<xmp> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11782355\x26blogName\x3dConnecticutBLOG\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-5344443236411396584', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script> </xmp>

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Happy Thanksgiving

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Schmidt head feels victimized

Oh Jean, you're too much. Now she's claiming that she's the victim and doesn't understand why her comments she made Friday is getting so much media attention.

Whaa, whaa, whaa.

Welcome to the main stream media dummy.

From the Washington Post
Rep. Jean Schmidt flung the word "coward" at a decorated war veteran from Pennsylvania last week, but the Ohio Republican's comments landed with a splat in her own Cincinnati district, where some supporters are backing away as she scrambles to explain what she meant.

Judging by her words yesterday -- the first after avoiding the public for three days -- Schmidt doesn't understand what the fuss is about, and sees herself more as victim than villain. "I am amazed at what a national story this has become," she said in a statement. "I have been attacked very personally, continuously since Friday evening."


Schmidt stayed largely out of sight until yesterday, when she issued her statement and spoke with reporters. "There's no way that I remotely tried to impugn his character," she said in a telephone interview. She said she was simply trying to register her strong belief that U.S. troops must stay in Iraq until their mission is completed.

Noting that criticism has poured in via phone calls, e-mails and TV reports, she said in her statement: "I am quite willing to suffer those attacks if in the end that policy I so strongly oppose is exposed as unsound. First and foremost, I support the troops. They dodge bullets and bombs while I duck only hateful words."

Bubp, a GOP state legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer, had campaigned for Schmidt. He put out his own statement yesterday: "The comments and concerns I shared with Congresswoman Schmidt were never meant as a personal reference to Mr. Murtha. . . . We never discussed anyone by name and there was no intent to ever disparage the congressman or his distinguished record of service for our nation." Bubp, through a spokeswoman, declined an interview request.

Schmidt recalls their Friday phone conversation somewhat differently. "I wrote down what he was saying," she said in the interview. "He did ask me to send a message to Congress, and he also said send a message to 'that congressman.' He did not know that congressman's name, but I did. Neither one of us knew he was a Marine."

Schmidt said she had not noticed the numerous references to Murtha's military background in the newspaper, radio and TV accounts of his troop-withdrawal proposal, made Thursday. "They keep us pretty busy," she said.

Okay, Schmidt didn't know that Rep. Murtha was a highly decorated Marine. Not only is she an idiot, she's also a terrible liar.

Schmidt might of gotten away with her silly comments in your little Republican district in Ohio but she's in the big leagues now (and she's learning that the hard way). Judging by the fact that her supporters are now running away from you like you're the plauge, it's safe to say that this moron won't be in Congress very long.

Gun-ho Joe still kissing up to Dubya

Yet another reason I can't stand Joe Lieberman. You know he'll be the last Democrat to stand behind President Bush and support this stupid war.

From The Hartford Courant
Joe Lieberman's view of the United States' mission in Iraq has not wavered for nearly 15 years: He sees the American involvement as part of this country's historic, moral obligation to spread freedom and democracy.

Today, as he did during and after the 1991 Gulf War, the Connecticut Democrat is urging the United States to stay the course. Lieberman, who is visiting Iraq this week, is wholly behind the White House goals - and three days ago won praise from Bush for his views.

Lieberman's chief concern today is that American partisanship is muddling and even obscuring that message.

"Terrorists can't defeat us on the ground," the Connecticut Democrat said. "They can win by affecting public opinion here."

Lieberman's 1991 reasons for wanting forceful action in Iraq still echo through his speeches today.

"If we do not act," the senator said in April 1991, "if we neglect our duty to humanity, we would, as Dwight Eisenhower once said in speaking about a failure to confront evil in the world, `outrage our own conscience. In the eyes of those who suffer injustice, we would become partners with their oppressors.'"

Lieberman's stance has become an increasingly lonely one in his own party. Fellow Democrats took aim at him throughout his 2004 presidential campaign. Then and now, his allies have usually been Republicans.

"Fine Democrats like Sen. Joe Lieberman share the view that we must prevail in Iraq," the president said Sunday, and on the Senate floor last week, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner, R-Va., had similar praise.

