According to this article, the Thomas More Law Center has agreed to represent Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani in a civil suit against Rep. John Murtha if/when the charges against him are dropped. Here’s some of the details from the article:

The Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center is representing Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani (USMC), who has been charged with not fully investigating the events at Haditha, Iraq, and failing to report a Law of War violation, in the aftermath of the November 19, 2005, incident that led to the death of 24 Iraqi civilians. Spokespersons for the legal group hope the convening officer in the investigation will throw out the charges as he already has for two of the six other men charged in the case. Chessani is the highest ranking officer charged in the case.

Congressman Murtha, a prominent war critic, last year accused U.S. Marines of shooting and killing unarmed civilians near the scene of an attack on a military convoy, then going into two homes and shooting others. According to Brian Rooney with the Law Center, Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, one of the other defendants in the investigation, is already suing Murtha for those comments. Rooney argues the Pennsylvania Democrat should be held accountable for taking the word of Iraqi insurgents and calling the Marines “cold-blooded murderers.”

“Staff Sergeant Wuterich’s attorneys are suing Congressman Murtha for liable for saying that the Marines were cold-blooded murderers, so that suit’s still ongoing,” the attorney explains, adding that the Law Center is considering taking similar action.

“We’re exploring our options…in that regard because Murtha said that officers covered this up, which is explicitly naming our client as covering it up,” says Rooney. “So once we get through with this court-martial, and hopefully it goes our way, then we’re going to look at whether or not we should take a hard look at Congressman Murtha as well.”

If charges are dropped against Lt. Col. Chessani and Sgt. Wuterich, Rep. Murtha could be looking at spending alot of time in a courtroom in the near future. John Murtha should be held to account for leveling these serious accusations against the Haditha Marines. Based on this timeline, it’s obvious that Rep. Murtha has a difficult time keeping his story straight. It isn’t a stretch to think that he’s having those troubles because he’s basing his opinions on ideology instead of verifiable facts. (continue reading post »)

Bill Moyers took exception to some things that Karl Rove made in his FNS interview with Chris Wallace. This Sunday, Chris Wallace decided to put Moyers in his place. Here’s the transcript of to a most delicious smackdown:

WALLACE: Time now for some mail, actually, one letter from liberal commentator Bill Moyers. You may remember in my interview with Karl Rove last Sunday, I asked him about a Moyers statement that Rove is reportedly an agnostic who manipulated the Christian right for political gain.

Well, Rove answered that he’s an observant Episcopalian and Moyers, quote, “ought to do a little better research before he does another drive-by slander.”

Bill Moyers didn’t like that and sent me this letter, which he also posted on his Web site. He quoted four print stories for his contention that Rove is agnostic, none of which offer any proof other than what Rove supposedly told colleagues over the years.

Then Moyers wrote this. “Obviously, Rove wanted to blow smoke because his version of reality is undermined by his own previous statements and by the reporting and analysis of journalists who have done their homework and don’t take his every word as gospel, no pun intended.”

Well, to save on postage, Bill, here’s my response. If you want to find out about someone’s religious beliefs, a good first step might be to ask him.

If you had talked to Rove, as I did, you would have found out he reads a devotional every day and the biggest charitable contribution he ever made was to his church. Of course, you never called Rove.

That’s reporting 101, but it would have gotten in the way of a tasty story line about a non-believer flim-flamming the Christian right. I guess, Bill, reporting is easier when you don’t worry about the facts.

Bill Moyers has been an over-the-top nutjob for ages. He’s taken cheapshots at the Bush administration since the inauguration. I’m not sure he’d believe anything that anyone connected with the Bush administration would say.

The good news is that he picked a fight with someone a whole lot smarter, and more objective, than he is. He foolishly picked a fight with Chris Wallace. You can’t get a better smackdown than that last paragraph. For that matter, the last sentence is as good as it gets in smacking down Nutroots idiots like Moyers.

Technorati Tags: Bill Moyers, Nutroots, Chris Wallace, Karl Rove

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Based on this article, John Murtha refuses to update the information in his anti-war diatribes. Proof of that is that he hasn’t stopped using the line about the Iraqi civil war. Frankly, it’s past time for him to update his statistics. Here’s Murtha’s full statement:

President Johnson said in 1966, “the solution to Vietnam is patience.”

President Nixon said in 1969, “As our commanders in the field determine that the South Vietnamese are able to assume a greater portion of the responsibility for the defense of their own territory, troops will come back.”

