Good round up of the latest fundraising scandal to rock the Clinton campaign. Mr. Hsu has since surrendered to authorities in San Mateo, California. It will be very interesting to see what bits of information will be coming forth from Mr. Hsu in the weeks ahead.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Abdul Rehman Jinnah a Pakistani immigrant who gained notoriety among Democratic circles by hosting elaborate fundraisers for Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Party luminaries fled the country back in March of this year. Mr. Jinnah's fundraising methods gained the attention of authorities after it was revealed that he reimbursed friends, business associates and their relatives for impressive contributions made to Democratic candidates. Mr. Jinnah fled the country after investigators were able to issue an indictment against him accusing the businessman of providing over $50,000 in illegal contributions to Democratic committees.
The L.A. Times published an article on Jinnah's fundraising exploits on behalf of Mrs. Clinton in a March 3rd posting on their website. The article is no longer available on their website but is referenced here and here by Sweetness & Light and Rantburg.
The article cites contributions made to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Mrs. Clinton's political action committee, HillPAC.
Here is a recent photo of Mr. Jinnah.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The L.A. Times reports today that major Democratic Party fundraiser and Hillary Clinton supporter Norman Hsu is wanted by authorities. Mr. Hsu's name appeared in an article yesterday in the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Hsu failed to surrender to authorities after agreeing to serve up to three years in prison following convictions for grand theft swindling according to the Times.
Mr. Hsu has kept busy over the years funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaigns of Democratic Party candidates such as Mrs. Clinton, John Kerry, Edward Kennedy Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein and Barak Obama.
Mr. Hsu's attorney when contacted by the L.A. Times had no recollection of his client being involved in a criminal case or required to serve any jail time.
Regarding Mr. Hsu Ronald Smetana of the California attorney general's office told the Times, "He is a fugitive, do you know where he is?"
The Times carries the story here and Captains Quarters has a post up on Hsu here.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
The Wall Street Journal reports today that Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has received $45,000 from a family of six sharing an 1,800 square foot home in Daly City, California and situated under the flight path of San Francisco International Airport.
The Journal reports that its unclear how the Paw family who owns the house is able to afford such political largesse.
William Paw, the 64-year-old head of the household, is a mail carrier with the U.S. Postal Service who earns about $49,000 a year, according to a union representative. Alice Paw, also 64, is a homemaker. The couple's grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company to "attendance liaison" at a local public high school. One is listed on campaign records as an executive at a mutual fund.
The Paws' political donations closely track donations made by Norman Hsu, a wealthy New York businessman in the apparel industry who once listed the Paw home as his address, according to public records. Mr. Hsu is one of the top fund-raisers for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign. He has hosted or co-hosted some of her most prominent money-raising events.
Read the whole thing here.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki struck back at Senate Dems Senators Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. Levin is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services. Both Senators have called for the removal of the Iraqi Prime Minister because of ongoing violence and political deadlock in Iraq.
Senators Clinton and Levin are apparently under the impression that al-Maliki is the Viceroy of some far-flung American colony. The al-Maliki is the head of a sovereign state and does not serve at the whim of Senate Democrats. The Prime Minister said as much when he shot back, "There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. I like the Village analogy. Obviously a swipe at Hillary's "It takes a Village" tome. Nice try Prime Minister but fat chance that the Dems will ever come to their senses on anything including Iraq.
If the Dems and select Pubs pawning the honor of their office for a few favorable nods from the mainstream media want to look for political deadlock, they need look no further than the hallowed halls of the US Congress that enjoys a whopping 18% job approval rating from the American public.
AP News carries the story here.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Long overdue response to the anti-war crowd's claim that "our presence in Iraq" is the cause of trouble in the region. The President quotes liberal Democrat and Bill Clinton mentor, Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas who said of the Vietnamese people "What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos whether they have a military dictator or a socialist commissar?" How's that for look into the dark heart of free thinking, "progressive", liberalism? As Bush once said when challenged at a summit by a couple of European bureaucrats that the problem with the world is the US goes into too many places and our presence brings instability to places that would otherwise have peace and harmony, "I looked at him right in the eye and I said the American people and the United States government are the solution. We are not the problem."
