SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (24538)4/1/2008 9:30:05 PM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 224729
 
The Party of Defeat’s Haditha Lie Crumbles

By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, April 01, 2008

THE COLLECTED TALES OF AMERICAN ATROCITIES, WHICH LEFTISTS RELY UPON THE WAY OTHERS SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES FOR SOLACE, is getting shorter. Like allegations of torture at Guantanamo, Koran desecration, and detainee murders in Afghanistan, the Haditha “massacre” is increasingly being exposed as a fairy tale. Unfortunately, this canard was invented and popularized, not by terrorist propagandists to discredit an enemy army, but by American politicians to demonize U.S. soldiers and drain their own nation's will to fight an ongoing war – a war which we are winning and which the same politicians voted to authorize.

Last Friday, the government dismissed all charges against the third of four defendants accused of perpetrating the aforementioned atrocities in Haditha. All charges against Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum, 26, were dismissed “with prejudice,” meaning Tatum cannot be tried again for the incident, although by the time the trial commenced, the Haditha “massacre” had already shrunken considerably.

Tatum and three others stood accused, not of murdering “innocent civilians in cold blood” as Congressman John Murtha characterized it, but of failing to properly identify every target before opening fire. In reality, terrorists had fired on the squad from inside the house, and the room where innocent people had been killed was smoke-filled; moreover, according to multiple witnesses, everyone heard an AK-47 “racking” – that is, getting ready to fire upon them. A positive identification would have been both impossible and suicidal. The investigating officers report further observed, according to the prosecution's case, Tatum would have been absolved of throwing a grenade into the room without positively identifying everyone inside, but not firing his rifle. The government ultimately found his actions had not violated the rules of engagement.

That did not mean accusations of premeditation had not been leveled. The prosecution’s star witness, Lance Cpl. Humberto Mendoza, testified that Tatum ordered him to murder the innocent members of the household, then Tatum did it himself when Mendoza refused. Tatum denied the charge. Tatum also passed his lie detector test, while Mendoza failed his. And at the time Mendoza, a native of Venezuela, was “trying to get his application for U.S. citizenship released by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which is holding up his papers.”

Nonetheless, the accused was not unrepentant for his actions, inadvertent of not. Far from the emotionless warmonger often depicted by the leftist press, Tatum nearly broke down on the stand last July, telling the judge: “I am not comfortable with the fact that I might have shot a child…That is a burden I will have to bear.”

Ultimately, the case could not stand. The Marines' statement declared prosecutors acted “in order to continue to pursue the truth-seeking process into the Haditha incident.” Although some have speculated Tatum struck a bargain to testify against the remaining defendant, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, Tatum's lawyer Jack Zimmerman insists, “Absolutely, there is no deal.”

Tatum is the third of four suspects to have all charges dropped, demolishing the Haditha myth.

Last April, the government dropped charges against Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz in exchange for his testimony. However, defense attorneys noted that Dela Cruz had discredited himself, changing his story five times.

Last August 9, Lt. Gen. James Mattis went further in his ruling clearing Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt of all charges, including “unpremeditated murder,” finding Sharratt not merely “not guilty” but “innocent.” Gen. Mattis concluded his statement by noting Sharratt “has always remained cloaked in the presumption of innocence, with this dismissal of charges, he remains in the eyes of the law – and in my eyes – innocent.”

Of the four charged in the Haditha incident, only Frank Wuterich has yet to be exonerated. He faces nine counts, including “manslaughter, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and obstruction of justice.”

This should have come as no surprise. Indeed, as early as March 2006, military investigators concluded, “there is no evidence that the Marines intentionally set out to target, engage, and kill non-combatants.”

Nonetheless, as David Horowitz and I note in our new book Party of Defeat, the Haditha myth would become one of the most erroneous, and shameful, incidents of domestic political sniping. Two full months after this report, Jack Murtha seized upon the investigation as a way to promote his bill to withdraw all troops from Iraq in six months. Late the previous year, he had asserted the war was “unwinnable” and the military “broken.” On May 17, 2006, citing inside sources, Murtha insisted, “Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” In his view, the strapped military had gone crazy from the president's unnecessary war, and only withdrawal could prevent future atrocities from being committed by American men in uniform.

