California Conservative

I’m flabbergasted. Not long ago I posted about Senator Feinstein’s Ethics Scandal here on California Conservative. Texas Rainmaker is blogging about it, too.

In short, Feinstein was the head of the Military Construction appropriations committee. In that position she received information that told her what contracts her husbands company was pursuing. Over the course of her tenure she voted to send billions of dollars to her husband’s company, greatly enriching herself in the process.

In following up on the story, I came across this message board, linking to my original California Conservative post. Take a look at the screen shot below, and take special note of the first comment.

You need to remember just one tiny little thing - regardless of whether or not Feinstein has done anything wrong -

The REPUBLICANS were in control of Congress for twelve years - that would be 1994 to 2006.

That means that if ANYONE was allowing Feinstein to “maneuver, act with impunity”, it was the Republicans because they had the majority and they had 10 years to do something about any improper activity on her part.

But they didn’t, did they? Maybe she was doing some “pilfering” WITH some Republicans. That might explain why the Republicans never did anything about it.

So, according to bubba2, Feinstein using insider information to steer billions of dollars in military appropriations towards her husband’s company is the fault of Republicans? At all costs, no matter the circumstances, blame the republicans. I suppose it is this type of blind support from her constituents that has allowed her to do this.

Whatever you think of her, you’ve got to admit that Hillary’s got chutzpah. This article records some of that chutzpah.

In the address, her first major policy speech on the campaign trail, she proposed to sharply restrict no-bid government contracts and make the details of all government contracts available online, along with the budgets of government agencies. Clinton also called for extending the whistle-blower shield law to government employees.

I wonder if Sen. Clinton talked with Dianne Feinstein about the no-bid military contracts that her hubby was awarded?

Feinstein abandoned MILCON as her ethical problems were surfacing in the media, and as it was becoming clear that her subcommittee left grievously wounded veterans to rot while her family was profiting from the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. It turns out that Blum also holds large investments in companies that were selling medical equipment and supplies and real estate leases—often without the benefit of competitive bidding—to the Department of Veterans Affairs, even as the system of medical care for veterans collapsed on his wife’s watch.

Mrs. Clinton, does that mean that DiFi’s hubby is as unethical and evil as Halliburton? Mrs. Clinton, hasn’t DiFi acted in a highly unethical, and possibly illegal, fashion as chair of that subcommittee? For that matter, aren’t DiFi’s actions in this matter as unethical as anything that John Murtha ever done? (more…)

If you’ve been watching any major (or even minor) news network, reading the newspaper, or even major online news sources, then you haven’t heard about Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s resignation as chair of the Military Construction Appropriations sub-committee. While this in and of itself may be minor news, the situation surrounding her resignation is anything but, yet is being grossly under-reported. In fact, the story was broken by the small bay area MetroActive.

Many Democrats came to hold their position (or keep their position) in November by claiming they would clean up the “culture of corruption” in D.C. Irony and hypocrisy aside, many American’s bought it, as did the major news outlets. So, it should have come as a surprise to the MSM that Sen. Feinstein–who sits on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, which oversees ethics reform–had been the chairperson of the Military Appropriations sub-committee, voting on military appropriations with direct financial benefits for her husband’s companies. (more…)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is having a fit because Republicans are threatening to filibuster the Biden-Hagel resolution. Here’s what she’s saying:

“It’s obstructionism,” said Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “This is not tolerable in a situation where it’s the number one topic in the nation, and the Republican party prevents the Senate of the United States from debating.”

Sen. Feinstein hasn’t explained why Democrats won’t allow true debate between several different resolutions. Furthermore, she hasn’t explained why Democrats aren’t offering legislation binding a certain course of action instead of these spineless non-binding resolutions. After all, if this truly is the most important topic in the nation, shouldn’t Democrats have something more to offer than just criticism?

The reality is that Sen. Feinstein is talking tough but she can’t push it too far because she knows that the American people still prefer winning over the Democrats’ various unilateral defeat options. She knows that the American people would make Democrats pay a price at the polls if they actually told the American people who they really are.

Frankly, Democrats are clueless about Iraq and the GWOT. Their only ‘plans’ are to oppose anything that President Bush is for and to be fore anything that President Bush is against. That isn’t leadership. It’s an indicator of the intellectual timidity and inferiority. Most Americans understand that Democrats aren’t serious thinkers about the GWOT or other national security matters. Sen. Feinstein’s statements just re-enforce that opinion. (more…)

John McCain’s had enough of the intellectual dishonesty and he’s speaking out about it, according to this AP article:

The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee sought to weaken support for a resolution opposing President Bush’s Iraq war strategy, saying Sunday that proponents are intellectually dishonest.

On the eve before a possible congressional showdown on Iraq strategy, Arizona Sen. John McCain contended the bipartisan proposal amounted to a demoralizing “vote of no confidence” in the U.S. military. The measure, he said, criticizes Bush’s plan to add 21,500 troops in Iraq yet offers no concrete alternatives.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate to say that you disapprove of a mission and you don’t want to fund it and you don’t want it to go, but yet you don’t take the action necessary to prevent it,” said McCain, a 2008 presidential candidate.