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
Elvira Arellano, a Mexican citizen working illegally in the United States was arrested yesterday after speaking to reporters outside Our Lady Queen of Angels church in Los Angeles. Ms. Arellano gained notoriety last year as the woman who found sanctuary from authorities inside a South Chicago church. Arellano has an eight year old son who is a U.S. citizen and had sought to publicize the plight of illegals who have children in the United States. Arellano had decided to travel to Los Angeles before attending a rally and prayer meeting in Washington D.C. to petition the government for immigration reform.
Arellano arrest was based on a deportation order issued by a federal immigration judge back in 1997. During an afternoon press conference Arellano's son Saul hid behind the wife of the Rev. Walter Coleman, pastor of Adalberto United Methodist, the Chicago church that had granted sanctuary to Arellano. Mrs. Coleman is the legal guardian of Arellano's son.
Arellano had entered the U.S. illegally in 1997 when she was apprehended in Washington state and deported back to Mexico. In 2000 she again entered the United States this time to work in Illionois where she was employed cleaning airplanes at O'Hare International Airport. In 2002 Ms. Arellano was arrested at O'Hare for working under a false Social Security number. She was to have appeared before authorities last August when she decided instead to seek sanctuary inside Adalberto United Methodist in Chicago.
Arellano states in this quote from AP, "From the time I took sanctuary the possibility has existed that they arrest me in the place and time they want," she said in Spanish. "I only have two choices. I either go to my country, Mexico, or stay and keep fighting. I decided to stay and fight."
Nice. She decides to ignore our laws by sneaking into the country and then fight for her "right" to break our laws by remaining in the country even after a federal judge has ordered her deportation back to her country of origin.
It's hard to know where to begin with this story. The woman definitely has chuztpah (Yiddish for unbelievable gall; insolence; audacity). I can understand the woman's desire to be with her son but she instead uses him as a prop to try and legitimize her illegal activity. If she really wanted to be with her son she can do that by taking him with her to Mexico where she will not have to seek the misguided hospitality of strangers in order to avoid the consequences of breaking the law. Ms. Arellano is mad because the authorities didn't go along with her plan to use her son as an anchor baby. So instead of taking her son with her where she will be able to watch over and care for him she chooses instead to use him as a prop in her bit of political theatre. Ms. Arellano wants to be able to break our immigration laws at will and be able to continue living and working in the United States without consequence.
Ms. Arellano's activities and motivations remind me of another mother who uses her son as a prop and a backdrop for her political mischief. The AP carries the story here and CBS2 in L.A. carries it here.
Arellano's deportation was long overdue.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Captain Quarters reports on the City of New York's precautions following a threat to explode a dirty bomb in the vicinity of 34th Street in Manhattan yesterday evening. The area in question is the location of Macy's Department Store, the Empire State Building and and Madison Square Garden. One Jerusalem says that several bridges and tunnels are being scrutinized after information was picked up from an Israeli site that monitors jihadist sites that someone will try and bring a bomb into Mid-Town Manhattan.
The Fox News 5 posts a notice from the NYPD here about the threat and adds that that threat is "unverified".
The Debka File which monitors events in the middle east picked up an increase in electronic chatter on August 8th. The threat warned of attacks by terrorists driving trucks containing radioactive bombs into New York, Los Angeles and Miami. The Debka file carries the story here. The message exchanges took place over al Qaeda's internal Internet sites after a long silence on these subjects notes the article.
This threat comes on the heals of two odious articles recently published on the East Coast. Friday Stu Bykofsky writing in the Philadelphia Daily News wrote that to save America we need another 9/11. The writer outlines how the nation is divided in its support for the Bush Administration's policies in prosecuting the war on terror and states that the event that would unite us together again would be another 9/11 attack. I'm sorry Stu but to quote your article today "What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing?"
What America needs today Stu is revival and reconciliation squared. Revival and reconciliation with God and revival and reconciliation with each other other as fellow Americans. The nation does not need another destructive event to restore our "singular purpose to prevail" in this war against terrorism.
Not to be outdone from the Big Apple comes Steven Levitt to pose the question "If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?" Writing in Wednesday's debut of his "Freakonomics" blog cradled within the pages of (where else?) The New York Times Mr. Levitt brain-storms about different ways to stike the most terror in the hearts of the hapless Gotham citizenry as though he were participating in a focus group for a new video game. I suppose First Prize for the best entry is a one year subscription to The New York Times, Second Prize is a two year subscription. Freakonomics indeed Mr. Levitt.
The nation is not in need of another catastrophic event visiting death and destruction upon us as Mr. Bykofsky proscribes neither is it in need of the sophomoric academic postulates posed by Mr. Levitt as to whether the war on terror constitutes an actual threat to our existence and serves instead as an amusing little parlor game.
The threat is real enough.
Captain Ed exposes a "Progressive" sposoring a bogus web site for Republican Presidential hopeful Fred Thompson. Henry Reynolds who Captain Ed identifies as an Attorney working in Santa Monica, CA is listed as the Registrant for http://www.imwithfred2008.com/. The the site was obviously set up to confuse Thompson supporters with the candidate's real site http://www.imwithfred.com/.
The bogus site at first featured a banner welcoming people to the Ku Klux Klan with a title that read, "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!" and featured links to various race-hating web sites. The Captain then posed the question why would someone sponsor a hate site like this and try and link Fred Thompson with it? He researched on-line political donation records of Henry Reynolds and found contributions to MoveOn.org here and John Kerry for President here. Captain Ed provides another link to the FEC Electronic Filing Report Retrieval web site that purportedly shows a $500.00 contribution to DNC Services however that link does not appear to be working at this time.
After the Captain exposed this bit of Tom-Foolery he reports the bogus web site went through a variety of permutations, from KKK hate site to the John Edwards campaign site to deviant sex and now to a Wikipedia entry for Fredric Jameson literary critic and Marxist political theorist. Perhaps this is Henry Reynolds hero. I'd link to the site but I'm afraid of what might pop up next!
Mr. Reynolds has gone through a number of further contortions on the web after the discovery of his on-line subterfuge. Ed writes:
Apparently, we got Henry Reynolds' attention. He has had GoDaddy change the domain registration information to list the owner as DomainsbyProxy of Scottsdale, AZ. Too bad I decided to cache the domain registration here earlier, as well as the website.
To show that all denizens of the left are not equated with Henry Reynolds Ed cites the Middle Earth Journal that writes in "When Henry Met Stupid", there is more information to be gathered before anyone can be absolutely sure of what's going on here. I mean, it's certainly possible that Henry is actually a gay member of the KKK with a life partner named Fred who will celebrate their anniversary in 2008, but somehow it seems to lack the ring of truth.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committe demanded internal documents on the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program yesterday. Senator Leahy has set an August 20th deadline for the White House to comply with his latest demand. It's not clear as to why the Committee Chairman is pursuing the White House for internal documents over a surveillance program that has already been approved by the House in a 227-183 vote which followed the Senate's approval on Friday of last week. The Bill is now on its way to be signed by into law by President Bush.
Although this law will expire in six months unless an extension is approved by Congress it's hard to imagine that a majority of Senators and Congressmen will want to stand before their constituants during the upcoming 2008 election cycle and say, "I voted against NSA wiretaps" if it turns out the the program is responsible for the apprehension of suspects plotting a follow-up 9/11-style attack on American soil.
So why is Leahy, so interested in these internal memos that he is willing to risk yet another confrontation with the White House over the extent of his supoena power? Leahy is not completely nuts and he must know that he will get another letter from the White House like the one he received on August 1st that looks like this.
The President can continue to rest on executive privilege from now until the cows come home and Leahy's baseless claims are as useful as swinging his purse around in the wind.
The White House at this point can respond to Leahy's interminable requests for more and more documents with form letters that include the phrase:
The President's actions today are consistent with his previous assertion of executive
privilege over similar subpoenas for documents and testimony in this matter, for the
reasons set forth in detail in my letters of August 8, 2007, June 28, 2007 and July 9, 2007 to Chairman Leahy and Congressman Conyers.
