Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !

Home Front: Politix

Nancy Pelosi’s Daughter: ‘My Mom Wants to Leave Congress’

2011-12-30

Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of House Minority Leader and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, told Big Government this week that her mother wants to leave Congress–and that she remains in Washington only at the behest of her campaign donors. Oh, and maybe an itty bitty bit for the insider information. During a telephone interview, Ms. Pelosi–speaking from a friend’s home in New York City–described her mother’s predicament: She would retire right now, if the donors she has didn’t want her to stay so badly. They know she wants to leave, though. They think she’s destined for the wilderness. She has very few days left. She’s 71, she wants to have a life, she’s done. It’s obligation, that’s all I’m saying. Pelosi’s revelation is significant, given that her mother pushed to serve as Minority Leader after the Democrats’ historic losses in the 2010 midterm elections, and that many Democrats–including President Barack Obama–are campaigning on the expectation that she will be restored as Speaker if they can retake the House in 2012. Alexandra Pelosi, 41, is a television producer and documentarian who won multiple Emmy awards for her work on Journeys with George (2002), an HBO documentary on George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. The film was widely hailed as fair in its depiction of a president not used to sympathetic media portrayals. In speaking to Big Government, Pelosi–who was polite and friendly throughout–also criticized CNN anchor Anderson Cooper: Look, you guys are journalists, so you do what you have to do. I could give you chapter and verse on what’s going on in the media–and I’m not talking about Andrew Breitbart, I’m talking about Anderson Cooper–so as long as you guys tell the truth, just write whatever you want, and feel free to call me anytime. In a follow-up exchange text message, Pelosi elaborated on her remarks about Cooper: I make television-i know about editing! I worked at NBC for 10 years+ 11 for 11 – I edit for a living. I just I know for a fact that 60 minutes and cnn have edited NP [Nancy Pelosi] out of context! XO, A Irritating, isn't it? Minority Leader Pelosi’s departure would make room for her deputy and former rival, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who currently serves as Minority Whip. Hoyer is widely seen as more moderate than Pelosi. She opposed his election to the party leadership in 2006, choosing instead to back the late Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA), despite his ethical challenges. Hoyer is more moderate than Pelosi? Really? Does that suggest there is someone who isn't? Gimme us all a break. UPDATE: This morning, Alexandra texted me: Get your facts straight: I said she is destined for GREATNESS! Not wilderness. And that text was supposed to say HBO for 11. I have never talked to Nancy Pelosi about any of this. Personally, I'm thinking wilderness. Or Cuckooness. Interestingly, Alexandra doesn’t challenge the crux of the story; that Pelosi would prefer to leave Congress and only remains out of a sense of obligation to her donors. Don't start letting silly things like other people's opinions bother you now, Nancy.

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Iran's aviation regulation seen as a factor in air crashes

