Santorum's Back!

What is it about Republican blowhards being weeks behind the news and/or not getting the simple facts straight?

Recently there was Ruth Ann Dailey's absurdly stubborn refusal to see the reality staring at her in the face - the Speaker Pelosi jet "scandal". Then there's Jack Kelly most every sunday.

Now EX-Senator Man on Dog enters the arena of spin and half truths. Here's the first paragraph:

It is disappointing that Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, is portraying his efforts to cut funding for troops deploying to Iraq as an attempt to fix problems with our military when he previously told the liberal organization MoveOn.org that his real motivation was to ensure that the military "won't be able to continue" with its new Iraq strategy to secure Baghdad.

First off, Murtha wasn't talking with Moveon.org with that now famous interview, but with the one-time similarly named though unconnected Movecongress.org. The interview can be found on this page. The name of the blog may has been changed to "Stand Up Congress" but the URL (if you'll notice) still says "Movecongress.org."

And how do I know that moveon.org and movecongress.org are NOT the same organizations?

Says so here in an article from 2 1/2 weeks ago in the Washington Post. They ran a correction that reads:

A Feb. 25 article incorrectly said that the antiwar Web site MoveCongress.org is affiliated with the liberal activist group MoveOn.org.

Seems that the writers of that article in the Washington Post made the same mistake that our former junior Senator made - only they made it two weeks earlier. And how do I know this? Ariana Huffington pointed out the error so in her criticism of that Washington Post Article the very next day (February 26):

MoveCongress is not, in fact, "affiliated" with MoveOn. Indeed, if the Post reporters had bothered to check out the MoveCongress site, they'd have found a note announcing a name change contest designed to help the fact-check-challenged media avoid any further confusion.

Now that Lil Ricky's working for a big think-tank, doesn't he have anyone to fact-check over there? Doesn't anyone read the Washington Post?

Now from Ricky's column, he writes:

Instead of pursuing victory in Iraq, Rep. Murtha supports a premature U.S. withdrawal that would endanger America.

Uh, Rick? So do a majority of Americans. From CNN:

Nearly six in 10 of those polled want to see U.S. troops leave Iraq either immediately or within a year.

It also turns out that at the time of that Washington Post article, a majority of Americans actually favored Murtha's plan for "creating new rules on troop training and rest time that would limit the number of troops available for duty in Iraq" 58 to 39 percent.

Such meaty deconstruction in just the first few paragraphs! Do I need to continue?

Rick, your problem isn't with Congressman Murtha - whatever the strenghts or weaknesses of his plan. Your problem is with the American People.

But then again, it always has been.

Preemptive Red Meat for Fred Honsberger

Fred Honsberger mentioned me and this blog on the air yesterday (thanks, Fred!).

Here's the story.

He'd been arguing with callers over the "stop light cameras" program described by Councilman Bill Peduto proposed legislation. Strangely enough, even though Peduto's a Democrat and Fred's (obviously) a Republican, Fred likes the idea.

Yea, yea. I know - shocking to me, too.

Anyway, I e-mailed in a thought as to why so many people are giving my friend Fred such a hard time with this. Here's what I wrote: Americans don't like being told what to do. It's against our national character.

Fred read the e-mail over the air, mentioned this blog a few times (Hey, Fred! How's about showing us some real love and posting the URL here?) and then went on to say that he'd been thinking of tossing me some "red meat" over the Democrats backing out of a debate hosted by Fox.

I thought I'd get the facts out BEFORE Fred starts spinning. Here's the AP:

The Nevada Democratic Party on Friday canceled an August presidential debate in Reno that was to be co-hosted by Fox News, citing comments Thursday by the network's chairman. Liberal activists and bloggers had been protesting the debate plans, calling the channel biased.

Roger Ailes, Fox News' chief executive, was at a broadcasters' event to receive a 1st Amendment award when he joked in a speech, according to a Fox transcript: "It is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' " Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) is running for president; Pervez Musharraf is Pakistan's president.

His comments "in reference to one of our presidential candidates went too far," wrote Nevada Democratic Party Chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in a letter sent Friday to Fox News. "We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments."

Of course, the spin from the right is about anything other than Ailes' stupid joke and the quality of news reporting from Fox.

MoveOn.org Civic Action, a network of liberal activists, had called on the state Democratic Party to drop partnership with Fox, which the group calls "a mouthpiece for the Republican Party."

Fox News Vice President David Rhodes said the party's decision Friday showed that the online group owned the Democratic Party in Nevada.

Which is, of course, why the group that "owns" the Democratic Party in Nevada had to wait until the President of the Fox "News" network had to put his foot in his mouth before being able to cancel the debate. If they "owned" the Party in Nevada, why was the debate scheduled to begin with?

The real reason, and this is obvious, that the Fox "News" Channel is part of the Republican Party/Conservative Movement/White House echo chamber. It's a place where few Democrats (besides the currently Independent Joe Lieberman, of course) can even hope to get a fair shake.

Why would any candidate want to particiapte in such an obviously slanted venue? This is the same "fair and balanced" network that inviariably tilts the coverage away from the Democratic party.

Take a look. The OPJ has already blogged on this first screen shot.

Not much of a mystery to me.

Some background

To this story.

Pittsburgh's police internal affairs office is investigating an incident in which a commander showed up at an accident scene involving a friend and drove her home.

Chief Nate Harper said the Office of Municipal Investigations is looking into the conduct of Cmdr. RaShall Brackney, commander of the East Liberty station, who arrived at the scene of a crash in the 3600 block of Liberty Avenue early Sunday after a friend of hers crashed into three parked cars.

Notice the name? Rashall Brackney. The same Rashall Brackney that our old friend Dennis Regan went ballistic over.

Documents in the case also shed light on another incident we first brought to light: Regan's interceding on behalf of a Southside tire business cited for violations by another police commander, Rashall Brackney.

Regan went to see Brackney at the Southside zone station and found that she wasn't there but according to the sworn statements from the officers who were there Regan told them to give Brackney a message: "(expletive) rolls down hill, and she will be in the (expletive)."

I'm pretty sure the "expletive" in those sentences is the word "shit" but I could be wrong.

I'm not saying that the two incidents are connected. Without any evidence it would be wrong to assume such a connection - post hoc ergo propter hoc. Someone, though, should maybe think about asking the question as to whether they are.

I'm just saying.

If anything it only underscores what the formerly long-haired one said a while back:

Do you ever feel like Pittsburgh is a little too much like a small town? I mean, you go to a bar, say, and meet someone who's just your type ... until you find out they work with your ex.

Yep, that's Pittsburgh.

What's wrong with this picture?

See anything familiar looking?

You're supposed to.

That picture of Interim Mayor Luke Ravenstahl with his hands on his hips on his campaign website is the exact same picture that's on city billboards,


and on the "newsletter" containing the City's "2007 Schedule Refuse/Bulk and Recycling Pickup" calendar that's likely hanging in your kitchen, and is on God knows what other offical City literature.

The blogs talked about the inappropriateness of Luke plastering his face on everything during an election and even the MSM picked up on it. There were some, of course, who tried to excuse it with "everybody does it." But do they? Does everyone mix public official City business and private campaign business this much?

Can you really use the exact same image on official City billboards and also on your campaign website and then say that the billboards and official City-produced literature are not part of the campaign?

I know that the space on the billboards was donated, but who paid to have that photograph taken? It's not a Polaroid that his wife snapped.

Doesn't that photograph belong to the City -- and by the City -- I mean, me and you, the taxpayers? Maybe you or I don't choose to make such a donation to the Ravenstahl Campaign.

Did the Ravenstahl Campaign pay the City, or even get permission, to use that picture?

So very many questions . . .

Well, let me provide you with one answer. If this gets any traction and a certain Interim Mayor is called to account for it by the MSM, blaming it on the webmaster/web designer is not a legitimate answer. Someone in the Ravenstahl Campaign approved the website before it went online and you can be damn sure they knew exactly what they were doing when they did it.

Take the picture down off your site, Luke, or take down the damn billboards!

Zell Miller's Got A Handle on The Problem

From Raw Story:

"How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years?" Miller asked. "Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We’re too few because too many of our babies have been killed."

Miller claimed that 45 million babies have been "killed" since the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade in 1973.

"If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security," he asserted.

The man isn't kidding. Here's the clip.

A Republican utters "Impeachment"

It's Hagel.

In an interview appearing in April editions of Esquire magazine -- set to hit stands next week -- Hagel suggests that President Bush could be subject to calls for impeachment as the Iraq war drags on.

"The president says, 'I don't care.' He's not accountable anymore," Hagel said in the article. "Before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes."

Hagel has long been an outspoken critic of the administration's foreign policy and its handling of Iraq, but for a conservative Republican from a firmly rooted red state to mention the "I" word in the same breath with a sitting party president is still shocking.

I still don't know if it will happen, but it's still shocking to see a member of the GOP even say that there might be calls for impeachment.

Giuliani on Abortion - 1989

Text:

There must be public funding for abortion for poor women. We can not deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion because she lacks resources. I have also stated that I disagree with President Bush's veto last week of public funding for abortion.

Rudy Giuliani on 11/3/1989.

CBS, Luke, and Bill

"We'll like drive through the city, through the tunnel, and I'll be like, 'You're in charge of all that?' It's crazy."

- Erin Ravenstahl, wife of Pittsburgh's 27-year-old mayor

In this instance, I have to agree with Erin.

As we noted on Friday, the "CBS Sunday Morning" news magazine show had a story today on "Pittsburgh's Great Young Hope" (obviously their title, not mine). The above quote was taken from it and is featured in their online article based on the broadcast.

As MacYapper promised, the show featured John McIntire, Pittsburgh Tribune Review columnist Joseph Mistick, and mayoral challenger Bill Peduto, in addition to Luke Ravenstahl and his wife.

While there were lots of nice shots of Ravenstahl walking through the city and shaking hands, try to find anything in the transcript about anything that Luke has actually done well so far.

It does have this to say, however about his opponent:

He faces a tough primary challenge this May, from the guy who used to be known as Pittsburgh's fresh young face, Bill Peduto, a councilman who's butted heads with colleagues over Pittsburgh's financial troubles.

"Two years ago, I ran for Mayor," Peduto said. "I was considered the fresh young face of city government, and they said I was too young to be elected as Mayor. In two years, I've become the city's elder statesman and now I'm too old."

Peduto says, despite the age difference, he's the true progressive candidate and has been endorsed by environmentalists and high-tech leaders. The race could be close, said Mistick.

"They're both smart. In terms of experience and technical knowledge, Bill Peduto is clearly head and shoulders above Luke Ravenstahl," he said. "Luke's not a policy wonk. He's not very experienced in the ways of government, or the world, at age 27, but he does have this image and the excitement he generates, and that's good for our city."

Yeah, Luke has a nice smile.

The show even gave Peduto a chance for some nice self-deprecating humor:

Even Peduto admits that he's not exciting. He's often compared to former Vice President, Al Gore, but he said "Al Gore has more charisma."

So what's it going to be Pittsburgh?

The guy that knows, "The meet, the greet, the listen, and the photo-op"? or the guy who's "clearly head and shoulders above" him?

The article I linked to is not a complete transcript because they ended with an older guy sitting in Primanti's giving the standard pro Luke cheer, "Give him a chance."

Of course anyone paying attention to Ravenstahl's undistinguished career on City Council and his numerous missteps as Mayor might want to respond with:

"He's had his chance and he's blown it."

Not how I like to start the week

Saw this at AOL:

Scientists Offer Dire Forecast for Earth
Climate Report Warns of Global Warming Effects
By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP

WASHINGTON (March 10) - The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.

It goes on to talk about how tropical diseases will spread, polar bears will only be found in zoos, and that widespread starvation will be seen by 2080.

It's all based on a draft document by the "authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" which was written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries (still to be edited by government officials).

The article concludes with this:

Global warming soon will "affect everyone's life ... it's the poor sectors that will be most affected," Romero Lankao said.

And co-author Terry Root of Stanford University said: "We truly are standing at the edge of mass extinction" of species.

The report included these likely results of global warming.

I'd say that I hope your week is starting better than mine, but if you're reading this on the planet Earth, I guess it's not.

Another Sunday

And Jack Kelly can't help himself - spinning again.

While it's true that in this Sunday's column he spanks Ann Coulter pointing out her "vile mouth" and calling her a "foul-mouthed narcissist." He can't resist a few tried and (and yet untrue) jabs at the left.

Kelly first frames Coulter's recent outrages as par for the course for liberals:

Ms. Coulter is the conservative those on the far left love to hate. This is in part because, in her substitution of invective for argument, she is the conservative who most resembles themselves.

Really? Who on the left has as big a following as Ann Coulter and is as much a foul-mouthed narcissist? Kelly gives us a clue as to who he thinks it is:

Like Michael Moore, she learned long ago that hurling insults sells more books than reasoned arguments do.

That's right - Michael Moore. Who said...what again? Kelly doesn't say. He leaves it up to his audience to fill in the blank.

In his defense, Kelly spends most of the column criticising the various defenses other conservatives have used to defend Coulter. A laudable undertaking - especially by a fellow nutcase conservative. This is how he describes the defenses:

If they didn't reveal so much inner ugliness, the defenses offered for Ms. Coulter's remark would be hilarious in their hypocrisy.

But he still can't resist smearing Liberals while spanking conservatives:

The third is that the moonbats on the left say more vile things, more frequently. Also true. "Comedian" Bill Maher was only one of many who expressed regret that Vice President Dick Cheney wasn't assassinated. But your mama should have taught you in elementary school that bad behavior by your playmates does not justify bad behavior by you.

Like his colleague Ruth Ann Dailey, Jack Kelly's a few days behind the learning curve on this one. His column was published on the 11th of March. 6 days before on the 5th of March, Bill Maher posted this at the Huffington Post:

On Saturday, the website NewsBusters.org posted a story under the headline "Bill Maher Sorry the Assassination Attempt on Dick Cheney Failed."

There's just one problem: As a fair reading of the show's transcript makes clear, I never said those words. Still, over the weekend, dozens of websites, mostly right wing, picked up the story (with headline intact) thus proliferating the myth that comic Maher somehow advocates the whacking of our Veep.

Don't get me wrong: I've never joined the Dick Cheney Fan Club. But what I said Friday -- and what I believe -- is that the Vice President has presided over a bungled execution of a war in which thousands of our bravest continue to die. And I believe that were he not in power, our troops would likely come home sooner. But I don't wish him dead.

Ironically, I made my comments during a discussion about Free Speech, which is one of the chief reasons that I love my country.

Maybe Kelly thinks he's covered his ass by adding that "was only one of many" qualifier.

But if you're gonna quote a guy, shouldn't you at least, well, quote him?

Here's exactly what Maher said on his HBO show. The discussion was about his discomfort over the Huffingtonpost's decision to erase the comments there that expressed regret that the assasination attempt failed. Maher's point then was, why can't they say that? Joe Scarborough has an intelligent answer:

Okay, then – but, let’s put it this way then. If somebody came on here and said that they wished all abortion clinics had been blown up...and you didn’t step forward and say, “I disassociate myself with those remarks,” and it just floats out there in the transcripts, then you’re going to be connected with those words. Arianna Huffington has every right to say, “I don’t want to be associated with this hate language.”

Which actually makes sense. But here's what Maher is quoted as saying:

But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow.

And then a few seconds later the conversation continues with Joe Scarborough and Congressman Barny Frank:

SCARBOROUGH:...If somebody on this panel said they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say—

FRANK: I think he did. [laughter]

SCARBOROUGH: Okay, did you say--?

MAHER: No. No, I quoted that.

FRANK: You don’t? Oh, you don’t believe that?

MAHER: No, I’m just saying that if he did die—

SCARBOROUGH: [laughter] Okay, but if – oh, let’s just say—

MAHER: [overlapping]—other people – more people would live. That’s a fact.

See that? When asked if he believed it, he said (and this is a quote) "No." and that's a far cry from saying he expressed regret that the Vice-President wasn't assassinated.

