181
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
182
3DHS / Democrats lied about implementing ALL the 9/11 commission proposals
« on: January 02, 2007, 09:28:40 PM »
Liars
Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_pf.html
Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_pf.html
183
3DHS / Democrats lied about being bipartisan
« on: January 02, 2007, 03:21:30 PM »
Dems Renege on Promised Bipartisanship, Group Says
(CNSNews.com) - A conservative group said Tuesday it is not surprised that Democrats are reneging on their promise of bipartisanship by planning to use House rules to prevent Republicans from offering alternative measures to a number of measures in their first 100 hours. House Democrats plan to assure the speedy passage of bills on a minimum wage hike, stem-cell research, and lower-interest student loans so they can claim early victories. "We are not surprised House Democrats are already reneging on their pledge to include Republicans in the legislative deliberations that begin this week - in fact, this is exactly what we predicted," said Focus on the Family Action Senior Vice President of Government and Public Policy Tom Minnery. "It's clear that Nancy Pelosi and her leadership coalition never planned to foster the civility and bipartisanship that they pledged during the election would be the hallmarks of their majority," said Minnery in a statement. "Though control of Congress has shifted, the Democrats should remember that Americans are still concerned with the preservation of marriage and life," he said. "American families will take note of this manipulation of House rules to preclude the minority party from fulfilling its role of providing balance and perspective to the Democrats' legislative agenda.""
(CNSNews.com) - A conservative group said Tuesday it is not surprised that Democrats are reneging on their promise of bipartisanship by planning to use House rules to prevent Republicans from offering alternative measures to a number of measures in their first 100 hours. House Democrats plan to assure the speedy passage of bills on a minimum wage hike, stem-cell research, and lower-interest student loans so they can claim early victories. "We are not surprised House Democrats are already reneging on their pledge to include Republicans in the legislative deliberations that begin this week - in fact, this is exactly what we predicted," said Focus on the Family Action Senior Vice President of Government and Public Policy Tom Minnery. "It's clear that Nancy Pelosi and her leadership coalition never planned to foster the civility and bipartisanship that they pledged during the election would be the hallmarks of their majority," said Minnery in a statement. "Though control of Congress has shifted, the Democrats should remember that Americans are still concerned with the preservation of marriage and life," he said. "American families will take note of this manipulation of House rules to preclude the minority party from fulfilling its role of providing balance and perspective to the Democrats' legislative agenda.""
184
3DHS / Remove Conyers
« on: January 02, 2007, 03:04:31 PM »
Editorial: Is Pelosi serious about cleaning up the House?
WASHINGTON - Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will make history this week when she becomes the first woman elected as speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. What also will likely be seen this week in her handling of the Conyers scandal is whether or not Pelosi means what she says about cleaning up the ethics mess left by the Republicans (and not a few prominent Democrats as well).
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is scheduled to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, but only because he agreed when Pelosi previously made clear that she intended him not to waste time on impeachment proceedings against President Bush. But now we learn that Conyers has his own problems with obeying the law.
There is so much wrong with the Conyers situation that Pelosi shouldn’t have to think twice about nixing Conyers’ chairmanship. Let us look at how the Conyers scandal epitomizes the ethics mess in the House:
First, releasing its report late on Friday before the New Year’s holiday weekend made it clear that the House “Ethics†Committee intended to minimize public understanding of the Conyers scandal. This is classic Washington Establishment manipulation of the news cycle to insulate itself against public accountability.
Second, Conyers responded to the “Ethics†committee by “accepting responsibility†for a “lack of clarity†in asking aides to work on his re-election campaign while on the official payroll instead of going on a campaign staff, as the law requires, and to do personal chores for him. The allegations came from senior staff members, including a former chief of staff, not interns or other short-term aides who might have questionable motives.
Third, the “Ethics†committee report also concerned a second investigation of Conyers from 2003 on allegations that his aides also worked on the Carol Mosely-Braun presidential campaign and JoAnn Watson’s Detroit City Council race. Would Conyers have applied the same slipshod legal standards to his Bush impeachment effort?
Fourth, the Conyers scandal shows it’s still business as usual for the “Ethics†committee. Pelosi should demand that Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., the committee leaders who signed off on the Conyers report, be removed permanently from the panel and barred from leadership of other House panels.
Finally, Pelosi should heed former White House chief of staff and ex-congressman Leon Panetta, who said “you can attack one party for having a lack of ethics, but if any of your own members have problems, it dulls the message with the American people, they begin to put everybody in the same box.†In other words, whenever one member of the House has an ethics problem, it damages the credibility of all members of the House, including most especially its most visible leader, the speaker.
Pelosi should withdraw Conyers’ appointment as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee because he is unfit for the position and because the ethics mess simply cannot be cleaned up with such an individual leading the House committee most directly concerned with upholding the majesty of the law.
http://www.examiner.com/a-485578%7EEditorial__Is_Pelosi_serious_about_cleaning_up_the_House_.html
WASHINGTON - Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will make history this week when she becomes the first woman elected as speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. What also will likely be seen this week in her handling of the Conyers scandal is whether or not Pelosi means what she says about cleaning up the ethics mess left by the Republicans (and not a few prominent Democrats as well).
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is scheduled to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, but only because he agreed when Pelosi previously made clear that she intended him not to waste time on impeachment proceedings against President Bush. But now we learn that Conyers has his own problems with obeying the law.
There is so much wrong with the Conyers situation that Pelosi shouldn’t have to think twice about nixing Conyers’ chairmanship. Let us look at how the Conyers scandal epitomizes the ethics mess in the House:
First, releasing its report late on Friday before the New Year’s holiday weekend made it clear that the House “Ethics†Committee intended to minimize public understanding of the Conyers scandal. This is classic Washington Establishment manipulation of the news cycle to insulate itself against public accountability.
Second, Conyers responded to the “Ethics†committee by “accepting responsibility†for a “lack of clarity†in asking aides to work on his re-election campaign while on the official payroll instead of going on a campaign staff, as the law requires, and to do personal chores for him. The allegations came from senior staff members, including a former chief of staff, not interns or other short-term aides who might have questionable motives.