Today, we hear the same misleading rhetoric coming from this Administration. In Vietnam, we were talking about 10 years of patience and in the end a U.S. military solution did not work. Now, five year’s into the war in Iraq, the President continues to seek a U.S. military solution to an Iraqi civil war. There will be no real progress in Iraq until key political, economic and diplomatic improvements are made by the Iraqi’s.

The facts on the ground in Iraq indicate that electricity is below pre-war levels (only 2 hours a day in Baghdad), oil production remains below pre-war production and at least 50% of the Iraqi population is unemployed.

All Americans realize that stability in the Middle East is important to our national security. The American people will not accept patience as a strategy while the Iraqi Government continues to ignore key political and economic benchmarks.

I can’t imagine what it’s like for an American soldier to hear Rep. Murtha’s rants after the soldier has just killed off more bad guys. I can’t believe that he’d like it, though. The other galling thing about Rep. Murtha’s statements is that he doesn’t use current, or accurate, data. For instance, Rep. Murtha has been using the 50 percent unemployment line since early in 2005.

That statistic was blown out of the water ages ago. This CNN article reports that he’s off by 30+ points:

High unemployment

While Iraq’s unemployment figures were high, the survey found that most eligible workers, excluding the military, were able to keep the jobs they had held since before March 2003.

Iraq’s unemployment rate was 10.5 percent of a population of 27 million people, the report found. When the figure of workers who had given up looking for a job, discouraged workers, was included, the unemployment number increased to 18.4 percent.

Granted, 18.4 percent unemployment is bad but 50 percent would cripple Iraq’s economy for a decade. It’s time that we started calling into question his motives for saying such nonsense. It isn’t a stretch to think that he’s using such inaccurate information because he can’t make his anti-war case with accurate statistics. In fact, I’d say that it’s getting more difficult for him to make the case against the war every week.

Technorati Tags: John Murtha, Iraq, LBJ, Vietnam, President Bush

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Despite Democrats’ railing against President Bush’s economic policies, revenues keep pouring into the nation’s coffers. It’s gotten so bad that the CBO is revising its forecast for this year’s budget deficit again. If their prediction becomes fact, Democrats will have a tough task telling voters that ‘the rich aren’t paying their fair share.’ Here’s the grisly details of CBO’s revision:

Thanks largely to economic growth spurred by the Bush tax cuts, the federal deficit continues to shrink significantly.

The Congressional Budget Office announced last week that the deficit for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 will be about $158 billion, well below the $250 billion recorded the previous year.

Last year’s budget deficit came in at $247.7 billion. In fact, if CBO’s forecast is accurate, it will mean that the annual budget deficit will have been cut by almost $160 billion in two years. The budget deficit for 2005 was $318.7 billion.

If that trend continues through FY2008, it isn’t inconceivable to think that the budget deficit could drop into the $75 billion range. I’m not predicting that because I’ll leave the economic forecasting to King. That said, I certainly can’t say that it’s an unachievable accomplishment, either. (continue reading post »)

And not a minute too soon. Though I haven’t seen proof that he did anything illegal, his stewardship of the DoJ hasn’t earned him applause from any group. According to the Politico’s Mike Allen, Solicitor General Paul Clement will serve as the acting attorney general:

The acting attorney general will be Solicitor General Paul Clement. He “can stay in that position for quite a while,” a senior administration official said.

That would avoid a bruising confirmation fight. Some Democratic senators have vowed not to confirm a Gonzales successor.

Clement was an editor of the Harvard Law Review before clerking for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. He later served as chief counsel of the Senate subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights and was a partner in the Washington office of King & Spalding.

Democrats have always needed someone as a target for their vitriol. Gonzales was their latest target. Now that he’s gone as the poster child of Bush administration ineptitude, Democrats will have to find a new target. It sounds like Mr. Clement has some impressive credentials so I’m thinking that DoJ is in good hands. (continue reading post »)

There’s an old saying in politics that if you’re about to be run out of town, it’s best to get out in front and pretend that you’re leading a parade. That’s what looks like Rahm Emanuel is attempting to do with this NY Times op-ed. Earmark ‘reform’ is the subject of Rep. Emanuel’s op-ed. In it, he claims that Democrats have reformed earmarks, which is a joke considering that they’re the party of Robert Byrd, John Murtha and Jim Oberstar.

