Debt Talks: Progress

Progress. Shmogress. Whatever.

Paul Ryan Speech: Harry Reid's Plan

On July 29, 2011, while speaking in the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican Paul Ryan exposes the ridiculousness of Harry Reid's plan to address the debt.

Video.

Paul Ryan and Mark Levin - Obama's Speech, April 13, 2011

Yesterday, Paul Ryan was interviewed by Mark Levin on his radio program.

They discussed Obama's speech.

Ryan was really ticked off.

Transcript

MARK LEVIN: I watched this speech today, Congressman, and I really couldn't believe it.

PAUL RYAN: I was sitting about 12 feet away from him, right in the front.

LEVIN: Oh, really?

RYAN: Yeah.

LEVIN: I mean, I'm thinking to myself, does he have a grasp of what the hell's going on in this country?

RYAN: Well, what I got out of it was he basically said that people like myself and Jeb Hensarling, who was sitting right to my right, are un-American, that we're interested in pitting children with autism or Down syndrome against millionaires and billionaires, that we're ending America as we know it, and if only we'd kind of get on with his program everything would be OK.

I've never seen a president give a speech like this before. I've never seen a president stoop to this level of, you know, distortion, demagoguery, partisanship.

He invited us to come to the speech - myself, Hensarling, and Dave Camp, the three of us who are chairmen and we're on the fiscal commission. We were led to believe that there was going to be an olive branch, that he wanted to talk about mutual agreement and respect. I was led to believe that there was going to be a Social Security plan he was going to offer. And then we get this total political broadside. It really did quite honestly kind of surprise me.

I expected these kinds of comments from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid when we put this budget out. That kind of goes without saying, but to get these things from the president - just amazing to me.

And it really poisons the well. I mean, he's not talking about trying to bridge differences or find common ground on this or that area. He's basically trying to demean his political adversaries and set up a bunch of straw men and then knock them down and try to win the debate by default.

I'm not sure who said it but he's basically, 'I'm a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.'

What we got was he just wants to raise taxes.

...We got a campaign today. We got a campaign speech, and we got a very, very vilifying campaign speech. And that sure makes it tough to get this thing fixed.

Listen to the full interview here.

Harry Reid Politicizes the Fires

As if Harry Reid hasn't done enough damage to his reputation recently, he's doing more with his comments on the California wildfires.

From The Hill:

Officials said Tuesday the winds and high temperatures are expected to continue. But when the fires do stop, lawmakers likely will debate the cause of the fire.

“One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package.

Moments later, when asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster.

I'm not surprised that Reid brought up global warming.

The fringe Lefty base probably demanded that the Dems play up global warming as a cause of the fires.

The disaster has to be Bush's fault. There are no acts of God.

As usual, the Dems look for ways to exploit others' misery for political gain.

Sick.

Shameless Harry Reid and the Clear Channel Letter

Harry Reid is truly shameless.

He has the audacity to try and take some credit for Rush Limbaugh's auction of the Clear Channel letter.

"Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature."

He's got to be kidding!

Reid is acting like he and the signatories of the letter are players in raising more than $2 million for the Marine Corps -- Law Enforcement Foundation.

On the floor of the Senate today, as usual, Reid spoke in somewhat fractured English and slurred.

Transcript of his remarks:

Madame President,

Earlier this month, I came to the floor to discuss some comments made by Rush Limbaugh. Following my remarks, more than 40 of my Senate colleagues and I co-signed a letter to the Chairman of Clear Channel Mark May [sic], telling him that we wanted him to confer with Rush Limbaugh regarding the statements he made.

I’ve since spoken to Mark May [sic] about this. Mark May [sic] in fact called me regarding this letter.

This week, Rush Limbaugh put the original copy of that letter up for auction on eBay.

Ms. (slur) President, we didn’t have time, or we could have gotten every Democratic senator to sign that letter. But he put the letter up for auction on eBay. And I think very, very constructively, let the proceeds of that to go to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.

What is the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation?

It provides scholarship assistance at children (slur) of federal law enforcement personnel whose parent dies in the line of duty, as well as health care assistance for disabled children of fallen troops. What could be a more worthwhile cause?

And I think it’s really good that this money on eBay is going to be raised for this purpose.

When I spoke to Mark May [sic], I think that he and I thought this probably wouldn’t raise much money – a letter written by Democratic senators complaining about something.

This morning the bid is more than $2 million for this. We’ve watched it during the week. It keeps going up and up and up. And there’s only a little bit of time left on it. But it’s certainly going to be more than $2 million. Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature.

And for the cause, Madame President, extremely good.

Now, everyone knows that Rush Limbaugh and I don't agree on everything in life, and maybe that's kind of an understatement. But without qualification, Mark May [sic], the owner of the network that has Rush Limbaugh on it, and Rush Limbaugh should know that this letter that they're auctioning is going to be something that raises money for a, really a worthwhile cause.

I don’t know what we could do more important to help to ensure that children of our fallen soldiers and police officers who have fallen in the line of duty have the opportunity for their children to have a good education.

Think about this. More than $2 million. This is gonna really help, and that’s, again, an understatement.

There’s only a little bit of time left, and so I would ask those that are wanting to do more, that they can go to Harry Reid at, search…, they actually go and say Harry Reid letter, and this will come up on eBay. I encourage anyone interested in this with the means to do so to consider bidding on this letter and contributing to this worthwhile cause.

I strongly believe that when we can put our differences aside, even Harry Reid and Rush Limbaugh, we should do that; and try to accomplish good things for the American people, and this does that, Madame President. More than $2 million for a letter signed by this Senator and my friends.

That's really pathetic.

Reid wants some thanks for writing a despicable smear letter and getting his colleagues to sign on to the hit job?

Sorry.

It was Rush Limbaugh who used Reid's disgrace to raise an enormous amount of money for a worthy cause.
__________________

And the winner is...

Betty Casey.

From Drudge:

EXCERPT FROM RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW:

Our winning bidder, subject to the receipt of funds... is a wonderful woman named Betty Casey, as trustee of the Eugene B. Casey Foundation. She gives significant sums to hospitals, hospices, colleges, and private schools. These include the Eugene B. Casey Diabetes Education Center, The Eugene B. Casey Swim Center and the Eugene B. Casey Academic Center , and The Casey Home hospice. She has also donated tens of millions from the foundation and her personal funds to the Washington Opera.

Betty has been a listener to my program since it's inception, and we can't thank her enough for her support. We'd also like to thank Ebay Giving Works for allowing us to break their website in the closing moments of the auction, and Auction Cause, who was our consultant in prequalifying bidders and developing the auction.

$2,100,100.00

Rush Limbaugh is personally matching her winning bid.

Are the Democrats prepared to pony up with a matching donation?

Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader
Senator Richard Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader
Senator Charles Schumer, Vice Chairman, Democratic Conference
Senator Patty Murray, Secretary, Democratic Conference
Senator Daniel Akaka
Senator Max Baucus
Senator Joseph Biden
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Sherrod Brown
Senator Robert Byrd
Senator Benjamin Cardin
Senator Tom Carper
Senator Bob Casey
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Senator Kent Conrad
Senator Christopher Dodd
Senator Byron Dorgan
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Daniel Inouye
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Senator John Kerry
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Senator Mary Landrieu
Senator Frank Lautenberg
Senator Patrick Leahy
Senator Carl Levin
Senator Blanche Lincoln
Senator Bob Menendez
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Senator Bill Nelson
Senator Barack Obama
Senator Jack Reed
Senator Jay Rockefeller
Senator Ken Salazar
Senator Bernie Sanders
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Jon Tester
Senator Jim Webb
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Senator Ron Wyden

Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold Don't Sign

Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, where art thou?

Wisconsin's senators were among the few Democrats opting not to sign Harry Reid's letter to condemn Rush Limbaugh.

No Republican senators signed the letter. Not one.

Nine Democrats and one independent also chose not to put their names on Reid's smear.

Evan Bayh of Indiana, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut (the independent), Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Naturally, being the hacks that they are, I assumed that Kohl didn't sign because he was napping and Feingold was too busy blogging on Daily Kos to get to it.

I'm not really sure why Kohl hasn't fallen in step with his fellow Democrats.

We now know that Feingold did make a conscious decision not to sign.

From Politico's The Crypt:

UPDATE: Feingold weighs in with a statement.

“I did not sign the letter regarding Rush Limbaugh for the same reason I voted against the Cornyn and Boxer amendments regarding negative political advertisements. The Senate should not get in the habit of condemning political speech, even speech that is offensive. These issues sidetrack the Senate from the real issues, such as working to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. Rush Limbaugh says a lot of things that I find deplorable and these recent comments are a perfect example.”

So Feingold didn't sign, but he's participating in the smear campaign.

Maverick man Feingold doesn't have the courage to be honest about what front group Media Matters and Reid, plus presidential candidates Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Patrick Leahy, and Barack Obama, as well as other Dems are doing to Limbaugh.

Noooooo. He agrees with them. He's on board with condemning Limbaugh. He just doesn't want to sign the letter.

I find that deplorable.

Would someone please wake Kohl and get a statement from him on the sliming of Limbaugh?
____________________

Clear Channel CEO Mark P. Mays responds.

In short, Mays respectfully tells Harry Reid and the Dems to lay off Limbaugh.

FEINGOLD DOES IT AGAIN!

When I heard that the Senate approved a policy bill authorizing $150 billion in war funding by a 92-3 vote, I knew right away. I didn't doubt it for a minute.

Five senators didn't cast a vote.

All five are presidential candidates-- Biden, Clinton, Dodd, McCain, and Obama.

Three senators voted against the bill-- Byrd, Coburn, and, of course, Russ Feingold.

Surprised to find Feingold, embarrassment from Wisconsin, in the minority?

Roll call

WASHINGTON -- Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 92-3 vote comes as the House planned to approve separate legislation Tuesday that requires President Bush to give Congress a plan for eventual troop withdrawals.

The developments underscored the difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat, despite a mandate by supporters to end the war.

Hoping the political landscape changes in coming months, Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding.

While the Senate policy bill authorizes the money to be spent, it does not guarantee it; Bush will have to wait until Congress passes a separate appropriations bill before war funds are transferred to military coffers.

"I think that's where you're going to see the next dogfight," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of the upcoming war spending bill.

Democrats say their options include directing that the money be spent on bringing troops home instead of combat; setting a date when money for the war is cut off, and identifying a goal to end the war to try to pressure Bush to bring troops home.

Feingold wasn't satisfied with that delayed gratification. He refused to support the defense authorization bill. While it's a shameful vote, at least Feingold is being more upfront than his Dem colleagues.

The other Dems are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the bill would help repair the U.S. military "where our commander in chief has so badly mismanaged them."

"As President Bush's flawed Iraq strategy stretches our military to its breaking point, we are addressing troop-readiness problems and ensuring our troops and National Guard members have the equipment and training they need to do their jobs," the Nevada Democrat said.

Reid is touting Dem support for the bill as an indication of their commitment to provide troops with the equipment and training they need at the same time that he brags about "the next dogfight."

Reid is really a lowlife, so disingenuous.

So, for now the overwhelming majority of Dems voted for funding, but they're hoping later to vote against it.

That's so John Kerry.

...In addition to war money, the Senate's defense policy bill authorizes more than a half trillion dollars in annual military programs, including such big-ticket items as $10.1 billion for missile defense.

Republicans predict the bill is on track to be vetoed by President Bush because it includes hate-crimes legislation by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. The White House has said Kennedy's proposal, which would let federal law enforcement help states prosecute attacks on gays, is unnecessary.

The AP account clearly is biased, saying Kennedy's amendment would assist states in prosecuting attacks on gays.

While it says that the White House considers it unnecessary, it doesn't say why. The proposal would make "federal crimes out of acts that already are against the law and might violate the Constitution."

"I have trouble believing the president would veto a defense bill over hate crimes," said Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "I can't even fathom that."

Levin and his comrades should be ashamed of their game plan.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, has said the measure jeopardizes the entire bill, despite the popular programs it contains.

No U.S. president has ever vetoed a defense authorization bill.

The Dems are hoping to force President Bush to veto a defense bill.

It's political gamesmanship at its worst. In other words, it's typical Democrat stuff.

I wonder how the troops fighting in Iraq will react when they learn that a bill to authorize funds to protect them is being used by the Dems as a political football.

If I had a loved one serving in the military, I wouldn't appreciate any effort that might delay funding to help keep that loved one safe and jeopardize the success of the mission.

And what about the gay community?

Are they OK with the Dems exploiting them to do political damage to President Bush, and at the expense of our troops?

How does the gay community feel about Feingold's vote?

Is Feingold against Kennedy's amendment? Is he disturbed that he had to cast an anti-gay vote?

Bottom line: With the exception of Feingold and Byrd, the Dems want to appear to support the troops by providing them with funds for the equipment they need; but they don't intend to deliver.

Feingold and Byrd don't even pretend to be supplying the troops with necessary funding.
__________________

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold

On Offering Feingold-Reid to the Defense Appropriations Bill

October 1, 2007

Washington DC – Today, in advance of introducing an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill based on the Feingold-Reid legislation to safely redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold released the following statement:

“Iraq is the most important issue we face and the Senate must address it when we take up the Defense spending bill this week. Now is not the time for half-measures or compromises that do nothing to end the President’s disastrous Iraq policy. If senators are serious about safely redeploying our troops from Iraq, passing Feingold-Reid is the surest way to do it.”

Really? Putting troops at risk is the best way to retreat from Iraq?

I don't think so.

Harry Reid's Letter to Clear Channel

October 19, NEW:

Spinmeister Harry Reid addresses the Clear Channel letter auction.

He has the gall to try and take credit for raising more than $2 million for the Marine Corps -- Law Enforcement Foundation.

The guy is so slimy.

Read the text of Reid's comments here.

__________________

October 12, NEW:

Bid on the letter.