2009-09-26

My theory of what happened to Iran's only AWACS: Reporting from Beirut - When the managing director of a small, trouble-prone Iranian airline won official permission in March to lease a couple of aging Russian-made airplanes, the country's small circle of aviation professionals gossiped about the strings he must have pulled to get the government's approval. And when one of the planes burst aflame on the runway in late July, killing the executive, Mehdi Dadpei, his son and 14 others, few in the industry were surprised. Proof that God does have a sense of humor! "Aria was famous for not adhering to safety standards for years," said an Iranian aviation industry insider, who spoke extensively to The Times on condition of anonymity. "Every time they had a problem, the managing director knew someone high up in the government who made it possible for Aria to continue as before." In the wake of the crash, a government official said the airline's permission to operate had been revoked. Iranian officials have long accused the West of playing politics with people's lives by imposing sanctions that prevent upgrades to the country's aging aircraft fleet. On Saturday, an Iranian aviation official called the sanctions an "act against humanity." But the aviation insider charged that authorities in Tehran were also to blame for a recent spate of deadly crashes. The airline industry official, who asked that his name and his company not be published out of fear for his personal and job security, accused politically motivated regulators of failing to adequately inspect and publicize aviation accidents, and of bending rules to accommodate well-connected airlines. "It is apparent that many of our safety concerns and problems are due to U.S. sanctions," said the official, whose name and title The Times independently verified. "But when you look closer, you will note that mismanagement on behalf of the Iran civil aviation authorities is to blame for a majority of what is so sadly taking place." He provided a rare insider view on a contentious issue between Iran and the West, as well as the inner workings of a key industry in an opaque country. Iran has experienced 14 fatal civilian and military aviation accidents since 2000, a figure experts describe as one of the worst in the world. Since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to office in 2005, there have been at least seven fatal accidents. "To have fatal accidents at 1.5 a year means Iran is experiencing 10% of world [aircraft hull] losses," said a London-based aviation accident investigator who probes crashes all over the world. He spoke on condition of anonymity. "That's well above the average." In addition to the two major crashes that killed 184 people in July, a series of smaller aviation incidents over the last few weeks has raised concerns about the state of Iran's civil aviation. On Sept. 6, a Russian-made Tupolev-154 jet belonging to an unnamed airline made an emergency landing shortly after takeoff in Tehran because of unspecified technical problems, an official told state television. Five days earlier, an Iran Air training plane crashed, seriously injuring the pilot, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported, while another training plane crashed Aug. 15, killing two. "Overall, every week we hear of incidents that are far above the norms of the industry," the airline industry insider said. "They keep it secret." In terms of safety, the Iranian airline executive said, the aviation industry is "at the lowest point" in its recent history. Human error, mostly by pilots, and not mechanical problems, was behind most of Iran's aviation troubles. The problems are exacerbated by regulators at the country's Civil Aviation Organization who don't aggressively investigate accidents or make the results of inquiries available to the public or to airlines, and decline to blacklist incompetent pilots or politically connected airlines. "There's a new approach to air safety worldwide based on openness, reporting, predicting incidents and sharing information," said Philip Butterworth-Hayes, editor of the British-based Air Traffic Management Insight, a biweekly newsletter. "None of those figure very strongly in Iran's civil aviation culture." The Aria Air crash illustrated the extent to which politics has begun creeping into industry. Because of high demand for air travel, rules are bent to accommodate airlines with safety lapses, the insider charged. Regulators previously pulled the airline's license "as its fleet was outdated," but allowed it to start business again under a slightly different name, Mohammad Ali Ilkhani, acting chief of the CAO, told the semiofficial Mehr news agency after the crash. Ilkhani said Aria Air's permission to operate had again been revoked. "The norm is who you know and how high in the government is your backup," the insider said. Poor government policies also put pressure on Iranian airlines to cut corners that affect safety, he said. Even as operating costs increase, government regulators keep domestic airfares artificially low to please the public, and pressure airlines to operate money-losing flights to small towns and secondary airports with few passengers to "keep the parliament members from that area happy," said the industry insider. Shades of Jack Murtha ... "Authorities' indifference to repeated requests by airline firms to raise ticket prices has had an effect on recent plane crashes," Mehdi Aliyari, the head of the professional association of air transport companies, told the newspaper Jomhouri Eslami in late July. "When the government artificially keeps the price of air tickets fixed and airline companies' warnings on raising ticket prices are ignored, air accidents are not implausible." Some Iranian officials say the country increasingly relies on Russian planes because U.S. sanctions on Iran forbid it to buy new Boeing or Airbus aircraft. Both the Aria Air crash and the July 15 crash of a Caspian Airlines flight that killed all 168 people aboard involved Russian planes. Aviation professionals said they didn't think Russian planes were inherently any worse than the Boeing and Airbus planes used in the West. "If they're flown properly, they're like tanks," Butterworth-Hayes said. "They're incredibly robust airplanes." But others said the post-sales training, support and parts provided for Russian aircraft were far weaker than those for Western planes. "When an airline is operating Russian-type aircraft, the safety level of its operations will definitely suffer because the operations and technical safety will not be as good as an airline with an all-Western fleet," the Iranian airline source said.