Third, the “Ethics†committee report also concerned a second investigation of Conyers from 2003 on allegations that his aides also worked on the Carol Mosely-Braun presidential campaign and JoAnn Watson’s Detroit City Council race. Would Conyers have applied the same slipshod legal standards to his Bush impeachment effort?
Fourth, the Conyers scandal shows it’s still business as usual for the “Ethics†committee. Pelosi should demand that Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., the committee leaders who signed off on the Conyers report, be removed permanently from the panel and barred from leadership of other House panels.
Finally, Pelosi should heed former White House chief of staff and ex-congressman Leon Panetta, who said “you can attack one party for having a lack of ethics, but if any of your own members have problems, it dulls the message with the American people, they begin to put everybody in the same box.†In other words, whenever one member of the House has an ethics problem, it damages the credibility of all members of the House, including most especially its most visible leader, the speaker.
Pelosi should withdraw Conyers’ appointment as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee because he is unfit for the position and because the ethics mess simply cannot be cleaned up with such an individual leading the House committee most directly concerned with upholding the majesty of the law.
http://www.examiner.com/a-485578%7EEditorial__Is_Pelosi_serious_about_cleaning_up_the_House_.html
185
3DHS / Why We Need More Troops in Iraq (Persuasive essay by Lieberman)
« on: December 29, 2006, 02:26:09 PM »
Why We Need More Troops in Iraq
By Joseph Lieberman
Friday, December 29, 2006; Page A27
I've just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.
Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable. We and our Iraqi allies must do what is necessary to win it.
The American people are justifiably frustrated by the lack of progress, and the price paid by our heroic troops and their families has been heavy. But what is needed now, especially in Washington and Baghdad, is not despair but decisive action -- and soon.
The most pressing problem we face in Iraq is not an absence of Iraqi political will or American diplomatic initiative, both of which are increasing and improving; it is a lack of basic security. As long as insurgents and death squads terrorize Baghdad, Iraq's nascent democratic institutions cannot be expected to function, much less win the trust of the people. The fear created by gang murders and mass abductions ensures that power will continue to flow to the very thugs and extremists who have the least interest in peace and reconciliation.
This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center. By ruthlessly attacking the Shiites in particular over the past three years, al-Qaeda has sought to provoke precisely the dynamic of reciprocal violence that threatens to consume the country.
On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.
To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province -- an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in that province.
In Baghdad and Ramadi, I found that it was the American colonels, even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops. In both places these soldiers showed a strong commitment to the cause of stopping the extremists. One colonel followed me out of the meeting with our military leaders in Ramadi and said with great emotion, "Sir, I regret that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can win it."
In nearly four years of war, there have never been sufficient troops dispatched to accomplish our vital mission. The troop surge should be militarily meaningful in size, with a clearly defined mission.
More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight, but they are certainly its prerequisite. Just as the continuing carnage in Baghdad empowers extremists on all sides, establishing security there will open possibilities for compromise and cooperation on the Iraqi political front -- possibilities that simply do not exist today because of the fear gripping all sides.
I saw firsthand evidence in Iraq of the development of a multiethnic, moderate coalition against the extremists of al-Qaeda and against the Mahdi Army, which is sponsored and armed by Iran and has inflamed the sectarian violence. We cannot abandon these brave Iraqi patriots who have stood up and fought the extremists and terrorists.
The addition of more troops must be linked to a comprehensive new military, political and economic strategy that provides security for the population so that training of Iraqi troops and the development of a democratic government can move forward.
In particular we must provide the vital breathing space for moderate Shiites and Sunnis to turn back the radicals in their communities. There are Iraqi political leaders who understand their responsibility to do this. In Anbar province we have made encouraging progress in winning over local Sunni tribal leaders in the fight against al-Qaeda and other terrorists. With more troops to support them, our forces in Anbar and their Sunni allies can achieve a major victory over al-Qaeda.
As the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria appreciate -- at times, it seems, more keenly than we do -- failure in Iraq would be a strategic and moral catastrophe for the United States and its allies. Radical Islamist terrorist groups, both Sunni and Shiite, would reap victories simultaneously symbolic and tangible, as Iraq became a safe haven in which to train and strengthen their foot soldiers and Iran's terrorist agents. Hezbollah and Hamas would be greatly strengthened against their moderate opponents. One moderate Palestinian leader told me that a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region. Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have bravely stood with us in the hope of a democratic future would face the killing fields.
In Iraq today we have a responsibility to do what is strategically and morally right for our nation over the long term -- not what appears easier in the short term. The daily scenes of death and destruction are heartbreaking and infuriating. But there is no better strategic and moral alternative for America than standing with the moderate Iraqis until the country is stable and they can take over their security. Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq. That will greatly advance the cause of moderation and freedom throughout the Middle East and protect our security at home.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122801055.html
By Joseph Lieberman
Friday, December 29, 2006; Page A27
I've just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.
Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable. We and our Iraqi allies must do what is necessary to win it.
The American people are justifiably frustrated by the lack of progress, and the price paid by our heroic troops and their families has been heavy. But what is needed now, especially in Washington and Baghdad, is not despair but decisive action -- and soon.
The most pressing problem we face in Iraq is not an absence of Iraqi political will or American diplomatic initiative, both of which are increasing and improving; it is a lack of basic security. As long as insurgents and death squads terrorize Baghdad, Iraq's nascent democratic institutions cannot be expected to function, much less win the trust of the people. The fear created by gang murders and mass abductions ensures that power will continue to flow to the very thugs and extremists who have the least interest in peace and reconciliation.
This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center. By ruthlessly attacking the Shiites in particular over the past three years, al-Qaeda has sought to provoke precisely the dynamic of reciprocal violence that threatens to consume the country.
On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.
To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province -- an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in that province.