100% of the final sale price will support Marine Corps -- Law Enforcement Foundation

Up for auction is the original letter signed by 41 Democrat senators. This historic document may well represent the first time in the history of America that this large a group of U.S. senators attempted to demonize a private citizen by lying about his views. As such, it is a priceless memento of the folly of Harry Reid and his 40 senatorial co-signers.

The entire proceeds of this auction.. the entire high bid... will be donated to The Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation, a registered charity which provides financial assistance to the children of fallen Marines and federal law enforcement officers. Rush Limbaugh serves on the Board of this organization and has been active on its behalf. All costs of this auction will be paid by the seller... every dollar of your winning bid will go to this charity, which has to date distributed over $29 million....

As winning bidder, you get:

- The original and infamous "Harry Reid Smear" letter, signed by 41 Democat senators
- The Halliburton briefcase in which this letter is secured 24 hours a day
- A personal letter of thanks from the Man Who Runs America, Rush Limbaugh
- A photograph of Rush displaying the letter on stage in Philadelphia on October 11th

____________________

October 2, NEW: The signatories

Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader
Senator Richard Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader
Senator Charles Schumer, Vice Chairman, Democratic Conference
Senator Patty Murray, Secretary, Democratic Conference
Senator Daniel Akaka
Senator Max Baucus
Senator Joseph Biden
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Sherrod Brown
Senator Robert Byrd
Senator Benjamin Cardin
Senator Tom Carper
Senator Bob Casey
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Senator Kent Conrad
Senator Christopher Dodd
Senator Byron Dorgan
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Daniel Inouye
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Senator John Kerry
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Senator Mary Landrieu
Senator Frank Lautenberg
Senator Patrick Leahy
Senator Carl Levin
Senator Blanche Lincoln
Senator Bob Menendez
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Senator Bill Nelson
Senator Barack Obama
Senator Jack Reed
Senator Jay Rockefeller
Senator Ken Salazar
Senator Bernie Sanders
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Jon Tester
Senator Jim Webb
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Senator Ron Wyden

________________________

From Harry Reid's website:

Press Release of Senator Reid

Senate Democratic Leaders To Call On Clear Channel To Renounce Limbaugh's Attack On Our Troops

Democrats Ask Colleagues to Join in Condemning 'Phony Soldiers' Comment

Friday, September 28, 2007

Washington, DC—Senate Democratic leaders will send the following letter early next week to Mark P. Mays, CEO of Clear Channel Communications, calling on him to publicly repudiate Rush Limbaugh’s characterization of troops who speak out against the Iraq war as “phony soldiers.” The leaders are waiting to send Clear Channel this letter in order to give their colleagues – including those who have recently spoken up against attacks on our troops’ patriotism – the opportunity to sign this letter and join in expressing outrage at Mr. Limbaugh’s indefensible comments.

Below is the text of the letter:

Mr. Mark P. Mays
CEO, Clear Channel Communications Inc.
200 East Basse Road
San Antonio, TX 78209

Dear Mr. Mays,

At the time we sign this letter, 3,801 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and another 27,936 have been wounded. 160,000 others awoke this morning on foreign sand, far from home, to face the danger and uncertainty of another day at war.

Although Americans of goodwill debate the merits of this war, we can all agree that those who serve with such great courage deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. That is why Rush Limbaugh’s recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as “phony soldiers” is such an outrage.

Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted. It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech. Mr. Limbaugh has made outrageous remarks before, but this affront to our soldiers is beyond the pale.

The military, like any community within the United States, includes members both for and against the war. Senior generals, such as General John Batiste and Paul Eaton, have come out against the war while others have publicly supported it. A December 2006 poll conducted by the Military Times found just 35 percent of service members approved of President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq, compared to 42 percent who disapproved. From this figure alone, it is clear that Mr. Limbaugh’s insult is directed at thousands of American service members.

Active and retired members of our armed forces have a unique perspective on the war and offer a valuable contribution to our national debate. In August, seven soldiers wrote an op-ed expressing their concern with the current strategy in Iraq. Tragically, since then, two of those seven soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq.

Thousands of active troops and veterans were subjected to Mr. Limbaugh’s unpatriotic and indefensible comments on your broadcast. We trust you will agree that not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors and friends serving overseas is a “phony soldier.” We call on you to publicly repudiate these comments that call into question their service and sacrifice and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments.

Sincerely,

Senator Harry Reid
Majority Leader


Senator Richard Durbin
Assistant Majority Leader


Senator Charles Schumer
Vice Chairman
Democratic Conference


Senator Patty Murray
Secretary
Democratic Conference

_________________________

What a bunch of quacks!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate to smear Rush Limbaugh today.

He lied.

The senator from Nevada is a liar.

REID: Last week, Rush Limbaugh went way over the line, way over the line. While I respect his right to say anything he likes, his unpatriotic comments I cannot ignore. During his show last Wednesday, Limbaugh was engaged in one of his typical rants. This one was unremarkable, indistinguishable from his usual drivel, which has been steadily losing listeners for years, [sic] until he crossed that line by calling our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq, and I quote, "phony soldiers." [sic] This comment was so beyond the pale of decency, and we can't leave it alone. And yet he followed it up with denials and an attack on Congressman Jack Murtha, who was a 37-year active member of the Marine Corps, combat veteran.

Rush Limbaugh took it upon himself to attack the courage and character of those fighting and dying for him and for all of us. Rush Limbaugh got himself a deferment from serving when he was a young man. He never served in uniform. He never saw in person the extreme difficulty of maintaining peace in a foreign country engaged in a civil war. He never saw a person in combat. Yet he thinks that his opinion on the war is worth more than those who have been on the front lines. And what's worse, Limbaugh's show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, which means that thousands of troops, overseas, and veterans here at home, were forced to hear this attack on their patriotism. Rush Limbaugh owes the men and women of our armed forces an apology.

...Mr. President, just as patriotism is exclusive realm of neither party, taking a stand against those who hate and impugn the integrity of our troops is a job that belongs to both parties, all of us. I'm confident we will see Republicans joining with us in overwhelming numbers. "Confident" is the wrong word, Mr. President. "Hopeful" is the right word. I so I asked my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to join together against this irresponsible, hateful, and unpatriot[ic] attack by calling on Rush Limbaugh to give our troops the apology they deserve -- and I hope that all would sign this letter.

For his part, Limbaugh has apologized.

RUSH: I want to apologize to all of the members of the United States Military, both in uniform and out, active duty and retired, for Media Matters for America. They will not apologize to you, and they will not apologize to me. I want to apologize to you on behalf of them. As all of you military personnel know, I, since of beginning of time and since the beginning of this program, certainly 19 years ago, have been one of the most ardent, loyal, in-awe supporters of any and all who wear the uniform -- including those who disagree with the mission. I found a couple of them when I was in Afghanistan on a troop visit. I went over to five base visits in Afghanistan, and did Q&A, sometimes for two hours with assembled troops at the various bases. Not all of them were happy with me in terms of my politics and so forth, but I told every damn one of them that I was in awe of them and that I wanted to come speak to them, and I purposely asked to go on this trip, and I'd been asking for a long time. This is the first time I've been granted permission. But I wanted to go on this trip because at the time this was all happening, Afghanistan had sort of cooled off and there wasn't much news coming out of there, but Iraq was roiling, and the news out of Iraq was -- well, you know what it was.