But you know, for my buddy Jack Kelly, letting pesky things like details get in the way of a good story is not something he seems to be interested in.

Pennsylvania Connection to the Ousted Prosecutors Scandal

I found a very interesting thread over at attytood.

Here's the Readers' Digest version. Paul Krugman points out something that so far hasn't been brought to light over the scandal. If the 8 US Attorneys were ousted because they refused to play ball with the Bush White House, what of the other 85 or so? Did they PLAY ALONG? And if so, how? Here's Krugman (by way of dailykos:

The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn’t go along with the Bush administration’s politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.

Krugman's point is that the attorneys released were released because they refused to play along and deliver dirt to the Republicans on the Democrats just before the election. I guess there were more than 8 who were replaced. One of these, it turns out, is in Puerto Rico. It happened in June of 2006.

Attytood points out that that was the time we began to hear (from the Santorum campaign) about "Bobby Casey's financial team." Specifically, about a man named Robert Feldman. News reports from that time show that Feldman's fundraising activities were under federal review.

After the election? No news.

Attytood ends it this way:

I want to be very careful here -- I know very little about either the former U.S. Attorney in San Juan, or the one who replaced him. I also don't want to suggest that Feldman, who once had close ties to Mayor Street here in Philadelphia, is someone whose activities should not be looked into.

But I am troubled by the timing of all of this -- particularly when one looks at how the information was used by the Santorum campaign.

And so I'll try to find out some more about this. People in Washington should be asking questions, too.

I wouldn't be surprised if Attytood's suspicions turned out to be right on the money.

Mike Doyle on Walter Reed

I've contacted a number of local members of Congress for their comments regarding the situation at Walter Reed hospital. Here's Congressman Mike Doyle's e-mailed to me earlier today:

The situation at Walter Reed is yet another glaring example of the incompetency and indifference of the Bush Administration. I have said many times that the Bush Administration is good at putting weapons into the hands of our soldiers and sending them all over the world to fight for our Country, they're no so good at taking care of them and their families when they come home and face financial and medical problems. It's mind-boggling that the officers in charge of Walter Reed knew these outrages were going on and did nothing to fix them. Then after the Washington Post broke the story, the Pentagon relieved the commander in charge and incredulously put the man who was most responsible for allowing these abuses - Lt. General Kevin Kiley - back in charge.

These outrages are the result of a Congress that has completely abdicated its oversight responsibilities for the past 6 years. The new democratic majority in Congress, although only in power for a little over two months, has committed to aggressive oversight of the Administration's treatment of our veterans and its conduct of the war in Iraq as well as many other matters. The American people voted for change last November and change they're going to get.

As a result of this outrage becoming public, the Army has finally installed a new command team at Walter Reed. Major General Eric Shoomaker, a doctor, will be the new commanding general and Brigadier General Michael Tucker has been named as deputy commanding general. General Tucker has combat experience and is highly respected as someone who cares about the troops. The Army has also added a number of caseworkers to help wounded soldiers and their families negotiate the administrative process. The Army has also dispatched teams to Army hospitals across the Country to identify problems like those at Walter Reed.

The President has appointed a bipartisan commission led by Bob Dole and Donna Shalala to look into the problems at our military hospitals and the new democratic majority in Congress has already begun a series of investigations and oversight hearings as well. This problem will be fixed.

Finally, a number of Members of Congress have called for the Army's Surgeon General, Lt. General Kevin Kiley to be fired - and I think it's just a matter of time until that happens.

Congressman Doyle is on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I've e-mailed a question about whether similar problems are found throughout the Veterans' Health System and if so what is the Veterans' Affairs Committee planning on doing about it.

I'll post whatever I learn.

UPDATE: Congressman Doyle e-mailed me back. After pointing out that Walter Reed is not a part of the VA health system (they're indeed two separate systems) he wrote:

VA for the most part does a pretty good job. The employees at PGH are very dedicated and we have a great volunteer program also. The problem at VA is more of an access problem than a quality of care one. Unless you're 100% service connected disabled or indigent, you could have a hard time getting into the VA health care system. This is due to the system being underfunded by this administration. We have been fighting every year to get increases to VA health care in the budget. There is going to be a big story in Sundays PG about this

You heard it here first.

Must See TV?

A reminder from John McIntire at Macyapper:

CBS Sunday Morning Reporter Joie Chen and her most excellent crew are busy viewing, writing and editing what is bound to be an interesting piece slated for air this Sunday morning between 9 and 10:30 on the outstanding CBS SUNDAY MORNING news magazine show. Remember we "Spring Forward," so don't screw it up when you set your alarm or the Tivo.

It's all about Mayor Opie, and it includes interviews with Opie, Mr. Peduto-head, most excellent political analyst Duquesne Law Professor Joe Mistick, and your very own MacYapper, and it may include footage of MacYapper standup comedy poking fun at our beloved Opie.

We'll add a plug for Johnny Mac too:

MacYapper standup comedy with Gab Bonesso
Point Park University Monday
The Brillo Box Tuesday
Details at www.myspace.com/MacYapper

Good Summary

I know I haven't written much about the administrations firings of the US Attorneys - it's too complicated, it's too legalese filled, etc.

Josh Marshall has a good summary at The Hill:

It now seems clear that the U.S. attorney firing story has blossomed into a full-blown scandal. Two of the eight fired attorneys have alleged specific instances in which members of Congress or their staffs tried to goad them into dropping indictments against Democrats. One of the longest-serving members of the Senate, Pete Domenici (R) of New Mexico, has just hired a lawyer to defend his apparent role in trying to get former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to indict a New Mexico state Democrat to help his protégé Rep. Heather Wilson (R) hold on to her seat in last November’s election.

There will be plenty of time to speculate about the administration’s motives in this affair and scope out new paths for the expanding investigation. But the real story behind the quickening pace of revelations over the last six weeks is something that is easy to miss: old-fashioned congressional oversight.

So much of what the Bush administration has been able to get away with over the last six years has been possible only because — with only a brief exception — Congress has not only been in the hands of the president’s party but ruled by a leadership focused almost entirely on covering up presidential wrongdoing rather than exercising meaningful oversight of the executive branch.

Just love that word: oversight.

Conservative Disconnect

I read this morning something new about Former Speaker Newt Gingrich's actions during the late 90s:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

Still didn't make him a hypocrite, of course. Gingrich is quoted as saying:

I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials. [emphasis added]

Now that Scooter Libby's (high ranking official - Special Assistant to the President, donchaknow)been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, what are conservatives ranting about?

Free Scooter Libby

The Rupert Murdoch owned NYPost editorial ends with this:

President Bush should make things right - by pardoning Libby.

Sure, he'd take a lot of political heat for it. But Libby was in the dock because of politics - and turnabout is fair play.

Free Scooter Libby.

Anyone else see a conflict here?

They Knew About Walter Reed

From the AP this afternoon:

Both Mr. Murtha, a Vietnam War veteran, and the committee's ranking Republican, Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida, have long been frequent visitors to Walter Reed and dozens of other military medical facilities. Mr. Young acknowledged yesterday that he had seen many worrisome problems during those visits, but had been reluctant to discuss them publicly because of a fear of violating troops' privacy.

Having gotten permission, he told a story:

Mr. Young told the story of a soldier who was lying in a pool of urine in a bed because the hospital didn't have enough clean sheets. When Mr. Young's wife, a regular volunteer at Walter Reed, complained, an employee snapped at her.

"This is war," the employee said. "We have a lot of casualties. We don't have enough sheets to go around."

A Pro-life Republican discovers the right to privacy - how nice. But Representative Young also shows up in this piece in Congressional Quarterly:

Senior Republicans who knew about problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center while their party controlled Congress insist they did all they could to prod the Pentagon to fix them.

But C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., former chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said he stopped short of going public with the hospital’s problems to avoid embarrassing the Army while it was fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He didn't want to embarrass the Army? Perhaps he should have considered the alternative more to embarrassing the Army - no more wounded American soldiers lying in pools of their own urine.