In Baghdad and Ramadi, I found that it was the American colonels, even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops. In both places these soldiers showed a strong commitment to the cause of stopping the extremists. One colonel followed me out of the meeting with our military leaders in Ramadi and said with great emotion, "Sir, I regret that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can win it."
In nearly four years of war, there have never been sufficient troops dispatched to accomplish our vital mission. The troop surge should be militarily meaningful in size, with a clearly defined mission.
More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight, but they are certainly its prerequisite. Just as the continuing carnage in Baghdad empowers extremists on all sides, establishing security there will open possibilities for compromise and cooperation on the Iraqi political front -- possibilities that simply do not exist today because of the fear gripping all sides.
I saw firsthand evidence in Iraq of the development of a multiethnic, moderate coalition against the extremists of al-Qaeda and against the Mahdi Army, which is sponsored and armed by Iran and has inflamed the sectarian violence. We cannot abandon these brave Iraqi patriots who have stood up and fought the extremists and terrorists.
The addition of more troops must be linked to a comprehensive new military, political and economic strategy that provides security for the population so that training of Iraqi troops and the development of a democratic government can move forward.
In particular we must provide the vital breathing space for moderate Shiites and Sunnis to turn back the radicals in their communities. There are Iraqi political leaders who understand their responsibility to do this. In Anbar province we have made encouraging progress in winning over local Sunni tribal leaders in the fight against al-Qaeda and other terrorists. With more troops to support them, our forces in Anbar and their Sunni allies can achieve a major victory over al-Qaeda.
As the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria appreciate -- at times, it seems, more keenly than we do -- failure in Iraq would be a strategic and moral catastrophe for the United States and its allies. Radical Islamist terrorist groups, both Sunni and Shiite, would reap victories simultaneously symbolic and tangible, as Iraq became a safe haven in which to train and strengthen their foot soldiers and Iran's terrorist agents. Hezbollah and Hamas would be greatly strengthened against their moderate opponents. One moderate Palestinian leader told me that a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region. Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have bravely stood with us in the hope of a democratic future would face the killing fields.
In Iraq today we have a responsibility to do what is strategically and morally right for our nation over the long term -- not what appears easier in the short term. The daily scenes of death and destruction are heartbreaking and infuriating. But there is no better strategic and moral alternative for America than standing with the moderate Iraqis until the country is stable and they can take over their security. Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq. That will greatly advance the cause of moderation and freedom throughout the Middle East and protect our security at home.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122801055.html
186
3DHS / The damn Clintons are leaking dirt on Obama
« on: December 27, 2006, 12:25:34 AM »
Where else could this trash be coming from?
Intern For Barack Obama Linked To Fundraiser
(AP) An intern in Sen. Barack Obama's office last year was recommended by an Illinois Democratic fundraiser later indicted for seeking kickbacks on government deals.
Obama has denied doing any favors for Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against him. The internship was one of 98 Illinois spots filled from a pool of 350 applicants.
John Aramanda, a 20-year-old student, served in Obama's Capitol Hill office from July 20 to Aug. 26, 2005, and was paid an $804 stipend, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs told the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times in reports published Sunday.
Gibbs said Rezko recommended the intern to Obama but contended that the internship did not contradict Obama's statements about not doing any favors for Rezko.
"I think that it's fairly obvious that a few-week internship is not anything of benefit to Mr. Rezko or any of his businesses," he said.
The intern's father, Joseph Aramanda, a businessman in the Chicago suburb of Glenview, once served as chief operating officer of a Rezko company and had a long-term business relationship with Rezko, according to court records and business filings.
The intern's father said there was no relationship between the internship and his business with Rezko.
Rezko has pleaded not guilty to charges he plotted to squeeze millions of dollars in kickbacks out of investment firms seeking state business. He also has pleaded not guilty to obtaining a $10.5 million loan from GE Capital through fraud and swindling a group of investors.
Rezko's wife bought a vacant lot next door to Obama on the same day last year that Obama and his wife, Michelle, closed on their home, according to published reports last fall. In January, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for part of the lot to balance the space between his house and the fence.
Obama, who is weighing a run for president, has said the arrangements were ethical, but he also acknowledged he "misgauged" the implications suggested by his purchase of the additional land.
Messages left Tuesday by The Associated Press for Obama's representatives and Rezko's attorney, Joseph J. Duffy, were not immediately returned.
http://keyetv.com/national/topstories_story_360220749.html
Intern For Barack Obama Linked To Fundraiser
(AP) An intern in Sen. Barack Obama's office last year was recommended by an Illinois Democratic fundraiser later indicted for seeking kickbacks on government deals.
Obama has denied doing any favors for Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against him. The internship was one of 98 Illinois spots filled from a pool of 350 applicants.
John Aramanda, a 20-year-old student, served in Obama's Capitol Hill office from July 20 to Aug. 26, 2005, and was paid an $804 stipend, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs told the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times in reports published Sunday.
Gibbs said Rezko recommended the intern to Obama but contended that the internship did not contradict Obama's statements about not doing any favors for Rezko.
"I think that it's fairly obvious that a few-week internship is not anything of benefit to Mr. Rezko or any of his businesses," he said.
The intern's father, Joseph Aramanda, a businessman in the Chicago suburb of Glenview, once served as chief operating officer of a Rezko company and had a long-term business relationship with Rezko, according to court records and business filings.
The intern's father said there was no relationship between the internship and his business with Rezko.
Rezko has pleaded not guilty to charges he plotted to squeeze millions of dollars in kickbacks out of investment firms seeking state business. He also has pleaded not guilty to obtaining a $10.5 million loan from GE Capital through fraud and swindling a group of investors.
Rezko's wife bought a vacant lot next door to Obama on the same day last year that Obama and his wife, Michelle, closed on their home, according to published reports last fall. In January, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for part of the lot to balance the space between his house and the fence.
Obama, who is weighing a run for president, has said the arrangements were ethical, but he also acknowledged he "misgauged" the implications suggested by his purchase of the additional land.