Methinks the Senator is on a fishing expedition and trying to use bluff and blunder to extract as much information as he can from the White House for purely partisan political reasons. What legitimate purpose does it serve to demand internal documents from the White House for a program whose continuation has been approved by both houses of Congress and is on its way to a Presidential signature? Does the Leahy now want to insert a new talking point for Dem candidates, "Bush misled us into the NSA"? I suggest the Senator use his upcoming August recess time angling in the rivers and streams of Vermont instead of trolling the waters of the Potomac.
The Politico and Guardian provide background here and here.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
The New York Times has an article up on its newly de-firewalled website announcing plans by the Department of Homeland Security to require employers to fire employees who use falsified Social Security numbers.
For years employers and the government have largely ignored so-called "no-match letters" notices that Social Security numbers provided by employees do not match entries made into the system. Now employers will have 14 days to remediate errors after receiving a no-match letter from the government. The employer will be expected to check for clerical errors or consult with the employee for any mistakes. If these mistakes are corrected and the proper documents filed within the 14 day period the employer will avoid government penalties.
From the New York Times:
The new rules codify an uneasy partnership between the Department of Homeland Security, which enforces the immigration laws, and the Social Security Administration, which collects identity information from W-2 tax forms of about 250 million workers each year, including immigrants and Americans, so it can credit the earnings in its system.
Mark Hinkle, a spokesman for Social Security, said the agency expected to send out about 140,000 no-match letters to employers this year, covering more than eight million workers. After the rules are announced, the agency is anticipating a surge in requests from employers seeking to clarify workers’ information, he said.
I'm sorry the government waited so long (decades) to announce this crackdown on employers who hire illegal aliens. Families of illegals living in the United States today have come to expect that working in the United States is a right! The reason illegal immigration has ballooned to the level we have today is due to employers who hire them! Many of these employers see undocumented immigrants as a ready source of cheap labor. Since these folks are here illegally they can be easily intimidated. And there are some unscrupulous employers who calculate the amount they would normally withhold in FICA and Medicare payments for the employee and never forward those withholdings to the Federal government.
Employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens are not heroes.
The usual suspects are making noises about challenging this soon-to-be announced ruling in court.
From the article:
Immigrants rights groups and labor unions, including the A.F.L.-C.I.O, predicted the rules would result in discrimination against Hispanic workers. They said they were preparing legal challenges to try to stop them from taking effect.
I like that "Immigrants rights groups" moniker, should read "illegal immigrants presumed rights groups" who feed off of the misfortune of these folks.
Also from the article:
“The enforcement is only on the immigration side,” Ana Avendaño, associate general counsel for the A.F.L.-C.I.O, said today. “They don’t do any labor inspection. So they are just giving employers another tool to repress workers’ rights.”
Even large companies that do not hire many low-skilled immigrants would also be affected by the rules, lawyers said. “It’s going to be a big change for almost every company,” said Cynthia J. Lange, an immigration lawyer in California.
“If this is strictly enforced, there could be massive layoffs of workers,” said Muzaffar Chishti, a director of the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan research group. But he said that illegal immigrant workers might not leave the labor force, but would apply for jobs at other businesses using the same invalid documents. He predicted the market for forged documents would grow.
Excuse me but I don't think people who have just been fired because of their phony Social Security card are going to be in the market for a new and improved phony Social Security card.
Expect a fight but it had to come down to this one day.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Private Scott Beauchamp has recanted his "fabulist" stories published in the July 23rd issue of The New Republic as well as the two previous issues of The New Republic according to The Weekly Standard. The "Baghdad Diarist" admitted in signed a sworn statement that he made up the stories he wrote for TNR. According to the Weekly Standard's source the statement Scott Thomas Beauchamp admitted that, all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth.
Beauchamp signed the statement admitting to the falsehoods during the first day of the official military investigation into events he wrote about while using the pseudonym "Scott Thomas". On the very day that Beauchamp came clean with investigators Franklin Foer the Editor of The New Republic published a statement from Beauchamp that read, "I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name."
How's that for being in touch with your unimpeachable sources Mr. Foer?
Indulging in a bit of after-the-fact cut and paste, the editors of The New Republic said Beauchamp later recalled one of the stories that he said he would stand by in its entirety occured not in a "mess hall" in Iraq after all but in Kuwait. Beauchamp says he and a comrade humiliated a woman disfigured by an IED. The story was meant to tell of the "morally and emotionally distorting effects of war". Of course our soldiers were the antagonists while the war served as the backdrop for Beauchamp's melodrama.