It was bad. "We can't win. We're losing, too many deaths," and all this sort of thing. I wanted to go tell them personally, as an American, how small of a minority those thoughts about them were, that there was love and respect and adoration for all who wear the uniform in this country, active duty or not, but I was specifically referring to people in combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. I stood up before them, and I said -- even to the ones who let it be known that they disagreed with me politically, not on the war, but politically -- they all wanted victory, and they all were doing their victory, and they all said they were there to protect their country. This is what they chose to do after 9/11 happened, and I stood before them and I said -- and there are a lot of people, by the way, who were thanking me and all of that. It ran the gamut. I said, "I don't care who you are. I stand before you, and I feel six inches tall. Compared to what you're doing, I'm just, you know, uttering words here. I just wanted to come convey support because you're not getting a whole lot of it in the mainstream media in our country, and the attitudes toward you of the American people are being misrepresented to you in droves."

I said, "When you get back and walk into most airports in this country, you are going to be given standing ovations and applause." Of course, the story coming out of Oakland -- and I guess there's some controversy about it, but -- apparently some Marines getting home, landing at Oakland, were spit on by people in the Oakland airport. Now, I haven't been able to confirm it, but it's on a couple blogs and apparently there are some witnesses that say that they did see it. The bottom line to all this... I've described to you that the visit I took to Washington to Walter Reed Army Hospital and the amputee rehabilitation unit. So many of these men and their wives were thanking me for what I'm doing. That makes me feel six inches tall as well. (In fact, Justice Thomas and I discussed this in the interview coming up that you will hear.) I said, "I'm just uttering words. You guys, look at you." No, no, no. They were upbeat and happy. One guy had lost both arms. He couldn't wait to get married six months down the road. He said, "Look, we all have our roles, man, and you keep doing what you're doing." The bottom line to all this is that last week, with this smear and this phony accusation regarding something I had not said about active duty military personnel, or even those who opposed the war, was that once again the integrity of the US Military was brought into question when the integrity of the sourcing group, Media Matters for America, should have been brought into question.

They're a Hillary Clinton front group. They will continue to be used as an accredited source by the Drive-By Media, despite the fact that they have now been demonstrated to make things up, take things out of context, and embarrass those who report what they say. They will continue to be a source, because this is the '08 playbook that we saw break down last week, and the Democrats may still introduce their resolution in the House castigating me. I don't know. The House doesn't go into session 'til two o'clock. We'll have to wait and see. I don't know if they will do that or not. If they do it, it is just an effort to try to portray themselves as pro-military because they know they have to because they know the impression they have accurately created is that they're not pro-military, from Jack Murtha to Harry Reid claiming defeat, to John Kerry's lifetime of criticism of the soldiers. So they're going to try to deflect the criticism away from their pet organization, MoveOn.org, whose "Betray Us" ad backfired totally on them. It was a Wellstone moment for them, as this will be. But since you will never get an apology from Jack Murtha for mischaracterizing you as murderers, since you'll never get an apology from John Kerry, since you won't get an apology from Media Matters for America or anybody that works there, to all of you in the US Military, I want to apologize to you for them for the, again, firestorm over something that did not happen regarding your valor and your commitment to freedom and democracy last week on this program. I really regret that it happened, and I apologize to you on their behalf since they won't.

___________________

Harry Reid's office: 1-202-224-3542

Russ Feingold and March 31, 2008

Russ Feingold is obsessed with setting deadlines for America's defeat.

He continues to push for a magic date to end American military involvement in Iraq.

He's picked so many deadlines that it's hard to keep track.

Let's review.

On August 18, 2005, Feingold declared that American troops should be out of Iraq by December 31, 2006.

On June 19, 2006, Feingold announced that he and John Kerry would be introducing an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would set the deadline for American troop withdrawal as July 1, 2007.

On April 2, 2007, Feingold picked yet another date for troop withdrawal, this time with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as a cosponsor, March 31, 2008.

Obviously, the December 31, 2006 deadline came and went. The July 1, 2007 deadline was also abandoned.

Feingold isn't giving up on the March 31, 2008 mark.

He released a statement today reaffirming his commitment to giving our enemies a head's up on American troop withdrawl from Iraq.

Washington D.C -- U.S. Senator Russ Feingold announced today that he will continue his effort to end the open-ended military mission in Iraq and safely redeploy U.S. troops out of the country. Feingold said he and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will offer the Feingold-Reid bill requiring troops to be redeployed by March 31, 2008, after which funding for ongoing military operations, with three narrow exceptions, would end. The bill will be offered as an amendment to Defense Department authorization legislation that the Senate is expected to consider as early as the end of June.

“Congress took a step backwards last month when it gave President Bush a blank check to continue his open-ended mission in Iraq,” Feingold said. “We need to keep the pressure on the President and supporters of his disastrous Iraq policy, and the way to do this is by voting on legislation that will end the mistake in Iraq. We should not wait until September to change course, as some have suggested, and we should not be satisfied with proposals that sound good but won’t actually end the war. The way to end this disastrous war is to pass the Feingold-Reid legislation to safely redeploy our troops. No more Americans should die unnecessarily for a war that has over-burdened our military and weakened our national security.”

Feingold won't let up on telling the world when American troops will leave Iraq.

In all his brilliance, he insists on marking the calendar with the magic date.

I'm sure Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, and all other nutjobs, terrorists, and enemies of America inside and outside of Iraq must be grateful to Feingold for pursuing a target date for them.

No doubt, they support the idea of a deadline for America's retreat from Iraq, and consider Feingold a reliable ally.

His efforts, if successful, certainly would make their planning so much easier.

Stunning Victory: Immigration Bill Stalls

The lib media are having fun reporting on the immigration bill being withdrawn.

The New York Times gleefully reports:

The sweeping immigration overhaul endorsed by President Bush crumbled in the Senate on Thursday night, leaving the future of one of the administration’s chief domestic priorities in serious doubt.

...After a day of tension and fruitless maneuvering, senators rejected a Democratic call to move toward a final vote on the compromise legislation after Republicans complained that they had not been given enough opportunity to reshape the sprawling bill.

...The outcome, which followed an outpouring of criticism of the measure from core Republican voters and from liberal Democrats as well, was a significant setback for the president. It came mainly at the hands of members of his own party after he championed the proposal in the hope of claiming it as a major domestic policy achievement in the last months of his administration.

The Associated Press approaches the story from the same angle in its reporting -- this is a disaster for President Bush.

He's the loser.

A broad immigration bill to legalize millions of people in the U.S. unlawfully suffered a stunning setback in the Senate Thursday, costing President Bush perhaps his best opportunity to win a top domestic priority.

The bipartisan compromise championed by the president failed a crucial test when it could not attract even a simple majority for an effort to speed its passage.

What a stunning setback!

Rejoice!!!

The Washington Post says virtually the same thing -- bad news for Bush.

A tenuous compromise to overhaul the nation's immigration laws collapsed last night when senators from both parties refused to cut off debate and move to a final vote, handing the unlikely alliance of Democratic leaders and President Bush a setback on a major domestic priority.

The defeat came after months of painstaking negotiations and weeks of debate as a 45 to 50 procedural vote fell well short of the 60 votes needed to break the filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) then pulled the bill from the floor, while holding out hope that the Senate could resurrect the measure within weeks.

"There's no reason to be upset. I think that we have to look toward passing this bill," Reid said after 9 p.m., even as he catalogued a long list of futile efforts at compromise. "It's something that needs to be done."

But he was quick to place responsibility for the defeat on Bush, who had made passage of the measure a top legislative goal. "The headlines are going to be, 'The President Fails Again,' " Reid said. "It's his bill."

Yes, Reid was very happy to quickly pull the bill and then remind anyone who would listen that it's Bush's bill.

The Dems and their mouthpieces in the lib media are all framing this as a defeat for Bush. The President failed again. Blah, blah, blah.

Obviously, Reid and his allies, including the hacks in the lib media, want to make this all about Bush.

It's all posturing and spin and scoring political points with them.

Reid clearly is giddy about the bill going nowhere. He's fantasizing about headlines! He wants everyone to associate the failure to get immigration legislation passed with Bush.

I don't care about those political games.

I think Reid is sleazy, but that's not what matters right now.

What matters is that legislation that would have been a disaster for the country has been put aside.

The future of the United States is not about President Bush. This isn't a legacy thing.

The pundits are always talking about legacy. It drives me nuts, particularly since Bush's legacy is already determined.

Bush's legacy is that he doesn't care about his legacy.

And I don't care if one of his major domestic priorities didn't pass last night.

I'm glad that specific bill is out of the picture.

As Jeff Sessions spelled out, the bill was filled with loopholes.

It couldn't be saved. It was fatally flawed.

I really don't see the withdrawal of the immigration bill, something that's bad for the country, as a defeat. Thankfully, in its present form, it won't become law.

That's a victory for the hard-working, tax-paying people of America, the citizens, the ones here legally.

It's not about party politics, though Reid would like it to be.

In spite of the focus of the lib media, this isn't about a defeat for Bush. That's not the important part of the story.

It's about the good of the nation, and the nation has reason to be relieved.

We're a nation of laws, not men.

That immigration bill was a mess. It's failure to get through the Senate should be viewed as a victory.

The right thing happened and that's reason to celebrate.

Loser Harry Reid

(h/t RJay)

Harry Reid has come under fire for his now infamous comment about Iraq, "I believe ... that this war is lost."

The Left has come to Reid's defense.



Read Bob Geiger's take on the sliming of poor Harry Reid and those big, bad, GOP liars.

In the process, Geiger brings up Willie Horton! Naturally, he mentions the swiftboating of John Kerry.

Blah, blah, blah.

Read Corporal Tyler Rock's take on Reid's assessment that the "war is lost."

How to Manage a Lost War

Harry Reid spoke about his latest Iraq surrender plan today.

WASHINGTON -- Defying a fresh veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass legislation within days requiring the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday.

The legislation also sets a goal of a complete pullout by April 1, 2008, he said.

In remarks prepared for delivery, Reid said that under the legislation the troops that remain after next April 1 could only train Iraqi security units, protect U.S forces and conduct "targeted counter-terror operations."

Reid spoke a few hours after Bush said he will reject any legislation along the lines of what Democrats will pass. "I will strongly reject an artificial timetable (for) withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job," the president said.

...Reid said Bush was in "a state of denial" over the war, and likened him to another commander in chief four decades ago. "I remember when President Johnson, trying to save his political legacy, initiated the first of many surges into Vietnam in 1965," he said.

Reid said thousands more U.S. troops died in Vietnam as a result. Now, he said, Bush "is the only person who fails to face this war's reality - and that failure is devastating not just for Iraq's future, but for ours."

...Reid's speech blended an attack on Bush, an appeal for patience to the anti-war voters who last fall gave Democrats control, and an attempt to shape the post-veto debate.

"I understand the restlessness that some feel. Many who voted for change in November anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January," he said.

"But like it or not, George W. Bush is still the commander in chief — and this is his war," Reid said.

Reid said Democrats have sought Republican support for their attempts to force Bush to change course. "Only the president is the odd man out, and he is making the task even harder by demanding absolute fidelity from his party."

Reid and his fellow Dems love to say that Iraq is "Bush's war."

If Bush owns the war, then the Dems must take full ownership of their proposed surrender.

America, the Defeated.

Harry Reid

(h/t Sparks from the Anvil)

Feingold's Latest Endgame

And we have another attempt by Russ Feingold to secure defeat for America in Iraq.

He probably wanted to put his latest plan out there before going on Spring Break, though I suppose he'll spend the recess coming up with other ways to undermine the U.S. and squash hope for victory.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has jumped on board with Feingold this time.

What a coup for Feingold!

It's another sign that the Democrat Party has lurched to the fringe Left.

Washington D.C. -- U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.

“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”

“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,” Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.”

Oooh. Feingold and Reid are having a lovefest!

Here's the language of the legislation:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

Those "exceptions for limited purposes" aren't very limited.

The exceptions render the legislation meaningless. Talk about wiggle room!

Message to spineless, politically opportunistic Democrats: IF YOU WANT TO END THE WAR, THEN CUT OFF ALL FUNDS NOW.
______________________________

Read more.

Real Deadline, Real Shmeadline

Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press tries to make a case that the Bush administration is lying about the urgent need to get a supplemental funding bill for the war in Iraq passed.

WASHINGTON -- The real deadline for Congress to provide more money for the war in Iraq is several weeks beyond the April 15 deadline cited by President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The Pentagon can take several penny-pinching steps without harming troop readiness or other dire consequences predicted by the Bush administration until Congress actually comes up with the money.

Mid-April is about when $70 billion provided by Congress for the war will run out. After that, Pentagon accountants will move money around in the department's more than half-trillion dollar budget to make sure operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not disrupted.

The Army, Gates testified this past week, "will be forced to consider" altering training schedules for reserves and units to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as delays in repairing equipment and renovating barracks.

The steps under consideration include borrowing from training, maintenance, personnel and procurement funds set to be spent later in the budget year, which runs through September. They have become routine in recent years.

The money is repaid, usually with minimal disruption, when the president signs the war spending bill. But you might not realize that, given the recent rhetoric from the White House.

"If Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so will their families," Bush said March 23.

...Such criticism was scarce when the GOP-controlled Congress was tardy in providing war dollars last year. At the time, there was a warning about "serious impacts" if the money was delayed further, but it came in a little-noticed letter from the White House budget office. Congress ignored the warning and went on vacation.

...[T]here was no effect on troop readiness and training missions, nor delays in rotating troops out of Iraq. Instead, the Army froze civilian hiring, fired some temporary employees, stopped nonemergency travel and delayed purchases of information technology, Schoomaker said.

That is why many lawmakers view Bush's April 15 deadline more as a target date. The private signal many are getting from the Pentagon is that mid-May is when the money will be needed to avoid disrupting activities such as training missions.

"The president is once again attempting to mislead the public and create an artificial atmosphere of anxiety," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Allow me to clarify that:

Harry Reid is once again attempting to mislead the public and create an artificial atmosphere of security. Reid is trying to sell Americans on that "What? Me worry?" parallel universe that Dems inhabit.

...Nonetheless, Democrats are a little nervous about leaving Washington on their long-scheduled Easter vacation without first delivering the $120 billion-plus Iraq spending bill.

...[The House] does not return until April 16. Even if a tentative deal is reached by then, getting it through the House and Senate and to Bush would take a week at a minimum. If Bush follows through on his veto, a new bill would have to be written and put to votes.

Does this sound like a fair and balanced hard news account to you?

To me, it reads like an editorial, trying to sway the reader to support the Dems and to push the reader to agree with the notion that the Pentagon should take "several penny-pinching steps" in order to get by.

Why should such steps be necessary?

Do we want the Army to freeze civilian hiring, fire temporary employees, stop nonemergency travel and delay purchases of information technology just to accommodate the Dems' political maneuvers?

Why not simply pass the necessary funding for our troops without demanding the screwing around and the "penny-pinching steps"?

What's more effective?

That all depends on your goal.

If you want to undermine the Commander in Chief and our national security, it's more effective to delay.

If you care about the long term security of the United States, it's far more effective to pass a clean supplemental funding bill quickly.


This lame article is nothing more than Dem propaganda.

Its sole purpose is to debunk the deadline and convince the public to ignore the Bush administration's call on Congress to quit playing games.

I don't care whether the deadline is April 15 or July 15 or October 15.

What the libs in Congress are doing is wrong.

They are bent on securing defeat in Iraq and sending a message to our enemies that America is weak.

Way to go, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and, to borrow David Obey's term, "idiot liberals."

John "The Botcher" Kerry Backs Out

Dems to Kerry: "Thanks, but no thanks."

It's official. The distinguished John Kerry has dropped out of the 2008 presidential race.

He has abandoned his dream.

He's been relegated to the dustbin of history as a presidential wannabe, a loser, like his colleague Teddy Kennedy.

From The Boston Globe:

Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, plans to say he will remain in the Senate to recommit himself to efforts to extricate the United States from the war in Iraq. His decision to stay out of the presidential race reflects a realization that he would have had an uphill climb in capturing the Democratic nomination, given the other party heavyweights who are already in the race, according to the officials, who spoke to the Globe on condition of anonymity.

Kerry plans to make his plans known with a speech on the Senate floor this afternoon, and is taping a message to e-mail his supporters to explain his decision.

Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential nominee, has been acting like a 2008 candidate virtually since he lost to President Bush -- traveling the country, spreading money to other Democratic candidates, and keeping in place a campaign infrastructure that was ready for another presidential bid.

But according to Kerry associates, the senator's plans changed dramatically in the fallout of his election-eve ``botched joke" about the education levels of US troops. The harsh reaction to that incident -- from many Democrats as well as Republicans -- displayed to Kerry the extreme skepticism within his own party about whether he should mount another run.

So it's the "botched joke" that came back to bite Kerry.



Yeah, right.

Kerry's trying to paint himself as a victim of a misunderstanding. The poor man was mocked because he screwed up a joke. Now, his dreams are dashed.

What a load!

The reality is Kerry is a loser and the Dems would be crazy to look to him as their presidential savior.




_____________________________

On the Senate floor this afternoon, Harry Reid told John Kerry how he really feels about him.

"So I say to John Kerry: I love you, John Kerry. And I'm so sorry that things didn't work out for our country, but that doesn't take away from the fact that I will always care about you greatly and remember the times we've spent together."

How sweet!

Clearly, Reid was deeply moved by John Kerry's announcement that he would not be seeking the presidency again, at least not in 2008.

"We came close ... certainly close enough to be tempted to try again," the Massachusetts senator said, recalling his defeat.

"There are powerful reasons to want to continue that fight now. But I have concluded this isn't the time for me to mount a presidential campaign."

So there will be no presidential mounting for John Kerry. Tsk, tsk.

Don't fret, Mr. Kerry. Harry Reid loves you!

Here's a pic of Kerry overcome with emotion as he cuts and runs from the 2008 presidential race.

(Note: In spite of how it may look, the pic is not a pick. "But there--but there was no piick!! I--I did not pick!! There was no piick!!")



This image from video provided by Senate TV shows Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., becoming emotional while speaking about the U.S. policy in Iraq, which he said threathens everything he's been fighting for since his return from Vietnam, on the floor of the U.S. Senate in Washington Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2007. In his closing remarks Kerry, the Democrats' losing presidential candidate in 2004, said he will not run for the White House again in 2008. (AP Photo/Senate TV)



Yes, just think of all that Kerry's been fighting for since his return from Vietnam. We know, Mr. Kerry, "courageous" Winter Soldier.

Harry Reid's Castration

Less than a month ago, Harry Reid was singing a dramatically different tune.

Reid is on record as saying that he would find it acceptable to send more troops to Iraq for a brief time. He would be on board with an increase in troop levels.

I guess Pelosi has used her feminine wiles to get Reid to do a 180.

Today, Reid joined Pelosi in demanding that U.S. troops leave Iraq.

In other words, NO SURGE.

WASHINGTON -- Congress' new Democratic chiefs criticized plans President Bush is considering to boost U.S. troop strength in Iraq as the White House reshuffled its military leaders in the Middle East and its national security team.

In a letter sent to Bush on Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged him to begin pulling troops out of Iraq in four to six months. They also asked the president to begin shifting the mission of U.S. forces there from combat to training and logistical support of the Iraqis.

"We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq," Pelosi, D-Calif., and Reid, D-Nev., wrote a day after their party took control of Capitol Hill.

The Democrats' criticism of a troop buildup was not new. But the letter underscored a new reality for Bush: With the new congressional leadership, his Iraq policy will be challenged at every turn by lawmakers.

What happened?

Doesn't Robert Burns, AP Military Writer, want to know why Reid has made this aboutface?

I'd like to know.

Perhaps Reid is getting in touch with his feminine side.

Teddy, Harry, and Colin

Senator Ted Kennedy was Chris Wallace's guest on FOX News Sunday yesterday.

I didn't watch it, but I did scan the transcript.

This is just weird. One of the favorite lines from the Left is that we've been in Iraq longer than our involvement in World War II. That annoys me.

It's just plain stupid to compare the extent of our military operations in Iraq with the scale of U.S. activities during World War II. The length of the conflict isn't the only issue to consider. World War II and Iraq are apples and oranges.

I wasn't surprised that Kennedy used the tired, old WWII comparison; but it did surprise me when Kennedy brought up how long we were in Vietnam.

KENNEDY: Since the Hamilton report has been issued, 40 Americans have been killed. Our military has been in Iraq longer than in World War II, World War I, longer than the Vietnam War.

Wallace didn't point out that Kennedy said something that was false. I suppose he had enough other things to follow up on.

The fact is the war in Iraq has not lasted longer than the Vietnam War, not even close.

Something else that I found interesting was when Wallace told Kennedy that his Dem colleague Harry Reid said that he would go along with a "troop surge" in Iraq.

Teddy disagrees with Reid:

WALLACE: Senator, I am told that your leader, the new Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has just said this morning that he would support a temporary surge of U.S. troops into Iraq.

KENNEDY: Well, I respect Harry Reid on it, but that's not where I am.

WALLACE: You think that would be a mistake.

KENNEDY: Well, I agree with the generals who have appeared before our Armed Services Committee and think an enhanced — just as we saw the enhanced troops in Baghdad didn't quiet Baghdad down, the generals who have testified before the Armed Services Committee think that we would add to being a crutch for the Iraqi civilian government in not making the right judgments and decisions. I think that is a persuasive case and is one that I support.

Do the Dems have a plan for Iraq or not?

There seems to be some confusion as to what the plan entails, if there is one.

We don't know the plan, but we know that Reid and Kennedy have a difference of opinion when it comes to troop levels in Iraq and the proper course of action to take.

On ABC's This Week, Reid said that he would find it acceptable to send more troops to the region for a brief time. He would be on board with an increase in troop levels.

Kennedy doesn't like that idea, splitting with Reid on the issue. Why isn't the discord among these top Senate Dems big news?

Of course, the only discord worth reporting seems to be that which occurs within Republican ranks, following the usual lib media template. Last week, when Republican Sen. Gordon Smith was bashing Bush and calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq, that split was considered seismic.

The big news from this Sunday's talk shows came on Face the Nation. (Yes, it's still on.)

Colin Powell wanted everyone to know that "We are losing in Iraq."

That's the quote that's getting splashed.

Powell says we're losing.

But there's more to his comments than that.

Yes, he thinks we're losing and he doesn't agree with Reid that a troop surge will help.

Powell is not as pessimistic as the media are reporting.

He said, "We haven't lost. And this is the time, now, to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around."

Why don't the media jump on the "We haven't lost" quote?

Bias.

Although Powell isn't as defeatist as he's being made out to be by the lib media, he certainly isn't optimistic about the situation.

Powell says:

"The current active Army is not large enough and the Marine Corps is not large enough for the kinds of missions they're being asked to perform," Powell said. "We need to let both the Army and the Marine Corps grow in size, in my military judgment."

Asked directly what the U.S. should do in Iraq, Powell said:

"I think that what we should do is to work with the Iraqi government, press them on the political peace, do everything we can to provide equipment, advisers, and whatever the Iraqi armed forces need to become more competent, and to train their leaders so that those leaders realize their responsibility to the government."

Powell, who as a member of the Bush Administration pushed the international community to sanction the invasion of Iraq, said that we are not safer now after nearly four years of fighting.

"I think we are a little less safe, in the sense that we don't have the same force structure available for other problems," Powell said. "I think we have been somewhat constrained in our ability to influence events elsewhere."

I can understand why Bush doesn't watch a lot of TV or personally monitor the media.

Being bombarded with constant critiques and advice from armchair commanders in chief posing on TV would be terribly distracting.

I really don't know why anyone would want to be President of the United States.

Very, Very Dirty Harry Reid

The Senate MINORITY leader is a MAJOR embarrassment to the Dems.

Harry Reid has more dirty dealings.

It's not good for the leader of the Dems in the Senate to be exposed as hopelessly corrupt and ethically lax.

I suppose Dirty Harry thinks he can get away with his abuses because he has the lib media on his side and no one in his party will condemn him.

He may be right.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has been using campaign donations instead of his personal money to pay Christmas bonuses for the support staff at the Ritz-Carlton where he lives in an upscale condominium. Federal election law bars candidates from converting political donations for personal use.

Questioned about the campaign expenditures by The Associated Press, Reid's office said Monday his lawyers had approved them but he nonetheless was personally reimbursing his campaign for the $3,300 he had directed to the staff holiday fund at his residence.

This guy thinks he's untouchable.

Using campaign donations for Christmas bonuses is such an abuse.

If I donated money to help a candidate get elected, I would be really ticked off if I found out the money had be used for the candidate's personal Christmas gift-giving.

Reid also announced he was amending his ethics reports to Congress to more fully account for a Las Vegas land deal, highlighted in an AP story last week, that allowed him to collect $1.1 million in 2004 for property he hadn't personally owned in three years.

This amending ethics reports stuff is such a joke.

It reminds me of Nancy Pelosi "cleaning up" her records and revising reality when she feared that her questionable behavior could become a problem.

In that matter, the senator hadn't disclosed to Congress that he first sold land to a friend's limited liability company back in 2001 and took an ownership stake in the company. He collected the seven-figure payout when the company sold the land again in 2004 to others.

Reid portrayed the 2004 sale as a personal sale of land, not mentioning the company's ownership or its role in the sale.

Reid said his amended ethics reports would list the 2001 sale and the company, called Patrick Lane LLC. He said the amended reports also would divulge two other smaller land deals he had failed to report to Congress.

Reid failed to report two more land deals?

The Senate MINORITY leader isn't very careful with his record keeping, is he?

...Reid labeled the AP story as the "latest attempt" by Republicans to affect the election. AP reported last week that it learned of the land deal from a former Reid adviser who had concerns about the way the deal was reported to Congress.

On the Ritz-Carlton holiday donations, Reid gave $600 in 2002, then $1,200 in 2004 and $1,500 in 2005 from his re-election campaign to an entity listed as the REC Employee Holiday Fund. His campaign listed the expenses as campaign "salary" for two of the years and as a "contribution" one year.

Reid's office said the listing as salary was a "clerical error" and that the use of campaign money for the residential fund was approved by his lawyers. "I am reimbursing the campaign from my own pocket to prevent this issue from being used in the current campaign season to deflect attention from Republican failures," he said.

Sure, I buy the "clerical error" excuse. The same "clerical error" was made on two occasions in two separate years. What a coincidence!

Squeaky clean Reid wouldn't do anything unethical. It's all a vast Associated Press conspiracy.

Riiiiiiiiight.

Reid gets caught misusing campaign donations and he tries to deflect attention away from his misdeeds by saying it's a Republican dirty trick.

Rather than accept responsibility for being a crook, he makes up excuses.

Very sleazy.

Residents and workers at the Ritz said the fund's full name is the Residents Executive Committee Holiday Fund and that it collects money each year from the condominium residents to help provide Christmas gifts, bonuses and a party for the support staff.

Federal election law permits campaigns to provide "gifts of nominal value" but prohibits candidates from using political donations for personal expenses, such as mortgage, rent or utilities for "any part of any personal residence."

The law specifically defines prohibited personal use expenses as any "obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a federal officeholder."

Seems pretty black and white to me.

Reid is a crook.

Land deeds show Reid and his wife, Landra, purchased a condominium for their Washington residence at the hotel for $750,000 in March 2001. The holiday fund has existed for years at the condo, workers said.

Reid said Monday he believed the expenses were permissible but he nonetheless was reimbursing the campaign.

Why would Reid believe that?

Is he incapable of grasping the very clear ethics rules?

"These donations were made to thank the men and women who work in the building for the extra work they do as a result of my political activities, and for helping the security officers assigned to me because of my Senate position," Reid said.

Larry Noble, the Federal Election Commission's former chief enforcement lawyer, said Reid's explanation is aimed at a "gray area" in the law by suggesting the donations were tied to his official Senate and political work.

"What makes this harder for the senator is that this is his personal residence and this looks like an event that everybody else at the residence is taking out of their personal money as they're living there," Noble said.

Reid is in a hole. He should quit digging.

The excuses make him appear like more of a slimeball than he already does.

...On the land dealings, Reid announced Monday he had failed to disclose two other transactions on his prior ethics reports and would account for those on his amended reports along with the 2001 sale.

The first, he said, involved the sale in 2004 of about one-third acre of land in 2004 he owned in his hometown of Searchlight, Nev. And he said he had not reported his ownership since 1985 of a quarter acre of land his brother gave him in 1985.

Reid said the failure to disclose those transactions previously was due to "clerical errors" and they amounted to "two minor matters that were inadvertently left off my original disclosure forms."

Clerical errors are really an issue for Reid.

He needs to get some new clerks.

...Reid's announcement came after numerous newspapers nationwide published editorials criticizing both his initial failure to disclose the full details of his Las Vegas land deal and his response to AP's story.

The $1.1 million land deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. Brown has never been charged with wrongdoing, except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.

Ethics experts told AP that Reid's inaccurate accounting of the deal to Congress appeared to violate Senate ethics rules and raised other issues concerning taxes and potential gifts.

Shouldn't it be a huge story that the leader of the Dems in the Senate has had some very shady dealings?

Of course, but it's not. Why not? Reid's a Dem.

I don't know why the Dems ignore this sort of corruption. They obviously have very low standards when it comes to ethical behavior.

If the Dems had any sense of decency, they would call for Reid to resign.

It would be a smart move in the long run to get him to step aside now.

Do the Dems really want Reid's relationship with Jack Abramoff to be put under the microscope?

Very Dirty Harry Reid

I posted this yesterday, but it belongs on top today, ALL day.

Please scroll down for new content.

The mainstream media is ignoring the story. Tell me there's no bias. I dare you. I double dare you.

______________________________



"1 billion, million, fafillion, shabolubalu million illion yillion...yen."



What's this?

SCANDALOUS!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.

In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

The Nevada Democrat's deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. He's never been charged with wrongdoing — except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.

Land deeds obtained by The Associated Press during a review of Reid's business dealings show:

_The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas' booming outskirts for about $400,000. Reid bought one lot outright, and a second parcel jointly with Brown. One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported. The seller never talked to Reid.

_In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown's company. He continued to report to Congress that he personally owned the land.

_After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown's company sold the land in 2004 to other developers and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator's investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a personal land sale.

The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later.

Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview last week.

Reid hung up?

How rude!

Why didn't he finish the interview?

Moreover, WHY DID IT TAKE THE AP SO LONG TO REPORT THAT REID HUNG UP WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT HIS $1 MILLION DEAL?

The senator's aides said no money changed hands in 2001 and that Reid instead got an ownership stake in Brown's company equal to the value of his land. Reid continued to pay taxes on the land and didn't disclose the deal because he considered it a "technical transfer," they said.

They also said they have no documents proving Reid's stake in the company because it was an informal understanding between friends.

There's no such thing as an "informal" $1 million understanding between friends.

The 1998 purchase "was a normal business transaction at market prices," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "There were several legal steps associated with the investment during those years that did not alter Senator Reid's actual ownership interest in the land."

Senate ethics rules require lawmakers to disclose on their annual ethics report all transactions involving investment properties — regardless of profit or loss — and to report any ownership stake in companies.

Dirty Harry broke Senate ethics rules.

Senate MINORTIY leader broke ethics rules.

Surely, this will be the lead story on ABC, NBC, and CBS (as soon as hell freezes over).

They'll devote more time to this than North Korea, right?

Kent Cooper, who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades in the Federal Election Commission, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules.

"This is very, very clear," Cooper said. "Whether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress."

"It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report," said Cooper. "That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee."

Other parts of the deal — such as the informal handling of property taxes — raise questions about possible gifts or income reportable to Congress and the IRS, ethics experts said.

Stanley Brand, former Democratic chief counsel of the House, said Reid should have disclosed the 2001 sale and that his omission fits a larger culture in Congress where lawmakers aren't following or enforcing their own rules.

"It's like everything else we've seen in last two years. If it is not enforced, people think it's not enforced and they get lax and sloppy," Brand said.

Sloppy.

The Dems are portrayed as sloppy, not corrupt.

Sandy Berger was sloppy. Dirty Harry is sloppy.

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

NO.

Oscar Madison is sloppy. These Dems are corrupt.

Reid and his wife, Landra, personally signed the deeds selling their full interest in the property to Brown's company, Patrick Lane LLC, for the same $400,000 they paid in 1998, records show.

Despite the sale, Reid continued to report on his public ethics reports that he personally owned the land until it was sold again in 2004. His disclosure forms to Congress do not mention an interest in Patrick Lane or the company's role in the 2004 sale.

AP first learned of the transaction from a former Reid aide who expressed concern the deal hadn't been properly reported.

Reid isn't listed anywhere on Patrick Lane's corporate filings with Nevada, even though the land he sold accounted for three-quarters of the company's assets. Brown is listed as the company's manager. Reid's office said Nevada law didn't require Reid to be mentioned in the filings.

"We have been friends for over 35 years. We didn't need a written agreement between us," Brown said.

The informalities didn't stop there.

Brown sometimes paid a share of the local property taxes on the lot Reid owned outright between 1998 and 2001, while Reid sometimes paid more than his share of taxes on the second parcel they co-owned.

And the two men continued to pay the property taxes from their personal checking accounts even after the land was sold to Patrick Lane in 2001, records show.

Brown said Reid first approached him in 1997 about land purchases and the two men considered the two lots a single investment.

"During the years of ownership, there may have been occasions that he advanced the property taxes, or that I advanced the property taxes," Brown said. "The bottom line is that between ourselves we always settled up and each of us paid our respective percentages."

Ultimately, Reid paid about 74 percent of the property taxes, slightly less than his actual 75.1 ownership stake, according to canceled checks kept at the local assessor's office. One year, the property tax payments were delinquent and resulted in a small penalty, the records show.

Ethics experts said such informality raises questions about whether any of Brown's tax payments amounted to a benefit for Reid. "It might be a gift," Cooper said.

Read more about Dirty Harry's dirty dealings.

I think AP disclosed the story now hoping that it will be lost amid other news of the day.

People will be drawn to news about the small plane crashing into a NYC Upper East Side high-rise.

There's North Korea. There's all of the sound bites from President Bush's news conference.

And there's still Mark Foley.

Yes, no wonder AP dumped this story now even though the interview occurred last week.

It was released just minutes after AP broke the news of the plane crash.