Messages left Tuesday by The Associated Press for Obama's representatives and Rezko's attorney, Joseph J. Duffy, were not immediately returned.
http://keyetv.com/national/topstories_story_360220749.html
187
3DHS / The Sandy Berger Experiment
« on: December 24, 2006, 03:19:56 PM »
The Sandy Berger Experiment: Bush Official Destroyed 9/11 Documents
Former National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice was accused of the theft and destruction of classified materials related to 9/11.
In 2003, Rice spent several days reviewing classified materials in the National Archives, prior to a deposition before the 9/11 Commission. She allegedly removed material related to the Bush administration's activities leading up to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. She later admitted to destroying the documents.
During a visit to the Archives to review 9/11 material, she took a break outside without an escort. She had placed four documents in her purse. She then was said to have slid the documents under a construction trailer; later, she retrieved the material from the construction site.
When officials from the National Archive realized that some documents were missing, they called Rice at her office.
Aware that mere possession of the documents could incriminate her, she shredded the classified material and placed it in the trash.
Rice had access to National Security Council (NSC) numbered documents, printed copies of e-mails, and staff member office files (SMOFs). The SMOFs contain working papers of NSC staff members, including Rice, and their content is not inventoried by the Archives at the document level. The SMOFs given to Rice during her first two visits contained only original documents.
Therefore, there appears to be no way to determine whether original documents related directly to the 9/11 Commission's investigation were stolen or destroyed.
Once this shocking news broke, the media piled on. The New York Times ran a series of nine straight, "above-the-fold" front page stories on the Rice scandal and how the documents could have served as evidence of the Bush administration's prior knowledge of 9/11.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer devoted an entire week of shows to the scandal, filming his show in front of the National Archives, and interviewing noted experts Paul Begala, Jack Cafferty, and James Carville.
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann also pilloried the Bush administration, accusing the president of advance knowledge of 9/11 and a subsequent coverup. In a series of shows captioned, "What did Bush know about 9/11 - and when did he know it?", Olbermann began a campaign to have Bush impeached over the incident. He stated that the destruction of the documents, "cast a dark shadow over everything that this administration has ever done."
The Democratic leadership in Congress also hammered the Bush administration. They demanded a harsh prosecution of Rice, noting that a typical sentence for the destruction or theft of classified documents was in the range of ten to twenty years.
Democrats also formed a committee to explore the impeachment of the President.
As expected, the talk shows ran wild with the story. David Letterman ran two top-ten lists on the topic over the course of a single week. One centered around a John Kerry guest appearance. Kerry read the "Top Ten Documents that the Bush administration 'Lost' ".
* * *
Oh, wait.
I'm very, very sorry. I got part of this story wrong. It wasn't Condoleeza Rice and the Bush administration. It was actually Sandy Berger and the Clinton administration. My mistake. Never mind.
Amazing how a party affiliation impacts news coverage and political sensibilities, eh?
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/12/sandy-berger-experiment-bush-official.html
Former National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice was accused of the theft and destruction of classified materials related to 9/11.
In 2003, Rice spent several days reviewing classified materials in the National Archives, prior to a deposition before the 9/11 Commission. She allegedly removed material related to the Bush administration's activities leading up to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. She later admitted to destroying the documents.
During a visit to the Archives to review 9/11 material, she took a break outside without an escort. She had placed four documents in her purse. She then was said to have slid the documents under a construction trailer; later, she retrieved the material from the construction site.
When officials from the National Archive realized that some documents were missing, they called Rice at her office.
Aware that mere possession of the documents could incriminate her, she shredded the classified material and placed it in the trash.
Rice had access to National Security Council (NSC) numbered documents, printed copies of e-mails, and staff member office files (SMOFs). The SMOFs contain working papers of NSC staff members, including Rice, and their content is not inventoried by the Archives at the document level. The SMOFs given to Rice during her first two visits contained only original documents.
Therefore, there appears to be no way to determine whether original documents related directly to the 9/11 Commission's investigation were stolen or destroyed.
Once this shocking news broke, the media piled on. The New York Times ran a series of nine straight, "above-the-fold" front page stories on the Rice scandal and how the documents could have served as evidence of the Bush administration's prior knowledge of 9/11.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer devoted an entire week of shows to the scandal, filming his show in front of the National Archives, and interviewing noted experts Paul Begala, Jack Cafferty, and James Carville.
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann also pilloried the Bush administration, accusing the president of advance knowledge of 9/11 and a subsequent coverup. In a series of shows captioned, "What did Bush know about 9/11 - and when did he know it?", Olbermann began a campaign to have Bush impeached over the incident. He stated that the destruction of the documents, "cast a dark shadow over everything that this administration has ever done."
The Democratic leadership in Congress also hammered the Bush administration. They demanded a harsh prosecution of Rice, noting that a typical sentence for the destruction or theft of classified documents was in the range of ten to twenty years.
Democrats also formed a committee to explore the impeachment of the President.
As expected, the talk shows ran wild with the story. David Letterman ran two top-ten lists on the topic over the course of a single week. One centered around a John Kerry guest appearance. Kerry read the "Top Ten Documents that the Bush administration 'Lost' ".
* * *
Oh, wait.
I'm very, very sorry. I got part of this story wrong. It wasn't Condoleeza Rice and the Bush administration. It was actually Sandy Berger and the Clinton administration. My mistake. Never mind.
Amazing how a party affiliation impacts news coverage and political sensibilities, eh?
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/12/sandy-berger-experiment-bush-official.html
188
3DHS / Sandy Burglar
« on: December 20, 2006, 06:37:34 PM »
Report Says Berger Hid Archive Documents
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former national security adviser Sandy Berger removed classified documents from the National Archives in 2003 and hid them under a construction trailer, the Archives inspector general reported Wednesday.
The report was issued more than a year after Berger pleaded guilty and received a criminal sentence for removal of the documents.
Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that when Berger was confronted by Archives officials about the missing documents, he said it was possible he threw them in his office trash.
