Maryland Conservatarian

Come Thursday: “This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

E. J. Dionne advises:

“The Democrats who take power in Congress on Thursday have been given an opportunity that has not come their party's way for a half-century: They can remake their own image -- and Congress's -- and they can begin to restore public confidence in government.” The New Crowd's First Test

Meanwhile:

“In a report issued just before Democrats take control of Congress on Thursday, the bipartisan committee said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan has acknowledged "'a lack of clarity"' in communications with aides about their duties.

“The panel's three-year inquiry came amid newspaper reports that Conyers assigned congressional staffers to work in Michigan political campaigns.” Rep. Conyers promises better ethics standards – 1/2/2007 - washingtonpost.com

“When the Democrats take control of Congress on Jan. 4, ethics and budget restructuring will be the first orders of business. Among the provisions in the Democrats' ethics package are demands for more transparency in the doling out of federal funds to home-district projects and a required pledge that no earmarks benefit a member of Congress personally. That could put an uncomfortable spotlight on lawmakers such as Murtha.” Nonprofit Connects Murtha, Lobbyists - washingtonpost.com

“Nor is Murtha a newcomer to the culture of corruption. The Times recalls that after the 1980 Abscam scandal, the FBI named him an "unindicted co-conspirator." Jack Murtha and the Culture of Corruption

“The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) today disclosed that it filed a 500-page Complaint on February 28 with the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia detailing hundreds of ethics law violations by Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV).”Rep. Mollohan is the ranking member of the House ethics committee and a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee. The Wall Street Journal this morning carried a front-page story about the case.” NLPC Complaint Alleges Ranking House Ethics Committee Member Hid Assets and Funded Business Partner’s Groups with Millions in Earmarks

Ed. Note: Congressman Mollohan stepped down from the House ethics committee but:

“WASHINGTON — Rep. Alan Mollohan, a Democrat of West Virginia, whose finances are being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is in line to take over the House panel that sets the bureau's budget.” Mollohan, Despite FBI Probe of His Finances, Is Set To Take Over House Budget Panel - December 6, 2006 - The New York Sun

“Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said she believes it is only a matter of months before Jefferson himself is indicted for bribery. …

"So far, the House ethics committee has failed to take any action against Rep. Jefferson despite the fact that he has been caught on videotape soliciting a bribe and was found with $90,000 in his home freezer." Louisiana Voters Send William Jefferson Back to Washington -- 12/11/2006

Also this tidbit from Soccer Dad: Dingell-ling.

Still...just imagine if Alcee Hastings was going to head Intelligence.

“Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt, 22, is charged with three counts of unpremeditated murder, apparently for the deaths of three men he allegedly shot in a third house the Marines entered later on Nov. 19.” 4 Marines Charged In Haditha Killings

That was then, this is now:

“An investigating officer in the case against [Lance Cpl. Sharratt] accused of killing civilians in Haditha, Iraq, has recommended that all charges against him be dropped, concluding that the government's allegations that the Marine executed a group of men in a residential home are "unsupported and incredible." Officer Recommends Haditha Charges Dropped Against Marine

Remember this is the incident about which John Murtha explicitly said “[o]ur troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." (Lawmaker: Marines deliberately killed Iraqis) He based this claim, he says, on a military briefing but there is a more-than-a-reasonable suspicion that perhaps John Murtha lied about the timeline behind that briefing (in other words, he shot his mouth off BEFORE he had any real knowledge of the incident). Here’s the link to any press releases he may issue in light of this latest information…and not seeing any doesn’t mean the link is broken.

I’ll enjoy comparing and contrasting coverage of this ongoing collapsing case as yet again we learn that, by and large, our military is stocked with a professional and honorable people. Accordingly, I have no problem standing by my earlier comments on this matter.

Political Radar: Pelosi Wavering on Armenian Resolution

“…According to Congressional and Bush administration sources, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now unlikely to bring a resolution which would label the deaths of Armenians in a conflict more than 90 years ago as "genocide"

“Key Pelosi ally Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., is also lobbying against a vote.”

Congressman Murtha explains:

“Hey, it’s not like the Turks are US Marines or anything.”

Elizabeth Williamson of The Washington Post reports today that Democratic Leaders Find House Ethics Bill a Tough Sell:

“With a vote on the bill slated for tomorrow, leading Democrats were fighting yesterday to keep its meatiest remaining piece, a provision unmasking the lobbyists behind bundles of contributions delivered to lawmakers.”

Of course, this being the Washington Post, you just knew that conservatives had to be involved:

“But even that faced significant opposition from conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats and members of the Congressional Black Caucus”

The article cites the following Democrats (listed in order of appearance) in fleshing out the story:

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)
Rep. Sanford D. Bishop Jr. (D-Ga.)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.),
Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.),
Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.)
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.)
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md)
Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.)

Of the eight, exactly one of them is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, (coincidentally he is also the only member cited of the other “significant opposition” source: The Congressional Black Caucus): Rep. Sanford Bishop. Here’s how Ms. Williamson described his role:

“…a Black Caucus member tasked with rounding up votes for the bill.”