Link

Home Front: WoT

Murtha Says He'd Take Guantanamo Prisoners in His District

2009-01-22

Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., says he'd be willing to house prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in his congressional district if President Obama makes good on a plan to close the U.S. prison there. As one of his first acts in office, the president circulated a draft Wednesday that would shut down Guantanamo Bay within a year. Murtha only has a minimum security prison in his district. But he says he'd have no reservations about holding detainees there in a maximum security prison. The kicker is first ya gotta build one. Boy-Howdy can Murtha sniff out Pork! "Sure, I'd take 'em," said Murtha, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war. "They're no more dangerous in my district than in Guantanamo." Keep believing that, Dumbo, and see what happens. Oh, I forgot. These are just mis-guided Freedom Fighters and as Rosie O'Donnel said, "They're just Mothers and Fathers like us." Murtha added that there was "no reason not to put 'em in prisons in the United States and handle them the way they would handle any other prisoners." Jeebus Cripes, what an idiot. With a capital I. But that idea disturbs House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Most communities around America don't want dangerous terrorists imported into their neighborhoods," Boehner said in a statement. They don't want to run the risk of being taken hostage and beheaded so these guy's buddies can get them released. "The key question is where do you put these terrorists?" Boehner asked. How about 6 feet down? Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, is introducing a bill that outlaws the release of a known terrorist into the U.S. Smith, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said it would be appalling to close Guantanamo. "If terrorists suddenly get the same rights as citizens, then we've turned the world upside down," Smith said. "We don't think there should be a limit to their detention as long as they are a clear and present danger." House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., had hoped the president would close Guantanamo Bay. But he said he didn't know how best to handle the prisoners. "They're very unsavory," Skelton said. "I don't know where you put them." However Skelton didn't object to them staying in U.S. prisons so long as they weren't housed together. For his part, Murtha was encouraged by Obama's proposal. "I have said for two years that we should close down Guantanamo. Close it down. It's a sore in the United States' moral standards. What they have done there has hurt us," he said. On Sept. 11, 2001, Murtha represented Shanksville, Pa., where one of the four hijacked planes crashed.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Earmarks endanger troops

2008-12-08

HT: HotAir Scientists have discovered a lotion that can save the lives of U.S. soldiers exposed to chemical weapons -- a product vastly superior to the standard-issue decontamination powder. Naturally, the Defense Department wants to scrap the powder and switch to the more-effective lotion. But there's a problem: After being lobbied by the companies making the powder, several members of Congress pushed through two earmarks worth $7.6 million that forced the military for the past two years to keep buying the inferior product. The product, known as M291, is made from a resin sold exclusively by a Pennsylvania chemical company, which is then processed into powder by a New York company, then assembled into individual kits at a facility in Arkansas. Among the lawmakers who championed the earmarks are Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.; Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. The M291 earmarks reveal how lawmakers can micromanage military purchases to suit the needs of companies, constituents or campaign donors -- instead of the needs of the soldiers. Scientists conducted more tests, comparing the effectiveness of the lotion with the M291 kit. They found the lotion to be as much as seven times more effective at protecting soldiers The Pentagon told Congress in 2005 that it expected to replace the M291 kit with the RSDL. At the same time, Rohm and Haas, the Philadelphia company making the M291 resin, turned to Congress to keep its product alive through an earmark. The company spent $830,000 lobbying Congress and the military on the decontamination kits and other issues in 2005, public records show. Since then, the company has spent another $2.3 million lobbying Congress. The Defense Department bought huge stockpiles of Rohm and Haas' resin in 2005 and 2006, enough to last through 2012, said Douglas Bryce, second in command of the DOD's joint chemical- and biological-defense office. After the large purchases of resin, the military didn't include funding for M291 kits in its budget because the product was being phased out, Bryce said. 10 sponsors [of the newest millions in earmarks] included Sen. Specter of Pennsylvania, who has received $38,000 in campaign donations from Rohm and Haas' employees and its political-action committee since 2004. Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-Pa., offered a different rationale for the favor. The earmark "was never intended to pick a winner" but to support both products, Schwartz said. Schwartz received $8,000 in donations from executives and the political action committee at Rohm and Haas, a leading employer in her district. Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy, whose district has R&H's facility, got $2,000 in this cycle and $1,000 in 2006, while Jack Murtha got a combined $2,000. They gave $5,000 each to the DNC and the DSCC in 2008.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Barney Frank envisions 25% defense cut

2008-10-26

After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday. In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay. The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said. "The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection," he said. "It's extraordinary." The Maliki government in Iraq "can't sell (the withdrawal deal with the U.S.) because it sounds like we're going to stay too long." "I was teasing (U.S. Rep.) Jack Murtha (a key supporter of military budgets) and I said to him, 'For the first time, somebody else has got a bill that's almost as big as yours.' We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review." Rep. Frank called on President Bush to appoint a senior official to guide the economic stimulus packages through the transition to the Barack Obama or John McCain administration when it takes office in January. And he said that if the Democrats can't find an adequate agreement on a stimulus package in the lame-duck Congress, they would rather wait until the new Congress takes over -- likely with many more Democrats, if polling results bear fruit in the November voting. The new package, he said, will be aimed at easing fears about lending and investing. "The psychological problem is even worse than the real problem," he said. "There is money to lend and projects worth borrowing money to do. But people are afraid to lend. That's what we're trying to unfreeze." States have many infrastructure projects -- bridges, highways, etc. -- that have been shut down because of a cash-flow problems, he said. So it is not the case that a stimulus will take months or years to wait for design and approval, since projects are already in progress or ready to go. Also, he said, "we'll increase the federal share of medical care so states won't have to lay off people." Unemployment insurance benefits won't increase, he said, but the period of collecting them will, and eligibility requirements might be relaxed. And, ultimately, there will be tax increases on the upper brackets. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately. Not now, but eventually," he said.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Ousting Jack (Murtha)

2008-07-24

By Michelle Malkin A JAW-dropping political miracle may be on the horizon. No, I'm not talking about the second coming of the Obamessiah. I'm talking about the long-deserved comeuppance of troop-smearing, pork-feasting, scandal-tainted Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania. The 18-term congressman's challenger, staunch conservative Republican newcomer William Russell, raised nearly $670,000 in the second quarter. Earmark king Murtha scraped together a measly $119,000. Russell's underdog campaign bested Murtha without the perks of incumbency, national name recognition, big PAC donations or mainstream media support. Even more amazing: The challenger, a Desert Storm veteran and Army reservist who survived the 9/11 Pentagon attack, wasn't even publicly campaigning during the quarter. Russell, 45, is on active duty with the Army until after Aug. 1 and is barred from actively campaigning until then. Rest at link. Also consider supporting LtCol. Allen West for Congress

Link

Home Front: Politix

Voting in Murtha's District -- Opponent is an Iraqi Vet

2008-04-23

David Freddoso from The Corner at National Review Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) will have an opponent this year after all. A judge had kicked retired Lt. Col. William Russell (R), a veteran of both Iraq Wars, off the ballot earlier this year for lack of valid petition signatures. A legal challenge had winnowed him down to just 993, whereas he needed 1,000 signatures. This gave Murtha a shot at an unopposed victory in the fall, as there were no other Republican challengers. Russell did not give up, though. To qualify for the November ballot, he had to get at least 1,000 write-in votes in the district yesterday to qualify for the ballot. His consultants saw this as doable, but still a challenge in a primary where there was really nothing happening on the Republican side — not even a decent local race to attract voters to the polls. Considering that Republican turnout was already going to be low, and only a small percentage of voters ever think to write in a name, you might think they'd be lucky to get just enough to qualify. Well, think again. I'm told that the count now stands at 4,700 write-in votes for Russell, and the largest county in the 12th District hasn't even reported yet — nor have any absentees been counted.

