Originally Posted By mrichmondj Wow! These are really "big" mistakes! LOL On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being hardly a mistake at all and 10 being the mother of all mistakes -- the war in Iraq, I'd rate these little quibbles over who gets to hold the committee chairs in the house around a 0.5
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21250485.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.postchronicle.com/n ews/original/article_21250485.shtml</a> >>Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi, urging the soon-to-be House Speaker to reject Florida Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings for the chairmanship of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Multiple press reports suggest Hastings may assume the chairmanship with Pelosi's approval when the new Congress convenes in January. Rep. Hastings, the letter notes, is one of only six federal judges to be removed from office through impeachment, and has accumulated "staggering liabilities" ranging from $2,130,006 to $7,350,000. Former Judge Hastings was convicted by the Senate in 1989 for bribery and conspiracy. "Any ordinary citizen with Rep. Hastings' demonstrated record of lack of integrity, ethical misdeeds and financial problems would be denied a security clearance," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton noted in his November 15 letter. "Respectfully, you should not put our nation's security at risk by placing Rep. Hastings at the head of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence." On August 3, 1988, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment against then-Judge Hastings. After a trial, he was convicted by the Senate and removed from office on October 20, 1989, for perjury and conspiracy to obtain a bribe. As The Washington Post reported in 1989, the Senate found that Hastings "engaged in the bribery conspiracy and repeatedly lied under oath at his [criminal] trial and forged letters in order to win acquittal." Moreover, according to his most recent financial disclosure statements, Hastings indicated that he has no more than $15,000 in assets while listing millions of dollars in liabilities in the form of legal fees. "That (Hastings) was elected to Congress simply does not mean he meets the high standards that might entitle him to committee leadership posts, let alone 'select' committee posts that concern highly secret national security information," Fitton wrote. "I am confident there are other members of your caucus who could serve as head of the Committee."<<
Originally Posted By mrichmondj You know, the more I read about this, the sillier it sounds. I mean, we're talking about a politician who has been in office for 13 years and the best folks can come up with is a scandal from 17 years ago -- and the guy wasn't even convicted in court. He's also very popular in his South Florida district and ran uncontested in the latest election. The bottom line for Rep. Pelosi is that Rep. Hastings has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's intelligence fumbles and his Democratic peers on the commitee have been less so. I think between Rep. Murtha and Rep. Hastings, we are seeing a trend where the politicians who took the hard road and were outspoken on issues regarding the war very early in the game, when they were not the most popular sentiment, are being recognized for their contributions to the Democratic message that partially led to the victories of a couple weeks back.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, it's silly, and does it EVER smack of desperation and sad partisanship. The Republicans doing this sort of thing are simply giving good confirmation as to why they were booted out of office. If Pelosi actually did something bad, then perhaps calling her on it would be worth posting about. But this stuff is simply pathetic.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Well, the OP will keep posting crap like this because that's what petulant people do.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<are being recognized for their contributions to the Democratic message that partially led to the victories of a couple weeks back.>> Which Democratic message? Get out of Iraq now? Have a phased redeployment? Add 20k troops? A gradual and sustainable reduction? Adjust to realities on the ground? No offense to anyone, but the Democratic message is not clear and as long as people like Pelosi try and muscle her will instead of working within her means, then the message will be lost. Too much infighting among the Democrats to know what it is they wish to accomplish.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Get out of Iraq now? Have a phased redeployment? Add 20k troops? A gradual and sustainable reduction? Adjust to realities on the ground?<< The Democrats? LOL! Those are the questions President Bush says he hasn't decided yet, when asked about increasing the number of troops in Iraq. He is still the Commander In Chief. The buzzwords of the week are the three options 'Go big, go slow, go home.'
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Sorry. It's 'go big, go long, go home.' Together they sound positively ADMINable.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<The Democrats? LOL! Those are the questions President Bush says he hasn't decided yet,. . . .>> No, actually these are direct quotes out of the mouths of Democrats.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan But I'm saying, those are the very options the President must now consider as well. There aren't a whole lot of attractive options.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I thought the options were "stay the course" or "cut and run." We can't deviate from the pre-election message now!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Haven't you heard? It's never been 'stay the course.' No idea where you got the idea that it was...
