Tag Archives: government

US cracks down on online film piracy

US officials have shut down nine websites accused of offering free access to films, including Toy Story 3. The crackdown, which included seizing assets from 15 bank accounts, involved police, customs and the movie industry. The closure of the sites, which had 6.7m visitors combined each month, was described as the “largest takedown of illegal movie and TV websites in a single action” by the government. Some films were available hours after their release in US cinemas. Previous crackdowns on film piracy have focused on illegally copied DVDs. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10475801.stm added by: CarolineS

Essay: WaPo Needs ‘Conservative Beat’ Reporter, Not ‘Beat Conservatives’ Reporter

The ” recent unpleasantness ” at the Washington Post was, to conservatives at least, entirely predictable. What decent left-leaning journalist could live among the remote, primitive tribes known as conservatives and not be driven just a little bit mad? (If the Post’s editors were embarrassed, they could at least take comfort that their man hadn’t “gone native.”) Predictable, but no less unfortunate. The Washington Post dearly needs someone to explain conservatism to its editors and staff. Why? A look through the June 30 edition of the Washington Post gives a pretty good indication. No, not the puff piece on Obama Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. (Apparently a photo of the grown man in charge of a vast federal agency wearing a bike helmet is supposed convey competence. The caption reads – really – “Ray LaHood has worked to expand transportation safety, including emphasizing the rights of cyclists in federal transportation policy.) No, a few columns should suffice. Courtland Milloy began a piece on Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent opinion defending the Second Amendment on a promising note. Thomas, Milloy wrote approvingly, “roared to life” in the opinion, citing the legal disarming of blacks in the post-reconstruction south, which left them vulnerable to the KKK and other white supremacists. So far, so good. In fact, too good to be true, because Milloy suggested that “Thomas’s references to historical threats posed by white militias might have been dismissed,” except that those groups are at it again, inflamed by “Barack Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president.” Although he didn’t elaborate, Millow seems to have been referring to a recent report stating that the number of militia groups in the country has nearly tripled to about 500 since Obama was sworn in. Of course, that number comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center , a left-wing 60s hold-over whose very existence depends on seeing more men in sheets than a prison production of “Julius Caesar.” Milloy worried that these groups’ actions could become as “violent as their racist rhetoric often threatens.” Again, Milloy didn’t elaborate, but since the SPLC could find violent, racist rhetoric on a cereal box , readers can be forgiven for not sharing his sense of dread. Over on the editorial page, Ruth Marcus had the goods on those dangerous right-wingers, pointing to a ridiculous campaign ad from an Alabama Tea Party candidate for the GOP nomination to congress. In the ad, Rick Barber talks to the shades of the Founding Fathers, shows images from the Holocaust and suggests that “We are all becoming slaves to our government.” “To hijack the horrors of the Holocaust and slavery in the service of a political campaign demeans the candidate and, worse, dishonors the victims,” Marcus wrote. “Decency demands that some comparisons be off-limits.” Indeed it does. Just ask George W. BusHitler, as many of Marcus’ ideological pals liked to call the last president. Marcus’ larger point is that many on the right have become “unhinged,” exhibiting “white hot vehemence.” “The concern and disagreement – over health-care legislation, over bank bailouts, over debt – are understandable,” she graciously allowed. “The slippery slope fears of decent into socialism/totalitarianism are incomprehensible.” Here’s where it might be helpful to the Post to have an honest broker on the conservative beat. That reporter could explain to Marcus, Milloy and the rest of the gang that these simple conservatives lack the grasp of nuance and the exquisite post-modern sense of irony that’s pumped into the Post’s newsroom by the HVAC system. Conservatives, he might tell them, actually took Obama at his word. They really believed he’d try to “fundamentally change” this nation, just like he promised to. They were listening when his wife admitted she’d never been proud of her country. They made the assumption, silly as it might seem, that when you associate for years with domestic terrorists and outspoken America-haters, you may be of like mind. Then, government suddenly was taking over banks and carmakers, health insurance and tuition lending. Government spent vast amounts of taxpayer money to get … more government. Only unions seemed immune to the pain the rest of the nation suffered. All that sure does look like change we can believe in – and don’t want. But Marcus, like Milloy, is concerned about just how much we don’t want it. “It does not take much to imagine the leap from bellicose talk to action,” for the “delusional but passionate” mouth-breathers. Conservative politicians and radio hosts don’t help. Marcus pointed to Sarah Palin’s “‘don’t retreat – reload’ approach” and John Boehner – John Boehner ! – talking up a “political rebellion.” So those on the right who fear the massive expansion of government and the corresponding proscribing of personal liberties are delusional, but those on the left who fear phantom acts of right-wing violence are not? War metaphors and “white-hot” rhetoric about rebellion and are irresponsible and scary. (Except when the left uses them. On that same editorial page, an op-ed from Stephanie J. Jones asserted that late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall “saved this nation from a second civil war.”) If the Post wants credibility with the majority of the electorate that consider themselves conservative, it really does need someone to play anthropologist and report back to the Post’s staffers from darkest Dixie. It’s dangerous work. Whoever they hire should wear a bike helmet.