Link

Home Front: Politix

"Porkbusters" plan protest at prime pork-barreller's party

2008-02-27

Rep. John Murtha is hosting a gala dinner tonight at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Pentagon City for defense industry lobbyists who have received and who hope to receive millions of tax dollars via earmarks sponsored by the Pennsylvania Democrat. Murtha is one of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s closest allies and one of the leading earmarkers in Congress. Tickets for the “Evening with Jack and Joyce Murtha” dinner cost $1,500 per person. Murtha and cohorts like Rep. James Moran, D-Va., and Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind., have refined the earmark-for-a-contribution process to a fine art. . . . But Murtha’s porkfest is not going unnoticed. Three conservative citizen activist groups and a conservative blog that are active in the anti-earmark Porkbusters movement are gathering protesters, posters and pigs and plan to crash the Murtha pork bash. RedState.com is the blog that put out the original call for protests. The responding groups are Americans for Prosperity, Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Taxpayers Union. The protesters are meeting at 5:30 p.m. at the top of the Pentagon City Metrorail station outside the Ritz-Carlton Hotel at 1250 South Hayes St. in Arlington. Organizers say photographs of attendees will be taken and posted on the Internet. . . . If you're in the metro DC area and have the time, go give Traitor Jack Murtha a piece of your mind.

Link

-Short Attention Span Theater-

German experts crack Mona Lisa smile :-|

2008-01-15

German academics believe they have solved the centuries-old mystery behind the identity of the "Mona Lisa" in Leonardo da Vinci's famous portrait. Lisa Gherardini, the wife of a wealthy Florentine merchant, Francesco del Giocondo, has long been seen as the most likely model for the sixteenth-century painting. Dang! I could have sworn it was UBL in hiding. I should have known better because she wasn't wearing a burkha. But art historians have often wondered whether the smiling woman may actually have been da Vinci's lover, his mother or the artist himself. Could have been all three! Now some guys who know how to read experts at the Heidelberg University library say dated notes scribbled in the margins of a book by its owner in October 1503 confirm once and for all that Lisa del Giocondo was indeed the model for one of the most famous portraits in the world. I wonder if that's why it's sometimes referred to as "La Giaconda"?... Nah. That couldn't be it. "All doubts about the identity of the Mona Lisa have been eliminated by a discovery by Dr. Armin Schlechter," a manuscript expert, the library said in a statement on Monday. Woohoo! No more sleepless nights! Until then, only "scant evidence" from sixteenth-century documents had been available. "This left lots of room for interpretation and there were many different identities put forward," the library said. I still think it was the Duke of Oxford. Careers were built on this! Well, the Donks still need some spin-meisters. The notes were made by a Florentine city official Agostino Vespucci, an acquaintance of the artist, in a collection of letters by the Roman orator Cicero. The comments compare Leonardo to the ancient Greek artist Apelles and say he was working on three paintings at the time, one of them a portrait of Lisa del Giocondo. No wonder Michelangelo was so prolific - he had three arms! Art experts, who have already dated the painting to this time, say the Heidelberg discovery is a breakthrough and the earliest mention linking the merchant's wife to the portrait. "There is no reason for any lingering doubts that this is another woman," Leipzig University art historian Frank Zoellner told German radio. "One could even say that books written about all this in the past few years were unnecessary, had we known." Don't worry, you're not the only ones to have made that mistake. The woman was first linked to the painting in around 1550 by Italian official Giorgio Vasari, the library said, but added there had been doubts about Vasari's reliability and had made the comments five decades after the portrait had been painted. Jack Murtha said it was her too, but his word is even less reliable. Besides, his Altzheimer's was already affecting him pretty badly by the time it was being painted. The Heidelberg notes were actually discovered over two years ago in the library by Schlechter, a spokeswoman said. Although the findings had been printed in the library's public catalogue they had not been widely publicized and had received little attention until a German broadcaster decided to do some recording at the library, she said. The painting, which hangs in the Louvre in Paris, is also known as "La Gioconda" meaning the happy or joyful woman in Italian, a title which also suggests the woman's married name. Five extra-credit points go to whoever can tell me why it's called "The Mona Lisa".