Elsewhere, reads like Rep. Meehan is also working in support of the bill. Of course Speaker Pelosi and Reps. Van Hollen and Emanuel are part of the leadership and you would think so is Steny Hoyer but… “Yesterday, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer called the bundling provision "difficult to get to."

The Left’s latest darling and Speaker Pelosi’s personal choice for House Majority Leader, John Murtha, had some encouraging words of support, describing the proposed ethics bill as "total crap”. Further, reliable liberal and Speaker Pelosi’s choice to head up her Speaker transition team, Rep. Capuano, identified this important concern:

“… a "revolving door" provision extending the waiting period before former members can lobby Congress placed unfair limits on his future job options.”

But remember, it’s those damn Blacks and Conservatives that are mucking up the Democrats' chance for ethics’ reform in the House.

As expected, Lance Cpl. Sharratt will not be facing a court martial. Marine's Charges Dropped in Iraq Deaths.

As of now, John Murtha had no comment.

Today the Washington Post editorially asks: Who asked [Congressman Moran] to be Jack Murtha's muscle? Rep. Moran's Mouth

Not sure of the answer but we do know who asked Northern Virginia to once again put Congressman Moran to be in a position where he can do things like…be Jack Murtha’s muscle.

Here’s the tease on the home page of washingtonpost.com:

Report: Saudis Warn They May Back Iraqi Sunnis

…which sounds as if it could be a major problem to our efforts there. So we follow the link and the actual article is headed:

Report: Saudis Warn Against US Pullout

Okay now, despite the constant harping about how everyone over there hates our presence, we read an intimation that maybe the Saudis don't want to fight us but instead want us to succeed. Perhaps all this talk about an early exit has a few people nervous. So we read the AP report:

“Saudi Arabia has warned Washington it might provide financial aid to Iraqi Sunnis in any fighting against Shiites if the U.S. pulls its troops out of Iraq, The New York Times reported Wednesday.”

The New York Times? You’re scaring all of us based on a NY Times report?

Here’s the response from the White House:

“That's not Saudi government policy," press secretary Tony Snow said in Washington.”

And sure enough, nothing from the Saudis would back up the Times on this.

The Saudis are predominantly Sunni, Iran is predominantly Shiite and of course Iraq has the two groups battling it out. Were the Saudis to officially support Sunni terrorists in Iraq, they would be supporting the very people they were afraid of when they welcomed us in 1990-91. So I'm a bit wary...and not just because it comes from the NY Times.

Were the Saudis to do so, I’m sure they could rationalize such support as an intended defensive measure against a growing Iranian powerbase. The Saudis do nothing gratuitously and nothing if they don't have to. And remember, such support for these terrorist only begins with a U.S. pullout and, Speaker Pelosi and friends notwithstanding, that ain’t happening soon.

Meaningless symbolic gestures probably appealed to me when I was 15 but the attraction has long since worn off. So gestures like Rep. Rangel’s measure to re-introduce the draft in 2004 that he didn’t vote for:

“"We have seen something I haven't seen in 28 years in the House Representatives — someone bringing a bill to the House they don't support," Skelton said. USATODAY.com - House overwhelmingly stomps out bill that would've reinstated draft

Or John Murtha’s call for an Iraqi withdrawal that he didn’t vote for in 2005: House Rejects Iraq Pullout After GOP Forces a Vote

Or John Kerry’s 2006 doomed-from-the-start withdrawal call: Senate Rejects Democratic Plans to Withdraw U.S. Troops From Iraq

…well, I generally look with disdain on such posturing. Tuesday’s Op-Ed by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, formerly of the Reagan and Bush I Justice Departments, does a good job of throwing down the gauntlet to our new Congress regarding Iraq:

“If Congress believes the war is lost, or not worth winning, it must take responsibility for the consequences of forcing a U.S. withdrawal. Otherwise, it must leave the president to direct the war and to bear responsibility for the decisions he has made and will make.” What Congres Can (And Can't) Do on Iraq

It’s on the front page: 4 Marines Charged In Haditha Killings

“Four U.S. Marines were charged with multiple counts of murder yesterday for their alleged roles in the deaths of two dozen civilians in the Iraqi town of Haditha last year. The accusations set up what could be the highest-profile atrocity prosecution to arise from the Iraq war.”


I’ve followed this case with some interest because I was afraid the Marines would wimp out and succumb to the political pressure to indict somebody here. That’s because the Marines, like all the services, are run by Generals (or Admirals). The difference between a General and a Colonel is usually politics: It’s not bravery, it’s not battlefield prowess and it’s not leadership. The Marines, like all our armed forces, have those in spades. No, it usually comes down to politics – who had the better assignments; who has the better sponsors. This doesn’t mean those who make General are unworthy – it just means they are usually better connected. And people who succeed in politics usually don’t give up on it.

