chair of the local Libertarian Party and a fixture on local ballots. "I think he's a libertarian through and through, and I am certainly supporting him."
Though there may be a question as to how libertarian Paul is. This is further down the page:
Some libertarians, meanwhile, say Paul isn't libertarian enough, or that on hot-button issues -- abortion, gay marriage and immigration -- Paul is nothing but a Republican in reformer's clothing.
Paul's stand on immigration, for example, strikes some as odd, given libertarian support for a free-market economy. Paul's belief that gay marriage and abortion should be determined by the states, meanwhile, doesn't satisfy libertarians who think the government has no place interfering with people's medical decisions or in bedrooms. [emphasis in original]
"I like him because he's the most anti-Bush Republican running. He's bashing the Republicans more than the Democrats are. He's showing that he's a Republican in party registration only."
And Bill Green:
"Local GOP consultant Bill Green attended Paul's Cranberry appearance in early August. He likened the experience of walking through the Sheraton parking lot as "going to see Jerry Garcia . . . I don't know that it will amount to much more than a few feel-good affirmation rallies, but he's obviously touching a chord.
"His supporters seem to be a collection of people who can't find any other place to go," says Green. "Certain things he says appeal to certain people, and they sometimes belong in very different groups . . . A lot of people from a lot of different backgrounds are going to say, 'Hey, he's talking to me. Somebody is finally talking to me.'
"Checking out the cars, I noticed license plates from about a dozen different states, they caravanned in just to see him," Green adds. "They're true believers. They are the same 'super patriots' that Pat Buchanan attracted."
Good article - check it aht.
While you're there, go read this piece on by Chris Potter on a political cartoon exhibit opening on the 14th at the Three Rivers Arts Festival Gallery on Liberty Avenue dahn-tahn.
American Caricature is a form of intervention, where international cartoonists get U.S. viewers into a room and hold up a mirror to them. The show features 76 works by 37 artists from a dozen countries (including the U.S.). Not surprisingly, most of the work comments on Iraq and the war on terror -- although, sadly, the show lacks any Middle Eastern perspectives. "It's a weakness of the show," Huck admits. But no matter what their nationality, Huck says, contributors felt, "This is long overdue.
This past June 21, a letter was sent to the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee. In that letter, this paragraph appeared:
Abstinence education is a public health strategy focused on risk avoidence that aims to help young people avoid exposure to harm. These programs have been shown to effectively reduce the risks of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by teaching teenagers that saving sex until marriage and remaining faithful afterwards is the best choice for health and happiness. [emphasis added]
I bet you're wondering who wrote (or at least signed) the letter. I'll give you a hint. Here's where the letter's found.
Yes, it was Senator David Vitter. The same David Vitter mentioned in this AP news article:
A former New Orleans prostitute who will be featured in Larry Flynt's Hustler magazine appeared at his office Tuesday to accuse Sen. David Vitter of having a sexual relationship with her in 1999. Wendy Ellis told reporters that Vitter visited her two to three times a week for sexual relations between July and November 1999.
For the record, Vitter has denied the claims and no evidence (financial records, photos etc) was produced at the press conference.
Please note that this prostitute is from New Orleans. Senator Vitter already apologised for a "serious sin" when his phone number was discovered in connection to a Washington DC madam. Different city, different prostitute.
But this isn't the first time we've heard about Wendy Ellis, who worked under the name Wendy Cortez. Take a look at this. It's from March of 2004:
For the first time, Congressman David Vitter has spoken out publically about allegations that he had an 11-month affair with a known prostitute named Wendy Cortez.
On WSMB radio last Saturday, a caller who identified himself as Elwood asked Vitter about charges made by a member of the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee in the Weekly that the then-State Representative had had an affair with a known prostitute in the French Quarter.
Elwood said, "Would you be willing to sign an affidavit that you have never known, met or had relations with one Wendy Cortez?"
Vitter responded, "I think you know that that allegation is absolutely and completely untrue...I have said that on numerous occasions...I'll say that in any forum...Unfortunately, that's just crass Louisiana politics, now that I am running for the Senate. I have made that clear that it is all completely untrue...And, it's obviously politically motivated."
Congressman Vitter had previously refused any comment on the charges. The story appeared in this newspaper just days after Vitter dropped out of the race for governor in June of 2002. The Louisiana Weekly published allegations that Cortez, a known prostitute, claimed that she had an 11-month affair with Vitter, a state representative at the time.
