Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Netroots Nightmare: O'Hanlon Teams Up with HRC
When Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution wrote in the New York TImes that the surge was working, they were widely criticized by the antiwar left, which went to great lengths to undercut their findings. The two scholars could do nothing to convince their liberal critics that things in Iraq have gotten better. But they may have convinced at least one Democrat, and she happens to be the party's prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination.
Hillary Clinton, you'll remember, has staked out a nuanced position on the surge. In a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in late August, Clinton declared of the surge, "It's working." And now, O'Hanlon has been named as a foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign.
Clinton, of course, is no friend of the antiwar left, and at least one lefty blogger is calling on the Senator to "renounce O'Hanlon's support." But, despite her grandstanding during the Petraeus hearings, it isn't at all clear that the senator's position on the war is all that different from the president's. By putting O'Hanlon on her team, she's let the netroots know that she doesn't need their support, and more to the point, she doesn't want their support. How can she afford to be so dismissive of this powerful constituency? Maybe because they aren't as powerful as we'd thought.
Iranians chant 'death to Israel' in mass protest
Oct 5 04:07 AM US/Eastern
View larger image
Tens of thousands of Iranians marched through Tehran on Friday proclaiming solidarity with Palestinians and chanting "Death to Israel" in the Islamic republic's annual protest against the Jewish state.
Iranians of all ages began the march through the centre of the capital to Tehran University to mark Quds Day, calling for Jerusalem and Israel to be handed to the Palestinians.
Coloured bibs were handed out to protestors with the legend "Death to Israel, Death to United States" while "Palestine will only be free with fighting and faith" was the slogan on one banner.
Despite the heavily politicised nature of the demonstration, there was a festive mood with the numerous children present having their faces painted as cats and rabbits in entertainment laid on by the municipality.
"I come every year because the Palestinians are helpless and they cannot defend themselves. I come here to here to attract the world's attention to their plight," said Somayeh Salim, 27.
She was carrying an Israeli flag in her rucksack: "I am going to burn it."
The protest was due to be echoed in similar demonstrations up and down the country. The Tehran demonstration was due to culminate in a speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the university.
Ahmadinejad provoked an international outcry shortly after his election in 2005 when he called for Israel to be "wiped from the map" and also described the Holocaust as a "myth".
Although he subsequently toned down his rhetoric slightly, Ahmadinejad has still repeatedly predicted that Israel is doomed to disappear and questioned the scale of the mass slaughter of Jews in World War II.
The Islamic republic however insists that its nuclear programme is solely aimed at generating electricity for a growing population whose giant oil and gas reserves will eventually run out.
But, yeah, the idiot libs are right in saying that there is no problem with them going nuclear
I didn't think you'd answer the question. You'll have to wait to get your programmed response.
The question had nothing to do with why we went in, it's about what to do now
AGAIN< WOULD THE WORLD BE BETTER OFF IF WE LOST IN IRAQ???
PS the reasons for going in have been outined here for you again and again. Hap posted an article by Josh Muravchik- read that- it offered an excellent rationale for what we're doing
READ THAT and then answer the question
Then you just weren't listening
His faults and brutality were well publicized- see we have an open press
The interesting point is that the reign of the ayatollahs has been far more repressive and brutal
LOL, that's rich, the Pegbot commenting on others using talking points from others. How many of her posts are old tired memes repeated over and over and over?
Point of fact, I don't listen to Rush or Sean
Why don't you answer the poll question:
DO YOU THINK THE WORLD WILL BE BETTER OFF IF WE LOSE IN IRAQ??
TIA
20% say world "better off" if U.S .loses in Iraq (update)
Posted by: McQ
OK, I'll bite:
Nearly one out of every five Democrats thinks the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq, according to the FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll released Thursday.
The percentage of Democrats (19 percent) who believe that is nearly four times the number of Republicans (5 percent) who gave the same answer. Seven percent of independents said the world would be better off if the U.S. lost the war.
So, anyone - how will the "world be better off" if the US loses in Iraq?
I can cetainly see the partisan political angle at home here.
But let's talk geopolitics instead of local politics. Tell me the benefits of a loss (we pull out, Iraq implodes and remains unstable, a training place for terrorists and a virtual satellite of Iran) vs. a win (stable Iraq, able to defend itself, terrorists denied sanctuary and a place to train)? How is the world "better off" if the former becomes reality?
UPDATE: Michael Wade of A Second Hand Conjecture asks of those who do believe the world would be better off if the US lost, why are you here?
By the same token, those who wish us to fail should expect to have their patriotism challenged, and indeed they may want to question it themselves (if you really want us to fail, why are you here?). As should those who place political considerations above our national interests in defeating the insurgency in Iraq, stabilizing the government, and getting into a long stare-down with Iran and Syria. If you are more concerned with your political party winning (or with a hated candidate losing) in the elections than with your country winning in the war, your patriotism is suspect at best. That goes no matter whether you are Republican (11% want us to fail), Democrat (34%) or Independent (19%). Rooting for the US mission to fail because it suits your political druthers indicates that you have no patriotism, and really begs the question as to whether or not you're an American. I can sympathize with those who merely want us to end the war, those who thought it was a bad idea from the get-go, and even those who just plain old hate Bush. But hoping that your country fails is simply intolerable, and if you really feel that way, then maybe you should just leave.
prosecuted after his exit from his Presidency.
I see, the moonbat wet dream has gone from impeachment to prosecution after he leaves office.
This thread is always good for a laugh
Exactly how would that work??
TIA for explaining it to me
"the U.S. entry process has created a climate of fear and frustration that is turning away foreign business and leisure travelers and hurting America’s image abroad.”
Sheesh, monumentally stupid
Yeah, what we need to do is loosen up security procedures, make it easier for terrorists to enter the country
UFB
Officer: Drop murder charges against Haditha Marine
By Michelle Malkin • October 4, 2007 11:51 AM
murthared.jpg
Via Allahpundit, here’s the latest on the Haditha Marines. I recommend everyone e-mail and fax this North County Times story to John Murtha ASAP:
A Marine Corps official has recommended that murder charges be dismissed against a Camp Pendleton squad leader accused in the deaths of 17 civilians killed in the Iraqi city of Haditha two years ago.