While on active duty I spent a lot of time working with Marines. They’re smart, professional and committed. They are also ethical. Lacking overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I believe the Marines who were there and their version of events. I believe they feel horrible about what transpired…but not guilty. From what has been made public, the prosecution does not have the evidence to convict but instead must pin its hopes on someone rolling. That’s an acceptable prosecutorial tool but just further adds to the disdain and lack of respect many within the Services feel for the JAG Corps.

These Marines were in a combat situation experiencing stress at a level most of us – thank God – will never experience. In such situations, errors can occur. But absent that conclusive evidence, we should at least offer these Marines the benefit of the doubt that they acted appropriately. I would have no qualms defending any one of these Marines against these speculative charges.

I think this is Marine politicians throwing raw meat to the critics; hoping to quiet them for awhile. But what it says is that a bunch of law school grads would rather believe a doddering John Murtha than the grunt on the ground. That’s a mistake and a more morale-killing one I can’t think of.

Full disclosure: I am a veteran – Navy (but never a JAG).

File this under “amusing’:

Lawmakers Describe 'Being Slimed in the Green Zone'

“In the soldier's hand was a thumbnail biography, distributed before each of the congressmen's meetings in Baghdad, which let meeting participants such as that soldier know where each of the lawmakers stands on the war.”

One way they do that is by quoting the congressmen. To wit, James Moran (D-VA):

"This has been the worst foreign policy fiasco in American history."

Now I can understand a certain awkwardness when you have your criticisms relayed to those who may not know that that’s how Democrats have to talk if they don’t want to get ‘slimed’ by the crowds at Daily Kos and Moveon.org. But I sense that Post writer Jonathan Weisman somehow thinks this a bit unfair:

“For one, the quotations appeared to be selected to divide the visitors into those who are with the war effort and those who are against. For another, they were not exactly accurate.”

He then points out that the most recent Iraq vote by Rep. Tauscher was on a bill that would allow troops time away from combat at least as long as the previous combat tour. That vote came on August 2nd. The bio instead pointed to a May vote for withdrawal within 120 days.

Okay…but that doesn’t obviate the May vote nor does it in any way show that the quotations used were “not exactly accurate”. And guessing on why the quotations were selected is analysis, not reporting. I'd guess instead that they were used because they were on point about Iraq and more informative than some fluff verbage about how the congressman supports the troops.

Side Note: Interesting that a Congresswoman would describe the use of apparently accurate quotations as “being slimed in the Green Zone”...wonder how she would describe the reporting of the Washington Post.

…and who wouldn’t want to read John Murtha’s bio.

Iraq is once again at center stage in Washington as Congress votes on funding and end-game resolutions Parties Face Off Over Iraq War in 11-Hour Debate

“As the Pentagon announced the 2,500th death of a U.S. service member in the conflict, the House embarked on its first extended discussion of the war since Congress authorized force nearly four years ago.”

It’s always strange to argue about death counts because it can come off as some deaths are less serious than others but here is a link to what the Pentagon actually released: Casualty Report - 6-15-06

Note that over 20% of the deaths reported (528) are categorized as non-hostile. Meaning they died in Iraq but not because someone took them out. While we honor and regret the loss of all who paid the ultimate price in Iraq, I think objectively the fact that less than 2,000 have been killed by hostile fire despite that being the main goal of so many for so long is a testament to our military’s professionalism and is a context in which to review this number.

Moving on: after getting John Murtha to vote last November against a resolution that echoed his own call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq (House Rejects Iraq Pullout After GOP Forces a Vote), you’d think most Democrats would be sensitive to avoiding such situations.

…and you’d be wrong. Thank God for John Kerry! He’s seems to always be there whenever the GOP most needs him.

“In the Senate, Republicans tried to put Democrats on the record as supporting or opposing an amendment -- drafted by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) but submitted for a vote by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) -- to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.”

The final vote was 93-6 against the amendment yet the Post somehow paints this as the Democrats “largely thwart[ing]” the Republican effort.

“In the Senate, Republicans were also spoiling for a chance to depict Democrats as soft on the war, but Democrats largely thwarted the effort. GOP senators wanted a vote on language recently drafted by Kerry calling for nearly all U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by the year's end. But Kerry, his party's 2004 presidential nominee, surprised the Republicans by declining to offer the language as an amendment to a defense authorization bill, after colleagues had urged him to consider possible revisions.”

“Largely thwarted the effort”? The GOP wanted a vote on the amendment and got a vote on the amendment…..and all but 6 Democrats are now on record as opposing a set timetable for withdrawal.

Coming on top of the Democrats big showing last week in the California 50th district (Dems garner huge upset although GOP retains House seat), I’m not sure what more Republicans can do to “thwart” the Democrats' obvious momentum.

The president just made some comments on this happy occasion…not sure if the Democrats will demand response time. Just waiting for Congressmen Murtha and McDermott to denounce the troops involved. Al-Zarqawi Killed in Iraq