Follow the Queen

Pejman Yousefzadeh, RedState's three-card monte specialist pulls another stunning sleight-of-hand as he takes note of the Glasgow airport bombing:

I'd like to hear a little more talk about how the war on terror is supposedly a "bumper sticker slogan".

Mr. Yousefzadeh, of course, refers (and links) to John Edwards' recent comments that the "global war" on terror is a fraud:

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set--that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

If you look closely, you can see that Mr. Yousefzadeh has something up his sleeve: Edwards asserts that the Bush administration errs by framing the fight against terrorism as a "war." But Mr. Yousefzadeh deals from the bottom of the deck when he asks: "Can We Be Disabused Of Some Particularly Misguided Notions Now?" He slickly implies that Mr. Edwards, thinks there's no terrorism.

If it's correctly framed as a "war," Mr. Yousefzadeh, when do we send troops to Glasgow?

That Gnawing Feeling

The Redstate "directors" and their guard dog Mr. Lane have suddenly awakened to find that their rabid brand of conservativism, nativism, and militarism attracts some unsavory characters.

Wolf-trap ugly time, boys?

I Coulda Sworn There Were Some Goal Posts Right Over Here....

Redstate's regular weekend contributor, Pejman Yousefzadeh, is discouraged that the White House won't fight for the renomination of Gen. Peter Pace as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. OK, maybe "discouraged" understates it a bit. Mr. Yousefsadeh characterizes the decision as "Wrong. Totally, Completely, Terribly Wrong."

Mr. Yousefzadeh cites Breitbart.com linking to an AP wire story that quotes Defense Secretary Robert Gates' explanation:

"Gates said he had originally intended to seek another two-year term for Pace, but concluded that would have resulted in a divisive Senate confirmation focusing on the Iraq War."

Of course, examining the performance of an appointee before clearing him for another term would seem to be the very least one should expect from any gathering of beings possessed of a pulse and practicing respiration (and that includes most of the Senate). Gen. Pace has been a member of the joint chiefs for the entire duration of the Iraq war and the Chairman for a good portion of it. That a hearing on the prospect of extending the general's tenure would be "backwards looking" shouldn't be surprising. Savvy congress watchers expect it and maybe even applaud it.

Mr. Yousefzadeh acknowledges this, begrudgingly, and faults the White House for caving to Gen. Pace's critics without a fight. He discounts the possibility that even this White House might hold its appointees accountable for how well they do their jobs. It's no secret that progress in Iraq is running well behind schedule. To win another ride, Gen. Pace would have, quite rightly, some splainin to do.

The real shocker, however, is the shiny, new characterization of war critics Mr. Yousefzadeh unveils:

"By refusing to fight for Pace's confirmation due to the fear of "a backward looking and very contentious process," the Bush Administration has once again surrendered the rhetorical field to opponents of the reconstruction effort."

"Opponents of the reconstruction effort?"

No mistake. Mr. Yousefzadeh follows up with several riffs on this surprising theme:

"As things currently stand, the Administration is fighting to keep the reconstruction effort afloat against public opinion..."

"In order to succeed in the face of this opposition, the Administration must argue for its position and for the people who have worked loyally along with it on the reconstruction effort."

"...by all accounts [Gen. Pace] has done yeoman work in trying to get the reconstruction effort to succeed."

This new construction spins the "But we're painting the schools" argument off to a stunningly distant nadir. The "reconstruction" is no longer just the good news anti-war types choose to ignore. Now it's apparently the only game in town. Mr. Yousefzadeh elects to make the ongoing fighting disappear so he can fault war critics for actively opposing the painting of those modest schoolhouses. To make this improbable proposition work, Mr. Yousefzadeh would have us believe that war critics--the ones who inconveniently point out the ongoing failure of the occupying allies to provide consistent water and electricity--oppose rebuilding Iraq with the same fervor with which they opposed wrecking it in the first place.

Perhaps Mr. Yousefzadeh is at least partly right, but simply overstates. Maybe war critics are opposed to reconstruction efforts, especially the ones that take the lives of 100 or so of our young men and women each month.

UPDATE: Mr. Haystack joins in the fun, writing that the White House has failed to stand by the good Gen. Pace because liberals suck!

Goodbye. Hello. Goodbye.

Jeff Emanuel bans a commenter not just once, but twice in one day:

First, in comments to a post by Mr. Strieff, Mr. Emanuel grows exasperated by the refusal of a commenter called "Valley" to obey orders:

Are they terrorists? Do you by Valley

Are they terrorists? Do you have proof? Or is this another ghost train with the WMDs? Where are the weapons? Or is a WMD just like God? I just have to believe and they'll be there?

Reply To This — User Info — #23

All right, pal. by Jeff Emanuel

You're gone. Buh-bye

.
Reply To This — User Info — #24

A short while later, Mr. Emanuel dismisses "euni84", with the accusation that this is Valley under a new account name:

War is not the answer by euni84

While I do believe in a timeline for eventual withdrawal to bring some order to this war, I also think that it would be foolish to pull out of Iraq without thinking about the repercussions and alternatives for this war. I think that for Iraq to escape turmoil, insitutions and funding need to be in place to address and prevent further poverty.

If the original principle of why we are fighting this war is as important as Bush claims, the $340 billion already spent and the further $100+ billion to be spent should be redirected toward plans to fight poverty and develop the country to prevent another Afghanistan. According to the Borgen Project, just $19 billion annually can end starvation and $15 billion provides water and sanitation all over the world. If ending terror is the goal, programs such as the Millennium Development Goals to end poverty is the way to to go for our leaders. Poverty is at the root of many of the world's problmens today; ignoring it is a mistake.

Reply To This — User Info — #10

Welcome back, Valley by Jeff Emanuel

Go away and stay away this time.

-The Mgmt

You Agree With Me? I'm OUTRAGED!!

Jeff Emanuel fires up the Redstate Outrage Beacon (am I supposed to insert teh funny TM superscript here, guys?). What is it that has Mr. Emanuel's Fruit-of-the-Looms in a tangle?

Are you wondering what the heck I'm talking about? I mean, seriously - what in the world does the US have to do with this anyway, and why in the world would we owe reparations to a country for an action that we had no part of?

That's a question for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and his eight compatriots, all of whom have co-sponsored a bill that would require that America pay reparations to the people of Guam for - get this - the actions of the Japanese in World War II.

It seems Mr. Emanuel is upset at Mr. Hoyer, et. al., over HR.1595, the "Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act. The Act provides monetary compensation for citizens of Guam who suffered at the hands of the Japanese military during WWII.

This, says Mr. Emanuel, is more evidence of Democratic perfidy:

Way to go, Democrats. Your "blame America first" (even for things we have nothing to do with), anti-US soldier attitudes, actions, and mindsets have just been taken to a new level.

Mr. Emanuel urges his readers to stop what they're doing to take part in democracy by pestering their elected officials about this. And, of course, he makes use of the flashing Outrage Beacon.

Mr. Emanuel doesn't tell the whole story, though.

• He mentions Mr. Hoyer and his eight co-sponsors. In fact, there are many more than eight, including those dastardly Democrats Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Burton.


• He forgets to mention that the bill merely rubber stamps the recommendations of the Guam War Claims Review Commission, established by the Republican congress in 2002 and its members appointed by Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton.


• He neglects to mention that the people of Guam were imprisoned, tortured, and even beheaded for protecting U.S. soldiers during the war.

So the wicked Mr. Hoyer has apparently committed the grave sin of agreeing with the Republican leadership that put this plan in motion to begin with!

What's truly strange, though, is that Mr. Emanuel keeps referring to "the people of Guam" as if they are an undeserving foreign nation.

Dude, they're Americans!

UPDATE: Erick posts not once, but twice, urging the hounds to bay into the phones. Result? H.R. 1595 passes. It passes overwhelmingly with 66 Republicans voting in favor.

Good work, lads!

MORE!: Michelle Malkin joins the chase and quotes one of Erick's posts:

If the right side of the blogosphere cannot defeat the bill to give reparations to Guam, then we are toast. I've listed every casualty of war who fought to free Guam from Imperial Japan...
...These are the heros of Guam. The men of the United States military who rescued Guam from the Imperial Japanese. These men shed their blood that Guam might be free.

And yet, the House Majority Leader thinks this is not enough. Steny Hoyer thinks we should also have to pay Guam reparations for what Imperial Japan did to Guam.

You can stop this madness. You can call your Congressman and tell him to vote against this bill. Call right now and tell your Congressman to oppose H.R. 1595. Call 202-224-3121. Fight this resolution.

But gosh! When you click Malkin's link back to the original post, that thing about toast isn't there.

I wonder how that happened?

The Truth? You Can't Handle the Truth!!

Redstate frontpage regular Mark I faces a daunting dilemma in today's review of congressional hearings including testimony by former Army private and POW Jessica Lynch and members of ex-NFL star Pat Tillman's family.

Mr. I acknowledges the military lied. He also accepts that Mr. Waxman, the Democratic chair of the House Oversight Committee, is presenting an accurate version of these events.

This just won't do, will it? Mr. I must make Mr. Waxman the villain while praising the military and avoiding criticism of Ms. Lynch or the Tillmans.

It's a difficult challenge, and one that apparently overwhelms Mr. I. He's barely able to rouse himself to offer even the most strained and improbable explanation of the hearing. Right from the outset, Mr. I confesses that something has gone awry:

"For the purposes of this piece, I will stipulate to all of Waxman’s “facts.” I will agree that Lynch did not go down fighting, as was first reported in the Washington Post by Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb, and that that myth was not the creation of Schmidt and Loeb. I will submit that generals in high levels of command knew within days of his death that Tillman was the victim of friendly fire--fratricide in military speak--and that they conspired among themselves and even ordered subordinates to withhold that fact from his family."

(Why does Mr. I stipulate to sneer-quoted "facts" when he has just allowed that they are, indeed, facts? He explains that no congressional hearing is needed to unearth the truth. The military--diligently setting the record straight--has already 'fessed up to their earlier wayward statements.)

So if the facts (or "facts") are all on the table, why the hearing?

The clairvoyant Mr I sees all, tells all. He divines Mr. Waxman's real motives:

• use Lynch, Tillman, and their families to further erode the American people’s support for the war in Iraq


• pressure the Bush Administration into abandoning the noble work being done there


• convince the American public to question everything they hear from the Pentagon and from the Bush Administration

Not surprisingly, Mr. Waxman, stubbornly refuses to own up to any of this. In his opening statement, he insists on masking his sinister agenda:

"...I want to say to Private Lynch and her family: this Committee is going to do its best to find out the source of the fabrications that you have had to endure. We want to know whether they were the result of incompetence or a deliberate strategy to spin a compelling story at a critical time. And we will do our best to find out who should be held accountable."

But these are only Mr. Waxman's lesser depredations, Mr. I explains. By asking uncomfortable questions about who, exactly, hid the truth and invented tales about Ms. Lynch, Mr. Tillman, and others, Mr. Waxman actually seeks to:

"paint doubt with a broad brush onto the genuine stories of heroism from Iraq and Afghanistan."

Summary: Mr. Waxman is guilty of seeking the truth for reasons unacceptable to Mr. I.

Having bumbled this far, Mr. I goes for broke. To bolster his unsupported charges, he explains how Mr. Waxman's impertinent questions reveal rampant treachery:

"Does it make a difference in the end? It is hard to say. Perhaps in the deep, dank fever swamps of the rabidly anti-war left, soldiers like Lynch, Tillman, Smith, and Dunham are already viewed as murderers, torturers, and mindless killing machines."

Who? Wuzzat?!?

"Perhaps the majority of Americans will continue to trust the military to accurately report on the actions of our soldiers. But as a result of these hearings, and the resulting media coverage, many others will now view the action reports from the military with skepticism first. Still others will call into question the citations already awarded for bravery and valor in Iraq and Afghanistan up to and including the Medal of Honor recipients. To the extent that happens, all of the heroes of the Global War on Terror are diminished."

Shorter: It's not the lying that destroys credibility, it's asking who lied that does it.

****

Maybe Mr. I just fired off his post a little hastily. I'm sure he eventually got around to reading the highlights of Ms. Lynch's testimony before the committee. Quite elequently, she said:

"The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals of heroes and they don't need to be told elaborate tales."

Fast Forward

Redstate's Jeff Emanuel notes--with a shriek of gleeful triumph--the discovery of a cache of nitric acid in Iraq.

Why?

Here, let Mr. Emanuel tell you:

So, the bad guys are making chemical weapons in Iraq...chemical weapons are classified by the UN as WMDs...so there are WMDs in Iraq...wait. That can't be right. The reality-based community said they weren't.

Mr. Emanuel is correct. Opponents of the invasion of Iraq--the "reality-based community"--did indeed say exactly that.

Four years ago.

Nowhere in Mr. Emanuel's post, nor in the article he links, does it say that the nitric acid is part of a Saddam-era arsenal.

Perhaps Mr. Emanuel would have better luck trying to pin the blame for the nitric acid on the Iranians. Or the Syrians.

Or even Harry Reid.

Help Wanted

Says Mr. "Streetwise" and seconded by Mr. Lane:

Churchill did not go after Baldwin with wild recriminations, but used his famous wit to leave no doubt how he felt...This is the path we should follow with Madame Speaker and her minions.

Watch for the "Help Wanted" sign to appear in the Redstate window shortly.

I'm Sorry, Mr. Vonnegut

Listen. Jeff Emanuel has come unstuck from reality.

Mr. Emanuel posts a review of Barack Obama's weekend campaign appearances in Selma and seems to see things we mere mortals can't.

Even as he's just warming up, Mr. Emanual conjures. Encapsulating the Obama campaign to date, he offers this:

Thus far, there have been roadblocks, insults, and other issues. The self-and-media-appointed leaders of black America have been slow to warm up to the Senator, fellow Senator (and fellow Presidential candidate) Joe Biden called Obama "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," it turns out that he is descended from slaveowners on his mother's side, and he has fallen victim (repeatedly) to the Hillary! smear machine.

Oddly, the link Mr. Emanuel provides is all about the David Geffen - Maureen Dowd flap. In that contretemps, Mr. Geffen--through Ms. Dowd's column in the New York Times--calls the Clintons every name in the book. Apparently Mr. Obama "fell victim" when the Clinton campaign responded by asking Mr. Obama to cut it out!

A bit later, Mr. Emanuel explains how the Obama campaign "did a good job cleaning up the Biden mess" as if it was Mr. Obama rather than Mr. Biden who needed to scrape the muck of racial stereotyping off his shoes.

For good measure, Mr. Emanuel notes that Mr. Obama's white ancestors were slave owners (but fails to explain whether this is a roadblock, an insult, or a smear orchestrated by the Clinton campaign). Perhaps it's none of the above and Mr. Emanuel simply can't pass up the opportunity to dish the newest dirt.

After meandering through these preliminaries, Mr. Emanuel finally comes to the point: he accuses Mr. Obama of talking down to his black, southern Selma audience:

I think that this question is a very valid one to ask: if the African American community is, as I believe, and as Obama and his defenders have claimed to believe, as normal, articulate, intelligent, etc. as anybody else (to the point that, as we have been fighting for years to achieve, race should no longer matter or be noticed), then why does the fact that he is speaking to an overwhelmingly southern black audience mean that he has to change his manner of speech altogether, from his usual measured, clear, enunciated oratory to THIS:

...and then provides a link to Mr. Obama's speech , here.

Mr. Emanuel concludes:

The question is, will anybody notice the message that Obama is sending regarding his opinion of his own race in the video above - and will anybody allow themselves to really think about what that message means?

At the very beginning of the segment, Mr. Obama slurs the word "going" in "Some women said 'we're going to walk'". The rest seems quite ordinary. Whatever it is that Mr. Emanuel sees, it's not readily apparent to the eyes of ordinary mortals.

The biggest question Mr. Emanuel leaves unanswered, though, is why he has become so interested in the speaking styles of politicians only now--eight long years after the Connecticut-born Ivy leaguer Mr. Bush arrived on the public stage speaking in his "West Texas" twang.
UPDATE: Mr. Emanuel says Hillary's doing it too! Maybe it's a trick to smear Obama!!

Funny You Should Ask

California Yankee asks:

"Just how stupid do the New York Times, CNN and the Associated Press think the American people are[?]"

Mr. Yankee (along with two other Redstate regulars--strieff and haystack)accuses the media outlets of trying to pull a fast one in their reporting on a Senate resolution opposing the President's plans to send more troops to Iraq. Says he:

"The biased media wing of the Democratic party was so shocked that Reid's Democratic majority in the Senate could not pass a motion to cut off debate on “a resolution of irresolution,” criticizing the revised strategy in Iraq, that it misleads lies stating that by voting against the motion to end debate, Republican Senators block debate. Just how stupid do the New York Times, CNN and the Associated Press think the American people are."

After leading with the accusation, Mr. Yankee follows with the snark:

"First, a little civics lesson. As you have surely heard by now, yesterday there was a 'Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 470; A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq.'"

Mr. Yankee may recite his civics lessons correctly, but he flunks on basic reading. Even though he correctly copied the description of the Senate vote, he doesn't seem to grasp its meaning.

The issue at hand was whether or not the Senate should begin debate on S. 470, not to end debate on the measure. Senate Republicans, with just two exceptions, held ranks and prevented the Democratic leadership from moving the measure to the floor.

So, in fact, the New York Times, CNN, and the Associated Press are all exactly correct: Senate Republicans did block debate on the Iraq resolution by voting not to allow the measure to come to the floor. Mr. Yankee misleads his readers by substituting the vote to to keep debating whether to let the measure come to the floor for the debate over the resolution itself.

How stupid do the New York Times, CNN, and the Associate Press think the Ameican people are? A little less so than Mr. Yankee does, apparently.

UPDATE: Unlike his colleagues, Mark Kilmer gets it:

"The Republican blocked the Warner-Levin anti-Bushie sense of the Senate resolution (S.CON.RES.7) from a floor vote..."

Mr. Strieff also comes around and starts talking sense:

"Upfront I think the Warner-Levin Resolution is a monumentally bad idea. The resolution takes Congress into an area in which it has no authority whatsoever, to wit, the conduct of military operations, and even less competence than in most areas in which it legislates. Its non-binding nature brands it as a political stunt."

Given all this, it becomes something of a mystery why Senate Republicans are fighting the resolution so fiercely.

Err Pelosi

Redstate regular California Yankee posts about Speaker Nancy Pelosi's demands for access to military aircraft:

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants 'routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district:'

"'The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."'"

The chorus chimes in.
mbecker, with a suggestion of assassination:

"I think flying military is an excellent idea...as long as they throw her out at Angels 30."

The Gadfly, with a little red-baiting:

"I think she just knows it's What Comrade Stalin Would Do and she's just following in his footsteps."

A Clinton/Gore bashing lie from Gary Aldrich's "Unlimited Access" repeated by blackhedd:

"Doesn't this remind you of how Clinton, Gore...and their wives and daughters were all in the habit of referring to military personnel as 'trained pigs'?"

(Comically, Mr. blackhedd bungles the tale. According to Aldrich, the "trained pigs" slur was allegedly directed at Secret Service agents, not military personnel. However, when telling tales about the Clintons or Gores, one may say or write anything.)

And Moe Lane delivers an unintended double irony:

"A certain irony there, mrbill: Given that if you had read the whole post all the way through you'd have noted that Hastert's own practices were already referenced and the differences between what he did and what Pelosi's doing was already noted.

"So, can we all be more careful about this in the future? Much obliged."

Why a double irony?

Because Mr. Lane, Mr. Yankee, and the rest of the gang failed to exercise the care Mr. Lane advises.

The boys once again fall victim to their own eagerness to believe the worst. They failed to notice that the Washington Times was distributing taffy. The Times turned a request for information from the House Sergeant-at-Arms into a demand from Ms. Pelosi.

The Sergeant-at-Arms issued the following explanation:

In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001.

I told Speaker Pelosi that Speaker Hastert used the Air Force plane for travel to and from his district, however, I was uncertain of the rules and guidelines governing use of the plane. I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines.

Subsequently, several members of the Speaker’s staff and members of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms met with representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Air Force liaison office to discuss the rules and guidelines which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane. Several questions were posed to the Air Force and we are awaiting a response.

Correction? Retraction? Update?

Don't hold your breath.

Elephants Never Forg..uh...For...

AcademicElephant again.

In a post "Nancy Pelosi's 100 Hours Meet Reality," Mr. Elephant writes:

Reality crashed the party today in the form of the razor-thin democrat majority in the senate, which could not muster the votes necessary to pass the house (minimum wage) bill without attaching related tax cuts to moderate the burden of this wage increase on small business owners.

Actually, there were enough votes--54--to pass the bill, but not enough to invoke cloture and end debate, denying all 100 Senators an opportunity to engage in an "up or down vote."

Republicans used to have a word for this. Fil...Filla...Filibus...

UPDATE: Mr. Elephant is not amused. He forwards this link via email.

UPDATE 2: Haw! I neglected to read all the way through the link Mr. Elephant sends--until now. He links to a comment by Redstate enforcer Strieff who ends with this:

Moe was charitable enough to merely ask for an apology. I think it's your turn to become a contributor on this website

...which links to us! Thanks, fellows! Send me your tired, your huddled masses...

Easy to Follow?

Just prior to last night's State of the Union address, Redstate regular "AcademicElephant" reveals The Story I Would Like to Hear the President Tell Tonight.

Mr. Elephant explains:

"The details are easy for all Americans to follow from the cities to the heartland--after all, this plot was to be hatched in the middle of fly-over country, so no one is safe."

The story Mr. Elephant wanted to hear was this one:

ABC News has a story detailing an al Qaeda (Iraq) plot to send terrorists to the United States over the summer in the hopes of hatching an attack on our homeland

According to Mr. Elephant:

11 Egyptian men "disappeared" from Montana State University

The men planned an attack in "the heartland"

The men were apprehended and deported from the U.S.

"We" took the order from Ayman al Zawahiri to Abu Musab al Zarqawi to plan such an attack seriously, and started to watch for the pattern of behavior displayed by the 19 9/11 hijackers

However, the details apparently aren't so easy to follow. Mr. Elephant managed to get most of the key facts wrong.

The story Mr. Elephant links reports that coalition forces raided an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq and discovered documents describing a planned attack in the U.S. However:

No one "disappeared" from Montana State. The eleven Egyptians received student visas--just like the 9/11 hijackers--but never showed up at the university

The story says the plan was discovered in the early stages. It does not say where the terrorists planned to strike. The men had student visas to attend Montana State. That doesn't mean they weren't going to strike someplace else.

According the the ABC story, the men never actually entered the U.S., so they could not have been deported. (Why in the world would U.S. authorities deport them if they had them in custody?) The story does say the men were apprehended. It doesn't say where.

The story doesn't say that the discovery of the plan six months ago led to increased vigilance and the capture of the Egyptians. According to the report, "U.S. officials now require universities to closely track foreign nationals who use student visas to study in the United States. University officials must report international students who fail to arrive on campus or miss class regularly." (One hopes that this policy was put into effect long before the middle of 2006).

They say an elephant never forgets. In this case, however, we'll have to make an exception for Mr. Elephant and his "easy to follow" details.

Napkingate, or How to Spot a Bollixed Redstate Story

There's one way you can always tell that a Redstate contributor has bungled his facts and is about to completely bollix a story. The story always includes a spectacular detail that's both weird and entirely irrelevant.

It works like this:

Redstate writer gets wind of a story that sounds like it might be mildly negative for Democrats

The writer realizes the facts of the story aren't strong enough to gin up outrage among the site's readers

The writer hunts for a single detail to "prove" Democrats are inept (or corrupt or hypocritical or just plain baaaad)

The writer hypes the detail far beyond its actual signifigance

The writer forgets to get the actual story right and spends his time hollering about the detail

Example? Sure, you bet.

Redstate honcho "Erick" posts Dems to Stay Up Late Tonight to Defend Culture of Corruption!

Here's the nut of the story, according to Mr. Erick:

House Democrats, in a brazen attempt to defend the Culture of Corruption, are set to alter House Ethics Rules in a way openly supportive of Democrats who might be found guilty by courts of law of corruption or bribery related to the passage of legislation.

In the remainder of the post, Mr. Erick asserts:

Under present House rules, members stand to lose their pension if convicted of some crimes

Democrats intended to use H.R. 476 to change the rules to create a two-year period during which convicted members of Congress could keep their pensions

The GOP-led Congress cut off pensions to convicted members

Dems wrote an amendment (ON A PAPER NAPKIN!!!) to change the effective date of the bill

Dems were forced to delay a vote on the measure because of GOP maneuvering

On Monday night, Redstate bumped this item to the top of the page, complete with the patented Redstate flashing red Outrage Beacon to tell their readers that the story is Real Important. But it's a sure bet Mr. Erick has the story entirely wrong. Why?

Because the part about the napkin is in large type, underlined, and featured as an "update" to the story. It's weird and irrelevant, therefore the story is bollixed.

So how did Mr. Erick do? Let's see, that would be:

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Half credit (but only if one is generous), and

Wrong

In a word, bollixed.

Here's what Mr. Erick would have learned had he not been so fascinated with that paper napkin:

Current House ethics rules do not deprive a member convicted of a crime of his pension. Duke Cunningham will get his pension. Bob Ney will get his as well. Jim Traficant and Dan Rostenkowski can collect too.

There were three bills before the House that would change federal law (not House ethics rules) to take away pension benefits from members convicted of certain crimes--H.R. 14, H.R. 466, and H.R. 476. They differ in the list of crimes covered and some administrative details. The bill that eventually passed--H.R. 476 had 30 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle.

The GOP-led Congress did not cut off pension benefits to anyone, even when they had the chance. A 1996 bill that would have done so passed the House 390-32, but the GOP-led Senate failed to even take it up.

There was indeed an amendment that changed the effective date of the new law, and it was made by agreement with Republican house leadership.

(Was the amendment written on a paper napkin? It's not clear. According to the Congressional Record, Mark Kirk (R-IL) asks the presiding officer, Jim McGovern (D-MA) if the amendment is written on a napkin. McGovern directs Kirk to go to the clerk's desk and see for himself. Kirk says he takes that to mean yes. The question is never answered by the chair, but it's both weird and irrelevant and therefore the right stuff to amp up the story.)

The final vote on the bill was delayed by a day, but not because of Republican maneuvering or Redstate's glaring spotlight on Democratic misdeeds. In fact, when Steny Hoyer (D-MD) moved to table the bill, most of the votes to keep debate open were from Republicans. The real reason is far more mundane. And it's on the record. Mr. Hoyer:

This bill is straightforward and, as I
say, for all intents and purposes has
been passed. I want to tell everybody, I
think we are going to roll the vote on
this bill because we don’t want anybody
to miss it. There are 11 Members
on each side absent because of planes
that have not flown on schedule because
of weather. And it is an equal
number on each side, so we are going to
wait. (CR H813, 1/22/2007)

The story wasn't a total washout for Redstate's Mr. Erick, however. He did get one key fact right. The original bill called for an effective date two years out--January 2, 2009. Why?

Because the Senate's version of the same bill set the effective date of the law as January 2, 2009. (John Kerry is the sponsor! Fire up the Outrage Beacon!) However, it's not a "brazen attempt to defend the culture of corruption" as Mr. Erick would have it. Instead, it's a brazen attempt to observe the plain language of the 27th Amendment to the Constitution:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Does the new law "vary the compensation" for Senators and Representatives? I suppose one could argue it doesn't, but Hoyer provides a plausible--and documented--reason for the language of the Senate version of the pension bill:

The bill was amended, the gentleman
is correct, within the last few hours.
The date was changed at the request of
Mr. BOEHNER. I happen to agree with
Mr. BOEHNER that the date of 2009,
which was in the bill, and I know Mrs.
BOYDA, I talked to Mrs. BOYDA about
it, she agreed with the change as well.
The change was made because it was
Mr. BOEHNER’s feeling, and I think the
minority’s feeling, that the bill ought
to go into effect immediately.
The reason the date was put in as
2009 because that is what the Senate
bill does under the constitutional provision
of the 27th amendment, where
compensation of a Member may not be
changed during the course of their
term. So it was made effective at the
next term.(CR H813, 1/22/2007)

Hoyer goes on to explain that after speaking with Mr. Boehner and Mr. Blunt, he agrees with the date change. Although the new law may violate the 27th Amendment, the three of them (and the bill's sponsor, Nancy Boyda (D-KS)) agree to let some joker who has just lost his pension for being a crook try to take it to court.

House Democrats like the change in the effective date. House Republicans like the change. Everybody likes the change. But it might have been written on a napkin, therefore, Democrats are Real Bad.

Banned.

Banned: acbonin
Offense: Pointing out that Michael Steele didn't have oreos thrown at him.
Banned By: Thomas
Last Straw: "You've got a lot invested in the sham "thrown Oreo cookie" allegations ("Steele told WTOP that he was never hit with Oreos and said the incident has been exaggerated"), but they're similarly without merit."
Coup de fin: "That was your last non sequitur, mis-directed, facially dishonest shot!

"Johnny, tell him what he's won!

"Well, Adam, you've won a luxury cruise back to the Land of Banned! That's right, you're set for an all-expenses paid, six-day and seven-night (for a start!) trip to the land of those unable to comment here! For you, the Price Was Right!"

Twofer! Commentor "crown" objects to the banning of acbonin:
"someone pokes holes in one of your "known facts" and you ban them. wonderful.
please ban me also."

Thomas Replies: "That you think it's because of his link and quote that he's gone alone suggests your wish should be granted. We aim to please."

The Sky is Yellow, the Sun is Blue, and....

Senate bill 1 will...

"most likely require bloggers, community activists, preachers, and others to register as lobbyists if they encourage 500 or more people to contact their elected representatives on a matter."

Or at least that's the conclusion the sharp-eyed legal eagles at Redstate reached yesterday. Regular contributor "Erick" issued a Late Day Urgent Request for all good Redstaters to take to their phones and keyboards to stand fast against the latest Democratic perfidy.

Trouble is, Mr. Erick took the plain language of S. 1 and turned it entirely inside out. Here's how:

The Lobbying Reform Bill adds new language to the definitions section of an existing law, USC 2, sec. 1602. The bill adds a long definition of "grassroots lobbying" and this is what seems to alarm Mr. Erick. But this language is in the bill not to include grassroots activists as lobbyists, but specifically to exclude them.

