Crush Liberalism

Dems for the 9/11 panel recommendations, before they were against them

Isn’t it customary for politicians to break promises only after they get into office? From the Washington comPost:

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

Because plans for implementing the commission’s recommendations are still fluid, Democratic officials would not speak for the record. But aides on the House and Senate appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees confirmed this week that a reorganization of Congress would not be part of the package of homeland-security changes up for passage in the “first 100 hours” of the Democratic Congress.

“I don’t think that suggestion is going anywhere,” said Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), the chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and a close ally of the incoming subcommittee chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). “That is not going to be their party position.”

It may seem like a minor matter, but members of the commission say Congress’s failure to change itself is anything but inconsequential. In 2004, the commission urged Congress to grant the House and Senate intelligence committees the power not only to oversee the nation’s intelligence agencies but also to fund them and shape intelligence policy. The intelligence committees’ gains would come at the expense of the armed services committees and the appropriations panels’ defense subcommittees. Powerful lawmakers on those panels would have to give up prized legislative turf.

But the commission was unequivocal about the need.

“Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important,” the panel wrote. “So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need.”

If my memory serves me well, I recall hearing how Dubya’s failure to fully implement the suggestions of the 9/11 Commission would make America “less safe and secure”…don’t you? For a group of people who got elected on not “staying the course”, it sure looks like the same old same old to me.

I can be dismissed as a partisan hack, right? Perhaps…but don’t make the same assumptions about others:

Now Democrats are balking, just as Republicans did before them.

The decision will almost certainly anger commission members, as well as families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, many of whom have pressed hard for implementation of the recommendations.

“The Democrats pledged to implement all the remaining 9/11 reforms, not some of them,” said former representative Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), who served on the commission.

Carie Lemack, whose mother was in one of the jets that hit the World Trade Center, echoed that sentiment: “It wasn’t a Chinese takeout menu, the 41 recommendations. You have to do all of them.”

Lemme guess: Roemer is a DINO and Lemack lacks the authenticity of the “Jersey Girls”, huh?

November 30, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Speaker-to-be Botox: "There’s no al Qaeda in Iraq"

Nice to know that the impending second-in-line for the presidency has such a firm grasp on the nature of the enemy. Fortunately for the left, the MSM is running interference for the San Francisco Treat. From Newsbusters:

Asked by a reporter about how “President Bush today blamed the surge of violence in Iraq on al Qaeda,” incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded with a disjointed answer about how “the 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again.” Though al-Qaeda is clearly in Iraq and responsible for deadly bombings, and the 9/11 Commission conclusion was about links before September 11th, on Tuesday’s NBC Nightly News reporter David Gregory treated Pelosi’s off-base retort as credible and relevant. Without suggesting any miscue by her, Gregory segued to Pelosi’s soundbite with a bewildering set up of his own about how “incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi disagreed, warning that such rhetoric about al Qaeda will make it harder for Democrats to work with the White House.”

On FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, after panelist Mara Liasson characterized Pelosi as “confused” and Morton Kondracke suggested she was just “mixed up,” Fred Barnes maintained that “she clearly screwed up here. The question was absolutely clear. ‘President Bush today blamed the surge in violence in Iraq.’” Barnes argued the media wouldn’t let a Republican get away with such a flub, telling Kondrake: “If some Republican had done this, if Bush had done this at a press conference, if Newt Gingrich had said it, if John Boehner had said it, if Roy Blunt had said it, you’d have been all over it. It would be inexcusable.”

Neither ABC’s World News or the CBS Evening News played the Pelosi soundbite.

I could have sworn I’ve heard and seen references to “Al Qaeda in Iraq” before! I must have been hitting the Long Island Iced Teas with Ted Kennedy.

To summarize: When Bush says “misunderestimated”, he’s an idiot. When Pelosi says “There’s no al Qaeda in Iraq and the 9/11 Commission backs me on that”, she “misspoke.” Nope, no liberal media bias!

November 30, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment