Replies: 32 Comments

Comment #1: stoufi1 said on 12/6/05 @ 8:33am ET...

One down, two to go. The dismissed charge was farcical at best as Ronnie Earle spent two years trying to get any charge filed through the original grand jury and got nothing (kind of like Pat Fitzgerald, eh?). He found one (in a cowardly way, and after being rejected by a second grand jury) that put politics above the law. Earle tried to pull the same stunt with Kay Bailey Hutchinson a few years back and all charges ended up being dismissed. DeLay needs to keep up his efforts in getting a speedy trial, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution.

This is just speculation, and I have no proof, but my guess is that Earle has something going on with Texas Democrats to keep DeLay occupied with these idiotic charges while he tries to do an end-around in order to get Lampson a House seat. It didn't work with Hutchinson and it probably won't work with DeLay. My guess is that DeLay will probably be acquitted within the first couple of months of 2006, leaving Earle with egg on his face (and, hopefully, charges of fraud of using his position as a DA to bring false charges for political gain) and Lampson in the Democratic dumpster. Anybody laying odds?

Genghis, more liberal media bias, and with this case. In this case, the title of this article in the New York Times, "Texas Judge Lets Stand 2 of 3 Charges Against DeLay". The reporting seems to be straight-forward, but that title is crap.

The second example is this completely biased report from the AP that's in a bunch of different papers under different headlines.

I'll keep finding them for you.

Comment #2: stoufi1 said on 12/6/05 @ 9:07am ET...

I'm no fan of Tom DeLay. His record on spending is atrocious and most conservatives have vilified him for this. But, the way Ronnie Earle is going about this makes these charges look politically motivated and unwarranted. If this comes back and bites Earle in the butt, Lampson will be the one affected as he will lose big next November (just a prediction). If anything, Earle looks more like a fascist than the so-called "neocon cabal" in Washington.

Comment #3: koryannder said on 12/6/05 @ 9:29am ET...

poo to stoupid. DeLay is SUCH a crook that the judge oughtta put him where the little doggies can't bite him for the next two lifetimes. All you have to do is think CAFTA, or "Medicare Prescription Drug Supplement" or any of the Bills that DeLay ran around and twisted arms about until they "passed," while Hastert ILLEGALLY kept the voting open past the time it was to close, IF it wasn't going the way the Power Structure wanted! Conservatively, DeLay has cost us BILLIONS in bribes to get votes for Bills that were injurious to the Country at large, but worth MONEY or POWER to his right-wing buddies. He should go back to his extermination bidness - and I have a candidate for the first pest he should hammer on.

Comment #4: wayne said on 12/6/05 @ 11:07am ET...

JC,

I know that you are not much of a theorist and really either am I. A few researchers from a college in upstate NY have had the opportunity to present their work to Fox News of all people and they were given two 5 min spots; I was shocked this subject made it to the TV. We have to acknowledge the facts before we can prove them accurate.

http://www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=282

http://www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=291

Comment #5: Bill_o_Carolina said on 12/6/05 @ 1:31pm ET...

Delay is going down, no doubt about it, along with Abramoff, Dumbsfeld, DC Dick Cheney, and GW!
Fix our election system first. Otherwise democracy is lost!

Comment #6: ljm said on 12/6/05 @ 2:31pm ET...

Latest polls I read about say people in Sugar Land favor the Democrat over DeLay.

Comment #7: Genghis Khan said on 12/6/05 @ 3:47pm ET...

Stoufi:

How is the title crap? Two of the three charges were upheld and will proceed to criminal trial.

Please explain your spin.

You have failed twice now to present ANY evidence of liberal bias in the MSM. Please continue trying.

Comment #8: Bill_o_Carolina said on 12/6/05 @ 6:06pm ET...

Anybody else catch the Katrina hearings on C-span today? Mr. Shays admitted that Bush had failed along with state and local agencies. It was a very moving discussion at times.

Comment #9: Bill_o_Carolina said on 12/6/05 @ 6:10pm ET...

I don't know why you guys even acknowledge stoupi's posts. They're not worth the effort.

Comment #10: stoufi1 said on 12/6/05 @ 7:21pm ET...

#7 Genghis

Actually, I hit it right on the mark. One little item that is at the bottom of the NYT article is the following:

"Judge Priest also said he had yet to rule on a defense motion of prosecutorial misconduct."

And the Washington Post buries this blurb in their piece:

"Before his trial can begin, the judge must decide on a motion by DeLay's attorneys to move it from Austin and the prosecutorial misconduct motion; that could delay its conclusion until well into the new year."

Earle's politicization of this whole farce is the real story, and yet it is totally ignored.