The editors of The New Republic posted a terse response to their critics here. In their response they claim to have called Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his tales. The editors say that Major Lamb told them he had no knowledge of a sworn statement made by Private Beauchamp.
This stands in direct contradiction to what has been widely published about Beauchamp and the reliability of his stories as well as the reports about the official military inquiry into the "Baghdad Diarist's" articles.
Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard responds to The New Republic:
(1) They neglected to report that the Army has concluded its investigation and found Beauchamp's stories to be false. As Major Lamb, the very officer they quote, has said in an authorized statement: "An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims."
(2) Does the failure of the New Republic to report the Army's conclusions mean that the editors believe the Army investigators are wrong about Beauchamp?
(3) We have full confidence in our reporting that Pvt Beauchamp recanted under oath in the course of the investigation. Is the New Republic claiming that Pvt Beauchamp made no such admission to Army investigators? Is Beauchamp?
The Army initiated an official investigation into these purported events and came to the conclusion that Private Beauchamp is a liar! Can it get any clearer than that TNR? Is The New Republic now saying that the U.S. Army investigators who looked into this affair are liars? Are they now saying that their "Diarist" is still standing by his words even after signing a sworn statement that, all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth. ?
Who to believe? Who to believe? Let me see.......
Definitely I do not believe The New Republic. Based on their tersely worded defenses, rather obvious political leanings and their rush to print these distortions without performing their due diligence in advance of publication I find their version of events hard to believe at best. I'm speculating here but I think that to them a chance to publish Beauchamp's articles to illustrate the "morally and emotionally distorting effects of war" must have seemed too good to not be true. Maybe it was a Dan Rather-like moment for them, pouring over the "diarist's" manuscripts the way Rather thumbed through the Texas Air National Guard documents that had so conveniently materialized just weeks before the Presidential election of 2004. Rather thought he finally had the goods on George Bush and had "scooped" the other networks, instead he and four of his compatriots got caught in the snare they had so carefully laid for the President. After that event his credibility as a newsman never really recovered. Rather's own preconceived notions about the President and his zeal to get George Bush convinced him that the TANG documents must have been true. In fact Dan Rather still believes in the infamous TANG documents which were shown to be obvious fogeries.
Is The New Republic on the same track as Rather that they now adhere to a fake-but-true standard of journalistic reliabilty?
Maybe a summary of headlines we can expect to see featuring the "fabulistic" journalism pioneered by The New Republic would be:
Hillary to Barak, I'll have your baby!
Mitt Romney endorsed by Space Aliens for 2008 run!
Alberto Gonzales is really Elvis!
Lose weight fast with incredible Beer and Pizza diet!
World ended in 2004 says Historian!
Will be Franklin Foer's next line of defense for this new brand of "fabulistic" journalism be "Why do you think we call them stories?"
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Pajamas Media provides the video of an American Soldier attending the YearlyKos Convention being shouted down for daring to disagree with the panelists on a forum called "Progressives and the Military". Panel moderator John Soltz refuses to hear comments made by the soldier stating that the surge in Iraq is working and civilian casualties are dropping. Soltz instead demands instead to have the name of the soldier's commanding officer and indicates that he will try and get the soldier in trouble for attending a political event while in uniform.
The rationale for Soltz's outburst is that the soldier is out of line in appearing at a partisan convention and offering his opinion about how the war is progressing. Well the forum was called "Progressives and the Military" wasn't it? Anyway Soltz, founder of votevets.org who apparently has appeared making political statements while wearing a uniform according to ThePopulist completely loses it over the gall of this soldier doing exactly what he does while wearing the uniform of a member of the armed forces.
Pajamas Media has the video here.
Wesley Clark who attended the conference tries to provide air cover for Soltz by lamely explaining to conference attendees that a member of the military can’t participate in polical meetings in uniform. But as John Lilyea points out, leftists have no compunction about soldiers who ascribe to their points of view attending their political rallies while in uniform.
Lilyea points to the Department of Defense Directive 1334.01 that Clark mentions in his anemic defense of Soltz's indefensible actions.