The report said that when Archives employees first suspected that Berger - who had been President Clinton's national security adviser - was removing classified documents from the Archives in the fall of 2003, they failed to notify any law enforcement agency.
Berger, who pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents, was fined $50,000, ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and was barred from access to classified material for three years.
The report said that when Berger was reviewing the classified documents in the Archives building a few blocks from the Capitol, employees saw him bending down and fiddling with something white, which could have been paper, around his ankle.
However, Archives employees did not feel at the time there was enough information to confront someone of Berger's stature, the report said.
Brachfeld reported that on one visit, Berger took a break to go outside without an escort.
"In total, during this visit, he removed four documents ... .
"Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building)."
Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.
Berger, with the authorization of former President Clinton, was reviewing National Security Council documents on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, Sudan, and related presidential correspondence. The review was to facilitate Berger's impending testimony before the House and Senate intelligence committees.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061220/D8M4R7DO0.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former national security adviser Sandy Berger removed classified documents from the National Archives in 2003 and hid them under a construction trailer, the Archives inspector general reported Wednesday.
The report was issued more than a year after Berger pleaded guilty and received a criminal sentence for removal of the documents.
Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that when Berger was confronted by Archives officials about the missing documents, he said it was possible he threw them in his office trash.
The report said that when Archives employees first suspected that Berger - who had been President Clinton's national security adviser - was removing classified documents from the Archives in the fall of 2003, they failed to notify any law enforcement agency.
Berger, who pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents, was fined $50,000, ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and was barred from access to classified material for three years.
The report said that when Berger was reviewing the classified documents in the Archives building a few blocks from the Capitol, employees saw him bending down and fiddling with something white, which could have been paper, around his ankle.
However, Archives employees did not feel at the time there was enough information to confront someone of Berger's stature, the report said.
Brachfeld reported that on one visit, Berger took a break to go outside without an escort.
"In total, during this visit, he removed four documents ... .
"Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building)."
Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.
Berger, with the authorization of former President Clinton, was reviewing National Security Council documents on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, Sudan, and related presidential correspondence. The review was to facilitate Berger's impending testimony before the House and Senate intelligence committees.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061220/D8M4R7DO0.html
189
3DHS / We need to go into Iraq in a big way
« on: December 14, 2006, 12:15:23 AM »
Some military officers believe that Iraq has become a test of wills, and that the U.S. needs to show insurgents [terrorists] and sectarian militias that it is willing to stay and fight. "I've come to the realization we need to go in, in a big way," said an Army officer. "You have to have an increase in troops…. We have to convince the enemy we are serious and we are coming in harder."
The size of the troop increase the Pentagon will recommend is unclear. One officer suggested an increase of about 40,000 forces would be required...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military13dec13,0,4577494.story?coll=la-home-headlines
The size of the troop increase the Pentagon will recommend is unclear. One officer suggested an increase of about 40,000 forces would be required...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military13dec13,0,4577494.story?coll=la-home-headlines
190
3DHS / It's the right time for Obama
« on: December 11, 2006, 12:54:19 AM »
Maybe it's right time for Obama to run . . .
December 8, 2006
BY RICH MILLER
I've known Barack Obama since he was first elected to the state Senate in 1996, and I've been mostly wrong about him from the start.
In the beginning, I thought Obama had too much "Harvard ambition" about him, but others pointed out to me that his loss to Rep. Bobby Rush in the 2000 Democratic primary seemed to humble him a bit.
Sometime after that loss, I ran into Obama in Jackson Park, a city golf course on the South Side. We chatted pleasantly and he said some brief words to my female golfing companion and we moved on.
Afterward, my friend, who is not easily impressed, had a look of pure joy on her face. She talked excitedly about Obama, but I dismissed him as someone who had screwed up his future by running against Bobby Rush. She said I would eat those words one day.
I took my father to hear Obama speak in January of 2004, at the beginning of his U.S. Senate campaign. My father was a lifelong, conservative Republican, but he had broken with George W. Bush over the Iraq war and was open to change.
My father sat transfixed during Obama's speech, soaking up every word. I had never seen him react that way to anyone or anything in all my life. I got quite a chuckle out of it.
Afterward, Obama approached our table. My dad grabbed his hand and with a look of awe gushed, "Never change. Never change." I remember feeling embarrassed for his exuberance.
My dad has been pushing for an Obama presidency since before Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. I agree that Obama should probably strike while the iron is hot, but I have some troubles with his lack of experience and the recent revelations about that questionable land deal with noted political bad guy Tony Rezko.
The experience issue is less of a problem for me. Abraham Lincoln's sole governmental experience was eight years in the Illinois House and just two years in Congress, yet he was one of our greatest presidents. Besides, more "experience" wallowing through the disgusting cesspool that is Washington may only hurt Obama, not help him.
According to Tom Schwartz, the Illinois state historian, 19th century voters didn't view politics as a profession, so they didn't expect presidential candidates like Lincoln to have extensive political experience. The issue never came up in the 1860 campaign, Schwartz said.
After telling Schwartz that I was trying hard not to add to the hype by comparing Lincoln to Obama, Schwartz shared some surprising thoughts.
''What Lincoln brought to the presidency, which was very much needed at the time . . . [was] a very fine ear for listening to the public's concerns and then being able to articulate responses that created consensus that was able to move the country forward in positive ways,'' Schwartz said. Schwartz then said that he saw a direct comparison to Obama's calls for unity and the way Obama had sparked so much interest from people who normally don't care for politics.
Back in the 1800s, the Illinois Legislature was opening up the state to development and railroads, so legislators were aware of profit potentials before they became public. State Rep. Lincoln got in on some of those deals -- one of the rare strikes on his integrity before being elected president. Ironically, they were all busts.
I've been wrong about Obama for so long that, after talking to Schwartz, I'm tempted to just throw in the towel and join my dad's cheerleading squad. If Obama can prove that Rezko's way-too-convenient purchase of a yard next to his South Side mansion was an aberration, then I may be sorely tempted. Until then, I'm going to resist the hype as best I can.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/miller/164861,CST-EDT-MILL08.article
December 8, 2006
BY RICH MILLER
I've known Barack Obama since he was first elected to the state Senate in 1996, and I've been mostly wrong about him from the start.