Speaking of bias, how many TV interviews has Murtha been in since the vote on the Hunter resolution? He's been on C-SPAN, and he's been interviewed on Hardball, The Today Show, and This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Now, let's look at Sam Johnson, Murtha's buddy from Texas and a Republican in the House. This is the guy that Murtha goes with to Walter Reed to visit the wounded. He's a Vietnam vet, won the Purple Heart, was a POW for 7 years, and blasted Murtha and the cut-and-run House Democrats that night (November 18). How many times has he been on national TV since then? None. How many times has he been quoted by the Times or the WaPo? None. As a vet, don't his words carry as much weight as Murtha's? Apparently not. Of course, that has nothing to do with bias, does it? Or does it?

Sen. Joe Lieberman wrote a fantastic piece in the Wall Street Journal last week after coming back from his fourth trip to Iraq in 17 months. How many of the above shows interviewed him? None. How did the NYT and the WaPo report on his trip? They didn't. Maybe it's because what he said didn't fit in with their agenda.

How about all the stuff coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan that is good news (and there is some; actually, quite a lot) and reported by ABC, NBC, the NYT, the WaPo? Then tell me how many Abu Ghraib stories have these same entities run. How about a ton of Abu Ghraib stories? Because that fits their bias. A search through Google or Yahoo should confirm all of this.

That should pretty much answer the liberal bias by the MSM. Now, you had mentioned some poll that said the MSM was biased towards conservatives, yet you did not provide a link. Please do, when you can. And don't try to point out how the corporate entities behind the MSM contributed only to Republicans. Like most corporations, they contribute to whichever candidate gives them the best break, regardless of party.

OT

Here's a little tidbit regarding another media darling, John Kerry. His disgraceful and traiterous interview on "Face the Nation" shows what kind of individual he really is. Someone else (it wasn't me, but I won't name who; you'll have to find it yourself) was not too pleased with Sen. Kerry:

"It was bad enough that John Kerry betrayed our troops during the Vietnam conflict. It's even worse that Kerry is once again calling our troops 'terrorists' while giving the actual terrorists a pass.

There's an old saying which holds that once is a fluke, twice is a pattern, and three times is evidence.

We are far beyond the "evidence" phase of Democrat treason.

I long ago lost count of how many times John Kerry and his Democrat comrades have stabbed our troops in the back. Judging from their ongoing remarks that denigrate our troops at every turn, it is painfully clear just who these anti-American Leftists are rooting for...and it sure as hell ain't the United States of America or her troops.

I'll be absolutely candid: I've had it up to the gills with these asshats and their incessant sniping at our troops and the sacrifices our troops make to keep these low-life Democrat pukes safe and cozy in their smarmy smugness. I say it's time to call these anti-American Left-wing jackwits precisely what they are: traitors. No other word adequately describes their conduct.

Bottom line: I've had enough of these anti-American punks' hate speech being defended as "free speech." We should never excuse such treason as "honest dissent." And this crap that the Democrats keep spewing about how they "support the troops" is nothing but Ass-Covering-101 backpedaling. I say it's high time that these anti-American terrorist idolators were called on their bullcrap.

I've been tolerant of the slanders spoken against our nation, our President, and our patriots, but this is the last damned straw. I will not tolerate this wanton attack on our nation's defenders by people who say they're Americans, but whose conduct clearly indicates otherwise."

This is pretty much how I see it as well. Maybe he can try to rally his old buddies to begin spitting on our troops coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and start shouting the "baby killer" lies again. This is the part that was like the Vietnam days, not the garbage being spewed out by Kennedy and Pelosi and Murtha and Dean and Obama and Durbin and Boxer and Kerry.

And this is the jackass (Kerry) selected to represent the Democratic Party as President of the United States? Puh-lease.

Comment #11: DTW 06 said on 12/6/05 @ 7:36pm ET...

Dear Friend,

Today the New York Times published an op-ed by General Clark, laying out his specific ideas about how America must change course militarily, politically, and diplomatically to salvage victory in Iraq. This op-ed comes on the heels of his recent trip to Doha, Qatar where many of our Middle East allies are warning about the emergence of Iran as, in General Clark's words, "the big winner of the American invasion."

As you all know, General Clark has never been a supporter of President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq -- repeatedly calling it a "strategic blunder" -- but now that we're there, he is constantly speaking out on how best we can succeed.

Some key passages from General Clark's op-ed in today's New York Times:

"While the Bush administration and its critics escalated the debate last week over how long our troops should stay in Iraq, I was able to see the issue through the eyes of America's friends in the Persian Gulf region. The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and both President Bush's new strategy and the Democratic responses to it dangerously miss the point. It's a devastating critique. And, unfortunately, it is correct...

"Staying the course" risks a slow and costly departure of American forces with Iraq increasingly factionalized and aligned with Iran. Yet a more rapid departure of American troops along a timeline, as some Democrats are calling for, simply reduces our ability to affect the outcome and risks broader regional conflict. We need to keep our troops in Iraq, but we need to modify the strategy far more drastically than anything President Bush called for last week...