Putting all earmarks in the same boat, as critics often do, distorts the debate and does a disservice to the public. Not all earmarks are equal. For six years, some members of Congress provided secret earmarks for lobbyists in exchange for campaign contributions, foreign trips and, in some cases, outright bribes. The core of the problem was that the earmarks were hidden from the press and the public. There was no opportunity to review either their sponsorship or their merit before their passage.

The new Democratic Congress now requires that each earmark be fully described and its sponsor identified. Members of Congress who sponsor earmarks must certify that they have no personal financial interest in them. Any private entity that might benefit must be clearly reported. Each of these reforms is now mandatory, in stark contrast to previous practices.

It takes real chutzpah to say that the “new Democratic Congress now requires that each earmark be fully described and its sponsor identified” after David Obey voted for earmark reform, then refused to obey the rule he’d voted for:

Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify “earmarks’’, lawmakers’ requests for specific projects and contracts for their states, in documents that accompany spending bills.
Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills to send to President Bush.
Such requests total billions of dollars.

I don’t know how Rahm Emanuel can say that Democrats have cleaned up the earmark process after David Obey is caught ignoring the supposed reform measure that they’d passed. As the article says, billions of dollars of requests will be added to the bills in conference. I’d like Rep. Emanuel to explain how anything has changed. Simply put, this Democratic congress is a ‘business as usual’ bunch.

Let’s also remember that John Murtha threatened Rep. Mike Rogers on the House floor after Rogers challenged Murtha’s earmark of $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, PA:

“I hope you don’t have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever,” Mr. Murtha allegedly told Mr. Rogers in a “loud voice.” He referred to the pet projects lawmakers often tuck into large spending bills.

“This is not the way we do things here,” Mr. Rogers replied. “Is that supposed to make me afraid of you?”

“That’s the way I do it,” Mr. Murtha said.

Does that sound like true earmark reform? If there was true earmark reform, John Murtha would have a nervous breakdown. He wouldn’t know how to function in the House. When Murtha threatened Mike Rogers, Murtha threatened a former FBI Special Agent investigating public corruption as a member of the Chicago Bureau’s organized crime unit. It isn’t smart to threaten FBI special agents, whether they’re retired or not.

It’s worth noting that most of John Murtha’s campaign contributions come from people working for companies that Murtha has directed earmarks towards.

Some members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, eschew earmarks. That is their right. But most members believe it is their prerogative and their duty to channel federal resources to important public purposes.

I wonder if Rep. Emanuel is referring to the earmarks that Jim Oberstar has put into the various transportation bills that have taken money from the Highway Trust Fund to build bike trails. If he wasn’t referring to that, then I wonder if he was referring to the earmarks that Alan Mollohan directed to charities that he created.

Emanuel’s comments notwithstanding, the Democrats’ version of earmark reform are just one reason why voters have turned against them. That said, here’s the biggest whopper that Emanuel told:

Bringing transparency and accountability to the earmark process is a significant reform, a pledge we made and a pledge we kept. And it’s one we’ve extended to lobbyists, by barring them from providing gifts or trips to members of Congress and by increasing reporting requirements for their meetings and their campaign money-raising activities. To overlook or dismiss the impact of these reforms adds to the public’s cynicism about government.

Technically, he’s right that they’ve kept the pledge. It’s worth noting, though, that they had to drag David Obey kicking and screaming to the table. If they were so intent on keeping their pledge to reform the earmark process, then why did it take an offer from Porkbusters, via Glenn Reynolds’ Instapundit, to sort through 36,000 earmarks?

Rep. David Obey says that there’s not time to look at the 36,000 earmark requests in the House.

Porkbusters is offering to help!

I read with interest news reports that you may only include earmarks in last-minute, un-amendable conference reports, as opposed to amendable House appropriations bills, because you and your staff reportedly need “extra time to evaluate the 36,000-plus earmark requests members have submitted to the Appropriations Committee this year.”

You have also been quoted you as saying: “I think we have a helluva lot more ability [to root out bad earmarks] than the individual working alone.”

Chairman Obey, I share your concern about unworthy projects receiving federal funding due to a lack of careful and thoughtful evaluation, and I agree that one individual working alone would have a very hard time completing this task in a timely manner.

Therefore, I would like to personally volunteer my time to help you and your staff in evaluating this year’s earmark requests.