Bravo, John McCain. He’s right in saying that these non-binding resolutions are the equivalent of a no confidence vote. The Biden-Hagel-Warner resolution is proof that any idiot can criticize a plan. The McCain-Lieberman-Cornyn plan doesn’t give the President’s handling of the war a free pass but it’s pro-victory, which is the most important thing in any Iraq War policy.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA), called GOP efforts to block a vote on the resolution “obstructionism.” Neither a Senate majority nor voters, she said, will tolerate such a delaying tactic.

“If we can’t get this done, you can be sure a month or so down the pike, there’s going to be much stronger legislation,” she said.

Other than Sen. Feingold, Senate Democrats won’t challenge the President with anything more than resolutions. They know that their anti-war views don’t have majority support. They know that being openly anti-victory is political suicide. (more…)

“As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband’s firms”


Why haven’t liberal activists exposed this yet? Why don’t anti-war protesters include her face instead of Dick Cheney?

MetroActive has the full story.

While many senators, on both sides of the aisle, were condemning the nomination Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, even before President Bush nominated him, Senator Feinstein, among others, has come out in support. “We need a respected, competent intelligence professional who can command respect and manage this growing agency. Based on what I know so far, General Michael Hayden appears to fit that bill,” Feinstein is quoted as saying.

Michael V. Hayden is the nominee to replace outgoing CIA head Porter Goss, who left under mysterious circumstances, yet his nomination has come under fire from those who believe his career in the military should preclude him from serving in the CIA, and others who admonish the National Security Administration (NSA) surveillance program, which he was an integral part of. The former concern is almost laughable, claiming that a ‘military man’ in charge of the CIA is dangerous. In reality, intelligence is a vital aspect of military operations; one in the lead in gathering intelligence should understand the military needs. However, the controversial NSA surveillance program will likely be a more contentious issue.

With that in mind, Feinstein’s statements are somewhat of a surprise. Senate democrats have been quite vocal about the NSA terrorist surveillance program, a program Hayden has been intimately involved in during his stint at the NSA. Other prominent senate democrats are already on the front-lines, decrying the horrors of the program. “General Hayden directed and subsequently defended the president’s illegal wiretapping program,” said Russ Feingold who also said he “might” (read “definitely will”) vote against Hayden.

I suspect that if concerns over the NSA program is the only major concern about General Hayden’s appointment, he will easily be confirmed. Opposition to the program, though it has continued despite public support for the program and highly-favorable testimony by FISA judges, is not strong enough to oppose such a well qualified candidate.

Cross Posted at The Gentle Cricket

“He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform….I know that money corrupts….I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government.”

Watch the video at Stop The ACLU!

It used to be that I thought that Barbara Boxer was the only dippy senator from California but I’m officially including DiFi after reading this quote:

“It is important to point out a common misconception, nowhere does the TRA explicitly require the U.S. to go to war with the mainland over Taiwan,'’ Feinstein said…

Why on earth is is important to point that out? Does it change our policy of always protecting Taiwan? Not in the least. All it did was prove that she’s willing to pander to a group sympathetic with her statements. We already knew that.

A Taiwan official in San Francisco’s Taipei Economic and Cultural Office declined to comment on Feinstein’s remarks. “We always want to maintain peace,'’ said Yin Tsou Lin, division director of political affairs. “We are not in a position to provoke anyone to go to war over us.'’ Lin pointed out that when China fired unarmed missiles across the Taiwan Strait in 1996, the United States sent warships to the island.

Pointing out the language to this gathering wasn’t necessary. They already knew what the TRA said. It’s obvious by Mr. Lin’s statement that he was walking a fine line because of Feinstein’s statement. If that’s her idea of diplomacy, I don’t want her in the White House anytime soon.

Technorati Tags: Feinstein, Taiwan Relations Act, China

Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog

This past Saturday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-Calif.), wrote:

“The question now is whether the Bush administration has learned from its mistakes in Iraq, or will it set our nation on a road that leads to military confrontation with Iran?” She later said “the administration reportedly is intent upon relying on the failed doctrine of preemption and new Pentagon planning that stokes the prospect of military conflict. If this is true, Americans ought to be deeply concerned.”

This is just further proof that the current Democratic Party is the “Diplomacy Only Party”, which is only slightly different than the “Anti-war Party” of Cindy Sheehan. The difference isn’t philosophy. The difference is that the “Diplomacy Only Party” are either elected officials or they’re future Democratic administration wannabe’s maintaining “political viability” while the “Anti-War Party” aren’t worried about “political viability.”

This cuts to the heart of the Democratic Party’s base. I wouldn’t be the least bit confident that this Democratic Party would fight WWII. If Iraq is their template, they’d attack Japan but they wouldn’t think about fighting Germany.

Let’s get back to Feinstein’s declaration about “the failed doctrine of preemption…” Sen. Feinstein, specifically how has “the Bush Doctrine of preemption” failed? Don’t give me platitudes and whining. Give me specifics. Has that doctrine of preemption led to further 9/11’s? Has it left us less secure than we thought we were on 9/10? If you think it has, why do you think that? Again, be specific on why. (more…)