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<But I'm saying, those are the very options the President must now consider as well.>> We will see what Bush determines as the future course in the Global War On Terrorism In The Iraq Theater Of Engagement. However, until then, it is simply halarious that the Democrats have not found a unified voice. Amazing.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I find it rather refreshing that we have a political party that is capable of including different voices. Why do we all have to speak the same soundbyte?
Originally Posted By crapshoot <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov</a> President Bush Addresses United Nations General Assembly November 19th, 2006 "Nearly 12 million of you braved the car bombers and assassins last December to vote in free elections. The world saw you hold up purple ink-stained fingers, and your courage filled us with admiration. You've stood firm in the face of horrendous acts of terror and sectarian violence -- and we will not abandon you in your struggle to build a free nation. America and our coalition partners will continue to stand with the democratic government you elected. We will continue to help you secure the international assistance and investment you need to create jobs and opportunity, working with the United Nations and through the International Compact with Iraq endorsed here in New York yesterday. We will continue to train those of you who stepped forward to fight the enemies of freedom. We will not yield the future of your country to terrorists and extremists. In return, your leaders must rise to the challenges your country is facing, and make difficult choices to bring security and prosperity. Working together, we will help your democracy succeed, so it can become a beacon of hope for millions in the Muslim world." -- President George W. Bush September 19, 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Doesn't look like the Commander and Chief is going to be pulling our troops out in either a phased redeployment, a 4 to 6 month stand down, a cut and run manuever, or what ever each individual Democrat chooses as his or hers favorite buzzword for the press. The Dems have already made it abundently clear that they won't continue Bush's tax breaks "for the rich". They have deemed him to become the literal "Lame Duck". But there isn't alot any of them can do, from where they sit, to determine his future course on the war on terror in Iraq or in the rest of the world. Clinton doesn't seem to making wild and uninformed claims of the conflict, yet anyway. But the rest of the '08 hopefuls can't throw out solutions fast enough. McCain is stalwart in his solutions of added troops, no matter what he touts as failed policy. He neither waivers, nor flinches at publicly stating his beliefs in this matter. Will Bush pull off a Hail Mary? Doubtful, but I wouldn't discount it. There is still 2 quarters left to play.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Why do we all have to speak the same soundbyte?>> It shows unity in your party that the message is clear to the voting public. So far, no one is backing any one idea or comes up with a "Day After" solution. Kissinger is right in saying that if we walk away now, we will only be back again at a later date.
Originally Posted By crapshoot >>Will Bush pull off a Hail Mary?<< <<I'm not sure what you mean?>> In other words, will the Maliki Government prevail in the next year by ending the sectarian violence and begin rebuilding his country with minimum need for Coalition Forces? Doubtful, but at this point, anything is possible.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan That was yesterday's White House memo, crapshoot. From Bloomberg, Nov. 20: >>Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said he hasn't decided on future U.S. troop levels in Iraq, and the president of the world's most populous Muslim nation called for greater international engagement in Iraq. ``I haven't made any decisions about troop increases or troop decreases,'' Bush said today in Bogor, Indonesia, after talks with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono at the end of a five-day Asia trip. The president said there won't be any changes made ``until I hear from a variety of sources, including our own U.S. military.''<< <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aB7weJ.RzmwE&refer=home" target="_blank">http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ news?pid=20601087&sid=aB7weJ.RzmwE&refer=home</a>
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<``I haven't made any decisions about troop increases or troop decreases,'' Bush said today in Bogor, Indonesia>> Yes and I understand. He hasn't made any unimformed decisions one way or the other. That wouldn't be prudent when the information hasn't been digested out of the Comission report. Again, I pulled direct quotes made by Democratic hopefuls who are more than happy to tout ways of not bringing-bringing our troops out of Iraq. Still reminds me of grade school elections where the 8 year old candidates ran on a platform of Rootbeer in every drinking fountain. These Dems keep telling us how to get our troops out of Iraq, not how to keep Iraq from collapsing once we leave. That isn't being responsible, it is merely trying to gain votes by being popular. We can't have rootbeer in drinking fountains without health consequences in the very near future.