The official, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, said in a recommendation obtained by the North County Times that rather than face murder charges, squad leader Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich should be tried for the lesser offense of negligent homicide in the deaths of five children and two women.
Ware recommended 10 other murder charges against Wuterich be dismissed.
“I believe after reviewing all the evidence that no trier of fact can conclude Staff Sgt. Wuterich formed the criminal intent to kill,” Ware wrote in reference to the women and children. “When a Marine fails to exercise due care and civilians die, the charge of negligent homicide, and not murder, is appropriate.”
Ware’s report, issued to prosecutors and defense attorneys this week, found the evidence against Wuterich contradictory. Ware’s role as the case’s investigating officer is akin to that of a judge presiding over a pretrial hearing.
“The case against Staff Sgt. Wuterich is simply not strong enough to conclude he committed murder beyond a reasonable doubt,” Ware wrote. “Almost all witnesses have an obvious bias or prejudice.”
Instead of drafting resolutions condemning Rush Limbaugh, Congress ought to be drafting a resolution condemning the slandering John Murtha.
***
Shouldn't MUrtha apologize Peggie????
I wonder how the labials who are so concerned about Bush taking away our Constitutional rights feel about this- will any of you condemn this????
Why Wesley Clark should never get anywhere near the Oval Office or any other high office
Posted by: McQ
I've have had little or no use for Wesley Clark since he was a BG at Ft. Irwin (and I've talked about that reason in the past so I'll not go into it again).
Nothing he has done or said since has changed my mind. Yesterday he again demonstrated why he's politically dangerous. The man who would liked to have been president simply has no idea of the Constitutional law of the land (interview with Tucker Carlson discussing removing Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio):
[Tucker]CARLSON: So it should only have voices you agree with? I mean, how does that work?
CLARK: Let him have his own private-because if he's on private radio, and it's for-profit let him say whatever he wants, provided it's in the balance of propriety.
CARLSON: But wait a second...
CLARK: If he's on public radio, that's a different matter. That's the U.S. government paying for this.
CARLSON: Oh, but that's not the way-oh, now, General, you know from running for president and working on public policy, that's not the way it works. You can't say that National Public Radio, the other public radio entity, I disagree with what you say, we're going to shut you down. We're going to take certain host off the air.
CLARK: It's not that you disagree with what he says-I don't disagree with the substance of political discourse on these radios. I say he crossed the line in maligning the character of people in the armed forces.
CARLSON: OK. Well, others disagree. Well, but wait a second.
Shouldn't we be able to disagree?
CLARK: Well, then we should be talking about that.
CARLSON: OK. Well, we are, but you're trying to take him off the air, which is different than having a dialogue. It's suppressing speech.
CLARK: I'm not suppressing speech. I'm saying that in terms of having U.S. government pay to transmit that, that there should be some standards of political dialogue in America.
CARLSON: And what would those be and who would decide? Would you decide?
CLARK: I'd like to see the Congress decide. Congress decided that MoveOn's ad was out of bonds. I think Congress ought to decide...
Congress? Does this sound familiar?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...
What part of "Congress shall make no law" do you think got past Clark when he was studying the Constitution in order to protect it?
It is as if he never heard of it before - Yeah, let's allow Congress to make a law abridging the freedom of speech, okay? Wonderful.
And it gets worse:
CLARK: There's no reason for the American taxpayer to pay for Rush to assault the character of men and women who serve in the armed forces for their political views.
CARLSON: OK. But hold on, General.
I want to know if you're going to apply that same standard to the rest of public broadcasting in this country. And there's a lot of it.
A lot of entities get money from the federal government to put opinions on the air. You think Congress ought to decide what opinions are acceptable and which aren't and yank the unacceptable ones off the air? That's what you're saying.
CLARK: Well, no. There are standards for propriety in public broadcasting, are there not? I mean, there's X-rated, there's R-rated in public broadcasting. We call it profanity.
CARLSON: This is a political belief.
CLARK: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
We should be talking about the facts, we should be having a good discourse in America. I don't see why there can't be standards for political discourse. I'd like to see A-rated, B-rated, and C-rated for political discourse.
CARLSON: I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why, because it's...
CLARK: I don't think the kind of name calling and invective that Rush Limbaugh engages in advances us. Now, he's got every right...
CARLSON: But wait a second, you had U.S. senator call the guy.
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: I think he's got every right to say it under freedom of speech. But it doesn't have to be transmitted at U.S. government expense. That's my point.
Waffle, waffle, weasel, waffle.
Standards for political discourse on a rating scheme? Wouldn't you love to see how Clark would define acceptable speech? Wouldn't you love to see how Clark would apply that?
And no, Clark doesn't think "he's got every right to say it under freedom of speech" or he wouldn't be talking about taking him off of any station anywhere much less talking about arbitrary ratings for speech and preventing that which doesn't meet 'the standard' from being aired.
Want an authoritarian ... meet Wesley Clark. Thank goodness his political career never caught fire. But rest assured if there's a Dem in the White House in '09, particularly Clinton, this guy will end up in some administration position, and in my opinion, that's not a good thing.
""Anti-war sentiment among Republican poll respondents has suddenly increased with 38 percent of Republicans now saying they oppose the war."
Gee, seems like a tidal wave of momentum...... till you see the date of the survey JUNE 26,2007
LOL, I called you on this yesterday and yet you persist in your intellectual sleaziness
Why cant' you find any recent polls to prop up your futile argument??
The surge has succeeded militarily so far and has changed the situation.
To leave now when the prospect is greatly improved for a political solution would be the ultimate folly- and leave the blood of 100's of thousands of Iraqis on your hands. But apparently the libs don't care about that
WRONG AGAIN
The last post was talking about Clarice Feldman
YOu don't know my views on Ann COulter
Acid flashback perhaps??
Well, she's a lawyer and very bright- both things you will never be
Yep, the opinion of a whining parroter of left wing talking points is more valuable
You can't counter the logic or facts she uses, so you attempt to attack her personally
Typical labial diversionary tactic when you have no argument
Here's a transcript from the show THE DAY BEFORE the "phony soldier comment was made:
"Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse MacBeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse MacBeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."
Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse MacBeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.
RUSH: That was the transcript from yesterday's program, talking about one phony soldier.
Ummmmm, singing statements are legal
How can you " fire " someone for acting legally?
I guess using labial logic, anything is OK, regardless of it's legality or logic if it harms Bush
BDS strikes again
Are Members of Congress Accountable for Anything?
By Clarice Feldman
Are Congressmen above the law? The case of Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich against Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) tests this basic question.
Of course there are other reasons to ask the same question. In a year when Congressional committees see no limits to what they will subpoena from the executive branch or about what they will interrogate its officers and employees, they rushed to court to keep the Department of Justice from subpoenaing the records of a Congressman caught with tens of thousands of dollars in his freezer.
Bad as shielding suspicious Congressional cold cash from view may be, insulating Congressmen when attacking ordinary citizens, or worse yet active duty Soldiers, is an invitation to tyranny. We are all potential targets if this holds true. Are they totally unaccountable for their conduct against ordinary citizens? I certainly hope not, but if that ultimately proves to be the case in court, I hope we have the strength to demand a change in the law.
The news that Staff Sgt Wuterich was going to be permitted to proceed to discovery in his defamation suit against Congressman Murtha was a cheering note to people like me who have consistently considered the Congressman's conduct unacceptable. As you will recall on November 19, 2005 there was an incident in the then-insurgent infested town of Haditha in which a number of people were killed. Beginning in May of 2006, long before a full official inquiry, and prompted by a very suspect bit of anti-US propaganda in Time, Congressman Murtha hit the media circuit repeatedly. He publicly and falsely accused SSgt Wuterich and the men of the Marines' Kilo Company of being involved in cold-blooded (premeditated) murder and of covering up the events of that day.
Wuterich sued Murtha, alleging he'd been libeled, that Murtha had repeatedly asserted "false and malicious lies" about Wuterich and his Company, that these lies were made with full knowledge that they were false and libelous and with gross negligence or reckless disregard for the truth, invading Wuterich's privacy and placing him in a false light. Further, the complaint alleges that since these lies were disseminated throughout the world by others, Wuterich has a new cause of action each time these false and defamatory stories were repeated publicly by any news outlet,
The statement carried around the world and referred to in Count III (Republication) was this one:
"‘There was no firefight. There was no IED...that killed those innocent people,' Representative Murtha, D. Pa., said during a news conference on Iraq. ‘Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood, that is what this report is going to say'."
To date, charges have been dropped against a number of the members of the Company. Wuterich has not even had an Article 32 hearing (the military justice equivalent of a grand jury). His counsel notes:
The charges alone, and the Marine Corps press conference that was held at the time of the announcement, already actually unequivocally refute many of Mr. Murtha's outrageous statements such as that the killings were committed in ‘cold-blood'(premeditated) and that Wuterich and his Marines were not fired upon."
Wuterich offered Murtha an opportunity to resolve the dispute with a simple retraction. Congressman John Kline acknowledged that similar statements made by him were "premature and inappropriate" and issued a public apology. Murtha has refused to do so and is the subject, therefore, of this suit.
Following a successful suit against Senator Proxmire, Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 122 (1979) Congress amended the Federal Tort Claims Act to cover Congressmen. The issue in this case has nothing to do with whether Murtha's remarks constitute defamation: they are libel per se. Immunity from suit under the Tort Claims Act depends on whether or not he can make a plausible claim supported by fact that this defamation was made within what is called the "scope of his employment". The plaintiff argued that he needed to depose Murtha and get some discovery from him -- discovery as to the context in which Congressman Murtha made these statements, what factual basis he had for them, and his motive for making them.
The Westfall Act, as the amendment to the Federal Tort Claims Act 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(h) is known (after the case which spurred its passage), allows the government to defend such cases and move for their dismissal if it appears that the defendant was acting in the scope of his employment. The government has sovereign immunity from suit unless it agrees otherwise and the federal government has never waived this immunity with respect to tortious conduct like defamation.
The leading case on this is Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno (94-167), 515 U.S. 417 (1995). .
The Supreme Court there, and the District Court in the Wuterich case, make clear that the government may not be substituted for the defendant and move to dismiss under the Westfall case unless it can establish that the conduct was made within the scope of the original named defendant's employment. And establishing that requires more than a perfunctory, conclusory affidavit on the issue:
c) Construction of the Westfall Act as Lamagno urges--to deny to federal courts authority to review the Attorney General's scope of employment certification--would oblige this Court to attribute to Congress two highly anomalous commands. First, the Court would have to accept that, whenever the case falls within an exception to the FTCA, Congress has authorized the Attorney General to sit as an unreviewable judge in her own cause--able to block petitioners' way to a tort action in court, at no cost to the federal treasury, while avoiding litigation in which the United States has no incentive to engage, and incidentally enhancing the morale--or at least sparing the purse--of federal employees. This conspicuously self serving interpretation runs counter to the fundamental principle that no one should be a judge in his own cause, and has been disavowed by the United States. Pp. 8-11.
(d) Second, and at least equally perplexing, Lamagno's proposed reading would cast Article III judges in the role of petty functionaries, persons required to rubber stamp the decision of a scarcely disinterested executive officer, but stripped of capacity to evaluate independently whether that decision is correct. This strange course becomes all the more surreal when one adds to the scene the absence of any obligation on the part of the Attorney General's delegate to conduct proceedings, to give the plaintiff an opportunity to speak to the scope of employment question, to give notice that she is considering the question, or to give any explanation for her action. This Court resists ascribing to Congress an intention to place courts in the untenable position of having automatically to enter judgments pursuant to decisions they have no authority to evaluate. Pp. 11-12. [Source]
In fact that is what the Department of Justice unsuccessfully tried to do in the Wuterich case -- get it dropped without offering conclusive proof that these outrageous statements were made within a Congressman's scope of employment and without allowing the defense to probe the facts by deposition and document discovery to establish that the conduct complained of was outside that scope and that Murtha, therefore, must defend the case on his own dime and be liable for any defamatory statements he made.