The Left's media echo chamber quickly spread news of the alleged slaughter. A June 5, 2006, editorial in The Nation, the flagship publication of the Left, asserted:

Enough details have emerged from survivors and military personnel to conclude that in the town of Haditha last November, members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment perpetrated a massacre...Marine payoffs to survivors imply a cover-up that may extend far up the chain of command...Whatever the responsibility of the unit commanders in Haditha, it is George W. Bush as Commander in Chief who has sent the clear message that human rights abuses and violations of international law are justified in the “war on terror.”...[T]he moral damage from the Iraq War is broader than a single debased unit. That is what so powerfully motivates Murtha, a Marine and Vietnam veteran.

What actually motivated the Left was two-fold. Many noted the Left's desire to topple an opposing party's president, even at the cost of establishing a terrorist base-of-operations in oil-rich Baghdad. However, more dangerous was its deep-seated view that the American military, and the Bush administration, are evil incarnate. Haditha filled a need for the Left it had long pined to fill. Months before the Haditha story broke, on Face the Nation, John Kerry accused U.S. troops of of “going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children – you know, women.” (He added, “Iraqis should be doing that.”)

This followed, and preceded, endless accusations of mistreatment of detainees around the world, some literally taken from the al-Qaeda handbook.

If leftists genuinely cared about U.S. troops, they would have protested the conditions of the Haditha soldiers' interrogations. Investigators refused to provide attorneys when requested, questioned the men for 12 hours at a time, and did not allow them to take bathroom breaks, forcing the men to relieve themselves into bottles. This far outstrips most of the accusations made against U.S. soldiers. Nonetheless, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate would compare U.S. soldiers, and not Islamist terrorists, to Pol Pot and the Nazis.

Such an invidious comparison can only be made, during a time of war, if an ideologically charged opposition has broken the traditional boundaries of dissent and cast its lot against its own country.

frontpagemag.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (24538)4/1/2008 10:01:36 PM
From: TideGlider  Respond to of 224729
 
I am sure she has a phone book Kenny, no need top break yours out!



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (24538)4/1/2008 10:03:28 PM
From: TideGlider  Respond to of 224729
 
Just for your information I gave you a rec by mistake. I was hitting the next botton and slipped. lol



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (24538)4/2/2008 12:42:44 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224729
 
ascrivenerslament.blogspot.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (24538)4/2/2008 8:56:30 AM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224729
 
More Dem corruption....

Congressman Ordered to Pay in Wiretap Case

Rep. Jim McDermott, left, may have to drain his campaign and defense funds to repay Rep. John A. Boehner after losing the wiretap case. (Ken Lambert - AP)

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 2, 2008; Page A04

A federal judge has ordered Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) to pay nearly $1.2 million to House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), settling a legal dispute over McDermott's actions in leaking the contents of an intercepted 1996 conference call involving Boehner and other Republican leaders.

Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in a ruling issued Monday evening, ordered McDermott to pay legal fees, interest and fines accrued by Boehner over the last 10 years.

McDermott may pay the penalty with campaign funds and money from a defense fund he created in 2000. It will go to Boehner's campaign committee, which paid his legal bills throughout the case.

Hogan had already levied a $60,000 civil fine against McDermott in 2004 for violating federal wiretapping statutes by receiving the intercepted audiotape of the conference call and releasing its contents to several members of the media. McDermott appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which last year refused to hear the case.

McDermott said he exercised his First Amendment rights to disclose the contents of the call because Boehner was discussing with other Republican leaders how to handle an ethics committee reprimand of former representative Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who was speaker at the time. Boehner was speaking on a cellphone in Florida, where his conversation was illegally recorded by a couple who heard it on a radio scanner.

McDermott will be hard-pressed to pay the penalty quickly. At the end of 2007, his campaign had $612,000 in cash, according to the Federal Election Commission. The total penalty is roughly equal to the total he raised in the previous three years.

McDermott's lawyers have also drained his defense fund and campaign of $573,000 through the end of 2007, according to records.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (24538)4/2/2008 9:47:16 PM
From: Ann Corrigan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224729
 
Obama wants to reshape the American electorate. Now he's a shape-shifter, what next? He & Michelle certainly are anxious to change the USA, whether the majority of Americans prefer it the way it is or not.

>Obama readies plan to reshape the electorate
By BEN SMITH | 4/2/08 politico.com

Even as he fends off Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democratic nomination contest, Senator Barack Obama is already turning his attention to the general election, and to an ambitious plan to reshape the American electorate in his favor.

Bringing new voters to the polls "is going to be a very big part of how we win," said Obama's deputy campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, in an interview. "Barack's appeal to independent voters is also going to be key."

Hildebrand said the campaign is likely to turn its attention and the energy of its massive volunteer army this fall on registering African-American voters, and voters under 35 years old, in key states.

"Can it change the math in Ohio? Very much so," he said. "If you look at the vote spread between Bush and Kerry in 2004 - we could potentially erase that."

President George W. Bush carried Ohio by about 119,000 votes in 2004, winning the state despite a massive, expensive Democratic effort to mobilize voters there. And there's some reason for skepticism that Obama can do better than Senator John Kerry and his allies. Every four years, Democrats claim, and reporters write, that a massive voter registration and field operation will reshape the electorate in their favor. In recent years, they've been matched or bested by the Republican National Committee's targeted outreach to likely Republican voters.

"It's something that Democrats have tried," said Bill Steiner, the Republican National Committee's director of strategy. "The 2004 election kind of speaks for itself, particularly in Ohio, where that was a big fear."

But there are signs that this year could be different. In the Obama campaign, youth turnout and Internet-based organizing - so often promised, and rarely delivered in the past - have been made real. And the first black nominee could reach deep into the large non-voting tracts within the African-American community.

"There's the potential here to change American politics for a while. Under-35 voters are just so overwhelmingly Democrats. Getting them registered is a simple, important, not-easy part of that — and Obama can," said Jim Jordan, a consultant who ran the independent group that headed Democrats' national field operation in 2004, America Coming Together. "And the voters who do register will actually vote. African-American voters, under-30 voters will be hugely self-motivated. They'll get to the polls in numbers that aren't typical for new registrants, and they'll do it on their own, on top of the strong turn out mechanics that the Obama guys will surely bring to bear."

Michael Slater, the deputy director of the non-partisan Project Vote, also said he found the Obama campaign's hopes of a dramatic increase in the participation "very plausible" for younger and black voters, groups, he said, which are under-represented in the electorate.

"There's a long history of a lot of hype not delivering on election day," he said. But in this case, "there certainly is a great potential for an African-American candidate to appeal to some voters who have been out of the electorate."

Obama's massive, smoothly integrated volunteer organization has been a mainstay of his campaign. It has been central to his success in caucus states such as Minnesota and Idaho, where a volunteer army - organized online - preceded and noticeably bolstered his staff's organizing efforts, helping to build the huge victory margins that have made him the frontrunner.

His voter registration efforts have drawn far less attention. But they were there from the start. When Obama toured Iowa last February in his first campaign swing, his campaign brought along voter registration cards. As the race there heated up, voter registration became a quiet focus, with registration drives in colleges and even high schools that helped drive Obama's victory.

South Carolina, Hildebrand said, was the site of another intensive effort. "A great case study for voter registration was the South Carolina primary, where we dramatically expanded the African-American vote and dramatically expanded the youth vote," he said. "It was such a big part of getting us to that 28-point margin of victory."

Another high-stakes voter registration drive just concluded in Pennsylvania, where the deadline to register as a Democrat and participate in the primary was March 24. The Pennsylvania Department of State reports that more than 234,000 voters have either newly registered as Democrats or switched from other parties, and the state hasn't finished counting the new registrations.<