Young repeatedly places the blame on Army Surgeon-General Kevin C. Kiley. He also said he repeatedly brought the situation to the attention of the Army brass. Obviously it did wonders. Obviously he didn't do much else.

But he said he purposely opted to bring concerns about individual patients’ care privately to the attention of Walter Reed commanders, rather than wield his clout as an Appropriations subcommittee chairman.

“We did not go public with these concerns, because we did not want to undermine the confidence of the patients and their families and give the Army a black eye while fighting a war,” Young said.

This might be a wild guess, but having wounded soldiers lying in their own filth in rodent infested rooms, forcing them to work their way through a humiliating bureaucracy probably did very little to boost their confidence either. Just a wild guess.

Congressman, you could have said something. You should have said something. Doesn't cost a damn thing to pick up a phone and call someone. Three years ago.

The Democrats mentioned in the CQ article also blame the Pentagon. Here's Congressman Murtha:

Murtha focused blame for the Walter Reed scandal on the Bush administration and said the Pentagon discouraged patients from talking to lawmakers in both parties.

“My impression is that the military was constrained, even intimidated, from telling me and other congressional members about the real problems and the real needs,” Murtha said.

And so, who knew what? And why in the name of all that's good didn't they open their mouths about it?

When contacted for a reaction to the situation at Walter Reed, Congressman Jason Altmire's office told me:

The problems at Walter Reed and other military/veterans hospitals must be fixed immediately. The American people are not calling for another blue ribbon panel that will undergo a 2-year study and issue a report. We need results right now for the brave men and women who have put their lives on the line and come home needing medical care. It is outrageous that this situation was brought to light, not by elected officials, but instead it took a Washington Post expose. We need a top-to-bottom review of every military and veterans health care facility. We need to determine whether or not the conditions are substandard and if actions need to be taken to improve the quality of care. If so, let's deal with them immediately. We must fix the problem and hold people accountable, in that order.

We must.

Whitewater Started Like This Too!

We begin with this New York Times article.

Todd Gitlin, over at TPMCafe, has it completely correct. Looks like the Times has begun to "balance" the corruption of one side (in this case we have the whole Libby/Walter Reed/Fired Prosecutors nexus) by showing some corruption (any corruption!) on the other.

The Times starts its attack with this first paragraph:

Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors.

Pretty damning - some quiet corruption going on, looks like. No?

But check out the fourth and fifth:

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination in 2008, said yesterday that the senator did not know that he had invested in either company until fall 2005, when he learned of it and decided to sell the stocks. He sold them at a net loss of $13,000.

The spokesman, Bill Burton, said Mr. Obama’s broker bought the stocks without consulting the senator, under the terms of a blind trust that was being set up for the senator at that time but was not finalized until several months after the investments were made.

And so, how does the paper of record get away with saying in one paragraph "Barack Obama bought..." and 3 paragraphs away admit that he didn't know how he'd invested because it was "under the terms of a blind trust"?

Digby writes:

These are patented Whitewater-style "smell test" stories. They are based on complicated details that make the casual reader's eyes glaze over and about which the subject has to issue long confusing explanations in return. They feature colorful and unsavory political characters in some way. They often happened in the past and they tend to be written in such a way as to say that even if they aren't illegal they "look bad." The underlying theme is hypocrisy because the subjects are portrayed as making a dishonest buck while pretending to represent the average working man. Oh, and they always feature a Democrat. Republicans are not subject to such scrutiny because a craven, opportunistic Republican isn't "news." (Neat trick huh?)

No single story will bring down a candidate because they have no substance to them. It's the combined effect they are looking for to build a sense overall sleaziness. "Where there's smoke there's fire" right?

Back to Obama. Here's how the AP plays it:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday he was not aware he had invested in two companies backed by some of his top donors and said he had done nothing to aid their business with the government.

The Illinois senator faced questions about more than $50,000 in investments he made right after taking office in 2005 in two speculative companies, AVI Biopharma and Skyterra Communications. Obama set up a trust that gave his broker authority to trade stocks on his behalf without his input, according to 16 pages of documents he released Wednesday.

Not completely bad, though Pickler does begin a later paragraph with "Obama purchased..."

But look at how Fox "News" plays the AP story:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he was not aware that he had invested in two companies backed by some of his top donors and did nothing to aid their business before the government.

The Illinois senator faced questions about more than $50,000 in investments he made right after taking office in 2005 in two speculative companies, AVI Biopharma and Skyterra Communications. Obama said his broker bought the stocks as part of a quasi-blind trust.

In case you missed it, "Fair and Balanced" Fox softened this sentence found in the AP report:

Obama set up a trust that gave his broker authority to trade stocks on his behalf without his input, according to 16 pages of documents he released Wednesday.

To this one:

Obama said his broker bought the stocks as part of a quasi-blind trust.

I guess they're betting on their readers saying to themselves that a "quasi-blind trust" really ISN'T a blind trust. And that "...as part of a..." leaves just enough wiggle room.

Luckily, the Obama campaign has a backbone. They've already issued a press release. You can find it here. Some highlights:

Obama Set Up a Trust That Would Independently Manage His Funds. In February of 2005, Obama began the process of creating a trust – the terms of which do not permit the broker to solicit advice from Obama or consult him on the trades that are being made – in an attempt to manage his financial portfolio without a conflict of interest. The intent was that this was a portfolio that would grow over time. [Conversation with UBS Representative, 2/26/07; Obama Trust Agreement, 5/31/2005]

UBS Broker Chose Stocks For Obama; Obama Was Not Consulted. A UBS broker chose the stocks for Obama to invest in, and as per the trust agreement, Obama was not consulted. On Obama’s behalf, the broker purchased $1,001 to $15,000 of Avi BioPharma on 2/22/05 and $50,001 to $100,000 of SkyTerra on 2/10/05. [Conversation with UBS Representative, 2/26/07; Obama Financial Disclosure Form 2006]

Obama Closed Trust Because He Realized It Was Not Truly Blind. In late 2005, after receiving an informational communication from his broker about his investments, Obama realized that his financial arrangements did not significantly protect him against even the perception of a conflict of interest. He contacted his lawyer and steps were taken to sell his stocks and close out the trust. Obama’s stock holdings were liquidated by November 1, 2005, and documents to close the trust were filed on December 15, 2005. [Conversation with UBS Representative, 2/26/07; Trust Distribution and Termination Document, 12/15/05]

If you can recall, Whitewater was an empty scandal - no evidence of wrong doing, no idictments of the Clintons and so on. This is just as empty.

Same old "liberal media" at play.

Fireworks at Pittsburgh City Council

You can watch the replay at 7:00 PM tonight on the City Channel if you missed today's Pittsburgh City Council meeting (or if, like me, you tuned in during the middle of it because you were too busy negotiating with some guy to clean your sidewalk of snow).

The council gave tentative approval today to payout $200,000.00 because Sgt. Mark A. Eggleton beat up a guy while working off duty at the Dirty O.

If you recall the case, Eggleton was found by the City to have acted inappropriately and was fired by then Police Chief, Dom Costa, but he was reinstated by then Operations Director, Dennis Regan, who at the time had been nominated by Interim Mayor Luke Ravenstahl as Pittsburgh's Public Safety Director. Regan gave Eggleton a mere 5-day suspension and Eggleton remains on the force to this day despite Acting City Solicitor George Specter determined in January that Regan did not have the authority to change Costa’s punishment.

Notice all the "thens," "interims," and "acting" in that last paragraph?

As everyone knows by now, Regan never actually became Pittsburgh's Public Safety Director because, first Councilman Bill Peduto pointed out that he had not one ounce of experience (which was largely ignored at first) and then Police Cmdr. -- and whistleblower -- Catherine McNeilly accused Regan of inappropriately interfering in past police discipline matters (and that's a whole other lawsuit).

But, back to the Council meeting.

When I came in, Bill Peduto was questioning why Eggleton was still on the force and why Pittsburgh no longer had any cost recovery program to, well, recover the costs of just such lawsuits.