What did we learn from this article? That the charge had been made in 2004 by a member of the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee and that this story's been known since at least June of 2002.
So much for Vitter's personal hypocrisy. I do want to remind everyone what when David Vitter returned to DC in mid-July, he was invited to apologize to the Senate Republicans in a closed luncheon.
What happned then?
The Senators from God's Own Party welcomed him back with a standing ovation.
This is the followup for this posting from last night. It's a little complicated. Bear with me, I'll get it all in. Mike Pintek, political conservative, spoke with in-house WPXI/PCNC political analyst Bill Green (another political conservative - a great idea if you want just one position discussed) about an ad that moveon.org placed in the New York Times. The ad was about General Petreaus and what he might or might not say to Congress yesterday.
Pintek could have been discussing the testimony, but he chose instead to focus on an ad.
Ok. Let's start with the ad that Pintek found so offensive. Here's the text:
Cooking the books for the White House
General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was "tangible progress" in Iraq and that "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward." And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of the troops in Iraq, said "We say we have achieved progress and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress."
Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That's because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don't count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head - not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the last three months than in any other summer we've been there. We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence is decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
Most importantly, General Petreaus won't admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won't hear what Americans are desparate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petreaus has actually said that American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.
Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petreaus is likely to become General Betray Us.
Ok, so they got a bit snarky at the end and if you head over to their webpage, you'll see all the actual confirming evidence supporting their position. Not that it would have mattered to Pintek. The ad was enough to send him off the rails completely. He spun like a music-box ballerina throughout the segment. And I'm surprised that all that spinning didn't create a wind strong enough to push Bill Green out of his chair.
He declared, with no evidence, that moveon.org was speaking for the Democratic party. He said that it's a:
very left wing organization, ostensibly representing the Democratic party. I think that's the impression they wanted to leave.
I am so glad Mike went with "Democratic party" instead of the infantile "Democrat party." Good for him.
But look, he "thinks" that's the impression moveon wanted to leave. But for the rest of the segment, moveon was speaking for all Democrats - well to Mike, at least. It's his way to pin an ad by an organization of 3.3 million people onto a major political party of 72 million people.
The spinning continued. He dragged Congressman Altmire's office into the act, too. Mike had Altmire on Night Talk sometime ago. The Congressman had just returned from Iraq and had met General Petreaus. Pintek said Almire was "very impressed" with the General and that while the situation there "wasn't perfect" there had been "progress in Iraq."
He wanted to get the Congressman's reaction to the ad. So he called the office and got a call back from the Congressman's spokeswoman. Here's what he said then:
This is to be attributed to her, but it comes from Congressman Altmire's office. This is in essense what it says. He says moveon.org has crossed the line of appropriate political discourse with this ad. It's offensive and misleading and does not help those who are trying to come to a timely resolution to the situation in Iraq.[emphasis added]
He said a few seconds later that Congressman Altmire was the "only democrat that I've heard today to condemn the ad."
Note the spin. The thing from the phone conversation was attributed to the Congressman's spokeswoman but Mike does his best to pin it (again with no evidence) on the Congressman himself.
Par for the course, I guess.
By the way, here's the statement from the Congressman about General Petreaus testimony:
After my meeting with Gen. Petraeus in Baghdad two weeks ago, I was confident that he would recommend a drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq. In his statement today, Gen. Petraeus did mention the possibility of a small drawdown; however, I am disappointed that the majority of such a drawdown would not begin for several months and that, one year from now, we will remain at pre-surge levels with no end in sight. A policy that maintains our military presence in Iraq at pre-surge levels—basically a stay the course policy—is in stark contrast to nearly every other recent report on Iraq, including last week's independent reports issued by the GAO and Gen. Jones.
I can see why Mike Pintek wouldn't want to discuss that.
First there's this from the Washington Post by Karen DeYoung.
The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.
Reductions in violence form the centerpiece of the Bush administration's claim that its war strategy is working. In congressional testimony Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to cite a 75 percent decrease in sectarian attacks. According to senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad, overall attacks in Iraq were down to 960 a week in August, compared with 1,700 a week in June, and civilian casualties had fallen 17 percent between December 2006 and last month. Unofficial Iraqi figures show a similar decrease.
Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.
Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those conclusions were also reflected in last month's pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
DeYoung's article gives us a couple bits of information that help us start to unravel the mystery. First, the military command in Baghdad is in a spat with the GAO, which the generals accuse of using a flawed methodology. (GAO's analysis basically disagreed with them on all particulars.) DeYoung's piece includes the very telling detail that the GAO is using the same methodology that the CIA and the DIA favor. So it would seem that it's not only a question of the government versus outside observers. The military command in Baghdad sounds like it's completely isolated even within the US government on how to compute the numbers.
More recently, Marshall pointed out that Petraeus' methology itself is classified:
In other words, it's not just a matter of getting the numbers from Petraeus and his staff and deciding whether you believe them or not. They won't even tell us what the numbers are -- let alone how they came up with them. All they'll say is that they're very good. Or in some cases that there's X percentage drop over the course of the surge. Or an isolated number here or there.
But actual hard numbers? Going back over the last couple years? For some reason we're not allowed to see those.
Perhaps Petraeus and Crocker will sit down tomorrow and share all this data as part of their presentation. But if not, this is the issue. What possible security need is served by keeping this data secret? And with all we've been through, can anyone believe that if the numbers were solid that we'd wouldn't be being buried in data right now? [emphasis added]
Much like the "proof" that Saddam actually had WMD just before the invasion. That he somehow (by truck convoy or plane - the story keeps shifting) got them safely tucked away in the Bekaa valley in Syria. Jack Kelly had a whole column on it February, 2006 where he ends things with a tart:
Those who have bet their political futures that Saddam had no WMD may be starting to sweat.
If it's true and the primary cause of dubya's war was verified, then we certainly would have been hearing about it from all levels of the administration.
Since we didn't, it's safe to assume the whole Bekaa Valley story is crap.
And since we're not hearing solid numbers heading up to Petraeus' speaking to Congress, Josh Marshall is probably right, something's wrong.
And meanwhile the number of dead continue to rise.
Bob Schieffer's commentary is a good place to end.
For months now, the administration has been telling us, let's wait until we hear from General Petraeus before we decide where to go next in Iraq.
Well, tomorrow we hear.
The atmosphere is much like the time during the Vietnam War, when the commander then, General William Westmoreland, was brought home to answer the question: Are we winning?
He assured us we were, and the government offered a blizzard of statistics to back him up. They weren't wrong. They were just irrelevant.
All we really learned then is that we were asking the wrong question. When we have to ask, "are we winning?" we're probably losing. Victory is always obvious.
The right question would have been: Is it worth the cost?
America eventually concluded it was not, and we left the war.
Let me preempt that question to General Petraeus. We haven't lost this war, but we're not winning it. We're hanging on. Victory would be obvious. Iraqi families would be strolling the streets of Baghdad, and Osama bin Laden would be walking out of a cave somewhere with his hands up.
Instead of that question, let's hope the general will be asked what we so often forgot during Vietnam: Is this worth the cost in lives and money?
And here's a follow-up: When the Iraqi parliament went on vacation during August, I gave up on trying to help them find a way to have an effective government. They have to do that. What we need to know now is whether keeping a large American military force in Iraq is the best way to make America safer.
To me, that's the real question.
I wonder if any member of Congress will be asking Gen Petraeus whether dubya's war is worth the cost in lives and money.
As it's Sunday, Jack Kelly's got a column in the Post-Gazette.
Not sure what to make of it, really, as he seems to be travelling in two directions. On the one hand, he's pointing out somewhat negatively the low percentage of veterans among the members of both houses of Congress:
What Congress does or doesn't do in response to Gen. Petraeus' report largely could determine whether we win or lose. But the number of senators and representatives who are veterans -- that is to say, who have the experience to make an informed judgment about what Gen. Petraeus has to say -- is the lowest it's been in half a century.
Only 29 percent of senators and just 23 percent of congressmen have worn their country's uniform, according to the Military Officers Association of America. That's down from 68 percent of senators and 48 percent of representatives in 1991, noted Washington Post reporter Peter Baker in an Aug. 24 article.
Most of our presidents have worn the uniform. Twelve of the 42 were generals. But having a Congress composed chiefly of people who have never served is actually a return to normalcy.
Virtually every able-bodied male of military age served during World War II. The Korean War, the Cold War and the Vietnam War kept the draft in place, troop levels high and (until Vietnam) veterans' status prestigious. But for most of our history, our armed forces have been small and all-volunteer, and few in Congress had served in them.
So it's normal for there to be so few veterans in Congress - but that's not a good thing now. Not sure I follow. But then there's a lot of things Jack Kelly says that I don't follow.
Kelly seems to be saying that because there are so few veterans in Congress, they might not be able to understand what General Petraeus will be telling them and they might, just might, not make the right decision about Iraq.
Of course it goes without saying that J-Kel knows what's the right thing to do in Iraq.
Though one would think that in a democracy (even a represenatative democracy such as ours) our elected officials should be working to do what the people want. And what do the people want? They surely don't want this war. According to a recent CNN poll (8/6-8/07) the American people oppose the war by nearly 2-to-1 (64% to 33%).
The same thing can be said for a troop withdrawal. According to a recent CBS poll (8/8-12/07) 61% of the American people want the number of troops to be reduced or removed alltogether. Only 30% feel the numbers should remain steady or be increased. That's another 2-to-1 against the status quo.
So after dismissing the idea of a draft (which would, of course, increase the number of veterans in Congress - though not in the way I suspect Kelly would want) he offers up a "modest proposal" in his last paragraph:
We can spread the burden of military service more equitably and produce a Congress that better understands what it takes to win in war without a draft. All we need do is make it a condition for holding federal office that a candidate have an honorable discharge from the U.S. armed forces.
That's right - all we need to do is to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. Let's take a look to see what the Constitution says about the qualifications for being elected to Congress.
For the House, It's Article 1 Section 2 Clause 2:
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
For the Senate, it's Article 1 Section 3 Clause 3:
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
And for President, it's Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Nothing in there about military service.
My guess is that Jack Kelly, lover of American Democracy, would rather have the Constitution changed to get a Congress more amenable to his views on the war than have a Congress that actually does what the people want them to do.
The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.
Reductions in violence form the centerpiece of the Bush administration's claim that its war strategy is working. In congressional testimony Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to cite a 75 percent decrease in sectarian attacks. According to senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad, overall attacks in Iraq were down to 960 a week in August, compared with 1,700 a week in June, and civilian casualties had fallen 17 percent between December 2006 and last month. Unofficial Iraqi figures show a similar decrease.
Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.
But here's the fun part. The methology used by the GAO is also used by the intelligence community:
Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those conclusions were also reflected in last month's pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
But we all know what this administration really feels, deep down in its collective guts: Statistics only reflect "reality" and "reality" has a well known liberal bias.
My mother is a HUGE Pavarotti fan and so I am sure the news will bring more than a few tears to her old Italian eyes. Every Christmas she got from one of us the latest Pavarotti LP if there was one. Or perhaps an older recording that didn't yet have. Or a book about him. Or a poster. Sundays (and many Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, you ge the picture) the house, to my utter teenage embarrassment, was filled with that voice. The larger than life Modenesi (sp?) tenor voice that my mother adored. This is like losing a long time family friend.
Domingo? Carreras? Both immensely talented, my mother would say, but neither could sing quite like Pavarotti.
WHAT: Post Agenda Hearing on Police & Domestic Violence (Followup to the Public Hearing held in June) WHEN: Monday, September 10, 2007, 1:30 PM WHERE: Pittsburgh City Council Chambers, City-County Building, 414 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (Corner of Grant & Forbes, 5th Floor)
From the official media advisory:
At the specific request of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other women's rights organizations, the Post Agenda Hearing before Pittsburgh City Council on domestic violence and the police has been set for Monday, September 10, 2007 at 1:30 PM in Pittsburgh City Council Chambers, Fifth Floor, City-County Building, 414 Grant St. in Pittsburgh.
"Thanks to an extraordinary commitment from Council President Doug Shields and his staff, as well as volunteers and staff from throughout the women's rights community, this post agenda hearing will provide the best guidance available to create new policies for the police and the city of Pittsburgh to eliminate the scourge of domestic violence," said Jeanne K.C. Clark of the Squirrel Hill Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW).
"Pittsburghers – both women and men – were outraged when three of the four recent police promotions went to officers with histories of domestic violence," continued Clark. "But the official police response that this was a private matter, and that these officers were only human, was even worse, showing the ignorance of the police leadership on the often fatal issue of domestic violence. It was clear to that serious education and policy changes were necessary to make Pittsburgh a city in which women can feel safe.
"Hundreds of hours of planning and discussion have gone into creating the agenda for this hearing, and nationally respected leaders will be testifying on the issues of domestic violence generally, and how police should be recruited, trained and supervised," continued Clark. "None of this would have been possible without the support and work of Council President Shields and his staff. And this is just the beginning – after the hearing, we expect to offer specific policy changes to prevent any recurrence of the promotions, and to move Pittsburgh's government into the forefront of enlightened polices on domestic violence."
The public is urged to attend the hearing on Monday. As a post agenda hearing, there will be no provision for citizens to testify, but there will be an opportunity for Pittsburghers to communicate their concerns to their elected officials.
I've heard that there are currently some 30 Pittsburgh police officers who have PFA's out against them that we know of. I say "that we know of" because unlike many other cities, Pittsburgh does not do random checks of court records to know if a police officer has a domestic violence problem. This despite the fact that a 1996 federal law prohibits individuals -- including police officers -- from owning or using a firearm if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense.
Moreover, Pittsburgh does not distinguish between domestic violence and other violent crimes in their record keeping so no one can even say how big a problem this is in our city.
Our, um, "inattentiveness" to this problem not only hurts the citizens of Pittsburgh, it also hurts the good police officers and detectives who are passed over for promotions which go to police who don't deserve them.
And, while it's terrifying for any woman to have an abusive partner, imagine how much more terrifying it is for a woman who's partner is allowed to carry a weapon and knows where the women's shelters are and that the woman would have to report the crime to their partner's buddies and coworkers.
If anyone needs any more convincing on how bad it can get for women when a cop goes bad, I suggest you check out recent stories on a Pennsylvania State trooper who used his position to stalk women or the RI woman who when she reported her own rape to the police had the officer who she was accusing of rape show up to take her report. Perhaps not surprisingly, he left out any mention of himself being the accused rapist in his report.
You do not want people to think of the Republican Party every time they step into a public toilet and so the gentleman had to go and why not dispatch him immediately? Why make him stumble through a week of contrition on cable TV and explain himself into an even deeper hole? Nonetheless, it was stunning, the suddenness with which a prominent man can be hurled from his perch by his own friends and with less ceremony than if he were a convenience store clerk caught taking the plastic wrappers off magazines.
What did him in was not his transgression so much as the fact that it was cartoonish and easily worked up into jokes. The next morning on YouTube there was a video of the gentleman endorsing a presidential hopeful, with the title "Senator Craig Taps His Foot for Mitt Romney," and he had become a punch line, like Bill Clinton. ("They're having a Presidents Day sale at the men's store -- pants are half off.")
And the end:
It's an old refrain, but true: In 20 years, the sexual issues and tensions that led to Sen. Craig's downfall will simply not matter anymore. They don't matter much to young people. When enough people my age are gone from the world, the world will change. Calcium supplements will always be with us, and retirement, but a person's sexual interests will not be an issue.
Just over 500 days remain in this presidency. Consider the dead who have piled up on the battlefield in these last 500 days.
Consider the singular fraudulence of this president's trip to Iraq yesterday, and the singular fraudulence of the selling of the Petraeus Report in these last 500 days. Consider how this president has torn away at the fabric of this nation in a manner of which terrorists can only dream in these last 500 days.
And consider again how this president has spoken to that biographer: that he is “playing for October-November." The goal in Iraq is “to get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence." Consider how this revelation contradicts every other rationale he has offered in these last 500 days.
In the context of all that now, consider these next 500 days.
Mr. Bush, our presence in Iraq must end. Even if it means your resignation. Even if it means your impeachment. Even if it means a different Republican to serve out your term. Even if it means a Democratic Congress and those true patriots among the Republicans standing up and denying you another penny for Iraq, other than for the safety and the safe conduct home of our troops.
This country cannot run the risk of what you can still do to this country in the next 500 days.
If Pennsylvania's own Senator Arlen Specter's advice to fellow Republican Senator Larry Craig that he should try to withdraw his guilty plea in the infamous men's room incident has anything to do with Craig's decision to "rethink"his resignation from the Senate, then I say:
THANK YOU, ARLEN!