Such talk annoys war critics. A website, DumpJoe.com, regularly posts what it considers to be Lieberman outrages. Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, called Lieberman "one of the worst Democrats in the Senate when it comes to foreign policy. He has an ideological view that prevents him from processing new information."

This is the type of crap which makes me sick. Lieberman is a shameless conservative and hardly a Democrat and he is a senator because he attracts moderates and Republicans. He is a critic of Democrats and Sean Hannity's best friend. Until someone has the guts to challenge him in a primary, we're stuck with him.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Schmidt head caught lying

Oh, this is rich!

Seems like Ohio Rep. Jean Schmidt lied when she made her silly "cowards cut and run" comment Friday. Rep. Schmidt said that Danny Bubp sent her the "coward" message to relay to Rep. Jack Murta but Bubp says that he never directed his comment towards Rep. Murtha when he talked to Schmidt. If fact, he says he never said "cowards cut and run, Marines never do" or anything close to that remark.

From The Cinncinnati Enquirer

Three days after Rep. Jean Schmidt was booed off the House floor for saying that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do," the Ohioan she quoted disputed the comments.

Danny Bubp, a freshman state representative who is a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve, told The Enquirer that he never mentioned Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., by name when talking with Schmidt, and he would never call a fellow Marine a coward.

"The unfortunate thing about all of that is that her choice of words on the floor of the House - I don't know, she's a freshman, she had one minute.

"Unfortunately, they came out wrong," said Bubp, R-West Union.

Lawmakers were in the midst of a passionate debate Friday over whether to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, an issue pushed to a vote by Republicans after public comments from Murtha.

Schmidt - decked out in a red-white-and-blue suit that resembled the U.S. flag - went to the floor and quoted from a telephone conversation with Bubp: "He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course.

"He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: That cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

The comment drew a chorus of boos and shouting from Democrats.

It's unclear whether Schmidt, who will start her 79th day in the House today, knew at the time of her remarks that Murtha had served 37 years in the Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve.

She immediately took back her remarks. It's against House rules to refer to a fellow lawmaker by name or to criticize them.

Schmidt, a Republican from Clermont County's Miami Township, then wrote to Murtha to explain that she has a lot to learn and did not mean to disparage his service.

Bubp, who has served in the Marine Corps Reserve for 27 years, including three years of active duty, said he called Schmidt on Friday afternoon to discuss the resolution that called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq - not to talk about Murtha.

The House nonbinding resolution failed by a 403-3 vote.

"There was no discussion of him personally being a coward or about any person being a coward," Bubp said. "My message to the folks in Washington, D.C., and to all the Congress people up there, is to stay the course. We cannot leave Iraq or cut and run - any terminology that you want to use."

Several bloggers called on Schmidt and Bubp to apologize and resign their offices. Others compared her remarks with a statement she made minutes after she was sworn in on Sept. 6.

"I pledge to walk in the shoes of my colleagues and refrain from name-calling or the questioning of character," Schmidt said then. "It is easy to quickly sink to the lowest form of political debate. Harsh words often lead to headlines, but walking this path is not a victimless crime. This great House pays the price."

Sarah Feinburg of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said Schmidt's remarks could attract Republicans to oppose her in next year's primary election or encourage Democrats to run. Freshmen typically are the most vulnerable lawmakers in elections.

"We're starting to talk to folks in the district about running against her," Feinburg said. "Jean Schmidt's been in Congress less than three months and she's already managed to alienate the entire House of Representatives, not to mention every veteran. ... She hasn't shown herself to be an asset for the district."
What an idiot.

Chris Dodd the latest Democrat to have a change in heart over Iraq

It's amazing how poll numbers can change a lawmaker's opinion.

Senator Chris Dodd is now seeing the light (or paying attention to the public's anger over the war) and thinks it's time to think about pullig the troops out of Iraq.

From The Hartford Courant

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd is passionate and unequivocal about what he sees as an urgent need for the United States to dramatically change its strategy in Iraq.

"We've made a series of major blunders. There's been a failure to build international support, a failure to build a coalition that can help us," he said, his voice rising rapidly and his cadence quickening as he describes how the policy needs adjustment.

The Connecticut Democrat lists the changes he wants, point by point: Consider pulling troops out soon after the Dec. 15 elections. Get surrounding countries, particularly Arab League nations, to do more to help broker peace between Iraq's warring factions. Get NATO more involved in training troops and providing security. And require the president to set up "estimated dates" for pulling out troops.

Yet three years ago, Dodd was squarely behind the president, convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that the United States should use force if diplomacy failed to get Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to rid the nation of those weapons.

"We are a nation united in our resolve to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," he said in October 2002.

To many Democrats, Dodd's views are the mark of a thoughtful senator whose positions have evolved as circumstances have changed. But to many Republicans, Dodd is typical of many Democrats whose views shift with polls.

Monday, for instance, Vice President Dick Cheney told a Washington research group that "What is not legitimate and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible is the suggestion by some U.S. senators that the president of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence."

Dodd says that his skepticism about the weapons began "almost immediately" after the conflict began.

The senator's skepticism prompts a central question: Did Dodd change positions as public opinion changed, or did his position develop because of what he learned about the war?

"Democrats want to have it both ways," said Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill. "They want to say, `I supported the war,' but the minute they see trouble, they change course."

Dodd maintains his current positions are consistent with the kind of internationalist, coalition-building approach he long has sought in foreign policy.


Dodd was not an eager warrior. About a month before the October 2002 war vote, Dodd said, "If there is even one rational bone in Saddam Hussein's body, he will quickly comply with the terms of all applicable United Nations Security Council resolutions.

"If not," Dodd said, "he will be responsible for the consequences of his defiance and regrettably, the Iraqi people will continue to suffer."

On the day before the 2002 vote, Dodd still hoped Hussein would not defy the United States. Congress' show of unity in Iraq, he said, "will reduce the likelihood that force will be necessary."

Dodd, who thought that Hussein had devastating biological and chemical weapons, and was seeking to acquire nuclear capability, says today he quickly realized that the United States would have difficulty securing peace in Iraq.

One clue: Top administration officials, from the Central Intelligence Agency and State and Defense Departments, were asked to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and are still reluctant to do so. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for instance, has appeared before the panel only once this year since her confirmation hearing.

Dodd said his skepticism about the weapons began "almost immediately" after the war started, when the United States was not finding weapons of mass destruction.

He has not spoken out forcefully sooner because, he said, "The process of when you start having feelings about something and actually saying things publicly does not happen overnight."

I have no problem with Senator Dodd having a change of heart over the war. My problem is that as a senior Senator, HE KNEW that this war was a mess along time ago yet he (and many other Democrats) didn't have the heart to do the right thing and forcefully challange this administration over the handling of this war until the President's approval numbers fell into the cellar and the public lost support of the war. There is NO WAY Dodd (or any Senator) would of challenged the handling of this war if Bush approval numbers and support of the war were high.

Where were the Democrats when it was proven that Iraq had no WMDs?

Where were the Democrats when it the Downing Steet memos became public?

Where were the Democrats' outrage during the Abu Graiub scandal and the allegations of torture in Gitmo?

Where were the Democrats when every thing the Bush administration said about Iraq was proven false (nuclear weapons, we would be seen as liberators, the Iraq oil would pay for the war, etc)?

Clearly it wasn't the 2000+ dead and 10,000+ injured US troops that made the Democrats finally show some backbone, it was simply the polls and approval numbers (in other words politics). If this change in heart had anything to do with the lives lost, we would of heard Senators and Congressmen criticizing the Bush administration over the handling of this war much sooner.

I'll never understand why so many military families had to be put through this senseless war and the Democrats will have alot of explaining to do because they should of ignored the poll numbers and spoken out against the President and this war earlier.

Sometimes doing the right thing is not the popular thing but when lives are on the line, you have a obligation as a lawmaker to ignore the popularity of a particular decision and do what you KNOW is right.

Monday, November 21, 2005

Cheney's neocon flavored Kool-aid speech

You think the White House would find someone with a higher approval rating than the President to give this silly pep rally speech today.

Crooks and liars has the video and it's nothing but the same old lies including the now patheitc linking of Osama Bin Laden and Iraq.

The Bush administration in in panic mode and it's painfully obvious that tide in this war has changed. The American public are watching the soliders being injured and killed and are seriously questioning this needless war. They simply not buying the White House spin any longer and this speech (from a guy who has a 19 percent approval rating) is not going to change anybody's mind about how this administration screwed up this war from the very beginning.