It was at that moment that Chief Ravenstahl Water Carrier, Jim Motznik, interrupted to claim that no comments could be made about Eggleton because that was a "personnel matter" and that no comments could be made about any cost recovery program because that wasn't in the bill. He also chimed in with the Ravenstahl Administration's favorite cry that it was politics saying, “This isn’t an opportunity to run for mayor in the city of Pittsburgh.”

Council President Doug Shields and Councilman Len Bodack echoed the "personnel matter" concerns with Shields saying, "It's not good public policy to play lawyer at the council table regarding settlements."

Apparently any real discussion of these very real matters of punishing, or not punishing, rogue cops and being then liable for their actions are supposed to only be had behind closed doors in Executive Sessions.

The Burgh Report calls it a "cover-up" and Agent Ska at The Ideas Bucket has her own satirical take on it here

Since we, the public, will be paying for the settlement, I say that we, the public, have a right to know why an apparent loose cannon like Eggleton is still on the force. I mean, does anyone even know if Eggleton is still allowed to work off duty at the City's risk?

Interim Mayor Ravenstahl is saying that he has a new plan for off duty officers that will be implemented by April that "could include a fee" (he shelved a plan to charge businesses $4 or $5 an hour back in November).

"Could"?

Only "could"?

Yeah, it's definitely better for we, the public, to pay for these things out of our pockets than for our Interim Mayor to actually have to negotiate with businesses, like, oh, certain sports teams, or to risk pissing off any buddies in the police union before an election.

You can bet that this is one viewer who will be watching the Council meeting rerum at 7:00.

(The Post-Gazette covers this story here and the Tribune-Review here.)

UPDATE: The Admiral has a great post on this subject, although I totally disagree with his contention that Peduto should run in November as an Independent.

Right Wing Myths about Libby Verdict

Media Matters has a good piece on the various myths we're seeing trotted out by the conservative media in response to the Libby verdict:

• No underlying crime was committed.
• There was no concerted White House effort to smear Wilson.
• Libby was not responsible for the leak of Plame's identity.
• Libby merely "left out some facts."
• Libby's leak was an effort to set the record straight.
• There is no evidence that the Plame leak compromised national security.
• Fitzgerald is a partisan prosecutor.
• Fitzgerald exceeded his mandate in investigating violations beyond the IIPA.
• Plame's employment with the CIA was widely known.

Go read the article. Lotsa good stuff there.

Memo to P-G Columnists: The Hillary "Southern Drawl" Story's Already Been Debunked

That rowdy pair of conservative columnists (Jack Kelly, Ruth Ann Dailey) over at the P-G have a bad habit of late. They've begun to traffic in already debunked stories.

With Ruth Ann, it was the bogus Pelosi/Plane story. Does she still believe what no one else in the country believes?

With Commando Kelly, well, the most recent incident involved the phrase "slow bleed."

I haven't see the story of Senator Clinton's supposedly faked "southern drawl" yet on the pages of the P-G, so let me take the opportunity to let everyone know it's already been debunked.

It begain, like a lot of fake news, with the drudgereport. Drudge posted this audio a few days ago to show the world the depth of Hillary's pandering: While she's speaking she's adopting a southern drawl in a southern church! She's faking the accent and the southern grammar!

Ah, but if the Devil can be found in the details, Drudge (and large chunks of the right side of the blogosphere) leave out a huge detail. According to Greg Sargent, Clinton was quoting a hymn by James Cleveland:

I don't feel no ways tired,
I've come too far from where I started from.
Nobody told me that the road would be easy,
I don't believe He brought me this far to leave me.

See? The words (and therefore the grammar) aren't hers. It changes the story a scosh, huh?

And when was she ever in the south? I mean, she was born in Chicago, right? Educated at Wellesley and then at Yale, right? Spent 8 years in DC, right? When would she ever have picked up even the hint of a southern accent?

Oh that's right. The 17 years she spent in Arkansas.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no big fan of Clinton's, I'm just trying to save the conservative columnists at the P-G some more embarrassment (as if that's possible). I'll let Sargent have the last word:

Look, Hillary's real sins here were being corny as hell and painfully tone deaf. But phony this wasn't. You'd think that after having so many of their silly tales blow up in their faces these wingers would start checking the facts once in awhile -- if only to stop making themselves look so damn foolish all the time.

Morning, Pittsburgh.

Stop the Bus Cuts Press Conference -- Today!

WHAT: Stop the Bus Cuts Press Conference
WHEN: Wednesday March 7th, 2007, 8:30 AM
WHERE: County Courthouse -- Grant Street between Forbes and Fifth Avenues

From a The STOP THE BUS CUTS CAMPAIGN press release:

Mr. Onorato,

We Can't Afford to Lose Our Transit!

More than 10,000 people have signed our petition so far…

The STOP the Bus Cuts Campaign will hold a press conference Wednesday March 7th, 2007, 8:30am in front of the County Courthouse (Grant Street between Forbes and Fifth Avenues ).

The STOP THE BUS CUTS CAMPAIGN is: concerned transit riders, The Mon Valley Unemployed Committee, SEIU, UNITE-HERE, The League of Young Voters, ACORN, Save Our Transit & the Almagamated Transit Union. We believe there are ways to fix the Port Authority without cutting service.

http://www.stopthebuscuts.org
http://www.savepatnow.org
http://www.saveourtransit.org

Lest we forget...

A long prison term will give I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby more time to write more books about bears trained to rape little girls.

See? There's always a silver lining...

How FAUX News Covered the Libby Verdict

Yes, by all means, the one charge out of five that Libby was found not guilty of is the story.

Keep spinning, Fox!

(h/t to KingOneEye at Daily Kos for the screen capture.)

LIBBY FOUND GUILTY! (4 out of 5 counts)

From cnn.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been found guilty on four of five counts in his perjury and obstruction of justice trial.

Libby was convicted of:

obstruction of justice when he intentionally deceived a grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame;

making a false statement by intentionally lying to FBI agents about a conversation with NBC newsman Tim Russert;

perjury when he lied in court about his conversation with Russert;

a second count of perjury when he lied in court about conversations with other reporters.

Jurors cleared him of a second count of making a false statement relating to a conversation he had with Matt Cooper of Time magazine.

Libby, 56, faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison and a fine of $1 million. A hearing on a presentencing report is scheduled for June 5.

CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said, "He is virtually certain to go to prison if this conviction is upheld."

After the verdict was read, Libby was fingerprinted and released on his own recognizance.

Freeper reaction to the Libby verdict can be found at this Daily KOS diary -- they don't disappoint. They are just as nutty as one would expect.

Sample comments:

Right before the verdict:

"If they vote "guilty" they should be hung."

And, after the verdict:

"This situation HAS to be BIBLICAL. Good has become evil, and Evil has become good."

"Harry Reid belongs in jail. This justice dept and this administration has no stones."

"yeah...they're still denying WMDs were found in Iraq despite all evidence to the contrary..."

"Keep talking RAT juror, you're going to regret it when we dig up all kind of $hit on you"

More of the same here.

Of course, firedoglake has loads of analysis.

Coulter Explains Further

On Hannity and Colmes last night, Ann Coulter explained her "joke" with this:

Faggot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays.

And:

It's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss,' and unless you're telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person."

Really? "Faggot" having nothing to do with gays? I am assuming at least a few members of Pittsburgh's gay community read this blog. Can I get a ruling from the judges? Is it true that "faggot" is not an anti-gay slur?

Anyway since language expert Ann is claiming that "faggot=wuss", what does "wuss" mean? According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "wuss" is probably a combination of "wimp" and "pussy" and it means:

A person regarded as weak or timid and especially as unmanly

The term itself is a sexist insult. A man is a wuss if he's acting like a weak woman. Not sure if Ann's gained any ground on that one. Especially if she's saying that that's also the definition of "faggot."

Ann also tried to dance around the issue by saying that it was a joke about rehab - and how in Hollywood people go to rehab for alot of stupid reasons. But let's analyse the joke:

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.

If you look closely, she's saying that she can't talk about Edwards, because in her comments she wants to use a particular term - but if she used that word, she'd have to go into rehab.