In the beginning, I thought Obama had too much "Harvard ambition" about him, but others pointed out to me that his loss to Rep. Bobby Rush in the 2000 Democratic primary seemed to humble him a bit.
Sometime after that loss, I ran into Obama in Jackson Park, a city golf course on the South Side. We chatted pleasantly and he said some brief words to my female golfing companion and we moved on.
Afterward, my friend, who is not easily impressed, had a look of pure joy on her face. She talked excitedly about Obama, but I dismissed him as someone who had screwed up his future by running against Bobby Rush. She said I would eat those words one day.
I took my father to hear Obama speak in January of 2004, at the beginning of his U.S. Senate campaign. My father was a lifelong, conservative Republican, but he had broken with George W. Bush over the Iraq war and was open to change.
My father sat transfixed during Obama's speech, soaking up every word. I had never seen him react that way to anyone or anything in all my life. I got quite a chuckle out of it.
Afterward, Obama approached our table. My dad grabbed his hand and with a look of awe gushed, "Never change. Never change." I remember feeling embarrassed for his exuberance.
My dad has been pushing for an Obama presidency since before Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. I agree that Obama should probably strike while the iron is hot, but I have some troubles with his lack of experience and the recent revelations about that questionable land deal with noted political bad guy Tony Rezko.
The experience issue is less of a problem for me. Abraham Lincoln's sole governmental experience was eight years in the Illinois House and just two years in Congress, yet he was one of our greatest presidents. Besides, more "experience" wallowing through the disgusting cesspool that is Washington may only hurt Obama, not help him.
According to Tom Schwartz, the Illinois state historian, 19th century voters didn't view politics as a profession, so they didn't expect presidential candidates like Lincoln to have extensive political experience. The issue never came up in the 1860 campaign, Schwartz said.
After telling Schwartz that I was trying hard not to add to the hype by comparing Lincoln to Obama, Schwartz shared some surprising thoughts.
''What Lincoln brought to the presidency, which was very much needed at the time . . . [was] a very fine ear for listening to the public's concerns and then being able to articulate responses that created consensus that was able to move the country forward in positive ways,'' Schwartz said. Schwartz then said that he saw a direct comparison to Obama's calls for unity and the way Obama had sparked so much interest from people who normally don't care for politics.
Back in the 1800s, the Illinois Legislature was opening up the state to development and railroads, so legislators were aware of profit potentials before they became public. State Rep. Lincoln got in on some of those deals -- one of the rare strikes on his integrity before being elected president. Ironically, they were all busts.
I've been wrong about Obama for so long that, after talking to Schwartz, I'm tempted to just throw in the towel and join my dad's cheerleading squad. If Obama can prove that Rezko's way-too-convenient purchase of a yard next to his South Side mansion was an aberration, then I may be sorely tempted. Until then, I'm going to resist the hype as best I can.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/miller/164861,CST-EDT-MILL08.article
191
3DHS / The lost episode of Seinfeld
« on: November 30, 2006, 02:56:08 AM »
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid271543886/bctid335844850
This is pretty funny, especially toward the end. It's worth a look. - R.R.
This is pretty funny, especially toward the end. It's worth a look. - R.R.
192
3DHS / Alcee Hastings: "Sorry, haters, God is not finished with me yet"
« on: November 28, 2006, 11:37:02 PM »
After meeting with House Speaker-elect Pelosi this afternoon, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., issued a statement confirming he will not serve as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "I have been informed by the speaker-elect that I will not serve as the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the 110th Congress," he said. "I am obviously disappointed with this decision." Hastings won election to Congress in 1992, after having been impeached and removed from office as a federal judge. He concluded his statement by saying, "Sorry, haters, God is not finished with me yet."
-------------
This seems to be an odd thing for Judge Hastings to say, considering most Democrats and most of the liberal media were against him chairing the Intel committee.
This just illustrates more infighting and backstabbing within the Democrat Party. The Congressional Black Caucus already is pretty mad at Nancy Pelosi. They were pushing for Hastings pretty hard. This also seems like a hypocritical move by the Dems. If Hastings is ok to actually sit on the Intel committee, why can't he chair it?
God may not be finished with Hastings. But Pelosi threw him off the bus pretty fast.
-------------
This seems to be an odd thing for Judge Hastings to say, considering most Democrats and most of the liberal media were against him chairing the Intel committee.
This just illustrates more infighting and backstabbing within the Democrat Party. The Congressional Black Caucus already is pretty mad at Nancy Pelosi. They were pushing for Hastings pretty hard. This also seems like a hypocritical move by the Dems. If Hastings is ok to actually sit on the Intel committee, why can't he chair it?
God may not be finished with Hastings. But Pelosi threw him off the bus pretty fast.
193
3DHS / Democrats will protect law-breakers
« on: November 28, 2006, 11:22:07 PM »
Democrats will protect law-breakers
By Michelle Malkin · November 28, 2006 01:41 PM
Ed Morrissey points to this disturbing Washington Times report:
A Mississippi Democrat in line to become chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee has warned the nation's largest uniform supplier it faces criminal charges if it follows a White House proposal to recheck workers with mismatched Social Security numbers and fire those who cannot resolve the discrepancy in 60 days.
Rep. Bennie Thompson said in a letter to Cintas Corp. it could be charged with "illegal activities in violation of state and federal law" if any of its 32,000 employees are terminated because they gave incorrect Social Security numbers to be hired.
"I am deeply troubled by Cintas' recent policy change regarding the Social Security Administration's 'no match' letters," Mr. Thompson said in the Nov. 2 letter. "It is my understanding that hundreds of Cintas' immigrant workers have received these letters. I am extremely concerned about any potentially discriminatory actions targeting this community."
The Democrats: Protecting illegal alien workers, identity thieves, and Social Security scammers across the country in the name of preventing "discrimination."