Here's the text from S. 1:

(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.' [emphasis added]

What about that "500 or more people" business? That's part of the bill's definition of "paid lobbying activities." The definitiion, in general, says:

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole...

But once again, the bill says this definition doesn't apply to everybody:

(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public. [emphasis added]

In short, the bill says that even if you take money for your efforts, you're not included in the definition of paid lobbying activity if you address fewer than 500 people. Mr. Erick turns this on its head to mean that if you address more than 500 people, you're a paid lobbyist even if you didn't take a cent!

Nevertheless, the call to arms went out. How did it go?

The measure passed around 9 p.m. by a vote of 96 to 2. Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, both Republicans, were the only members to vote against the bill.

UPDATE: Mr. Erick proclaims Victory!! Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) successfully amended S.1 to remove the entire provision. While Redstate celebrates, the net effect of the amendment isn't clear. With the language removed, the definition of paid lobbying activities may actually be broader than before.

Driving Miss Emily

In a breathless frontpage post, Redstate contributor "bluey" announces:

Democrats are about to raise your taxes!!

That headline grabs your attention, doesn't it? So lets go looking for the tax increase.

The U.S. House hasn't voted to raise taxes for 13 years, but that streak is about to come to an end -- less than three weeks after Democrats took control of Congress.

Wow. Sounds like it's going to happen pretty soon. But from the front page, you have to look below the fold for the details. Mr. bluey provides a quote and a link. Now we're getting somewhere.

Dan Clifton of the American Shareholders Association reports that Democrats will bring an end to the "golden era" of taxpayer-friendly policies this Thursday.

This Thursday!! Holy cats!! What taxes are going up? Good thing Mr. bluey is going to tell us. Here's the quote he lifts from the the ASA's Mr. Clifton:

It took just 15 days of new found power for the Democrats to raise taxes. The first vote of the 110th Congress removed the 3/5 supermajority to raise taxes. The following day was a vote to enact a new rule requiring offsetting tax increases for every tax cut.

So it was only a matter of time before the first actual vote to raise taxes came up. The significance of this should not be underestimated as Thursday's vote is the first step in reversing what could be considered the best run for American taxpayers since the creation of the income tax.

The dirty bastards! Raising my taxes!! But wait. He didn't say which tax would be increased. Hm. Hafta keep reading.

Oh, no! It must be really bad. Mr. bluey says the Heritage Foundation predicts a disaster:

Just how disastrous would the Democrats' plan be for our country? A new report from the Heritage Foundation reveals the threat to America's prosperity.

Any tax increase on top of this rising burden would put America well on the way to European-level taxes, causing European-style economic stagnation, slow income growth, and unemployment. Even France has begun to recognize how damaging such levels are, and French President Jacques Chirac has proposed to cut France’s corporate income tax rate from 33 percent to 20 percent. Congress must ensure that the U.S. does not take even one step down the road to higher taxes and a slower economy.

Omigod! Omigod! "European-style economic stagnation?" AIEEEEE!! The dollar could go plunging like the Euro!!! Quick, Mr. bluey. Tell us what taxes are going up! Whuh? Oh. I see. I hafta click the link. OK, no problem. I'll look at the ASA link first.

Shoot! Clifton doesn't say what tax is going up either. But hold on!! He provides this link:

On Thursday, the House of Representatives will vote on legislation to increase taxes for the first time since 1993.

Aha! This takes us to the House Ways and Means Committee Website. It's all true! The Democrats are raising taxes!!! Now let's get to the awful truth. What does Ways and Means have to say?

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As part of House Democrats’ first 100 hours legislative agenda, Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) today introduced a bill to curb taxpayer-funded subsidies to oil and gas companies and to invest those funds in renewable energy.

H.R. 6, the Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act, includes two components that will roll back the unnecessary tax benefits and costly federal oil and gas leasing provisions included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The legislation would also help to correct the botched leases issued by the Interior Department between 1998 and 1999 – which, if left unchanged, could cost the Federal Treasury an estimated $60 billion over the next 25 years

See?!? See?!? The Democrats are raising the tax on...on...wait a minute. They're ending subsidies to oil and gas companies? The ones reporting all-time record profits? And they're making them start paying royalties that they've skated on for the last 8 years because of a screwup?

That's the tax increase? But...but...what about the "European-style stagnation"? If the change in oil and gas subsidies is going to cause an economic disaster, it must be a really, really bad thing. I'll check Mr. bluey's Heritage Foundation link. Here we go:

Meanwhile, federal taxes as a proportion of GDP are also scheduled to rise sharply under current law—from today's 18.4 percent, which is just above the post-World War II average, to almost 24 percent by 2050—well above the highest levels the nation has ever experienced.

What? The year 2050?!? I thought we were talking about this Thursday!!

So no tax increase? No "European-style stagnation"?

Oh. Nevermind.

Blam!

Banned: Godshammer
Date: January 10, 2997
Offense: Mocking Redstate commenters' lack of credentials as military strategists.
Last straw: I Stipulate [t]he war college is chump change next to you all. see you all next time. :) I Hope.
Banned by: Leon Wolf
Coup de fin:"Re-registering under a different username is a violation of our terms of service. Yes, we know it's you. If you come back again, we will be forced to block your IP and notify your ISP. Cheers. BLam."