As you know, Internet technology has made research faster and easier than at any previous time in human history. By releasing your 36,000 earmark requests publicly, I and other taxpayers across the country could work together in a cooperative effort to determine which Members of Congress may have financial conflicts attached to their earmark requests, which local projects may be unworthy of federal funding and which may have value to the taxpayers.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I and millions of my fellow taxpayers across America stand ready to help you evaluate these 36,000 earmarks requests. After all, we are the ones who are paying for these requested projects, the least we can do is help you evaluate their merit.

The best way to think of Emanuel’s op-ed is to think of it as perfect lining for the bottom of a bird cage. Otherwise, it’s a total waste of paper.

Technorati Tags: Earmark Reform, Rahm Emanuel, NY Times, John Murtha, David Obey, James Oberstar, Robert Byrd, Corruption, Democrats, Porkbusters

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

The Washington Post is reporting that Lt. Col. Paul Ware is recommending that LCpl. Stephen Tatum shouldn’t be court-martialed. LCpl. Tatum is yet another Haditha Marine that Rep. John Murtha accused of cold-blooded murder. As such, Rep. Murtha owes yet another Haditha Marine an apology.

The shootings began after a bomb blast killed one Marine and injured two others as the unit drove a convoy through Haditha. The Marines then killed a group of men who were in a car nearby before heading into two houses in the vicinity. Ware found that Tatum was following his rules of engagement when he fired his rifle in the two houses.

“What occurred in house 1 and house 2 are tragedies,” Ware wrote. “The photographs of the victims are heart wrenching, and the desire to explain this tragedy as criminal act and not the result of training and fighting an enemy that hides among innocents is great. However, in the end, my opinion is that there is insufficient evidence for trial. LCpl Tatum shot and killed people in houses 1 and 2, but the reason he did so was because of his training and the circumstances he was placed in, not to exact revenge and commit murder.”

Col. Paul Ware doesn’t deny that LCpl. Tatum killed civilians in “House 1 and House 2.” What Col. Ware is essentially saying is that LCpl. Tatum killed these innocents because the insurgents hid amongst the innocent civilians. As such, LCpl. Tatum did what he was trained to do. Ware is saying that Tatum obeyed the ROE.

Col. Ware’s recommendation doesn’t automatically mean that LCpl. Tatum won’t be court-martialed. That decision rests with Lt. Gen. James Mattis. However, considering the strong wording of Col. Ware’s recommendation, I can’t see how Gen. Mattis could justify the court-martial of LCpl. Tatum.

This is just more proof that John Murtha’s accusations of May 17, 2006 weren’t based on facts that surfaced as part of the initial NCIS investigation. Murtha’s allegations are the result of Murtha’s willfully ignoring the US Constitution’s guarantees of the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial and due process. Murtha’s accusations are now being exposed for what they are: an appeal to the anti-war extremists known as the Nutroots Netroots. It doesn’t appear as though Rep. Murtha thought twice about throwing these Marines under the bus in his quest for power. That’s unforgivable.

A congressman’s oath of office includes the pledge that they will uphold the Constitution. Clearly, that oath meant little, if anything, to Rep. Murtha. Rep. Murtha didn’t care that he was destroying the reputations of Justin Sharratt, Stephen Tatum and Capt. Stone.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: Rep. Murtha should resign from office or be involuntarily driven from office for violating his oath of office. He’s disgraced the Marine Corps. He owes Mssrs. Sharratt, Tatum and Stone personal apologies. He also owes the USMC an apology, too.

I’m calling on thoughtful people of all political persuasions to pressure Rep. Murtha into resigning. If Rep. Murtha doesn’t resign, then I’d call on these same thoughtful people to call their representative and demand that they file an ethics complaint against John Murtha. Once that complaint is filed, I’d ask these people to demand that the House of Representatives vote for Rep. Murtha’s expulsion.

That’s the only honorable thing for them to do. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that Nancy Pelosi will ever let it go that far.

When voters go to the polls in November of 2008, we should hold anyone that shields Rep. Murtha from ethics sanctions. Anyone that willingly protects a man who disdains the US Constitution isn’t fit for elected office.

Technorati Tags: John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Scandal, Haditha Marines, Stephen Tatum, Justin Sharratt, Randy Stone, Paul Ware, James Mattis

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

It seems that Jim Oberstar has finally gotten religion in the aftermath of the I-35W bridge collapse. As Kathy Kersten points out, that wasn’t always the case. Here are some of Kathy’s particulars:

“If you’re not prepared to invest another five cents in bridge reconstruction and road reconstruction, then God help you,” he said after the bridge collapse.