Link

Home Front: WoT

Federal judge orders Murtha to testify in Haditha defamation case

2007-09-30

from the Politico site A federal judge has ordered Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) to testify in a defamation case related to the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha in 2005, according to the Associated Press. Murtha, a former Marine. accused Marines of "cold-blooded murder and war crimes'' during the Haditha incident. Frank Wuterich, a Marine sergeant involved in the incident, has sued Murtha for libel and invasion of privacy over his comments. According to AP, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer wants Murtha to explain why he made this statement and any documents he has related to the incident. From the AP: 'You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?'' Collyer said, adding later, ''How far can a congressman go and still be protected?" Frankly, I don't understand this ruling at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is appealed by the Justice Dept. and/or House general counsel's office on behalf of Murtha. Murtha, who can say some inappropriate things once in a while, was clearly acting in his capacity as a lawmaker when he made the comments and is thus protected by the Speech or Debate Clause from any type of prosecution for official acts. Therefore, this case should have been dismissed, and I hope it will be. It's not that I agree with what Murtha said. I don't know enough about the incident to have an opinion whether Wuterich or the other Marines did anything improper or illegal. But Murtha has a right to say what he did under the Speech or Debate Clause, even if he was wrong about what happened. When we start restricting what members and senators can say in the performance of their jobs, then we are really in trouble as a country. Update: There is a lot of confusion on the Speech or Debate Clause among Crypt readers, lawmakers, lawyers, public officials and the world at large, so I will try to explain it a little bit. The Speech or Debate Clause does not protect members, senators or staff from arrest for a crime, and I am not suggesting that it does. If a member of Congress were to rob a bank or steal a car, he or she can be arrested and prosecuted for that crime. They have no constitutional privilege shielding them from the law on that front. In addition, a lawmaker could libel someone if he or she were acting as a private citizen. That is entirely possible. Say I am a car dealer who sells Congressman X a new car, but he is unhappy about his purchase. Congressman X holds a press conference to announce to the world that I am "a damned crook who steals from everyone I sell cars to or have any other dealings with," including my own mother. It is obvious that I can sue Congressman X for libel based on the fact that our interaction had nothing to do with his official duties as a member of Congress, but rather as Private Citizen X. He has no constitutional privilege there. But what Murtha did was comment on an incident involving Wuterich and other Marines at a press conference and in a follow-up TV interview. These interviews were related to his opposition to the Iraq war. The courts have found that such press-related activities are a normal part of the duties of a member of Congress, and are therefore covered by the Speech or Debate Clause. Murtha did not have to be on the floor of the House making a speech in order to enjoy the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause. My apologies to the commenters who believe otherwise, but you are incorrect on that front. Read up on the case of former Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-N.C.) and his comments about a mosque near his home, and you'll see what I'm saying. Update 2 - To those who commented that the Ballenger was dismissed on grounds other than Speech or Debate, you are right. I cited the Ballenger case as an example of how courts have ruled that a member giving a press conference or answering questions in a TV interview is considered within the scope of official duties of a lawmaker, not as an example of the Speech or Debate Clause. I should have made that clearer in my earlier comments. In addition, Murtha said what he said about Haditha using information he received from Defense Dept. officials as the then ranking member of the Defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. This information was gleaned from his contacts inside the Pentagon, contacts he has made as a member of Congress for the last 35 years (Murtha was elected to the House in 1972). Therefore. his comments are covered by the Speech or Debate Clause, and he cannot be charged with defaming Wuterich or anyone else. I am not saying Murtha is correct in what he said about Wuterich and his fellow Marines. I do not know whether his statement was accurate or not, and it would probably have been better if he'd never made ir. But Murtha clearly had the right to say it, and hopefully this decision will be overturned on appeal. One final note &0151; Wuterich may end up standing trial soon over his role in the death of 17 Iraqi civilians in the Nov. 19, 2005, incident in Haditha. If he were to go on trial and be found guilty of some crime in that case, then this lawsuit against Murtha would go away as well. Truth is the ultimate defense against libel, as any first year law or journalism student knows. I am not saying it will happen, and Wuterich is innocent of any wrongdoing as far as I know. But if it does happen, his legal action against Murtha would disappear. And my guess is that Wuterich's fate will likely be decided before this lawsuit is resolved. So, to restate what I said before, this is a very bad ruling by a judge who is clearly unfamiliar with how the Speech or Debate Clause works. I hope the decision is appealed by the Justice Dept. (which has represented Murtha in this lawsuit) or the House general counsel's office and overturned. It is a legally unsound precedent and should be reversed as soon as possible.