See? The joke is about the word faggot.

Crooks and Liars has the clip.

Video of Luke at 14th Ward Meeting

Courtesy of Agent Ska, you can now see for yourself exactly how Interim Mayor Ravenstahl answered a question about contraceptives and the Bubble Zone Bill at the 14th Ward Democratic Committee Meeting. While Ska does not have video of the 7th Ward meeting, Ravenstahl does at least seem to confirm that there was some discussion of this subject at that meeting.

Rockin' the Night Talk

Mayoral candidate Bill Peduto was a guest for the entire hour of Monday evening's Night Talk show on PCNC. (A Republican Committee member running for County Council appeared too, but I neglected to write down his name.)

I highly recommend that anyone who missed it try to catch a rerun of the show (2:00 AM this morning or 5:00 PM Tuesday).

Peduto is great when he gets feisty and he was really fired up. According to Bill, so are his supporters as a slew of them contacted the campaign Monday wanting to do anything to help out.

This is the Peduto that voters need to see -- confident and aggressive, yet not combative.

They say that every cloud has a silver lining and I'd say that the ACDC delivered a kick in the pants more than a body blow as some in the MSM have characterized it.

UPDATE: The other guest was Kevin Acklin.

Must-Do List

The New York Times published a "Must-Do List" yesterday of things that need to be done to try to reverse "[t]he Bush administration’s assault on some of the founding principles of American democracy."

They add that, "Taking on this task is a moral imperative that will show the world the United States can be tough on terrorism without sacrificing its humanity and the rule of law."

I couldn't agree more!

The list "starts with three fundamental tasks:"

- Restore Habeas Corpus
- Stop Illegal Spying
- Ban Torture, Really

It also includes the following:

Close the C.I.A. Prisons
Account for ‘Ghost Prisoners’
Ban Extraordinary Rendition
Tighten the Definition of Combatant
Screen Prisoners Fairly and Effectively
Ban Tainted Evidence
Ban Secret Evidence
Better Define ‘Classified’ Evidence
Respect the Right to Counsel

But, please read the entire editorial here.

And speaking of CPAC...

Lil Annie Coulter drew attention to this meeting with her John Edwards homophobic "faggot joke." Now you can watch even more of this fun, wholesome event with The Nation's Max Blumenthal's "CPAC 2007: The Unauthorized Documentary."

He interacts with some of your fav wingnuts like: Malkin, Tancredo, Norquist, Horowitz, D'souza, and of course, Coulter herself.

An especially funny bit is when Blumenthal asks Michelle Malkin to autograph a photo of American Japanese in a W.W.II internment camp (Malkin wrote the book on the subject -- In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror -- if by 'book,' one means scary screed).

And speaking of all things racial, when Blumenthal tries to goad Tancredo supporters Borat-style they, no dummies, tell him to get lost. Though, as he leaves their company one of them desperately tries to hide his Confederate lapel pin. (Rep. Tom Tancredo [R-Co] has called Miami a "Third World country," when he's not busy worrying that "efforts to merge the U.S. with both Mexico and Canada is not a fantasy.")

You can watch the documentary here:

Newt Gingrich on Katrina Victims

Via the Huffington Post, I found this blog entry.

Newt's one of the guys over there in God's Own Party that wants to be President of the United States and this weekend he had something deeply disturbing to say about all those pesky Katrina victims. According to this blog over at Huffingtonpost, good ole Newt started his speech with stuff about conservatives elevating the debate (tell it to Ann, Newt) and then ended it with:

How can you have the mess we have in New Orleans, and not have had deep investigations of the federal government, the state government, the city government, and the failure of citizenship in the Ninth Ward, where 22,000 people were so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn't get out of the way of a hurricane. (emphasis original)

Here's an audio clip if you don't believe he said it.

Aren't conservatives supposed to be compassionate these days? Or was that just another smoke screen from dubya? I'm just asking. Somehow blaming victims for their victimhood (in this case, in the face of a hugely devastating hurricane) just seems, well, mean - though par for the course for that subgenre of conservative thinking.

Harry Shearer fact-checks Newt:

In case Newt hasn't been reading up (try Path of Destruction or The Storm), the folks in the Ninth Ward weren't caught by a hurricane. They were surprised at 5:30 Monday morning (according to Van Heerden's timeline) by an eighteen-foot-high wall of water as their federally built flood protection structure catastrophically failed.

Who's the uneducated one?

I wonder.

Ann Coulter Explains, Republicans React

First, Ann. This is from the New York Times (a place where Ann "joked" about killing all the journalists inside):

Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Funny, huh?

Some Republican reactions.

Senator John McCain's spokesman:

The comments were wildly inappropriate.

Rudy Giuliani:

The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.

Kevin Madden, Governor Mitt Romney's spokesman:

It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.

That Coulter wannabe, Michelle Malkin:

Her "faggot" joke was not just a distraction from all the good that was highlighted and represented at the conference. It was the equivalent of a rhetorical fragging--an intentionally-tossed verbal grenade that exploded in her own fellow ideological soldiers' tent.

And:

With a single word, Coulter sullied the hard work of hundreds of CPAC participants and exhibitors and tarred the collective reputation of thousands of CPAC attendees.

And finally, Cliff Kincaid over at Accuracy in Media:

The political equivalent of Britney Spears shaving the hair off her head, Ann Coulter made headlines at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) by calling Democrat John Edwards a faggot. Wearing a leather dress and a Christian cross around her neck, Coulter must be a liberal infiltrator whose purpose is to give conservatism a bad name.

And:

Ironically, Coulter's "joke" about Edwards was presented in the context of saying that if she used the word "faggot" to describe him, she would have to go into rehab. The idea of getting Coulter some professional help doesn't sound so funny to me.

I wonder how Rush is gonna spin this one.

ACDC Endorsements

As theburgher said in the Comments Section of this post:

"Well at least we maybe got one.

We might have got Michael Lamb, progressive burghosphere.

Every other progressive lost.

Dowd, Arnet, Peduto, Krause, Frazier, Cleary. Maybe Lamb, but we're pulling for him.

Bad night for progressives in W. Pa."

And, as Macyapper put it:

"SCORE ONE FOR OPIE
The Sheep Fall In Line"

Yes, the Old School won, and by "old" we mean that the Allegheny County Democratic Committee members decided to vote for that nice young man who reminds them of their favorite grandson. (And, don't cha know it's considered bad form to run against a current ACDC member even if they have one foot in the grave. For example, if Anna Nicole Smith and James Brown were ACDC members, it might be OK to run against Anna who's already buried, but James? That would still be rude, young man.)

The Post-Gazette has Ravenstahl winning 602 votes to Peduto's 163. Smitty from the Flats over at the aforementioned The Burgh Report post has a more detailed breakdown of the votes on the rest of the races, however.

Current Mood:



But remember, now it's time to take it to the actual voters.

You can sign up to help out here.

Fact-checking Jack Kelly (again)

Geez, I oughta get paid for this. Jack Kelly doesn't know (or doesn't care) when to quit. This week's column is yet another example of Commando Kelly's unique P-G spin. Take a look-see.

I want to focus on this paragraph. By itself it shows the depths of Jack Kelly's spin:

Nearly 3,400 service members have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each of these deaths is a tragedy. But our combat deaths have been fewer than the number of troops who die from accidents when the nation is conducting ground wars. (During the Clinton administration, an average of 939 personnel died each year, mostly in accidents. Since 2003, an average of 800 troops have died each year in Iraq.)

I am relieved that Kelly added the qualifier "mostly in accidents" to that paragraph. It doesn't acquit him from the dishonest spin, but it shows he's trying - which may if you think about it indict him further.

As far as I can tell, the initial reporting for this data comes from this column by Alicia Colon in the New York Sun. Here's what it read:

The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

Wow more military dead during the Clinton Administration? Gee, then the Iraq war can't be that bad then, can it?

Now take a look at the numbers. Via Andrew Sullivan here's a pdf file from the DoD outlining the details. Between '93 and '96 (the same dates that Colon uses) there was a total of 46 (forty-six) deaths caused by military action. That means there must've been about 4,371 non-hostile deaths from 93-96 or about 1,090 non-hostile deaths per year.

Take a look at this chart. Waaaay down at the bottom it shows the military deaths from 2001 to 2004. According to this chart (and if my math is correct) there were 5,187 total military deaths in those 4 years. 1,102 were marked down as "hostile" and 55 as "terrorist attack." Doing the math it shows that there were 4,030 non-hostile ("all deaths" - "hostile" and "terrorist") deaths in those 4 years.

Divide by 4 and you get about a thousand non-hostile deaths per year during the first Bush Administration. The number isn't that different from the 939 per year for the entire Clinton Administration that Jack Kelly's trumpeting or the 1,090 I came up with for the years '93-'96. It also implies that during any administration that number (while certainly tragic) is pretty constant.

But Jack Kelly compares it with something definitely not constant: hostile military deaths. From that point alone, is there any reason trust anything else he has to say in the column?

I guess Jake Kelly doesn't know the difference between "apples" and "oranges."

No, really. Why?

We've been having quite the spirited discussion in the Comments Section to a recent post; "Ravenstahl, Birth Control, & the 7th Ward Democratic Committee Meeting." One commenter, Patrick, and I have been going back and forth and my answer to his latest comment grew so long that I thought that it deserved a post of its own. (You can read all the comments here.)

Here's Patrick's latest comment:

At 5:44 PM, Patrick said...
Look, this is REALLY getting old...
but the posts I've read which claim to quote Luke on the bubble law are referencing questions from committee people on the subject of birth control; those QUESTIONS then went on to tie in his opposition to the bubble law as a way to sound him out on the right to privacy (seems to me like the questioners were trying to ask about his views on abortion, without actually asking about his views on abortion).

Thus, Luke's responses to those multi-subject questions would naturally mention privacy - the questioners asked him about it themselves. I have yet to see references in these blogs of a question directed at Luke that specifically asked about why he voted no on the bubble law.

[Now, one can believe in a right to privacy and still be of the opinion that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but that's another set of blog posts...]

And another thing: why do the residents of Peduto-stan seem so desperate to believe that Luke is against birth control and abortion? Does that somehow give their support of Peduto some extra-value? Maybe it's more motivation to be against someone rather than be for your own candidate, but the Peduto-istas seem to WANT Luke to be against everything they believe in, perhaps so it feels better backing Peduto.

NOTE: In a previous comment, Patrick had asserted the following: "Opposing this bubble law is in no way an attempt to repeal these existing laws; rather it is a solid, pro-American, pro-1st Amendment stand that Luke should be commended for taking."


Here's my reply:

Patrick,

Your denial is what's getting OLD.

You ascribe positions and opinions to Ravenstahl with absolutely no backup -- without one shred of evidence.

I, on the other hand, believe Ravenstahl when he tells people that he's against birth control and when he tells the Post-Gazette that he's "socially conservative."

It's really quite simple, Patrick. If he voted against the Bubble Zone based on the First Amendment, why doesn't he just say that?

He had all the time in the world to give his justifications during the vote, yet he CHOSE to be the only council member to remain silent about why he voted as he did.

When someone asks him a question like "Mayor Ravenstahl, I'm concerned about your position on contraceptives/abortion/privacy rights because of your 'no' vote on the Bubble Zone. Can you help me out on that?" He could just say something like:

"My vote reflected my First Amendment concerns."

Damn, that was pretty friggin' simple, no? Only seven words.

Yet, time after time, he doesn't say anything like that. This has to lead one to believe that either: 1) he didn't vote based on that or; 2) For some reason he wants people to think it may have been based on his religious views/moral concerns but he's being cagey about it or; 3) what -- he just can't even think that much on his feet?

I mean come on, it's not that hard to say what you mean, is it?

But, I have no doubt that if this issue breaks into the MSM, and he starts taking some heat on it, he will have no trouble FLIP-FLOPPING. After all, that's been his MO. As the P-G's Brian O'Neill has pointed out:

"A couple of years ago, Councilman Ravenstahl wanted to stop devoting bus shelter advertising revenue to shade trees. This month, Mayor Ravensthal is pledging to slash carbon dioxide pollution and has signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.

Last fall, Mayor Ravenstahl lobbied to keep a $52 lump sum tax on all workers inside the city limits. Last month, he changed his mind, advocating the same $1-a-week system Peduto has pushed.

Last October, Mayor Ravenstahl nominated the politically toxic Dennis Regan to be public safety director. After that choice went over like a Browns jersey at a Steelers tailgate party, the mayor nominated Fire Chief Mike Huss as director of public safety, the same guy Councilman Peduto suggested in October."

However, O'Neill loses me when he says, " Who can argue that learning from early mistakes is a bad trait in a politician?" because what I've also seen from Ravenstahl is lots and lots of plain old BAD JUDGMENT and some folks just never outgrow that (Bush is prime example of that).

Ravenstahl has shown plenty of incredibly poor judgment. He demonstrated that trait when he raised the "politically toxic" Dennis Regan to be his Director of Operations. It got even worse when he named him as Pittsburgh's Public Safety Director. Even a 26 year-old should know that that position demanded experience -- hell, even an 18 year-old should have known that.

His declaration that Cathy McNeilly wasn't a whistle-blower and the demotion that followed will cost the city big time. His killing off of the Police Off-Duty Recovery Program will, and has, cost the city even more.

There was also his failure to really reform City Council spending when he, instead, opted to keep the walking around monies

And, for someone who's running against Bill Peduto, he sure has no problem "borrowing" idea after idea from him, or, just outright claiming credit for work he never did. And, I don't think he even bothers do the borrowing on his own. I hear it's Yarone Zober's job to grab into the bag of "Things Peduto Has Said During Council Meetings" to come up with ideas for Ravenstahl to parrot.

And, when he isn't busy pirating from Peduto, he's stumped for answers on something as big as the Mon-Fayette project or he, the MAYOR of Pittsburgh, is conceding his authority to his "boss." Boss? Why do we need to keep asking who's in charge with this guy?

Then there's his problem with being more inclined to truthiness than truth -- yeah, I have a problem with people who weasel or lie. I also have a problem with blatant use of taxpayer dollars for one's own politcal gain.

And after all this, I'm supposed to support Luke . . . Why?

No, really. WHY?

I mean even he wasn't able to come up with an answer on that his own self for David Letterman.

As to your assertion that:

"Maybe it's more motivation to be against someone rather than be for your own candidate, but the Peduto-istas seem to WANT Luke to be against everything they believe in, perhaps so it feels better backing Peduto."

I don't need any help in feeling good about backing Bill Peduto for Mayor, thank you very much.

I backed him in his first run in 2005 and I support him now for the same reasons that I supported him then.

I'm supporting Bill Peduto for Mayor because I find him to be smart, knowledgeable, experienced, and creative. I believe that he possesses the good judgment necessary to more than handle this important position. I also happen to agree with his stance on many issues.

Moreover, I know that I don't have to worry that he's beholden to the same old, same old, tired crew of the worst of the party hacks.

When Peduto speaks as Mayor, he won't need to look around to others for an answer as to his opinions on the important issues of the day, and we won't have to ask who's the boss.

That's why I'm for Bill.

Ann Coulter - For All The World To See

Conservative Ann Coulter said this today at the Conservative Political Action Conference:

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.

You can watch the clip here and here.

Ann, of course, is the woman endlessly ranting about how debased our political discourse is and how it's all the Left's fault.

UPDATE: Howard Dean reacts:

There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues. Republicans -- including the Republican presidential candidates who shared the podium with Ann Coulter today -- should denounce her hateful remarks.

UPDATE Part Deux: See the clip, hear the applause, experience the magic that is - COULTER:

An Update on Walter Reed

Don't know if y'all caught this (Pittsburghese Translation "y'inz got this"), but there's been another reaction to the militiary's declaration that they've begun to fix things at Walter Reed Hospital.

They're coming down hard on the wounded. This is from The Army Times:

Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m., and that they must not speak to the media.

