Hmmmm. Hypocrisy by Democrats on Iraq...again? I'm sure there's a way that they can blame Bush for their earlier statements--even those before he was President. Really watch this. It's a little under four minutes.

From Denny

Posted at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

The Democrats don't create or explain their plans for Iraq. They just listen to what President Bush says and they go in the other direction. If something goes awry, which occurs in war, Democrats can always say that their ideas would have worked, although there can be no proof of that. But, what happened when President Bush accepted an idea of a leading Democrat? Take a look.

On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason. "In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."

Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops. Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable. "We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.

The chairman's "double-talk" did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant "hypocrisy" undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.

But, to Democrats, winning political battles are more important than winning battles with lives at stake.

I think that we need about 25,000 more Democrats in Iraq--just to get them out of our country. As the lawyer joke goes, it's a good start. Who goes first?

Posted at 03:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

It's politics when Republicans do something but not when the Democrats do the same thing.

November, 2005 - Democrats Accuse Republicans of Playing Politics with Iraq Troop Vote:

"Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives pulled a stunt last Friday that can be likened to the actions of a child throwing a tantrum. In an attempt to divide Democrats over the war in Iraq, Republicans rushed the legislative chamber into voting on a hastily conceived resolution to immediately withdraw troops from the conflict. ...Playing politics is always irresponsible, but playing politics with a matter of life and death is evil." The Badger Herald

"Republican Leadership Plays Politics With Iraq War Vote...The House on Friday overwhelmingly rejected calls for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, a vote engineered by the Republicans that was intended to fail. Democrats derided the vote as a political stunt." Associated Press via The Huffington Post

"A top Democrat -- Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) -- said in a floor speech that Bush and Cheney have "shamelessly decided to play politics" over Iraq." The Washington Post

January, 2006 - Democrats Plan Iraq Troop Vote

"Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war." The New York Times

Democrats hypocritical? Nooooooo. And, you won't find the major media pointing that out, either.

Posted at 11:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

We recently commented on Sandy Berger's theft and destruction of classified documents which had been requested by the 9/11 Commission in its investigation of that terrorist attack--Sandy Berger Confused Trash Can for Archives File. Berger had served as the National Security Advisor in the Clinton administration and, more recently, had been appointed by Clinton to review documents and prepare testimony for the 9/11 inquiry.

Now, the government report on the Berger/Clinton theft has been released, and it raises serious concerns about, not only the theft itself, but also the disturbing misrepresentations of the National Archives and the Justice Department in trying to gloss over it. It's bad enough that we were not prepared for the attacks. It is criminal that anyone would continue to lie about information that could save future lives.

'(Rep Tom Davis') staff’s investigation reveals that President Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger compromised national security much more than originally disclosed,' Davis said. 'It is now also clear that Mr. Berger was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience.

'The 9/11 Commission relied on incomplete and misleading information regarding its access to documents Mr. Berger reviewed. No one ever told the Commission that Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection.

'We now know that Mr. Berger left stolen highly classified documents at a construction site to avoid detection. We know that Mr. Berger insisted on privacy at times to allow him to conceal documents that he stole. One witness with a very high security clearance believed he saw Berger concealing documents in his socks.

...'The Justice Department’s assertion that Mr. Berger’s statements are credible after being caught is misplaced. One wouldn’t rely on the fox to be truthful after being nabbed in the hen house. But the Justice Department apparently did.'

Here is the complete report, which is worth reading, including the conclusion:
Staff Report- Sandy Berger's Theft of Classified Documents: Unanswered Questions (PDF)

But, I suspect that Sandy Berger was only doing what President Clinton asked him to do.

It's ironic that the Democrats, in their first 100 hours, planned to address national security by implementing all of the 9/11 Commission security recommendations. It's too bad to find out that the 9/11 recommendations were made with incomplete information...thanks to other Democrats. Maybe they could address that problem in their ethics reform, but I wouldn't count on it.

Posted at 01:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 414 words, total size 3 kb.

I guess the question is really a misleading one, everyone with a lick of sense knows the Democratic Party (as opposed to say, any particular Democrat) uses Ethics against Republicans only at election time or when they think they can embarrass a Republican big-wig.

Thus, one can see that the Democrats who were "aghast" at the antics of Mark Foley would stand up and applaud (the "infamous" Democratic standing ovation) Jerry Stubbs for having sex with a page while calling Foley's emails part of the culture of corruption. Then too, we have a Republican member of Congress (Bohnner) recalling

Pelosi, who has served in Congress since 1987 and was part of the last Democratic majority, should recall that corruption well. It wasn't that long ago that gifts and personal loans from S&L interests to a Democratic committee chairman, made in hopes of winning favorable treatment from regulators, resulted in a half-trillion dollar scandal and a $125 billion tab for the American taxpayer. Nor was it that long ago that the Democratic chairman of the House Administration Committee stood idly by while drugs were being dealt from the House Post Office, hundreds of Members of Congress were bouncing checks and floating themselves zero-interest loans from the House Bank, and lobbyists were being given assigned parking spots on the Capitol grounds. Nor was it that long ago that the Democratic chairman of the Ways & Means Committee was trading taxpayer-purchased stamps for personal cash, leading to his conviction and jail time in 1993.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the same day that the 110th Democratic-led Congress convenes with a plan to immediately pass lobbyist and ethics reforms, the Congressional Black Caucus Thursday gave a standing ovation to Rep. William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat who faces an FBI probe into bribery allegations.

Party of reform my hind foot!

Posted at 09:00 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

How much do you know about the minimum wage? Test yourself with this question from an actual college economics mid-term exam.

3. T or F - A binding minimum wage raises the quantity of labor supplied and reduces the quantity of labor demanded.

Answer below the fold. more...

Posted at 04:30 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 522 words, total size 4 kb.