Link

Fifth Column

Murtha cornered over Haditha charges

2007-09-19

A young activist confronted Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., near a Capitol Hill elevator yesterday, pressing the anti-war congressman on whether he would apologize for accusing U.S. Marines of murdering innocent civilians in a November 2005 incident at Haditha, Iraq. With the case continuing to unravel, Jason Mattera of the Young America's Foundation was captured on tape questioning Murtha, reports HotAir.com. Now that charges have been dropped against two of the four Marines accused of murder, Mattera asked, "would you like to issue an apology for saying they killed innocent civilians in cold blood?" "Is the trial still going on?" Murtha asked repeatedly as he made his way to the elevator. After entering, the lawmaker made sure Mattera stayed out of the elevator. "Do you like besmirching our troops, sir?" Mattera asked. "Have you been in the service?" Murtha retorted. "I enlisted in Korea, and I enlisted in Vietnam " As the doors closed, Mattera is heard saying, "You accused them of murdering innocent civilians in cold blood. That's something that would come from Al Jazeera, not a congressman, sir." In May 2006, Murtha claimed, citing military sources, a Pentagon investigation showed U.S. Marines at Haditha "overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Since then, the Marine Corps has dropped charges against two of the four men accused of murder in the case, and an investigating officer has recommended dropping charges against a third. Yesterday came news that charges have been dropped against Capt. Lucas McConnell, one of four charged with failing to properly investigate or report the circumstances surrounding the killings. Another of the accused Marines, Col. Jeffrey Chessani, says he will sue Murtha once he's completely cleared. Murtha also was confronted at a National Press Club news conference Monday by Jeff Gannon, a regular of the White House press corps who left amid scandal two years ago, noted the Gateway Pundit blog. GANNON: In May 2006, you said that Marines killed innocent Iraqis citizens in cold blood at Haditha. A year later, some of them have been exonerated. At some point are you going to apologize to these men? MURTHA: The trial's not over yet. GANNON: You've spoken out before. You went on national television and called these men "cold blooded killers." MURTHA: The trial's not over yet. The Hill newspaper said when Murtha answered, he was "reddening slightly in the face." Here's hoping that the SOB gets sued from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli. So he can't apologize now since "the trial's not over yet", but he had no problem calling them guilty even before any hearings started.