There's a winning homeland security platform for 2008!
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006437.htm
By Michelle Malkin · November 28, 2006 01:41 PM
Ed Morrissey points to this disturbing Washington Times report:
A Mississippi Democrat in line to become chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee has warned the nation's largest uniform supplier it faces criminal charges if it follows a White House proposal to recheck workers with mismatched Social Security numbers and fire those who cannot resolve the discrepancy in 60 days.
Rep. Bennie Thompson said in a letter to Cintas Corp. it could be charged with "illegal activities in violation of state and federal law" if any of its 32,000 employees are terminated because they gave incorrect Social Security numbers to be hired.
"I am deeply troubled by Cintas' recent policy change regarding the Social Security Administration's 'no match' letters," Mr. Thompson said in the Nov. 2 letter. "It is my understanding that hundreds of Cintas' immigrant workers have received these letters. I am extremely concerned about any potentially discriminatory actions targeting this community."
The Democrats: Protecting illegal alien workers, identity thieves, and Social Security scammers across the country in the name of preventing "discrimination."
There's a winning homeland security platform for 2008!
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006437.htm
194
3DHS / John Edwards makes a hypocritical blunder, again
« on: November 28, 2006, 12:15:24 AM »
John Edwards' folly: A book signing gone wrong
23 hours, 4 minutes ago
Former Sen. John Edwards is to spend an hour at the Manchester Barnes & Noble tonight promoting his new book. We find his choice of venue very interesting.
In Manchester, the local Wal-Mart store sits right behind the Barnes & Noble. It has more floor space, a parking lot several times the size of Barnes & Noble's, and is easier to access by car or public transportation.
But Edwards would not be caught dead inside a Wal-Mart [unless, of course, he needed a Playstation, lol - R.R.]. Saying that the company pays its employees too little, Edwards has embarked on an anti-Wal-Mart crusade. He instructs his staff members and all Americans not to shop at Wal-Mart.
"Wal-Mart makes plenty of money. They need to pay their people well," Edwards said at a Pittsburgh anti-Wal-Mart rally in August.
So naturally Edwards is holding his book signing at Barnes & Noble instead of Wal-Mart. Which is too bad for his anti-low-wages campaign, because in Manchester Wal-Mart pays hourly employees more than Barnes & Noble does.
The Barnes & Noble where Edwards will hawk his book pays $7 an hour to start. The Wal-Mart that sits just yards away pays $7.50 an hour.
Oh, the humanity!
From 7 to 8 p.m., Edwards will bring business to a retailer that pays wages he thinks are so immorally low that they should be illegal. Meanwhile, right behind him, thousands of Granite Staters will be supporting a business that pays an Edwards-approved starting wage, but which Edwards wants everyone to boycott.
Asked back in January what he thought would be an appropriate minimum wage, Edwards told The New York Times, "My view is it should be $7.50 an hour, and I can make a great argument for it being a lot higher than that."
Seven-fifty an hour? Why, that's what Wal-Mart pays! And without a federal mandate, too.
Unfortunately, people who want to support a company that pays at least $7.50 an hour cannot go to Wal-Mart to buy Edwards' book and then take it over to Barnes & Noble for him to sign it. Wal-Mart doesn't carry it. Wonder why.
Of course, Barnes & Noble is no less virtuous than Wal-Mart because it pays 50 cents an hour less. And Wal-Mart is no less virtuous than other companies that pay more. Both businesses provide useful, productive employment at competitive market rates. That in itself is virtuous.
John Edwards should take the virtuous path and stop his anti-Wal-Mart demagoguery. Anyone can see that it is nothing more than a populist ploy to make him look like a champion of low-income people. But those very people he is trying to help end up saving hundreds of dollars a year by shopping at Wal-Mart. Its efficiencies provide them with low-cost items they might not be able to afford otherwise.
We'd bet that if America's poor could choose between Wal-Mart and John Edwards, they would choose Wal-Mart. They understand that Wal-Mart has done more to improve their lives than John Edwards ever will. Which is why, as Edwards signs copies of his coffee table book inside Barnes & Noble tonight, hundreds of people will continue to shop at the Wal-Mart just a stone's throw away, never knowing that a millionaire former senator is sitting nearby secretly disapproving of their behavior.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Edwards%27+folly%3a+A+book+signing+gone+wrong&articleId=dbcdb193-662c-4bcc-88b6-a8f2720bd65e
23 hours, 4 minutes ago
Former Sen. John Edwards is to spend an hour at the Manchester Barnes & Noble tonight promoting his new book. We find his choice of venue very interesting.
In Manchester, the local Wal-Mart store sits right behind the Barnes & Noble. It has more floor space, a parking lot several times the size of Barnes & Noble's, and is easier to access by car or public transportation.
But Edwards would not be caught dead inside a Wal-Mart [unless, of course, he needed a Playstation, lol - R.R.]. Saying that the company pays its employees too little, Edwards has embarked on an anti-Wal-Mart crusade. He instructs his staff members and all Americans not to shop at Wal-Mart.
"Wal-Mart makes plenty of money. They need to pay their people well," Edwards said at a Pittsburgh anti-Wal-Mart rally in August.
So naturally Edwards is holding his book signing at Barnes & Noble instead of Wal-Mart. Which is too bad for his anti-low-wages campaign, because in Manchester Wal-Mart pays hourly employees more than Barnes & Noble does.
The Barnes & Noble where Edwards will hawk his book pays $7 an hour to start. The Wal-Mart that sits just yards away pays $7.50 an hour.
Oh, the humanity!
From 7 to 8 p.m., Edwards will bring business to a retailer that pays wages he thinks are so immorally low that they should be illegal. Meanwhile, right behind him, thousands of Granite Staters will be supporting a business that pays an Edwards-approved starting wage, but which Edwards wants everyone to boycott.
Asked back in January what he thought would be an appropriate minimum wage, Edwards told The New York Times, "My view is it should be $7.50 an hour, and I can make a great argument for it being a lot higher than that."