“Some soldiers believe this is a form of punishment for the trouble soldiers caused by talking to the media,” one Medical Hold Unit soldier said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

It is unusual for soldiers to have daily inspections after Basic Training.

Remember these are folks with PTSD, missing limbs. Nice way to support the wounded.

Then there's this. I guess this is why the acronym "snafu" came from the Army:

The commander of Walter Reed Army Medical Center was fired Thursday after the Army said it had lost trust and confidence in his leadership in the wake of a scandal over outpatient treatment of wounded troops at the hospital complex in northwest Washington.

Army Maj. Gen. George Weightman, who assumed command of Walter Reed in August, will be temporarily replaced by Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley.

But the appointment of Kiley, who had been the facility's commander before Weightman, surprised some Defense Department officials because soldiers, their families and veterans' advocates have complained that he was long aware of problems at Walter Reed and did nothing to improve outpatient care.[emphasis added]

So the guy who's taking over the complex is also part of the problem? I guess so:

Top officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including the Army's surgeon general, have heard complaints about outpatient neglect from family members, veterans groups and members of Congress for more than three years.

A procession of Pentagon and Walter Reed officials expressed surprise last week about the living conditions and bureaucratic nightmares faced by wounded soldiers staying at the D.C. medical facility. But as far back as 2003, the commander of Walter Reed, Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, who is now the Army's top medical officer, was told that soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan were languishing and lost on the grounds, according to interviews.

And it's put Capitol Hill in a bipartisan foul mood.

Dubya supports the troops?

More Fallout from Dubya's War

From the Washington Post:

Nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units in the United States are rated "not ready" -- largely as a result of shortfalls in billions of dollars' worth of equipment -- jeopardizing their capability to respond to crises at home and abroad, according to a congressional commission that released a preliminary report yesterday on the state of U.S. military reserve forces.

And the reason? Found in the next paragraph:

The report found that heavy deployments of the National Guard and reserves since 2001 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other anti-terrorism missions have deepened shortages, forced the cobbling together of units and hurt recruiting.

Some details:

The equipment shortage extends to Gulf Coast states such as Louisiana and Mississippi -- devastated in 2005 by Hurricane Katrina -- where Guard units have only a fraction of what they would need to respond to another large-scale disaster.

The Louisiana Guard, its gear depleted by Iraq and Katrina, is short of Humvees and trucks such as high-water vehicles critical for a major evacuation. "We are really concerned about vehicles," said Lt. Col. Pete Schneider, a spokesman for the Louisiana Guard. "We would have enough for a small-scale issue . . . maybe a Category 1 tropical storm we could handle -- an event that doesn't involve massive flooding or massive search and rescue," he said. But for bigger disasters, Louisiana would need help from other states.

And we all remember how well dubya did with Katrina.

Lil Ricky Lands on His Feet

I am sure we're all pleased as punch to see that Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum's found himself a new gig - as a contributor at the Fox "News" channel.

Congratulations, Rick - you found your peeps.

Now you can lie and distort and pander in the only place in town where it's still called "fair and balanced."

Ravenstahl, Birth Control, & the 7th Ward Democratic Committee Meeting

It has been noted in the comments section of this blog and on other blogs that Interim Mayor Luke Ravenstahl had commented on his views on birth control at a 7th Ward Democratic Committee Meeting. The following email is a firsthand account of that meeting.

From:
To:
Subject: Luke Ravenstahl's appearances before the 7th and 14th Ward Committees
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:42:50 EST

Dear Barbara, Sam and other interested committee people,

Earlier this month, one of my sister members of the 7th Ward Democratic Committee told me of a conversation she had had with Luke Ravenstahl when he requested her support. She told me she had asked him about his vote as a member of City Council against protecting health care facilities – particularly women's health care facilities – from harassment, particularly by anti-abortion forces. She told me she was very upset by his answer, and that he further informed her that he was not only against the Constitutional right to abortion, he was also against birth control. I was amazed and somewhat incredulous about this answer, so I decided to ask him the question publicly.

On February 7, the 7th Ward held its forum. I had asked every candidate to detail her/his record on hiring and promotion of women of all colors and men of color. As a follow-up to Ravenstahl's answer, I said, "You can understand my concern, since I recently learned that you are not only opposed to abortion, but also against birth control. So I worry about your attitude to women generally."

The acting mayor responded by nodding as I stated his position. When he didn't verbally respond, one 7th Ward member complained that those issues had nothing to do with being mayor. But another member objected to that characterization, stating that public safety was an issue, and Ravenstahl had refused to protect women at the health clinics. A spirited debate occurred, during which Ravenstahl stated that he did not believe that there was any harassment at the clinics, just people trying to gently persuade women. Many of the 7th Ward members objected to that characterization. I tell you this in background so you know why I was asked by a 14th Ward Committee member to attend your forum last Thursday (2-22-07) to assess Luke Ravenstahl's answers to questions about women'sconstitutional rights.

Imagine my surprise when Ravenstahl essentially called one of the 14th Ward members a liar, saying "no such private conversation had taken place." And he, of course, left out the fact that he had confirmed his anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-right to privacy positions publicly in front of the 7th Ward committee. I was also amazed to discover that in the space of a couple weeks he had changed his position on public safety from one in which he denied there was a problem to "it is now the law and I will enforce it."

I feel that the 14th Ward committee members (and others, for that matter) should know that Ravenstahl lied in his presentation, which is why I'm writing this note. I hope you will consider forwarding it to your members and other interested people. I am also copying this to a number of Democratic leaders who have asked me about my experiences with Ravenstahl. I'm also adding members of political organizations for whom these issues are important. And of course, my contact information is listed below for anyone who wishes to discuss this with me.

As a parenthetical note, please let me answer those few members of the 7th Ward and 14th Ward who fail to see what relevance this has to being mayor of the city of Pittsburgh. Besides the already stated public safety question, there is a question of whether Ravenstahl bears allegiance to the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions as his oath of office requires or to his private religious views. In addition, it is easy to see that someone who becomes mayor of a major city in his youth is likely to envision a long political career, moving into higher office where he might have an opportunity to actually outlaw the right to privacy.

Finally, we must always keep in mind that real women and their families have a right to be trusted, and suffer and die when they are not. Ultimately, the issue is not just about abortion in Pittsburgh, but whether women and children in the world's poorest countries will live or die. In sub-Saharan Africa, one in 16 women dies in childbirth, compared with one in 2,800 in the developed world. A woman dies every 7 minutes from an unsafe abortion. Five million people were infected last year with HIV. These numbers have increased dramatically under the Bush administration, and are just a part of the reason why support for women's legal constitutional rights is a key portion of the Democratic Party platform.

Thanks very much for reading and passing this on.

Jeanne K. C. Clark

MY NOTES:

- Ms. Clark did indeed include her contact info (email address, phone #) in the above email. I have edited it out, but will happily provide it to other bloggers who may wish to contact her, as well as to anyone in the mainstream media who would hopefully want to write on this subject.

- Ms Clark is a Democratic Committeewoman, a longtime activist for women's rights, and has served as a political and media strategist to candidates and issue campaigns on local, state and federal levels.

- It should be noted that during the public comments section of the Bubble Zone Bill City Council Meeting, the OUT-OF-STATE college students who flooded that session used the same language as Luke that there were "just people trying to gently persuade women." Ravenstahl choose to believe these OUT-OF-STATE college students' assessment of the situation over the testimony of LOCAL WOMEN and newspaper reports. I'm only surprised that he didn't manage to use the phrase "prayerful and peaceful" which the students used ad nauseam.

- David's own firsthand account of Ravenstahl on the subject of contraception at a 14th Ward Committee meeting can be found here.

- For anyone who wishes to start up again the tired, straw man argument that I or David are saying that Ravenstahl would try to ban the sale of contraceptives, or who keeping playing ignorant by stating that the Mayor's views on contraceptives would never come into play in city policy, I will remind you all that cities often have programs to distribute condoms to IV drug users, and NYC was recently in the news for their new condom giveaway program. Also, of course, it would certainly seem that Ravenstahl decided his vote on the Bubble Zone Bill based more on his own religious training than on the fact that it was a public safety issue.