Link

Iraq

Why both mullahs and Murtha hate Maliki

2007-04-16

By Amir Taheri A few months ago, Washington circles saw Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as "Tehran's man" in Baghdad. Today, Tehran circles label him "Washington's man" in Baghdad. Maliki's government has the unenviable task of keeping the Americans in, when they don't want to stay - and the Iranians out, when they want to come in. Some Americans blame Maliki for doing nothing to hasten the departure of U.S. troops, for not decreeing a blanket pardon of Baathists (regardless of what they did during four decades of despotic domination), and for rejecting federal schemes that could lead to the disintegration of the Iraqi state. They also criticize Maliki because he refuses to share out Iraq's oil income as if it were loot among thieves. These American critics want Maliki to throw Iraq to the wolves so that Jack Murtha and Michael Moore can prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was wrong. Maliki's Khomeinist critics in Tehran have their own beef. The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) recently called Maliki "too pro-Arab." In plain language, that means he emphasizes the Arab identity of the majority of Iraqi peoples - rather than their sectarian affiliation, as Tehran would prefer. Last month, Ali Khamenei, the top mullah in the Khomeinist system, attacked Maliki in a roundabout way. He recalled that many leaders of the new Iraq spent years in Iran as exiles, and he implied that it was payback time. Last week, the mullahs showed their anger by refusing to let Maliki's plane pass through Iranian airspace on its way to the Far East. Maliki has offered no favors to the mullahs. He visited half a dozen capitals in the early stages of his premiership - but pointedly avoided Tehran. He also turned down Tehran's offer of hosting a regional conference on Iraq, preferring to hold the exercise in Baghdad and then, later this year, in Cairo. Maliki has also given the green light to a crackdown on Shiite militias and death squads, serving notice that the war of the sectarians must end. Within the next few weeks, he is expected to further anger Tehran by dropping from his Cabinet all five Sadrist ministers, who are beholden to the Iranian regime. Tehran indicated its displeasure by activating its networks in Iraq to organize last week's demonstrations in Najaf. Despite months of pressure from Tehran, Maliki has also refused to scrap the maritime-inspection mission of the Coalition forces under a mandate from the United Nations Security Council. (The 15 British sailors captured by Tehran last month were operating on that mission.) Tehran wants the mission terminated for two reasons: * First, it wants to impose total control on the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway between Iran and Iraq, thus violating the 1975 Algiers agreement that established the thalweg (the deepest channel in the river) as the frontier. This would quickly translate to Iranian control of access to Iraq's 75-kilometer-long Persian Gulf coastline - turning the Iraqi ports of Basra, Um-Qasar, Al-Bakr and Fao into strategic hostages. * Second, the Islamic Republic fears that the United Nations might, at some point, use the inspection mechanism against the Islamic Republic in the showdown over the nuclear issue. (Recent Security Council resolutions would allow the monitoring of Iranian naval traffic in the Gulf to continue from Iraqi bases even after the U.S.-led Coalition has left.) The Maliki government has also made moves to reassert Iraqi sovereignty over chunks of the border with Iran that had become no-man's land or seized by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRCG). Shortly after Saddam Hussein's fall, the IRCG captured the Zaynalkosh salient, some 700 square miles, and built a number of fortifications there. The Maliki government has refused to accept this open theft of Iraqi territory. Tehran is also sore that the Maliki government has re-imposed visas for Iranians, making it more difficult to smuggle Khomeinist agents among thousands of pilgrims who travel to Iraq each day. Worse still, the Maliki government has arrested, or acquiesced in the arrest of, almost a dozen senior IRGC officers, including two generals still held by the Americans in Baghdad. The most important cause of Tehran's anger, however, is Maliki's strategic vision of Iraq's relations with the Western democracies. The mullahs want Iraq to become a theater of historic humiliation for the West, especially the United States. They hope to see the Americans running away, not withdrawing in the context of an agreement with a friendly Iraqi government. They want the credit for chasing away the Americans to go to Tehran and its Iraqi allies, notably Muqtada al-Sadr. Maliki, however, wants the U.S.-led coalition out of Iraq only when the new Iraq is capable of defending itself against its enemies, including the Khomeinist regime in Tehran. Beyond that, he wants to maintain a strategic partnership with the Western democracies in the interest of Iraq's economic development. Both the mullahs and the Jack Murtha Democrats hate Maliki because he is working to prevent their respective dreams from coming true. The mullahs dream of that "last U.S. helicopter" taking off from a Baghdad rooftop, spelling the end of American hopes of bringing decent government to Iraq. The Murtha Democrats may not want a humiliating American defeat in Iraq but would like something that looks like one. Only perceived defeat in Iraq would give their party something with which to unite its base and make a bid for the White House next year. It may be a coincidence. However, each time Democrats throw a poisonous arrow at Maliki, they are followed by mullahs doing the same the next day. Maybe Maliki is doing something right?

Link

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More