About Face!

A report from the Associated Press? Check.
Unnamed and uncorroborated sources? Check.
Grisly accounts of sectarian violence? Check.

The guys at Redstate won't believe a word of it, right?

Not so fast.

It seems all is forgiven now that the fevers of Jamilgate have waned. Redstate writer California Yankee takes approving notice of an AP report on the seizure of Iranians at a not-yet-a-consulate building in the Kurdish city of Irbil.

"BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- U.S.-led forces detained five Iranians Thursday after a raid on a government office flying an Iranian flag, Iraqi officials and witnesses said, as President Bush vowed to isolate Iran and Syria as part of a new strategy to quell violence in Iraq.

The multinational forces entered the building overnight, detained the Iranians and confiscated computers and documents, two senior local Kurdish officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information."

Strangely, Mr. Yankee links to the AP without so much as a perfunctory snipe or sneer. No "Associated 'With the Terrorists' Press". No "al-AP". Not even a blind-pig-and-acorn jape.

Of course, this AP story props up one of Redstate's favored tales: that Iran is to blame for everything gone wrong in Iraq. Mr. Yankee links to the AP account approvingly because it shows that "George Bush meant it" when he promised to disrupt the networks giving aid to Iraqi sectarian militias.

Mr. Yankee carefully steps around the inconvenient fact that the militias being aided by Iran are the same ones propping up the Maliki government.

He also looks the other way when, as part of the very same story, the AP reports this:

"On Thursday, police reported at least 45 people were killed or found dead from bombings and shootings, including a 10-year-old struck in a mortar attack in the northern city of Mosul and 37 tortured bodies found in Baghdad.

Gunmen ambushed a minivan carrying Oil Ministry employees in a predominantly Shiite area of Baghdad, kidnapping six of the passengers and the driver after separating people according to their IDs, police said."

Suddenly, Mr. Yankee finds the AP and it's unnamed, unofficial police sources credible again. I wonder if the boys at Redstate made up for their recent spat with AP by sending flowers or just by promising "Baby, you know I didn't mean it."

When You Got Nothin', Bash Gore.

Today's post from Redstate regular "Erick" is almost beneath notice. Lacking anything of substance to say, he resorts to calling names: Sissy. Girly-man.

This half-hearted hectoring would be entirely forgettable except for one thing. Mr. Erick leads off by trotting out an old lie from the 2000 campaign:

"Remember Algore hiring Naomi Wolf to show him how to be a man, instead of a she-man?"

Oh boy. There they go again. When all else fails, if there's nothing else to write about, repeat some favorite well-worn lies about Al Gore. The charge that Mr. Gore hired Naomi Wolf "to teach him how to be a man" is a slander that sprang from the pen of Time's Michael Duffy in 1999.

It was, like so many other tales bruited about by the press corp during the campaign, invented.

The truth of the Naomi Wolf saga is easy to find. Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler has meticulously documented the genesis of this and many other Gore-bashing legends. There are two major tales that make up the "hired a woman to teach him how to be a man" lie--the "alpha male" invention and the "earth tones" groaner. Here's just a taste of Somerby's reporting on the "earth tones" flap:

Let’s go back and review the way this iconic claim unfolded.

As noted, Michael Duffy’s story in Time didn’t mention “earth tones” (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/4/03). According to Duffy, one unnamed Gore adviser had “downplayed” Wolf as a “wardrobe consultant.” But Duffy stressed the fact that most Gore advisers didn’t know what Wolf was doing for the campaign. (Wolf lived in New York, where she worked with Gore’s daughter; the Gore camp was based in DC and then Nashville.) Simply put, there was no way to tell from Duffy’s piece if Wolf had ever consulted on wardrobe. But Duffy didn’t say a word about “earth tones.” There’s no sign that anyone ever told Duffy that Wolf told Gore to wear tones.

But earth tones popped up one day later, offered as a “speculation” in a piece by—who else?—Ceci Connolly. One day after Duffy’s piece appeared, the Gore-bashing spinner wrote a page-one piece about Wolf in the Washington Post. She spoke with former Clinton aide Dick Morris, who had worked with Wolf in the’96 campaign (later praising Wolf for her mainstream advice). Here’s the sentence in which “earth tones” got its start:

CONNOLLY (11/1/99): Morris speculated that Wolf, who has long contended that earth tones are more “reassuring” to audiences, is the person behind Gore’s recent wardrobe change.

That’s the sentence in which Naomi Wolf told Gore to wear earth tones was born.? It was born in a “speculation” by Morris, offered to the egregious Ceci Connolly.

The whole business about "earth tones" began as rank speculation by Dick Morris, a former Clinton advisor who had himself hired Ms. Wolf for advice. But by Campaign 2000, Mr. Morris had a fat contract offering his observations on cable "news" channels and no tale was too ridiculous to tell, at least not when it was about Mr. Gore (or "Algore" as Mr. Erick writes, unmistakably revealing his Dittohead colors).

On a day when there's not a new sensation to occupy Redstate's lesser lights, the old tales still serve well.