On the military side, American and Iraqi forces must take greater control of the country's borders, not only on the Syrian side but also in the east, on the Iranian side. The current strategy of clearing areas near Syria of insurgents and then posting Iraqi troops, backed up by mobile American units, has had success. But it needs to be expanded, especially in the heavily Shiite regions in the southeast, where there has been continuing cross-border traffic from Iran and where the loyalties of the Iraqi troops will be especially tested...

As important as these military changes are, they won't matter at all unless our political strategy is rethought. First, the Iraqis must change the Constitution as quickly as possible after next week's parliamentary elections. Most important, oil revenues should be declared the property of the central government, not the provinces. And the federal concept must be modified to preclude the creation of a Shiite autonomous region in the south...

And we must start using America's diplomatic strength with Syria and Iran. The political weakness of Bashar al-Assad opens the door for significant Syrian concessions on controlling the border and cutting support for the jihadists. We also have to stop ignoring Tehran's meddling and begin a public dialogue on respecting Iraqi independence, which will make it far easier to get international support against the Iranians if (and when) they break their word...

What a disaster it would be if the real winner in Iraq turned out to be Iran, a country that supports terrorism and opposes most of what we stand for. Surely, we can summon the wisdom, resources and bipartisan leadership to change the American course before it is too late."

I hope you'll read the complete version of General Clark's Iraq op-ed from today's New York Times on the SecuringAmerica blog, and join the discussion with members of the WesPAC community. Then forward this message to everyone you know.

I also invite you to stop by the blog at 2pm CST Wednesday when General Clark will be online to chat with members of the SecuringAmerica community.

For the sake of our country and our troops serving in harm's way, it's important that we continue speaking out about Iraq, holding the Bush Administration accountable for their failed policy, and doing everything we can to change course and salvage victory as quickly as possible.

Sincerely,

Catherine Grunden
Executive Director
WesPAC -- Securing America's Future

Visit SecuringAmerica.com

Comment #12: Genghis Khan said on 12/6/05 @ 8:14pm ET...

Stoufi: Your longwinded and partisan diatribe notwithstanding, I again fail to see this "left-wing conspiracy" in the MSM.

You ask why Congressman Murtha gets coverage and not Sam Johnson. What proposal to bring troops home has Mr. Johnson put forward? Therein lies your answer. Congressman Murtha has a plan to end this needless conflict. Johnson has nothing. Shall the press be forced to interview every last Congressperson on every political talk show in order to assuage your incorrect, erroneous, and frankly anachronistic belief in some type of liberal media bias?

I invite you to go to college and take a basic class in writing (either journalistic or expository). You obviously have no idea what a "subject" is, nor how to clearly write on it. The articles you mention dealt with the one charge against DeLay which was dismissed, and the two charges still outstanding. Every article I've read on this goes into a relatively detailed explanation of why Judge Priest ruled on each matter the way he did. The prosecutorial misconduct story is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT subject. It is related, which is why it warrants a mention at all. However, if you want a story on that weak charge of prosecutorial misconduct I suggest you either write one or suggest to a journalist that he or she write one.

The rest of your prevarication is hardly worth mentioning. I would suggest, however, that you look up the word "terrorize" and realize that it is not the same as "terrorism".

And nobody in America is sniping at the troops; rather we want to preserve them and bring them home rather than squander their efforts and blood in a pointless war that was predicated on lies.

You want traitors; I submit the Bush Administration who knowingly lied to engage in war which has cost the US countless billions of dollars, allowed our enemies to proliferate, and killed thousands of our troops for nothing but avarice.

You are long on opinion and prevarication. You are dreadfully short on facts.

Comment #13: Bill_o_Carolina said on 12/6/05 @ 8:47pm ET...

Khan, you are SPOT ON! As usuall.

Comment #14: Neerav Trivedi said on 12/6/05 @ 9:39pm ET...

Ghengis Khan:

Thank you for putting that neo-con Repuke troll, Stoufi1, in his place where he belongs!!!

Comment #15: Neerav Trivedi said on 12/6/05 @ 9:42pm ET...

Sorry Genghis, I spelled your first name wrong.

Now I know why they call the Republicans as "Repukes" - because they regurgitate (i.e. vomit or puke) the same talking points over and over again. Vomit is very disgusting to look at and to smell, and the same can be said of the Republican talking points.

See the connection here?

Comment #16: Genghis Khan said on 12/6/05 @ 9:56pm ET...

I'm partial to "Fuckuplicans", but that't just me...

:-)

Comment #17: Nolip said on 12/6/05 @ 10:25pm ET...

House Democrats, Impeachment, & Bush '06 Tactics

So here we go. The fine balancing act begins between holding George Bush accountable versus getting accused by Republicans of seeking a witch hunt. It’s the usual GOP tactic of accusing anyone who criticizes Bush of being un-American or divisive or a criminal or simply inhuman. I guess the White House doesn’t like torture after all, and they’re going to do whatever it takes in the 2006 election to stop any effort to destroy their congressional majority.

US News and World Report offered this week in their daily "White House Bulletin" that "GOP strategists are playing up talk in Democratic camps that a switch in power would lead to a wave of ethics investigations and possibly impeachment proceedings against the president in 2007. 'We need to keep both Houses or all that will come back to hit us,' said one strategist."

And it's now clear that any Democrat who asks for accountability will suffer at the hands of the DC political press establishment. (You know, those reporters who need to cozy up to the Republicans so that they can get the right story at the right time. "Like Judy Miller?" Arianna would ask.)

Just last week, former Michigan radio talk show host Tony Trupiano received money from the Democrats.com group, ImpeachPAC, which endorses only Congressional candidates who "support the immediate and simultaneous impeachment of George Bush and [Vice President] Dick Cheney for their Iraq War lies." Trupiano is one of the congressional challengers that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee lists among its "strong candidates for change." He will face-off Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) in a district that gives the average Democrat about 45% of the vote -- meaning it could be a pick-up if the GOP's woes continue.

Trupiano made it clear that his goal is not about impeachment per se, but accountability. "What's the shame in wanting to talk about truth and transparency in government?" Trupiano told one DC newsletter. Indeed.

The good news is that Trupiano is the kind of fighter that Democrats need to wrest power from the House Republicans next year. He won’t back down and he won’t be misrepresented. Let’s hope other Democrats have the same fight in them.

* * *

Donnie Fowler
Silicon Valley

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donnie-fowler/house-democrats-impeachm_b_11804.html

Comment #18: DTW 06 said on 12/7/05 @ 12:24am ET...

Congressman,

I appologize for not acknowledging the topic you introduced. This is good news. I suspect Delay's lawyers thought they could maneuver his ass out of this one. The dude just ain't what he used to be. It appears those in power are having a harder time keeping the lids on all of the jars of lies, damn lies and misinformation they have been filling up.

in an unrelated topic, has anyone ever really thought about the brutal price of war for civilians. September 11, 2001 was one of the most barbarous acts in history. However, we are very lucky to live in America. Can any of us imagine being an Iraqi caught in the cross-fire or a kid in the ghetto with drive-by shootings.

Collateral Damage

Outside, the Bombs Explode Loudly!
Inside, I stroke your hair so softly.

Go ahead and cry.
Now hug me.

This is our last kiss...

R.E.B.

Comment #19: koryannder said on 12/7/05 @ 5:12am ET...

I have been more or less politically active since, at age 9, I helped unseat our Superintendent of Schools. (Of course, during the era of the infamous Hatch Act I had to restrict my political activity to local issues, since I was a Federal Employee.) However, as a Political Activist, I HAD to study history. The only way we can keep from repeating it is to learn from it, to turn the adage on its head.

Okay. As a student of history, I learned that EVERY Administration including Washington's was more or less corrupt. The current one is the first one in American history which has been openly and unabashedly CRIMINAL! "You don't like a law? Either ignore it and make sure the prosecutors are bought off, or write an Executive Order and get the puppet in charge to sign off on it so that the will of the people, as expressed by Congressional action, is nullified." So MANY out and out criminal acts have been done by this Administration, starting before it WAS one, (both 2000 and 2004 having been stolen), that it will take twenty years of hard work by DEMOCRATIC Administrations and Congresses to undo most of the damage, and much of it can NEVER be undone! (Example; the utter rape of the Wyoming wilderness areas in the search for methane - a REAL greenhouse gas!)

But - the really evil thing is that the Rethuglicans absolutely INTEND to go on stealing elections! The utterly disgraceful state of elections in Georgia where, against all polling and opinion, SIX underdogs were "Elected" by the use of untraceable voting machines and the travesties in Ohio and Florida are illustrative. Either HAVA must be repealed, or Holt's bill (which Hastert and DeLay have kept from the floor for five years) must be passed. Otherwise, no-one's vote is safe. (Please note that I differentiate between Republicans and Rethuglicans; quite a few Congresstypes on the GOP side are decent, hardworking, caring people. But the Power elite, starting with Hastert and progressing through DeLay and his carbon copy replacement, are, to put it mildly, criminal. Hence the epithet.) The reason that there is no real groundswell of desire for impeachment is simply that if we remove Bu$h and Chainey, we get "President Hastert?????" Jayzus! Remember that he is Speaker because of Gingrich's bug-out, and had to be acceptable to Gingrich as a replacement. What I think MAY happen runs about like this: Cheney has too much baggage, and even the GOP finally can't suffer him any longer. Now that the rats in the woodwork are finally being brought to the light of day for examination, his evident criminality (Halliburton, forever war, Torture,etc., etc.) smells too bad for even the Republicans (there are a few left) to tolerate, so impeachment investigations are started. Cheney, knowing he cannot withstand a full court press, and pleading ill health (although how a heartless bastard like C can have heart problems, I cannot fathom), resigns. Bu$h appoints Condi Rice as veep, and we're in a REAL dilemma! Can we possibly impeach - and remove - Bu$h, to get a BLACK WOMAN as President?? Southern Senators would die first! Maybe she'd not be confirmed, but I doubt that - I think the Senators, by and large, are too slothful in their thinking to realize the consequences of such an action. But - that would insure that Bu$h finishes out his term, with the untold damage that will do to the country; however, with Cheney out of the way, and hopefully Rove likewise, MAYBE Bu$h will have to be President after all. I know a lady who knew him in his younger days, who says, "He was a decent enough young man, before he blew his brains out with cocaine and booze," so maybe there is something salvageable there after the wreckage is removed. We can hope and pray, anyhow.

And finally, there IS no "Liberal media." There are only moderately right-wing, extremely right-wing, and downright fascist major media. There ARE a few Liberal publications; The Nation, The American Prospect, The Progtessive, and In These Times come to mind; their total distribution base cannot approach that of the New York Times, for only one example. And the influence of FAUX on the great unwashed TV public cannot be doubted - but people are beginning to wise up anyhow, thanks to the 'net. Now if ONLY we can somehow prevent the disenfranchisement of Democrats and the outright theft of votes by criminal machines, maybe our Republic can be saved from the criminal element yet. We can hope - and work toward that end. One thing to do; WRITE your Congresscritter and DEMAND that Rush Holt's bill be brought to the floor. It is time that Hastert stops DeLaying it!

Comment #20: stoufi1 said on 12/7/05 @ 7:35am ET...

#11 DTW

Interesting piece. Here's the link for anybody who wants to read it. I believe a non-paid subscription may be required, although I've gotten to other pieces without one.

#12 Genghis

So, Murtha gets to go on these TV shows because he put forth a bill to bring the troops home? Is that the criteria? Do you really want to go down that road? If that's the case, then you've helped prove my point regarding liberal bias in the MSM, since the administration clearly is not willing to do anything that is outlined in Murtha's bill. Has Duncan Hunter been on these same shows, after all, it was his resolution that was voted on? I ask because I don't know, but I don't believe he has. (I know he's been on some radio shows.) And you don't even come close to explaining my other points: Lieberman's WSJ piece (the link points to a free version of it) or the lack of real news being reported on by these same entities on Iraq and Afghanistan. For this, blogs such as the one by Michael Yon report what is really going on. Nor have I seen the "link" that shows a conservative bias in the MSM. Here's the Pew survey (definitely not biased towards conservatives) released on 11/17 that doesn't necessarily show liberal media bias, but does show how the elites view things. You'll also notice that the view of the military and state/local government officials are more in line with the general public on almost everything.

Insults aside, prosecutorial misconduct is relevant to this whole case. Earle spends two years with a grand jury and gets nothing. Then on the Monday after this one expires he shops around to a second grand jury and they refuse (rightly) to hear the charges. Hours later, he manages to get a third grand jury to indict DeLay on the original charge and throws in the money laundering charges to get at least one of these on the books. This is so flimsy and such an obvious political ploy. The NYT and the WaPo almost completely ignore this relevant aspect to the case.

Now I want to touch on the definitions of "terrorize" and "terrorism". The root word, of course, is terror. Here's the definitions from Webster:

Terror

1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
synonym see FEAR

Terrorize

1 : to fill with terror or anxiety : SCARE
2 : to coerce by threat or violence

Terrorism

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Kerry said on Sunday:

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

At this point, Kerry says that our soldiers are terrorizing ordinary Iraqis. Are not the terrorists who strap bombs on themselves to blow up mosques and funeral processions also terrorizing ordinary Iraqis? What are we supposed to take from Kerry's implication, especially since he has a history of (figuratively) stabbing his own comrades in the back? How can anybody believe he's for the troops or the military, when throughout his long and undistinguished career as a Senator has shown him to be against any military spending or those missions (Desert Storm) that would halt the spread of tyranny?

Let's revisit the first part of Sam Johnson's floor speech durting the debate on the Hunter resolution:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the American men and women in uniform and their families. I did spend 29 years in the Air Force, and I served in Korea and Vietnam and spent 7 years as a POW in Vietnam and more than half of that in solitary confinement. I know what it is like to be far from home, serving your country, risking your life, hearing that America doesn't care about you as happened in Vietnam.

Your Congress does not care about you. Your Congress just cut off all the funding for your war. They are packing up, going home, and leaving you here.

When I was a POW, I was scared to death when our Congress talked about pulling the plug that I would be left there forever. I know what it does to morale, I know what it does to the mission, and so help me God, I will never, ever let our Nation make that mistake again."

Comment #21: stoufi1 said on 12/7/05 @ 7:56am ET...

Darn. Hit Submit before I was done.

To continue, Rep. Conyers said the following on his November 17 post called "Continuing Demise of the Republican Party, Patriot Act Vote Imminent" and linked to this Washington Post article:

"My House colleague and a leading Democratic supporter of the armed forces, Rep. Jack Murtha has joined the chorus calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Declaring that the war in Iraq represented a "flawed policy wrapped in an illusion" and further stating that "the future of our country is at risk," Congressman Murtha stood tall with the many veterans calling for an end to this unjust war. Following the 79-19 vote in the Senate yesterday in favor of troop withdrawals and administration accountability, I believe we are really starting to make headway toward ending this conflict and bringing our troops home."

No one, not even Rep. Conyers, has answered my question on why they voted against the Hunter resolution when this was clearly what Conyers, Murtha, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi, Durbin, Obama, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, the NYT, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, and the San Franciso Chronicle present to the American people. Kerry says US soldiers are terrorizing ordinary Iraqis. And he wanted to be President.

If I'm short on facts, I'm still waiting for someone to provide me a first one.

I hope that the NYU students in the links by #4 wayne do go on Fox. So that they can be laughed at and ridiculed for trying to continue to push the idea that the government brought down the buildings on 9/11. Because that's what these students deserve if that's what they're getting out of their education, that everything wrong in the world is the fault of George W. Bush and/or the United States.

#19 koryannder

In your last paragraph, you mention the New York Times. Based on your definition, I would put it as moderately right-wing. In reality, I would put it at very left and pro-Democrat. The only papers to the left would be the Pravda of the old Soviet Union and China's People's Daily (and any news agency in Cuba).

I read the other commenters and think "you just can't make this stuff up". I keep waiting for someone to say "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!"

Comment #22: koryannder said on 12/7/05 @ 8:32am ET...

Oh, my Gawd! The Times "Liberal????" The paper that published the obscene vaporings of Judy Miller a left wing paper slightly to the right of Pravda???? Where do you keep your head, other than a secret place where the sun doesn't shine? I advise everyone to follow advice I have seen elsewhere in these posts. When you see stoupid's name on a post, swiftly scroll down to the next one. He has nothing constructive to say, and his blather may rob you of time to do something interesting. I have stopped paying any mind to him, since I do not suffer fools gladly. I recommend that others do the same. If he gets NO feedback, maybe he'll stop taking up space.

Comment #23: Jo said on 12/7/05 @ 10:05am ET...

"Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the American men and women in uniform and their families. I did spend 29 years in the Air Force, and I served in Korea and Vietnam and spent 7 years as a POW in Vietnam and more than half of that in solitary confinement. I know what it is like to be far from home, serving your country, risking your life, hearing that America doesn't care about you as happened in Vietnam.

Your Congress does not care about you. Your Congress just cut off all the funding for your war. They are packing up, going home, and leaving you here.

When I was a POW, I was scared to death when our Congress talked about pulling the plug that I would be left there forever. I know what it does to morale, I know what it does to the mission, and so help me God, I will never, ever let our Nation make that mistake again."

I have great respect for his point of view however:
We can pull out of Iraq without leaving any POW's behind. The longer we stay the chance of that changes considerably. Also our congress does not care about the troops as is evidenced by the lack of supplies they are getting in theater and the crappy support they are getting here at home. The sooner we leave the sooner they can come home and TRY to heal.

Comment #24: Jo said on 12/7/05 @ 10:35am ET...

Let me tell you a couple of stories about troop "support". I have to be careful how much I say because I am bound by patient confidentiality but I can generalize.

Two weeks ago a marine reservist volunteered to return to the war because he couldn't make it here at home. He and his family were homeless. They had no jobs and the only way the family could get paid and survive was for him to go back to Iraq. The poor kid said "I feel like a mercenary". He is not alone. Many of these families are suffering.
I have seen tough grown men break into tears when they are telling me they are being sent back. (They are not tears of joy).
If I had a hundred bucks for every time some one told me "send someone else, Ive been there already." I could quit my job.
I have seen family's struggle to survive and stay together and sadly some are losing the battle.

Comment #25: Neerav Trivedi said on 12/7/05 @ 11:19am ET...

Comment #22: koryannder said on 12/7/05 @ 8:32am ET...

Oh, my Gawd! The Times "Liberal????" The paper that published the obscene vaporings of Judy Miller a left wing paper slightly to the right of Pravda???? Where do you keep your head, other than a secret place where the sun doesn't shine? I advise everyone to follow advice I have seen elsewhere in these posts. When you see stoupid's name on a post, swiftly scroll down to the next one. He has nothing constructive to say, and his blather may rob you of time to do something interesting. I have stopped paying any mind to him, since I do not suffer fools gladly. I recommend that others do the same. If he gets NO feedback, maybe he'll stop taking up space.

-----------------------------------
I agree. Chemung posted a long post telling us to do the same with the neo-con trolls such as Stoufi1 on this forum. Just ignore Stoufi1, his posts are not worth responding to in the first place.

Comment #26: stoufi1 said on 12/7/05 @ 1:35pm ET...

Oh, I am so unimpressed. Judy Miller is your only response? One columnist? How about Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, and the ever moronic Paul Krugman, who is still pining for the rebirth of the Soviet Union? And in case you didn't remember, and you probably didn't, Miller was run out of the Times.

Comment #27: Genghis Khan said on 12/7/05 @ 3:12pm ET...

stoufi: You're back to being a moron.

Your question about the lack of Conyers' support for the Hunter bill has been answered MANY times. Basically, the Hunter bill was an irresponsible bit of grandstanding by the Republicans and bore NO resemblence to the Murtha bill. Congressman Murtha actually has something to say about bringing the troops home. Hunter apparently does not. Keep harping on this all you want; it just exposes you as an ideologue.

You claim bias in the media, and then try to submit Michael Yon as an unbiased source... What a laugh. Is this because he only reports what is given to him by the Pentagon? There has been plenty of press coverage recently regarding "unbiased" reporting in Iraqi newspapers sponsored by the Pentagon.

The MSM coverage of Iraq has been trying to deal with the subject of WHY we are there, and whether the sacrifice (in money and lives) is worth it. But the questioning has been mediocre at best. Just today, CNN (your favorite media whipping-boy) had two Army wives on talking about how wonderful it was that we were in Iraq fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

Not once were the women corrected.

Hardly "liberal bias", and this is in apparently the most "liberal" of news organizations.

Tell me the last time you heard/saw an MSM story on the Downing Street Memos or any in-depth coverage of the current "Rendition" problem (other than to show BushCo at staged press conferences trying to cover their asses).

I find it equally interesting how shills like you claim that there is no comparison between Vietnam and Iraq, and yet then try to say that support for disengagement from Iraq is the same as calling soldiers "baby killers" (a misguided and actually rare occurrence in the Vietnam era) or that somehow it means American citizens don't care about the troops (VC propaganda used in Vietnam). Why would you stoop to using propaganda tricks from a past enemy force?

I like your prevarication regarding Kerry, as that truly reveals the depth of your partisanship and the absolute lack of accurate historical knowledge supporting your ideology.

Kerry, a highly-decorated veteran, has always supported the military. He supports proper pay for troops, proper care for troops, and proper equipment for troops. However, as a former participant in an active war (unlike some in government), he strives to make sure that the commitment of force is done as a last resort (again, unlike some in government). I happened to have disagreed with Senator Kerry regarding the first Gulf War. But to set your record straight, all Kerry was asking was that diplomacy be given more time (not a total anti-war stance, as you suggest).

Now Senator Kerry says that our troops are terrorizing Iraqi civilians. Having myself been rousted out of bed by Soviet soldiers, I can tell you the experience is NOT pleasant. In fact, it is downright frightening. Using the word "terrorize" is quite accurate. It is this brusque treatment which hold no regard for the local customs which engenders and expands the insurgency against our troops.

Is it "terrorism" which is, as you have correctly defined, a systematic use of terror as a means of coersion? Not even close. Sometimes the raids are terrorizing to the women and children and often are humiliating to the entire family, but it is not being used as a system of mass-coersion.

Did Senator Kerry then call our troops terrorists? Not even close. Again you miss the point of his words (likely this was intentional on your part). Kerry's point was that our presence there fuels the insurgency, and gave an example of how.

Regarding DeLay:
Your facts are incorrect. The first Grand Jury was empaneled for six months. It was the 2nd Grand Jury who declined to indict DeLay (on the final day of their empanelment). After new evidence was discovered, Earle went to a third Grand Jury who returned an indictment within hours. As the foreman of the 3rd jury stated "Ronnie Earle didn't indict Tom DeLay, WE indicted Tom DeLay".

It seems that only you (and the DeLay legal team) believe in the prosecutorial misconduct charge. It is related, but is an entirely separate matter. Apparently the second indictments aren't so flimsy, because Judge Priest (who DeLay's team worked to receive this case) upheld them.

In short:

1. Nobody is calling the troops baby-killers.
2. We support the troops by our desire to protect their lives against being squandered in needless battles (notice nobody is complaining about our troops being in Afghanistan...).
3. The MSM is corporate-controlled, which means it is interested only in entertainment instead of informing the public (Edward R. Murrow is rolling in his grave). It has four times now been used to broadcast propaganda (the GAO's words, not mine), lending evidence of the pro-conservative bias of its corporate masters. Only recently has there been a real awakening to the questions of government malfeasance with regards to the current Iraq conflict.
4. Tom DeLay is looking more and more like a corrupt felon. His indictments were upheld, which *seriously* damages the prosecutorial misconduct charge.

Comment #28: sanitysojourner said on 12/7/05 @ 3:48pm ET...

I know this question has been raised a number of times by certain individuals and I will attempt to respond succinctly:

The Hunter amendment was not the same as the Murtha proposal.

That's why most of Congress didn't vote for it. My very liberal representative didn't vote for it and I'm glad. Hunter's amendment was an acknowledged bastardization of Murtha's comments.

Research it for yourselves. I have to work for a living and can't afford to do your work for you. Among other things such as supporting my family, I need money to help out Nick's campaign.

Comment #29: koryannder said on 12/7/05 @ 4:11pm ET...

This is sort of off-topic, but I HOPE Congressman Conyers reads it; it is an absolute disgrace, if true, and I suspect it is; it is JUST the sort of thing Rethuglicans do.

A law that will make democracy all but moot in Ohio is about to pass the state legislature and to be signed by its Republican governor.[with the lowest governor approval on record (5%-8%)]Despite massive corruption scandals besieging the Ohio GOP, any hope that the Democratic party could win this most crucial swing state in future presidential elections, or carry its pivotal US Senate seat in 2006, are about to end.House Bill 3's most publicized provision will require positive identification before casting a vote. But it also opens voter registration activists to partisan prosecution, exempts electronic voting machines from public scrutiny, quintuples the cost of citizen-requested statewide recounts and makes it illegal to challenge a presidential vote count or, indeed, any federal election result in Ohio.When added to the recently passed HB1, which allows campaign financing to be dominated by the wealthy and by corporations, and along with a Rovian wish list of GOP attacks on the ballot box, democracy in Ohio could be all but over.We should rename the Buckeye State the Diebold State and have done with it.

Comment #30: Jo said on 12/7/05 @ 4:30pm ET...

Just for fun:
"A lot of Bush supporters are very upset about the TV show the 'West Wing.' They say there are too many Democrats on the 'West Wing.' That'll even out when 'Prison Break' comes back, there'll be a lot more Republicans then." --Jay Leno

"In a speech yesterday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld criticized the media for casting the war in Iraq in a negative light. Yeah, he said they should focus on the light-hearted and fun aspects of the war." --Conan O'Brien

Comment #31: A New Majority said on 12/7/05 @ 5:24pm ET...

#10 stoufi1:

You are way out of line here. Kerry was traiterous (sic) on Face the Nation? Let's get serious. While you have been an antagonist here, you have generally been respectful. Your last posts are filled with vitriol and you lash out like a desperate, cornered animal.

Criticizing Murtha for appearing on TV? This reflects a left-leaning media bias? I suppose if someone in your party actually had a plan to end a war the majority of Americans oppose, the press might want to talk to them about it. And remember, the president didn't share his "Iraq plan" until 79 Senators compelled him to. And what did he say to the American people? We had a plan all along. Just never thought it was that important to share with you.

And if you want to talk about media bias, you can look at how Murtha's resolution was reported. Everyone in the mainstream media said Murtha's resolution called for "immediate withdrawal." Actually, Republican Duncan Hunter's resolution, the only one which the House voted on, called for immediate withdrawal. Murtha's resolution called for a redeployment within six months. The press didn't report the facts. They just reported what the Republicans provided in their talking points and stated in their speeches. By raising the issue of Murtha, you actually help to support the opinions of those on this page that believe media bias is right wing and that your posts here amount to nothing more than shilling for the administration.

Nice try, too, claiming Democrats are against the troops. Instead you might want to explain why Republicans have consistently underfunded VA hospitals and why soldiers need their parents to buy them armor. Is this because Republicans love the troops so much? I don't think so. If we don't have the money for armor and veterans, but the deficit has grown because of war costs, then where did the money go?

And do you really want to talk about traitors? How about and administration lying to the American people at every turn about weapons of mass destruction, aluminum tubes, Italian documents, mushroom clouds, the Iraq-al Qaeda link, Niger yellowcake, the Atta-Iraq meeting, mobile bioweapons labs, torture denials, Valerie Plame, and on and on and on. It never ends with this crew. Got caught in a lie? Tell a bigger one.

A real patriot who loved his country would level with the American people and come clean about how we got into this war.

Comment #32: Genghis Khan said on 12/7/05 @ 7:42pm ET...

Thanks ANM. My fingers don't work so well any more and recently it's been very hard to type (which I used to be able to do at rates approaching 100wpm).