People are seeing for themselves that Bush and Co. lied about every aspect of this war.

Let's recap:

There were NO WMDs in Iraq which was the main rational for us going to war in the first place.
We were not seen by Iraqis as liberators (less than 15 percent of the insurgents are not from Iraq...doesn't that tell you something).
Iraqi oil did not pay for the war.
There was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq.
We didn't send enough troops; we did not supply the troops with the best equipment.
They lied about their association with outing a CIA agent.

Democrats have Nancy Johnson in their crosshairs in 2006

Is Nancy Johnson beatable?

The Democrats are hoping she can be defeated next November as they have their eyes on the 5th district seat. With Johnson's close relationship to Tom DeLay and her questionable trip to Central America recently, be sure that the Democrats will pull out all the stops to link Johnson to DeLay, special intrests groups, and lobbyists.

From The Danbury News-Times

The re-election campaign for veteran U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson of Connecticut is one of several emerging an an early barometer for Republican fortunes in next year’s elections.

Races for the 5th District congresswoman, Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio and Rep. Vito Fossella of New York’s Staten Island are being watched by the Washington-based Cook Political Report for signs Republicans could lose their majority in Congress.
“If you’re looking for a canary-in-a-coal-mine race, this is one,” said Amy Walter, who tracks House races for the organization. “If all of a sudden you see Nancy Johnson slip, it’s a sign other Republicans in similar districts should be concerned.”

Johnson is a 12-term congresswoman with a strong fundraising advantage over potential challengers and a reputation as a tough, seasoned campaigner. Johnson, a New Britain Republican whose district includes much of the Danbury area, scored double-digit victories in her past two races.

But the unfolding GOP ethics scandals, President Bush’s slumping popularity and growing public doubts about the Iraq war pose are making it tougher for Republicans fighting to maintain their hold on Congress. It has emboldened Democrats seeking a net gain of 15 seats to recapture the House.

Republicans nationwide face a “political environment about as bleak as it’s ever been,” said Walter.
In Connecticut, U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, a 4th District Republican whose district includes Ridgefield and Redding, and Rob Simmons, R-2nd Dist., faced tougher challenges in the 2004 elections. But a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman said unseating Johnson ranks as a priority for the national party.

“Nancy Johnson’s seat has always been high on the list,” said Sarah Feinberg of the DCCC. “I know Shays and Simmons seem to get all the headline attention, but all three are top-tier candidates for us.”


Democrats Chris Murphy, a state senator, and J. Paul Vance Jr., Waterbury Board of Aldermen president, are vying to run against Johnson next fall in a district that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry won by 1,112 votes in 2004.
Murphy had a $234,245 campaign account balance, according to his third-quarter fund-raising report, while Vance reported $13,071.

Johnson’s $1.9 million campaign war chest dwarfs her potential challengers, providing a crucial advantage.
Still, national Democrats are touting Murphy’s prospects, trying to link Johnson with the Bush administration. “We’re talking to the national party on a daily basis,” said Murphy.

DCCC chairman Rahm Emanuel praised Murphy and delivered a $2,000 check last month.
Johnson’s toughest race was in 1996 when she edged Charlotte Koskoff by a single percentage point. Murphy was Koskoff’s campaign manager.
It's easy for people to talk about the races in the 2nd and 4th districts but one shouldn't underestimate Chris Murphy as he seems like the frontruner for the Democratic slot and could give Johnson an incredible hard fought race.

NOTE: Genghis over at Connecticut Local Politics adds some interesting insight into this story and is right about one thing; don't underestimate Nancy Johnson. She has one hell of a warchest, a moderate, and is pretty popular in her district. This doesn't mean that she's is unbeatable, it just mean that in order to win, the Democrats are going to campaign very hard.

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Schmidt head

I hope the people of Ohio's 2nd district is proud to have this idiot represent them.

From Think Progress
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) today on the House floor, speaking about Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a decorated former Marine:

Yesterday I stood at Arlington National Cemetery attending the funeral of a young marine in my district. He believed in what we were doing is the right thing and had the courage to lay his life on the line to do it. A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that we will see this through.

What a moron...and where did she get that shirt?