Seven-fifty an hour? Why, that's what Wal-Mart pays! And without a federal mandate, too.
Unfortunately, people who want to support a company that pays at least $7.50 an hour cannot go to Wal-Mart to buy Edwards' book and then take it over to Barnes & Noble for him to sign it. Wal-Mart doesn't carry it. Wonder why.
Of course, Barnes & Noble is no less virtuous than Wal-Mart because it pays 50 cents an hour less. And Wal-Mart is no less virtuous than other companies that pay more. Both businesses provide useful, productive employment at competitive market rates. That in itself is virtuous.
John Edwards should take the virtuous path and stop his anti-Wal-Mart demagoguery. Anyone can see that it is nothing more than a populist ploy to make him look like a champion of low-income people. But those very people he is trying to help end up saving hundreds of dollars a year by shopping at Wal-Mart. Its efficiencies provide them with low-cost items they might not be able to afford otherwise.
We'd bet that if America's poor could choose between Wal-Mart and John Edwards, they would choose Wal-Mart. They understand that Wal-Mart has done more to improve their lives than John Edwards ever will. Which is why, as Edwards signs copies of his coffee table book inside Barnes & Noble tonight, hundreds of people will continue to shop at the Wal-Mart just a stone's throw away, never knowing that a millionaire former senator is sitting nearby secretly disapproving of their behavior.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Edwards%27+folly%3a+A+book+signing+gone+wrong&articleId=dbcdb193-662c-4bcc-88b6-a8f2720bd65e
195
3DHS / American Legion calls for Rangel to apologize to the troops
« on: November 27, 2006, 11:42:45 PM »
American Legion to Congressman Rangel: Apologize Now
WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The National Commander of The American Legion called on Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to apologize for suggesting that American troops would not choose to fight in Iraq if they had other employment options.
"Our military is the most skilled, best-trained all-volunteer force on the planet," said National Commander Paul A. Morin. "Like that recently espoused by Sen. John Kerry, Congressman Rangel's view of our troops couldn't be further from the truth and is possibly skewed by his political opposition to the war in Iraq."
According to Rangel, "If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career, or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq. If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of some educational benefits," Rangel said.
Rangel was responding to a question during an interview yesterday on Fox News Sunday about a recent study by the Heritage Foundation which found that those enlisting in the military tend to be better educated than the general public and that military recruiting seems to be more successful in middle-class and wealthy neighborhoods than in poor ones.
According to the study, 97 percent of military enlistees were high school graduates versus 80 percent of Americans in general. The study also concludes that the average reading level of military personnel is a full grade level higher than that of the general population.
"I'm not sure I understand what is unfair about letting adults make their own career choices," Morin said as he visited troops in Korea this week. "Troops serving today have a higher education level than the overall population. Why another member of Congress is insulting our troops' commitment and education level is beyond me."
Morin said the American Legion applauds and appreciates the great sacrifices of those who serve -- many of whom have put civilian careers aside, college on hold or given up high paying jobs to enlist.
More and more troops say it's duty and honor before college fund that motivated them to join. Recruiting numbers have been met this year, but more importantly, servicemembers are reenlisting so retention within the armed forces is great, Morin explained. Not everyone holds the view that we should wait to be attacked again as a nation.
"These brave men and women lay it on the line every day for each and every one of us, for which I am very grateful," Morin said. "Their selfless commitment for the betterment of our world from radical extremists is beyond commendable. It's time for members of Congress to stop insulting our troops.
"While the American Legion shares the congressman's appreciation for education, the troops in Iraq represent the most sophisticated, technologically superior military that the world has ever seen," Morin said. "I call on Congressman Rangel to not only apologize to our troops but to also fight for pay increases and make significant improvements to the current GI Bill -- reserves and guard included, as he prepares for a party chairmanship in the 110th Congress."
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=76761
WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The National Commander of The American Legion called on Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to apologize for suggesting that American troops would not choose to fight in Iraq if they had other employment options.
"Our military is the most skilled, best-trained all-volunteer force on the planet," said National Commander Paul A. Morin. "Like that recently espoused by Sen. John Kerry, Congressman Rangel's view of our troops couldn't be further from the truth and is possibly skewed by his political opposition to the war in Iraq."
According to Rangel, "If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career, or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq. If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of some educational benefits," Rangel said.
Rangel was responding to a question during an interview yesterday on Fox News Sunday about a recent study by the Heritage Foundation which found that those enlisting in the military tend to be better educated than the general public and that military recruiting seems to be more successful in middle-class and wealthy neighborhoods than in poor ones.
According to the study, 97 percent of military enlistees were high school graduates versus 80 percent of Americans in general. The study also concludes that the average reading level of military personnel is a full grade level higher than that of the general population.
"I'm not sure I understand what is unfair about letting adults make their own career choices," Morin said as he visited troops in Korea this week. "Troops serving today have a higher education level than the overall population. Why another member of Congress is insulting our troops' commitment and education level is beyond me."
Morin said the American Legion applauds and appreciates the great sacrifices of those who serve -- many of whom have put civilian careers aside, college on hold or given up high paying jobs to enlist.
More and more troops say it's duty and honor before college fund that motivated them to join. Recruiting numbers have been met this year, but more importantly, servicemembers are reenlisting so retention within the armed forces is great, Morin explained. Not everyone holds the view that we should wait to be attacked again as a nation.
"These brave men and women lay it on the line every day for each and every one of us, for which I am very grateful," Morin said. "Their selfless commitment for the betterment of our world from radical extremists is beyond commendable. It's time for members of Congress to stop insulting our troops.
"While the American Legion shares the congressman's appreciation for education, the troops in Iraq represent the most sophisticated, technologically superior military that the world has ever seen," Morin said. "I call on Congressman Rangel to not only apologize to our troops but to also fight for pay increases and make significant improvements to the current GI Bill -- reserves and guard included, as he prepares for a party chairmanship in the 110th Congress."
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=76761