Polls suggest that ordinary folks aren’t convinced of a divine mandate for higher taxes. Most likely, they’re skeptical about how our pols are stewarding current transportation funds.

Oberstar is Exhibit A. He’s long been well-positioned to help steer funds toward bridge safety, and has known of the seriousness of the problem since he held hearings on bridge conditions 20 years ago, he says. But he’s had other priorities.

For example, on July 25, a week before the bridge collapse, Oberstar issued a press release announcing his latest coup for Minnesota.

He had obtained more than $12 million for his home state in a recently passed House transportation and housing bill. Commuter rail was the big winner, getting $10 million. The Cambridge-Isanti Bike/Walk Trail got $250,000, and the KidsPeace Mesabi Academy in Buhl got $150,000. Only $2 million went for meat-and-potatoes road improvements.

Not a penny was slated for bridge repair.

Ouch. That’ll sting a bit. We learn two things from Kathy’s column: (a) that Jim Oberstar, like all Democrats faced with a new challenge, proposes a ‘cure’ by raising taxes and (b) that Jim Oberstar doesn’t think about making better use of the money already available when seeking a solution. Let’s deal with the second observation first.

Rep. Oberstar’s actions tell us where his priorities lie. He’s represented MN-8 in the House for 30 years. He’s accumulated alot of influence in that time. By diverting funds from the Highway Trust Fund to build bike trails, we know what his priorities are. Unfortunately for us, his priorities don’t fit our needs. That’s unacceptable and we demand better. (continue reading post »)

According to the American Prospect’s Paul Waldman, David Petraeus’ report is almost useless because Waldman thinks that Gen. Petraeus is part of the Bush administration. to his credit, Waldman stopped short of accusing Gen. Petraeus of being a liar. Here’s what he did say:

Without many arguments left in the well, the White House will be hiding behind Petraeus, just as President Bush has been since the general took the job seven months ago. At first the administration didn’t want Petraeus to publicly testify about his report, perhaps because it was concerned he might be a little too forthcoming about what is really happening in Iraq. But now the administration seems to have come to its senses, realizing that either Democrats will be cowed into deference by the blinding glare created by all those ribbons and the glittering aura of Petraeus’ reputation, or they will question him harshly, at which point they can be accused of hating the troops and their saintly, infallible commander.

Don’t interpret my sarcasm to mean that I think Gen. Petraeus is cut from the same dishonest cloth as the rest of the Bush administration. But by this time he is, most certainly, part of that administration. There has never been much dispute over the fact that throughout his career he has been a capable and accomplished, even brilliant, officer. But Petraeus was selected for his current job because of his willingness to support “the surge” (even today, saying it gives you that little shot of testosterone, the scent of victory wafting into your nose). And if he has any desire to keep his job, he will be sure to deliver the message the White House wants.

What a dimwitted statement to say that Gen. Petraeus got picked for this job because he was willing to “support ‘the surge’”. Gen. Petraeus didn’t just support it. He authored it. That’s a rather significant difference. (continue reading post »)

That’s the thought posed by Captain Ed in his post about this article. Here’s what’s got everyone’s tongues wagging:

The leader of Iraq’s banned Baath party, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has decided to join efforts by the Iraqi authorities to fight al-Qaeda, one of the party’s former top officials, Abu Wisam al-Jashaami, told pan-Arab daily Al Hayat. “Al-Douri has decided to sever ties with al-Qaeda and sign up to the programme of the national resistance, which includes routing Islamist terrorists and opening up dialogue with the Baghdad government and foreign forces,” al-Jashaami said.

Al-Douri has decided to deal directly with US forces in Iraq, according to al-Jashaami. He figures in the 55-card deck of “most wanted” officials from the former Iraqi regime issued by the US government. In return, for cooperating in the fight against al-Qaeda, al-Douri has asked for guarantees over his men’s safety and for an end to Iraqi army attacks on his militias.

Recent weeks have seen a first step in this direction, when Baathist fighters cooperated with Iraqi government forces in hunting down al-Qaeda operatives in the volatile Diyala province and in several districts of the capital, Baghdad.

Al-Douri was the King of Clubs in the now infamous deck of cards of Iraq’s most wanted. Turning him would be a huge deal because he had been working with AQI and various insurgent groups. As the article points out, his turning happened as a direct result of Gen. Petraeus’ success in Anbar and Diyala.

This is potentially huge on several levels. If Maliki says that this happened as a direct result of Gen. Petraeus’ surge, Democrats will be betwixt and between. (continue reading post »)