Wuterich argues that many of Murtha's comments were made outside the scope of his employment. He notes that Murtha has claimed to have been provided the defamatory information by others such as General Hagee who have challenged his recollection of how he came to be in possession of the information. (Hagee has said he never spoke to Murtha until well after Murtha began making these charges.)
In particular, Wuterich raised the following concerns about the affidavit submitted by the Department of Justice certifying that Murtha made these statements in the scope of his employment "at the time of the alleged incidents":
(1) The certification did not detail even one fact upon which it relied in coming to this conclusion. Murtha made many such statements and every single one had to be within the scope of his employment for him to avail himself of statutory immunity.
(2) The government Certification contains no details nor explains the bases for its conclusion.
Affirmatively, Wuterich asserts that Murtha relies solely on the declaration of his former Communications Director, but she never specifically addressed the factual circumstances in dispute; she doesn't indicate she is even familiar with any of the relevant facts in this matter; nor does she address each and every one of the statements made by Murtha nor any republication of those statements by others.
Wuterich concedes that in other circumstances the courts have held that
"speaking to the press is a critical part of the expected and authorized conduct of a United States Congressman."
"However," Wuterich argues,
"there is no indication, nor case law, that would seemingly endorse a view that every single circumstance where a congressman speaks to a member of the media falls within the scope of employment and is thereby entitled to immunity."
The court agreed, and said, despite the Certification, the Government will not be substituted for Murtha (and the case therefore dismissed) until after Wuterich has had an opportunity for discovery to determine whether or not these statements come within the scope of his employment.
What can we expect the plaintiff will explore in this limited discovery?
a. He will want to find out where all these statements were made and the circumstances surrounding all these interviews. Three of the interviews cited in the complaint, he notes, were made in Murtha's "campaign office", not his district or D.C. offices;
b. Murtha will be asked to state what legislative responsibilities pertained to his actions. None seem evident.
c. Wuterich will explore whether Murtha commented upon Wuterich "for his own personal gain outside of his role as a representative for his constituents" If he did, his conduct is not cloaked in statutory immunity. In this context, Wuterich notes that Murtha made these statements at a time when he was vying for the role of Majority Leader, anticipating the Democrats would gain control of the House.
d. Wuterich will certainly seek all records in Murtha's possession of all comments to the media made on this issue and the circumstances surrounding all these interviews.
e. Wuterich will explore who provided Murtha the information he said he relied on. His pleadings refer, in fact, to leakers from among people inside the Department of Defense.
I think that there was no legislative purpose in smearing Wuterich and Kilo Company. Personal aggrandizement and political ambition motivated this Murtha media blitz. I think the very fact that a number of the statements were made in Murtha's campaign office rather than his official offices supports the claim that these statements were not made in the scope of his employment as a Congressman.
It is my understanding that the court-ordered discovery will take place in November, and we will not know whether the suit will proceed until it is completed. But if Congressmen are protected by statutory immunity from accountability after making facially libelous statements based on no solid evidence against the troops in time of war, something is wrong with the law.
Clarice Feldman is an attorney in Washington, DC
I see, you refuse to admit you were wrong- typical
He only defamed McBeth and Beauchamp and Murtha- hardly "brave " military
YOU said "one soldier", who exactly was that Pegbot??
Why wont' you answer or admit you were wrong?
Are you supporting McBeth and Beauchamp now like you did before they were exposed? IS ABC new guilty of slandering also for the story they did on phony soldiers??
Keep parroting- this is exactly the kind of political stupidity that sickens most Americans and has led to the historically low approval ratings for the dem congress
Who was the soldier he defamed
Now answer the question, tool:
"Well, the soldier Rush defamed on his radio program"
Really, who was THE soldier???????
HE said " phony soldiers " , but as usual, don't let the facts deter you from parroting your dribble
"Well, the soldier Rush defamed on his radio program"
Really, who was THE soldier???????
HE said " phony soldiers " , but as usual, don't let the facts deter you from parroting your dribble
Well, if you had bothered to read the transcript further on you would have seen that he did mention McBeth by name
Soldiers " coming out of the blue" also hints that they weren't just talking about the average soldier commenting against the war.
The whole thing is ludicrous because Rush, has always been very supportive of the troops ( and I'm no great fan his )
McBeth and Beauchamp fit the definition of phony soldiers- they are proven liars. He also mentioned Murtha- who has been shown to have lied by calling the soldiers of Haditha " cold blooded murderers " and is now the subject of a libel suit
Why would I waste time ( and posts ) trying to convince you of anything? You've shown your self again and again to be being reason
PS if your really looking for the reason why the polls are so low for the dem controlled congress, it's issues like this that all but the moonbats recognize for the BS it is. They should be concentrating on doing their job and stay away form sill nonsense like this
PS WHatever happened to the legislative agenda the dems were gonna steamroll through in 100 dyas......
Nothing- they don't even have the spine to live up to their own BS and cut funding for the war
Didn't upset me at all- it showed for all to see what Moveon agenda truly is
It probably bothered the 75% of Congress that voted to condemn it
The truly scary thing is that there is not even close to being any factual basis for this nonsense.
They pick any issue, make up facts and their brain dead followers just goose step on.
Funny thing is that it's backfired on them and they really don't even realize
The Patreus ad was a disaster
That was the Pegbot's battle cry for months
" the imminent reinstitution of the draft"
" Rush crapped all over every soldier who opposes the war calling them "phony"
Sheesh, wrong again- you'd think by the law of averages you'd get it right once and a while
HE crapped over Jesse McBeth, and Scott Beauchamp
Just the kind of lying scum that the labials would support
The right would label them traitors of the century the moment they cut the first nickel from the war funding
LOL, so, the country hates the war and the reps by implication, yet and the dems are scared to cut funding because the reps will call them bad names
Amazing what passes for logic
According to the early August Gallup poll
Ummm, it's October now. The success of the surge is widely acknowledged, except for the remaining few moonbats.
Can't you cite a recent poll?
From your poll: "According to the early August Gallup poll, 66% of Americans favor removing all U.S. troops from Iraq by April of next year, except for a limited number involved in counter-terrorist operations. Last month, 71% favored this proposal."
See the trend there??
Real health care reform requires a cultural change in how we view health insurance
Posted by: McQ
John Stossel makes an important point about health care reform:
Candidates for president have plans to get more people health insurance. Some would compel us to buy it; others would use the tax code to encourage that. Regardless, insurance is the magic that will solve our health-care problems.
But contrary to conventional wisdom, it's not those without health insurance who are the problem, but rather those with it. They make medical care more expensive for everyone.
We'd each be better off if we paid all but the biggest medical bills out of pocket and saved insurance for catastrophic events. Truly needy people would rely on charity, not government, because once government gets involved, unintended bad consequences abound.
I think that anyone who really puts any thought into this and reviews the history of government involvement in areas it doesn't belong would be hard pressed to argue against Stossel's final point.
Back in January Arnold Kling wrote an article entitled "Insulation vs. Insurance" at Cato Unbound. In it he said:
The health coverage most Americans have is what I call "insulation," not insurance. Rather than insuring them against risk, most families' health plans insulate them from paying for most health care bills, large and small.
Real insurance, such as fire insurance, provides protection against rare, severe risk. Real insurance is characterized by:
- low premiums
- infrequent claims
- large claims
American health insurance-including employer-provided insurance and Medicare-is the opposite. Families typically are paid claims several times per year, often for small amounts. Premiums are high-the cost of providing insulation often exceeds $10,000 per year per family. However, most families pay these premiums only indirectly, through taxes and reduced take-home pay from employers.
Real insurance would pay for treatments that are unavoidable, prohibitively expensive, or for illnesses that occur relatively rarely. Instead, insulation reimburses even relatively low-cost services, such as a test for strep throat or a new pair of eyeglasses. Insulation pays for treatment even if it is commonplace or discretionary.
In fact, what most Americans have isn't really "insurance" in the traditional sense as Kling points out. What are the real effects of this sort of a system?
Kling answers:
From an economic standpoint, insulation is both inefficient and inequitable. It allocates too many resources to health care, and it includes regressive subsidies that flow up the income scale.
Insulation leads people to over-consume health care services. Americans make extravagant use of services that have high costs and low benefits. Many studies that compare groups with similar conditions show that those with the largest levels of health care spending fare no better in terms of outcomes than those that spend less.
Insulation is also inefficient because of the large taxes that it requires. Payroll taxes support Medicare. Income taxes support Medicaid. Moreover, income tax rates are higher than they would be otherwise, because employer-provided health insurance is a deductible expense for companies but is not taxable income to employees. Taken together, higher payroll and income taxes to support insulation discourage work and thrift, leading to what economists call a "deadweight loss" to the economy.
Insulation also is inequitable. Millionaires on Medicare have their treatments paid for by taxes on low-income workers. High-income earners derive relatively more benefit than low-wage workers from the tax exemption of employer-provided insulation from health expenses.
The obvious point here is the product we all call "health insurance" isn't insurance at all in the traditional sense. Kling, and Stossel, argue that true health care reform should start with changing the product from "insulation" to true insurance:
Real health insurance would pay claims to people who come down with expensive illnesses. Typically, these expenses accumulate over a period of years.
[...]
Real health insurance would not require high premiums. Fewer people would be discouraged from obtaining insurance by sticker shock.
But as Kling points out, it is a cultural objection to be overcome. We're just used to insulation vs. insurance in this particular arena.
Stossel:
If people paid their own bills, they would likely buy high-deductible insurance (roughly $1,000 for individuals, $2,100 for families) because on average, the premium is $1,300 cheaper. But people are so conditioned to expect others to pay their medical bills that they hate high deductibles: They feel ripped off if they must pay a thousand dollars before the insurance company starts paying.
But high deductibles may be the key to lowering costs and putting you in charge of your health care.
And to me, better, cheaper and more efficient health care can be achieved, but only if the consumer is in charge of the buying decision. Both Kling and Stossel discuss that in their articles and both are well worth reading completely.
If we're really serious about health care reform, this seems the most reasonable and liberty-friendly solution out there.
Muzzled by MoveOn
By Michelle Malkin • October 3, 2007 11:01 AM
thug.jpg
I devoted my syndicated newspaper column this week to the targets of MoveOn.org’s speech-squelching bullying campaign. This is a shameful and despicable intimidation scheme abusing copyright infringement law to silence critics of the “General Betray Us” attack ad. You know about it because I’ve been blogging about it repeatedly for the past week. Unlike Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly and Michael Savage, the mom-and-pop t-shirt sellers who received cease-and-desist letters from the thugs at MoveOn do not have daily radio or TV shows. They do not have deep pockets. Who’s looking out for them? Here’s the column. Spread the word:
MoveOn.org, the left-wing extremists who bashed the commander of American forces in Iraq as a traitor, should get out of the political kitchen. The George Soros-funded hitmen can’t stand even a bit of heat from Mom-and-Pop retailers who tried selling T-shirts and mugs on the Internet critical of the “General Betray Us” smear ads against Gen. David Petraeus.
I heard from one of the independent T-shirt sellers targeted by MoveOn.org last week. The seller is a lifelong Democrat and member of the military. Incensed by the attack on Gen. Petraeus, the retailer opened up a shop at online store CafePress. The homemade designs at the PoliStew Cafe (www.cafepress.com/polistew) were stark and simple: “Move Away from Move On!” “MoveOn.org NoFriend to Dems.” “General Petraeus has done more for this country than MoveOn.org.”
For daring to raise a voice and raise some money for the troops (all proceeds from the sale of his items go to the National Military Family Association charity), this T-shirt seller earned the wrath of MoveOn.org’s lawyers. MoveOn.org chief operating officer Carrie Olson brought down the sledgehammer. She sent a cease-and-desist letter to CafePress demanding that PoliStew Cafe’s items and other anti-MoveOn.org merchandise be removed from the store.
Olson warned: “We have been alerted to an entire page of items on your website that infringes on our registered trademark, and we request that you remove all items immediately, and ask the poster to refrain from shipping any items purchased on this webpage. We also request that you give us contact information for the company / person who posted the items. This content has certainly NOT been authorized by anyone at MoveOn.org, nor anyone affiliated with MoveOn.”
Acceptable speech to MoveOn.org: Likening President Bush to Adolf Hitler, as they did in 2004.
Unacceptable speech: Little old mugs and hoodie sweatshirts gently satirizing the thin-skinned, left-wing mafia.
The pretextual copyright infringement claims are downright laughable. This isn’t about protecting MoveOn.org’s property rights. It’s about shutting up citizens who don’t have the deep pockets to defend themselves against frivolous claims by bullies in progressive clothing. Sane liberals should be ashamed at such free speech-squelching efforts. As Los Angeles Times blogger Jon Healey, the only other mainstream journalist to cover the crackdown, notes:
“Trademark law doesn’t confer monopoly rights over all uses of a registered phrase or symbol, however, and it wasn’t created simply to protect the trademark owner’s interests. Instead, it’s designed to protect consumers against being misled or confused about brands. The courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of parodies and critiques; that’s why www.famousbrandnamesucks.com doesn’t violate famousbrandname’s trademark. And most, if not all, of the items targeted by MoveOn were clearly designed to razz it, not to trick buyers into thinking they were the group’s products.”
CafePress refused to give in on several of the items. But the speech-chilling message is clear: Parody MoveOn.org and they’ll threaten to hunt you down and sue you. The PoliStew Cafe operator took down the pro-Petraeus, anti-MoveOn.org shirts and replaced them instead with merchandise referring to “THE GROUP THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED.” An army of MoveOn mockers online has published photoshopped logos (”MoveOut.org,” “MoveOn.org: Surrender in Action”) in solidarity — daring the far-left lawyers to sue them.
Edward Padgett, a Los Angeles blogger who spread the word about MoveOn’s attempt to silence critics, laments: “For several years I have found MoveOn.org to be an inspirational anti-war group, but the past few weeks they have been an embarrassment to all Americans with their attacks upon President Bush and General Petraeus. I subscribe to the MoveOn newsletter, and even considered hosting an anti-war rally in San Dimas, but now I want no part of this radical group and will remove my name from their newsletter subscription . . . I guess to MoveOn, the First Amendment is only for the rich.”
Dissent-silencing tactics approved, apparently, by the MoveOn.org Democrats who are too busy bashing Rush Limbaugh to notice the gagging of ordinary citizens on their own side of the political aisle.
Welcome to George Soros’s America.
Ouch, what a stinging retort.
What a pair. One only has the capacity to understand cartoons, the other parrots inane talking points endlessly
The lack of brainpower, ethics and original thought is amazing
Just shows the desperate, stupid tactics of the labials and their brain dead followers. ANybody with half a clue who actually read the transcripts or heard the program knows it wasn't a smear at troops in general
But, keep on posting your cartoons
Limbaugh Latest Victim in War of Condemnation
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 — Having abandoned for now their effort to force President Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq, Democrats are not giving ground against a lesser nemesis: Rush Limbaugh.
With the help of liberal advocacy groups, the Democrats in Congress are turning Mr. Limbaugh’s insinuation that members of the military who question the Iraq war are “phony soldiers” into the latest war of words over the war.
A resolution introduced by 20 Democrats urges the House to condemn the “unwarranted slur” made by Mr. Limbaugh, though it does not condemn the broadcaster himself.
Their push, not coincidentally, comes after House and Senate Republicans maneuvered some Democrats into voting to condemn an advertisement by MoveOn.org in The New York Times last month that referred to Gen. David H. Petraeus as “General Betray Us.”
“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the House majority leader, said Tuesday.
The back and forth on the Petraeus advertisement and, now, over Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks, illustrates how both parties are turning miscues into fodder in the run up to the 2008 elections, particularly in the absence of serious legislative accomplishment when it comes to the war.
Republicans used to be considered superior at drumming up a quick controversy over some actual or perceived Democratic outrage. But Democrats and sympathetic advocacy groups are catching up fast. And the political exchanges are being amplified by the reach and power of the Internet and the repetition of the 24-hour news cycle.
“Maybe Rush got away with smears like this in the past, but he’s not going to on our watch,” said Jon Soltz, an Iraq veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org, a group closely aligned with Congressional Democrats that is behind a new advertisement taking on Mr. Limbaugh.
Eight paragraphs in and no real bacground on the phony controversy. Instead, this is presented as simply the flip side of the MoveOn coin - MoveOn annoyed Republicans, Limbaugh annoyed Democrats, and here we are.
Just to inspire in Times editors the belief that this controversy can be summarized briskly, let's cut to the AP story of Sept 28 by Holly Ramer:
CLAREMONT, N.H. -- Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards criticized Rush Limbaugh on Friday for referring to some members of the military as "phony soldiers."
For his part, Limbaugh said he was referring only to one soldier recently convicted of lying about his service.
See how easy that was? The allegation and the response, in the first two paragraphs. But nothing is easy in Times world if conservatives are under attack - in their story the allegation is presented in the second paragraph as "Mr. Limbaugh’s insinuation that members of the military who question the Iraq war are “phony soldiers”, but Limbaugh's defense is still MIA after eight paragraphs. Of course, Times editors have the option to pretend that "insinuation" was meant to soften the charge, but that is absurd - by itself, "insinuation" does not carry the connotation that this is simply a misunderstanding, and plenty of righties know that there are truly phony soldiers out there (even ABC News knows it.) and presumably took Limbaugh's intended meaning the first time around.
The Times eventually provides a bit of background in paragraphs ten to twelve:
The broadcaster has accused critics of distorting remarks he made last Wednesday when a caller said the news media liked to focus on antiwar views raised by soldiers. Mr. Limbaugh then said, to the caller’s approval: “The phony soldiers.”
After the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters sounded the alarm about his comments, Mr. Limbaugh said on subsequent shows that he was talking about only one discredited man who claimed to be a wounded veteran. “I was not talking about antiwar, active duty troops,” he insisted.
Yet analysts for Media Matters noted that Mr. Limbaugh’s first reference to the discredited man came nearly two minutes after his plural reference to phony soldiers. That group and like-minded Democrats have refused to back off. More than 40 Democratic senators signed a letter sent Tuesday to the company that syndicates the radio show, asking that Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks be repudiated.
That is quite a misleading summary of the exchange. Here is a bit more context, with emphasis for the benefit of the Times researchers:
CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.
Was it really the case, as described by the Times, that the caller's remarks could be characterized as "the news media liked to focus on antiwar views raised by soldiers", and that it was Limbaugh who volunteered the concept of "phony soldiers"? In that case, how does the Times interpret the callers mention of "these soldiers that come up out of the blue"?
ABC News had a piece about what they called "phony heroes", headlined at their website as "phony war vets", which ran two days prior to the controversial Limbaugh segment. Yet Limbaugh's critics are certain that he could not possibly have had that in mind when he mentioned "phony soldiers", even though the caller was alluding to soldiers that "come up out of the blue" and even though Limbaugh went on to cite a specific phony soldier, Jesse MacBeth, two minutes later? Further, if we understand the Limbaugh explanation, he had previously noted Macbeth in a "Morning Update", which I infer is emailed to subscribers. Yet Limbaugh's critics are certain he could not have meant what he says he meant; geez, if they would only use these vast psychic powers to tell us who is going to win the Series I could be spared a lot of agita.
Eventually the diligent reader has the moral equivalence spelled out:
The Limbaugh furor is just the latest episode in how each side has sought to paint the other as unpatriotic or unsympathetic to the military by focusing public attention on various comments that lawmakers might wish they had phrased differently or could take back.
...There is certainly nothing new in trying to use political opponents’ words against them. But in the current environment, efforts to out-condemn one another are becoming a proxy for a more substantive fight over the war and cannot be dismissed as one factor in the low public approval ratings for Congress.
Left unmentioned - although the Times credits Media Matters with promoting the Limbaugh story their investigative effort apparently flagged once they decided that Media Matters is a "liberal media watchdog organization"; apparently, the claim of the leading Democratic candidate for the Presidency that she helped to establish it is not newsworthy (Newsbusters, Newsday).
Posted by Tom Maguire on October 03, 2007 | Permalink
The labials pine for the return of Saddam and now support scum like Jesse MCBEth and Scott Beauchamp ( the phony soldiers was talking about )
Amazing how they continue to shoot themselves in the foot and then have no clue when their poll numbers approach zero
Raising The Clark Bar
October 3, 2007 at 8:46 am
Some intriguing logic going on in Wesley Clark’s e-mail letter campaign urging Congress to remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio Network. Quite a daunting standard he’s suggesting we impose on taxpayer-funded speech.
Here’s Gen. Clark’s language:
Rush Limbaugh’s show is aired on Armed Forces Radio, which is funded by taxpayers’ dollars.
Fair enough. But if the involvement of taxpayers’ money is the standard by which we block the broadcasting of differing and disagreeable opinion, wouldn’t Congress have long ago blocked funding of Voice of America? In fact, in fulfilling its statutory mission, VOA broadcasts disagreeable content to other countries and other populations, not our own folks.
Clark also writes:
As a member of Congress, you can prevent Limbaugh from further disrespecting and censoring the voices of our soldiers on the military airwaves.
OK. But if Congress is going to get in the middle of a content debate, might they also be urged to see that balance is restored — heck, established — in public broadcasting, also a taxpayers’ expense?
Phony Soldiers, Phony Outrage, and Phony Patriotism
By Chrisopher G. Adamo
Smarting from the public relations disaster of the Betray us ad, a Soros-funded group, Media Matters, ginned up a fake scandal to demonstrate to those who rely on the mainstream media for their news, that "both sides do it."
Congressional and Senate Democrats, along with the entire liberal political cabal, have been in a staged uproar ever since last week when Limbaugh made reference to Jesse McBeth and Scott Thomas Beauchamp who, adorning themselves with fraudulent credentials as members in good standing of the United States military, have been caught in blatant fraud, as they seek to make a case against the war.Rush Limbaugh's attackers have intentionally mischaracterized his criticism of such individuals as an assault the U.S. armed forces, asserting that he derided any troops who oppose the war as "phony soldiers."
In truth, he did no such thing, and his accusers know it. But why should they hesitate to lie about his words when they have gotten so much political mileage in the past few years by lying about virtually every other aspect of the terror war, the Republican Party, the military, and conservatism in general?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-NV) reached a nauseating level of sanctimony in his effort to both prove that Democrats "care about the troops" (at least those who fabricate excuses for America's surrender) while attacking Limbaugh and talk radio. Look to Democrats to invoke this latest manufactured firestorm as damming proof of the need to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine."
But Reid tipped his hand by asserting that Republicans ought to get on the bandwagon of imaginary outrage. Any time liberals begin plugging the bipartisan thing they are really looking for cover and validation from cowardly GOP members.
Reid knows full well that he is lying, and that his principled opposition knows that he is lying. He considers his target audience, Middle America, stupid and gullible. Here Reid hopes to make his case stick, at least among those dependent on the likes of CNN, NBC, or the New York Times for its news.
Conversely, the shamelessness and brazenness of Reid's lies stand as proof that he and his political supporters understand and accept such fraud as an inherent and viable component of the liberal-Democrat playbook.
Of course it is hardly a news flash that the fake anguish expressed by Democrats over this contrived controversy is merely a continuation of the full-throated lies being proliferated by the Moveon.org/Democrat Party/Old media spin machine. The facts of this situation are as available as they are inarguable. They are also inconvenient to the left. So to keep their own story going, Democrat mouthpieces will simply continue to ignore them.
When the truth is revealed, as it eventually will be, no liberal retractions or apologies will be forthcoming. The liberal political apparatus will simply move on to its next target to be smeared, knowing full well that it will never be held accountable for this, or any other deception.
In truth, Limbaugh was very specific as to which "phony soldiers" he was referring. For Jesse McBeth, the moniker clearly fits. He was drubbed out of the military during boot camp (after only forty four days to be precise), but then went on to claim he had been a member of the Special Forces and under such false credentials delivered a plethora of fabricated stories, deriding the military and the mission. He was prominent in the media for a time.