By all means let's have one more Republican "family values" hypocrite in a scandal that drags on as long as possible.
HA!
You're all in denial on this (and that includes all the C-SPAN callers who seem to overlook the fact that the guy PLEAD GUILTY).
Anyone else in denial here, please view the following and tell me that Crag wasn't thinking of doing more to Clinton than impeaching him:
Civilian deaths rose slightly in August from July's figure as a huge suicide attack in the north two weeks ago offset security gains elsewhere, according to figures compiled Saturday by The Associated Press.
U.S. deaths remained well below figures from last winter when the U.S began dispatching 30,000 additional troops to Iraq.
At least 1,809 civilians were killed last month, compared to 1,760 in July, based on figures compiled by the AP from official Iraqi reports. That brings to 27,564 the number of Iraqi civilians killed since AP began collecting data on April 28, 2005.
Bombings, sectarian slayings and other violence related to the war killed at least 1,773 Iraqi civilians in August, the second month in a row that civilian deaths have risen, according to government figures obtained Friday.
In July, the civilian death toll was 1,753, and in June it was 1,227. The numbers are based on morgue, hospital and police records and come from officials in the ministries of Health, Defense and the Interior. The statistics appear to indicate that the increase in troops ordered by President Bush this year has done little to curb civilian bloodshed, despite U.S. military statements to the contrary.
Newly released statistics for Iraqi civilian deaths in August reflect the strikingly mixed security picture that has emerged from a gradual six-month increase in American troop strength here: the number of deaths across the country rose by about 20 percent since July, but in the capital itself, the number dropped sharply.
The figures, provided by Iraqi Interior Ministry officials on Saturday, mirrored the geographic pattern of the troop increase, which is focused on Baghdad. The national rise in mortality is partly a result of the enormous death toll, more than 500, in a truck bomb attack that struck a Yazidi community in August north of the capital, outside the areas directly affected by the additional troops.
The U.S. military buildup that was supposed to calm Baghdad and other trouble spots has failed to usher in national reconciliation, as the capital's neighborhoods rupture even further along sectarian lines, violence shifts elsewhere and Iraq's government remains mired in political infighting.
In the coming days, U.S. military and government leaders will offer Congress their assessment of the 6-month-old plan's results. But a review of statistics on death and displacement, political developments and the impressions of Iraqis who are living under the heightened military presence reaches a dispiriting conclusion.
Despite the plan, which has brought an additional 28,500 U.S. troops to Iraq since February, none of the major legislation that Washington had expected the Iraqi parliament to pass into law has been approved.
The number of Iraqis fleeing their homes has increased, not decreased, according to the United Nations' International Organization for Migration and Iraq's Ministry for Displacement and Migration.
Military officials say sectarian killings in Baghdad are down more than 51% and attacks on civilians and security forces across Iraq have decreased. But this has not translated into a substantial drop in civilian deaths as insurgents take their lethal trade to more remote regions. Last month, as many as 400 people were killed in a bombing in a village near the Syrian border, the worst bombing since the war began in March 2003. In July, 150 people were reported killed in a village about 100 miles north of Baghdad.
Read them all. It'll be interesting to see (as Josh points out) who'll be quoting which stat.
Newly released documents regarding crimes committed by United States soldiers against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan detail a pattern of troops failing to understand and follow the rules that govern interrogations and deadly actions.
The documents, released today by the American Civil Liberties Union ahead of a lawsuit, total nearly 10,000 pages of courts-martial summaries, transcripts and military investigative reports about 22 cases. They show repeated examples of troops believing they were within the law when they killed local citizens.
Why not? Their Commander-in-Chief has been acting outside of the law (while declaring he hasn't been) for years. Dubya's corruption has trickled down to the boots on the ground in his bloody war.
If they are punished for his actions, it'll be another stain on his legacy.
Now that we know that Bush make a surprise visit to Iraq this weekend, it might be a good idea to take a look at some of the stuff the wingnuts in the area definitely won't be talking about.
On the supposed drop in insurgent attacks. Too bad a great deal of the dirty work has already been accomplished. From Newsweek:
When Gen. David Petraeus goes before Congress next week to report on the progress of the surge, he may cite a decline in insurgent attacks in Baghdad as one marker of success. In fact, part of the reason behind the decline is how far the Shiite militias' cleansing of Baghdad has progressed: they've essentially won.