3.1. The wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of Reserve components) is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:
3.1.1. At any meeting or demonstration that is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons that the Attorney General of the United States has designated, under Executive Order 10450 as amended (reference (c)), as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
3.1.2. During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.
3.1.3. Except when authorized by the approval authorities in subparagraph 4.1.1., when participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.
3.1.4. When wearing of the uniform may tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.
Lilyea rightly points out, unless Kos admits that it’s a totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive organization, the guy was within his rights to be there and in uniform. It’s just a lame excuse to keep people from hearing that current operations have improved life in Iraq, while hiding behind a DoD policy that the Left doesn’t agree with when it suits them.
Lilyea adds, in case this Jon Solz dude who dressed down the soldier is wondering - I don’t care what his rank is or was - I’d tear him a new aft-orifice if I ever caught him intimidating a soldier - especially like a lame little puss. “What’s your unit? Who’s your commander?” That’s stuff real leaders stop doing their first day.
Based on how the Kos moderator couldn't handle a challenge to his scripted monologue, he might be able to pursue a reprimand against the soldier on the basis that "this is a totalitarian, fascist, subversive communist organization".
Give credit to ThePopulist he found the cretenous John Soltz's actions contemptible and stated for the record that, for Mr. Soltz to act in the manner that he did is to spit in the face of the United State Military and to spit upon our great Constitution. Further, Repression of free speech of any kind, is un-American, period.
Mr. Soltz, you own the American people an apology.
Hey, maybe we can agree on some things after all!
Confederate Yankee has been in contact with Col. Steven Boylan, Public Affairs Officer for U.S. Army Commanding General in Iraq David Petraeus. As to the "fabulist" stories recounted by Private (PV-2) Scott Thomas Beauchamp Colonel Boylan writes, an investigation of the allegations were conducted by the command and found to be false. In fact, members of Thomas' platoon and company were all interviewed and no one could substantiate his claims.
Notice the claims were not merely uncorraborated but "found to be false". Scott Beauchamp was found to be a liar after a formal military investigation into his stories and this finding did not even take more than a week!
Chris Muir has the perfect storyline for The New Republic's urban myth here.
As to what will become of Beauchamp the Colonel writes, as there is no evidence of criminal conduct, he is subject to Administrative punishment as determined by his chain of command.
So we have a disgraced "diarist" who has been shown to have written fables for gullible leftists wanting to believe that the members of our armed services are a bunch of knuckle-dragging sociopaths followed by a self-satisfied, soon-to-be-disgraced editor clinging to the futile hope that those fables will become true.
Franklin Foer told ABC News, "We showed the stories to people who'd been embedded in Iraq to make sure that it all smelled good. We talked to one of the members of his unit to confirm the woman, a female contractor. We talked to a medic who'd served in Iraq to make sure that a woman could be in an FOB. We spent a lot of time with him on the phone asking hard questions."
So Foer spent a lot of time on the phone talking to an equally anonymous source as his original author "asking hard questions" to try and shore up his faulty story and this is suppossed to pass for fact checking. Beauchamp now claims the the story he wrote about the disfigured woman who was mocked by servicemen while in the "chow hall" occured not outside of Baghdad but at Camp Buehring in Kuwait. (Yeah, that's the ticket!) First we are suppossed to believe that this outrage occured just outside of Baghdad then the location of the story is changed and we're asked to believe that too and still believe Beauchamp and Foer.
Hugh Hewitt reprints a letter written to Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard who has been following this story closely.
I have been at Camp Buehring for 9 months, and it is the only "staging" and training area for troops going north. I would like to think I am well-tuned to the activity here on camp, but I would be deluding myself if I said I knew everything going on here at Buehring. If Scott Beauchamp came through Kuwait, he came through Buehring, period.
If he saw a burned woman here, then I would like to know where she is, because I haven't seen her in the whole 9 months. That's not to say she doesn't exist - she could - but I haven't seen her, at least not here. Maybe she was visiting from another camp. The chances of him getting off Buehring to go to another camp are very slim, just because of the OPSEC measures and restrictions on travel. Again, not to say it is impossible, just very unlikely.
This story is a non-starter that only Franklin Foer and a small klatch of leftists will cling to with the same fervency as Dan Rather does to this day with his Texas Air National Guard "scoop".
Friday, August 03, 2007
Democrat Presidential Candidate John Edwards yesterday demanded that his rivals return any campaign donations they had received from Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation. The NY Post reports today that Edwards himself received at least $800,000 for a book published by one of Murdoch's publishing companies.
From the article:
The Edwards campaign said the multimillionaire trial lawyer would not return the hefty payout from Murdoch for the book titled "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives."
The campaign didn't respond to a question from The Post about whether it was hypocritical for Edwards to take money from News Corp. while calling for other candidates not to.
In addition to a $500,000 advance from HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp., Edwards also was cut a check for $300,000 for expenses.
(Edwards spokesman) says he gave that amount to charity, which would also provide tax benefits for Edwards. "We're more than happy to give even more of Murdoch's money to Habitat for Humanity and other good causes," spokesman Eric Schultz told The Post yesterday.
He declined to show proof, however, that Edwards had donated the $500,000 advance or $300,000 expense checks to charity.
Between the $400-1200 haircuts, the $50,000 fee he charged to speak about poverty, the 28,000 square foot mansion that he built for himself and now the revelation that he took money from a Company he chastened his opponents to spurn, Edwards can't help but tie himself up in knots because of his overwhelming hypocrisy.
Edwards lags well behind Senators Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton and it reflects well on the electorate that they can see through his charade.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
It's been a bad week for the GetOutofIraqTheUSisDefeatedBushIsHitlerHalaHalaHalaburton crowd and leaders of the Democrat Party.
Democrat Senate and Congressional leaders have done their level best to undermine the President and the war effort through a series of deranged, malicious and politically motivated stunts. The Democrats have revived the Marxist political tactic of "death by a thousand cuts" against their nemesis, George Walker Bush. Their hatred for this man is so consuming that they cower at the mere mention of his name. The Democrats have staged a ridiculous all night sleep-in in the Senate, introduced various meaningless amendments to "bring the troops home 'cause we really support them", moved to cut and delay funding for the armed forces during time of war and launched over 300 "investigations", spewed 350 requests for documents and interviews and held over 600 oversight hearings in the space of about 100 days.
After indulging in all the political chicanery and mischief they can muster they wake up to a week where:
Britain's new Prime Minister on his first official visit to Washington, praises George Bush on his leadership in fighting the global war on terror and vowed cooperation with President Bush.
The New York Times publishes an article reporting that we are turning the corner in Iraq and may very well win the war. Worse yet for the Dems the guys writing the article are liberals from a think tank run by liberals!
Former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate for 2000 Senator Joe Lieberman (I) Connecticut rebuked Dems for their refusal to work with President Bush and the constant mudslinging conducted on Capitol Hill.
The Hill quotes Lieberman when he states, “I fear that some people take this position also because anything President Bush is for, they’ll be against, and that’s wrong,”.....“There’s a great tradition in our history of partisanship generally receding when it comes to foreign policy. But for the moment we’ve lost that.”
Then retired three-star General John Keane had the temerity to deliver a positive report about Iraq to Congress this week. Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Boyda found the positive report so upsetting that she had to leave the briefing room in a huff as reported by Hugh Hewitt and other bloggers who cite Boyda's actions as impetus for the inauguration of the Nancy Boyda award.
Hewitt writes of this little demonstration of Democrat frustration with the truth, OF COURSE, THE COUNTRY IS full of Nancy Boydas – people who refuse to hear good news from Iraq. They believe that the war is lost and that the sooner America and especially the Bush administration admit its humiliation at the hands of Al Qaeda and abandon millions of Iraqis to genocidal massacres, the better. It is in Nancy Boyda’s honor that I now introduce the Nancy Boyda Award, which I will present to people who ostentatiously deny whatever good news might come out of Iraq.
Robert Steely has more on the antics of Kansas Congresswoman Nancy Boyda here.
Finally Hot Air posts an interview with Representative James Clyburn Democrat of South Carolina who in this video interview makes it very plain that, it would be a “real big problem for us” if Petraeus’s progress report is good.
Looks like good news for the country is bad news for Democrats.