Likewise Beauchamp, who did in fact serve overseas, but whose fabricated fables of abuse and atrocity have been thoroughly refuted by the rest of his outfit.
Limbaugh never even went so far as to include among the phonies Senator and former presidential wannabe John Kerry (D.-MA), whose entire "tour of duty" in Vietnam exceeded McBeth's enlistment by only two and a half months. And that brief Southeast Asian visit netted him three Purple Hearts under highly dubious circumstances.
Of course if Kerry's version of the affair is correct, he could permanently put the matter to rest while completely discrediting his critics simply by releasing his military records, which, to date, he steadfastly refuses to do.
Against this murky backdrop, Democrats on Capitol Hill find an occasion in which they can wave their flags and laud their commitment to God, Country, and the troops, or at least those troops who concoct stories which discredit the terror war and the President's strategy to win it. Such people certainly deserve and receive the unbridled adoration and support of the Democrats.
But perhaps the most telling aspect of this latest offensive is the liberal characterization of Limbaugh, on several occasions just this past week, as "unpatriotic." This is quite an accusation coming from people who insist that the most heinous crime any conservative can commit is to "question the patriotism" of America's leftists as they deride the troops, while crediting America's enemies with every rightness of motive and strategy.
Posted 85d ago Typical of your posts. Don't you think that the success of the surge might have changed the opinions of rational folks ( hint, that excludes YOU ) ?
Right, we all know that Congresspeople don't pay attention to what their constituents want.
Why have the Dems repeatedly refused to act consistently and cut funding for the war NOW?
IT must be because of their love for Bush and not wanting to embarrass him, right?
Maybe they, in spite of the bleating from the whiny left realize it would create a bloodbath and would have long term catastrophic consequences
The surge HAS worked in spite of your and Reids reports of failure even before it was fully staffed
It created the possibility for political stability
To leave now would be folly. The Dems realize that. Only moonbats like you refuse to accept that reality.
The dismal poll ratings is more related to the fact that all the dems are concerned with is playing politics to play out their BDS. WHat ahve they even attempted to accomplish? Their whole focus has been investigations and creating material for soundbites. The best recent example is the flap over Rush's statemen that they distorted and attempted to make an issue of. Truly pathetic , but typical of why COngress is held in such low esteem
Also, the right/center goes to more than one issue. There are many social issues where that designation is accurate. Somehow, those "rural people in the south" still manage to swing elections
Right, and the good people of this country had the great common sense to, in a resounding landslide, keep him as far away from power as possible.
HE needs to update a bit.
Israel has left Gaza and most of the West Bank.,
OF course it's all Israels fault that the people there are spending most of their time shotting at each other when they are not firing rockets into Israel.
America's silence about Israelis nuclear weapons with the latter's lack of membership to the NPT while maintaining such harsh rhetoric with regard to Iran's nuclear program, which is legally allowed to enrich uranium as a NPT member is an example of the kind of outright double standard that the United States has been following in its foreign policy
More labial pretzel logic. There is no equivalence between Israel and Iran. Israel has had nuclear weapons for over 20 years and has shown restraint in not using them
Iran reconfirms over and over again that their aim is the elimination of the Israeli state.
But, your labial hand wringing is no matter. Israel will do what it has to do to defend itself and couldn't care less about your impotent politically correct views
The return of the McGovernite left (update)
Posted by: McQ
First we had Hillary's great idea to 'give' every baby born in America 5 grand.
Now we have this presented as a way to 'share the sacrifice' of the war (as if the money funding it now came from a completely different source that taxation):
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.), Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the Defense subcommittee on House Appropriations, and Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), will soon unveil a "surtax" on taxes owed by Americans to help cover the cost of the war, the trio announced this morning.
The tax is designed to raise $140 billion to $150 billion annually, and would range from a 2% surtax on low-income Americans to as much as 15% for wealthy taxpayers.
Of course the tax hasn't a chance in Hades of passing but it does bring back memories to those of us old enough to remember the anti-war machinations of another Congress of years ago:
McGovern also noted that such surtaxes had been enacted by the government before during previous conflicts.
"There is precedent for this," said McGovern. "We did this during Vietnam. We also did this during World War II as well."
Yeah, it may be a different McGovern but the thrust is the same.
So the old playbook is out and being consulted regularly now, eh?
The obvious point of the bill is to find a way to create some leverage for the anti-war cause and they feel that would be possible if they could hit people in the wallet.
Frankly, it isn't a bad idea, in terms of tactics. However it is still another in a long line of ploys designed to shield them from the political consequences of forcing a withdrawal. Instead of doing what they are empowered to do, defunding the war, they choose to resort to tricks and ploys. Murtha's "death by a thousand cuts" ploy still in play.
I think we all know why Democrats in Congress continue these useless attempts instead of standing up and doing what they say they believe in. It has to do with a lack of spinal columns in the face of the political consequences of actually acting on principle.
So, instead, the Congressional games continue.
UPDATE: Nancy says no. Apparently even she is getting tired of the games:
All told, the Democratic proposal for an "Iraq tax" lasted about four hours. That's roughly the amount of time from when House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) gave life to the idea with his endorsement to when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) strangled it.
"Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am opposed to a draft and I am opposed to a war surtax," Pelosi said in a statement issued this afternoon.
Huh ... I find myself agreeing on 2 out of 3. OK that scares me.
Money will flow to the party that is perceived to be the winners in the next election cycle
Do you think hedge funds and large corporations are making these decisions based on philosophical principles???
The vast majority of this country is center/right.
"All this unhappiness stems from the fact that most Americans do not believe Congress has gone far enough in opposing the war"
LOL, the labial delusions know no bounds.
Yeah, people are disgusted with this Congress because they aren't radical left enough
Pat Paulsen???
What does that have to do with anything?? ( also interesting that you forgot that draft dodger CLinton )
Does it make him less guilty in taking bribes in Abscam?
Does it make his slander of the Haditha Marines for political purposes less repulsive?
FDR never served- was he a coward??
I commend his serving his country, but it is not an excuse for horrible behavior