Seems that the Shiites have been doing that for some time now.
Jack Kelly's column this week is going to be a tough nut to crack - including, as it does, at least one completely unsupported assertion.
But let's get started anyway.
J-Kel begins by whining that the media reports more about the scandals that involve Republicans than it does the scandals that involve Democrats. It's underlying assumption is that the level of scandal is equal in both parties. Since the coverage of the scandals are out of balance, the coverage must be biased. But that's only if the level of corruption of both parties is the same - and it just isn't. More on that later.
But back to Jack.
He begins his "argument" by pointing out two other scandals (each involving Democrats) that the media hasn't told you about. Would it surprise you to learn that Kelly's leaving out some important info? No it wouldn't.
But The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that a lower-middle-class family in suburban San Francisco has contributed $45,000 to Hillary Clinton and $200,000 total to Democratic candidates since 2005, contributions they almost certainly couldn't afford on the $49,000 annual salary chief breadwinner William Paw earned as a postal worker.
Here's the WSJ article. But before you head over there, think about your first impression of this family. How much money do they make? Kelly says the the chief breadwinner makes only $49,000 a year - so we can assume that the rest of the family has no income, right? Here's what the WSJ wrote about them:
Records show they own a gift shop and live in a 1,280-square-foot house that they recently refinanced for $270,000. William Paw, the 64-year-old head of the household, is a mail carrier with the U.S. Postal Service who earns about $49,000 a year, according to a union representative. Alice Paw, also 64, is a homemaker. The couple's grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company to "attendance liaison" at a local public high school. One is listed on campaign records as an executive at a mutual fund. [emphasis added]
Wait, wait, wait. The father makes $49K and they own a gift shop and the children are grown and one's an account manager at a software company and another as an executive at a mutual fund?
Jack must've known this - it's in the WSJ article he references. Yet he's trying to get us to believe that the income for the entire family is only $49,000.
That's a lie of ommission.
As Mediamatters.org points out, half of that $200,000 came from one of those grown children, Winkle Paw. He's actually quoted in the article:
I have been fortunate in my investments and all of my contributions have been my money.
The next paragraph from Jack:
Contributions from the Paw family often were made on the same day as contributions from Norman Hsu, a New York businessman who has been one of Ms. Clinton's top fundraisers, the Journal said. Mr. Hsu once listed the Daly City bungalow where the Paw family lives as his residence.
Mr. Hsu is a fugitive, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday. He pleaded no contest to a charge of grand theft in 1991, but left California surreptitiously before he was to begin serving a three-year prison sentence.
Mr. Hsu has donated nearly half a million dollars to Ms. Clinton and other Democrats since 2004, including Gov. Ed Rendell, and bundled donations for half a million more from other donors, many of them, like the Paws, with no history of donating to political candidates.
The point Jack's trying to make, without actually coming out and saying it, is that Hsu funnelled the money to the "poor" Paw family - and that's a scandal. It's a scandal that the mainstream media won't talk about. Except that (and this is from the WSJ):
There is no public record or indication Mr. Hsu reimbursed the Paw family for their political contributions.
Let's move on to Hsu. According to the initial reporting in the LA Times:
Beginning in 1989, court records show, he began raising what added up to more than $1 million from investors, purportedly to buy latex gloves; investors were told Hsu had a contract to resell the gloves to a major American business.
In 1991, Hsu was charged with grand theft. Prosecutors said there were no latex gloves and no contract to sell them.
Hsu pleaded no contest to one grand theft charge and agreed to accept up to three years in prison. He disappeared, Smetana said, after failing to show up for a sentencing hearing. Bench warrants were issued for his arrest but he was never found, Smetana said.
He's since turned himself in. Did you know that the Clinton campaign is giving to charity the $23,000 it received from Hsu? Something else Jack didn't tell you.
Also note that Jack didn't tell you whether the Clinton campaign had any idea what Hsu was doing. They probably should have, but there's no indication it did. Something else Jack's hoping you'd just assume along the way.
Let's keep going. This is fun, ain't it?
Jack mentions another donor:
Abdul Rahman Jinnah, a Pakistani immigrant, surrendered to the FBI. He is accused of illegally funneling tens of thousands of dollars to Ms. Clinton and to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Any idea when he surrendered to the FBI? Since the story is about recent news, we should be assuming it's recently, right? Nope. It was last May:
A Pakistani businessman accused of illegally funnelling tens of thousands of dollars to the political campaigns of US senators Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer surrendered to the FBI on a year-old indictment on Tuesday, then collapsed in Los Angeles federal court, Los Angeles Times reported on Wednesday.
Turns out, however, that:
The drama unfolded shortly after Jinnah, who has a history of heart problems and diabetes, flew back to the US from Pakistan to answer charges by a grand jury that he engineered illicit donations to Ms Clinton’s political action committee and Ms Boxer’s 2004 re-election campaign. Officials from both campaigns have said they were unaware of the alleged wrongdoing and returned the contributions.
This, also, was last May. Last March, the NYPost reported that the Clinton Campaign denied it had any knowledge of the contributions and donated the funds to charity. Last March.
You wouldn't have known that from Jack Kelly's column either.
Let's get to the meat of the column and Jack's blatantly unsupported (indeed unsopportable) assertion:
When a scandal involves a Republican, his or her party affiliation is mentioned in the lead. When it involves a Democrat, party affiliation typically is mentioned deep in the story, if at all.
He offers no evidence to support this. Anyway, how can you check?
There is, of course, evidence of the media misrepresenting tainted Republicans as Democrats. Mark Foley (Republican from Florida), for instance.
Jack then goes completely nuts:
But media bias is not the main reason why Republicans suffer more from scandals. Democratic voters expect Democrats to steal on their behalf. Lawmakers are judged on the basis of how many goodies from the federal treasury they can shower on their constituents. The typical Democratic voter doesn't mind terribly if their senator or congressman takes something for himself along the way. (Time Magazine's story on Rep. Mollohan's re-election was headlined, "Pork Trumps Scandal.")
The typical Republican voter wants his senator or congressman to keep his taxes low, his government honest. He is furious when GOP lawmakers stick their fingers in the cookie jar, or give lip service to values they do not practice.
Republicans must be squeaky clean to win elections because their voters will crucify them for behavior Democratic voters wink at so long as the pork keeps flowing. This is why his GOP colleagues already have stripped Sen. Craig of his committee assignments, and many have called for his resignation, while Democratic senators are comfortable having among them a man who left to drown in his automobile a young woman with whom he was having an extramarital affair. [emphasis added]
He chides the Democrats for what's known as pork. And as distasteful as congressional pork may be, it's legal. For instance Republican Senator Ted Stevens has been delivering pork to Alaska for decades. His was that huge bridge project in Alaska that Stevens supported instead of funding for post-Katrina New Orleans.
On whether the Republicans or the Democrats are more corrupt right now, Check out Rachel Maddow:
and Josh Marshall:
But when you're losing an argument about Republican scandals, just mention Chappaquidick.
UPDATE: While I was reading Jack Kelly's drivel about how scandals involving Republicans get all the media's attention and scandals involving Democrats don't, I missed this from mediamatters.org.
Turns out that while television and cable news were all focussing on Norman Hsu (remember Kelly said they weren't), they missed the story of Mitt Romney's former national finance committee chairman, Alan Fabian. While dutifully pointing out how Norman Hsu is a fugitive from justice who donated thousands of dollars to democrats, they failed to point out how Fabian was charged with mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice.
But we should probably give him a pass on those last two. Dubya had already commuted the Scooter's sentence on perjury and obstruction of justice, so those crimes obviously aren't a big deal to the GOP.
The Romney campaign has since turned Fabian loose (a donut to anyone who gets the pun), but according to mediamatters, while the Romney campaign said it would return Fabian's contribution, it would not return the contributions from anyone with ties to him.
As an inadvertant bonus to us, Mediamatters lists all the TV and cable news programs that covered the Hsu story (remember, Kelly said they hadn't). Here's the list:
CNN Newsroom, August 31
CNN's American Morning, August 31
CNN's The Situation Room, August 30
NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams, August 30
CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, August 30
Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, August 30
NBC's Today, August 30
American Morning, August 30
Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, August 29
Special Report, August 29
Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, August 29
The Situation Room, August 29
I'll say it again. Jack Kelly needs a better fact-checker. Or better yet a fact-checker.