Visit link:
Essay: WaPo Needs ‘Conservative Beat’ Reporter, Not ‘Beat Conservatives’ Reporter

Should the U.S. treat "homegrown" Islamic extremists differently from those who are not citizens?

The prosecution of foreign-born detainees at Guantanamo has proven extremely tough for the government to handle. But what about so-called “homegrown” Islamic extremists like Omar Hammami who was featured in “American Jihadi”? http://current.com/shows/vanguard/92520671_a-terrorists-best-friend-scenes-from-… added by: afitzgerald

Is the US government doing enough to stop the spread of Islamic extremism?

As Vanguard correspondent Christof Putzel reports in tonight's premiere of “American Jihadi,” jihadist recruiting doesn't seem to be waning. What should the US being doing to further slow the spread of extremism? http://current.com/shows/vanguard/92509284_american-jihadi-vanguard-trailer.htm added by: afitzgerald

Senate and House Vote To Add Watered Down Fed Audit In Financial Reform Bill

Conference Committee includes Audit the Fed in Financial Reform Bill. Senate and House vote to add Fed Audit in Financial Reform Bill. A slightly-altered version of Ron Paul’s “Federal Reserve Transparency Act” was included in the forthcoming financial legislation. The Title allows the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct an audit of discount window lending and open market operations. One thing that the bill does change is the time-frame. In Rep. Paul’s original bill, there was a lag time on audits of six months. The version in this bill gives a lag time of two years. Title XI also forces the GAO to conduct an audit of all emergency lend…… http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?p=3620 added by: shanklinmike

Larry King Wasn’t Opinionated on CNN? Remembering His Shots at the ‘Far-Right Wacko Element’

Larry King’s announcement that he’s stepping down from his perch at CNN has been declared an end to a cable news era. On The Early Show on CBS Wednesday morning, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz wondered “Is there still room in an increasingly partisan cable television universe for this kind of variety show, where you talk to a president one day and Lady Gaga the next? I mean, Larry losing the ratings to Sean Hannity at Fox, Rachel Maddow at MSNBC, it’s a lot more opinionated out there than Larry ever allowed himself to be.” Signaling the end of King’s long reign last month, New York Times TV writer Brian Stelter sounded a similar note: “Larry King Live is the last trace of an earlier age of cable TV, one that had little interest in the opinions of its hosts.” King’s show is definitely not in the Hannity or Olbermann molds, but to suggest he didn’t venture an opinion would not match the record. Conservatives remember his occasional shot at “wackos” on the “far right,” especially in the Clinton years. Here’s a short listing of a few King items we published in our Notable Quotables newsletter:  Dan Rather: “I don’t do editorials. And about that perhaps you and I will just — I hope in good humor — agree to disagree that we don’t do editorializing. And I’m either famous or infamous, depending on your point of view, saying we don’t editorialize; we don’t want to editorialize, in no way, shape, or form….” King: “Over all these fifteen years, how do you react to the constant, especially, far right-wing criticism that the news on CBS is mainstream biased?” Rather: “Well, I don’t quite know what mainstream is.” King: “I don’t know what it means either, but they say it. I’m just quoting ’em.” Rather: “Oh, no. I understand. Well, my answer to that is basically a good Texas phrase, which is bullfeathers.” – Exchange on Larry King Live, March 11, 1996. “When I heard the quote it sounded to me like it was Limbaugh or Liddy or Ollie North. It was like wacko talk radio . It didn’t sound like Brinkley. In other words, Brinkley’s always been irreverent, but always kind of classy.” — CNN’s Larry King on David Brinkley’s election night comments that Clinton is a “bore” and his speech delivered “more goddamn nonsense,” November 7, 1996 Larry King Live. “All right. So what if we made this case — OK, he’s pretty tough with fundraising. But there’s no proof that the Chinese had any in, except they gave money. He did a bad deal for you. And he has turned on his friends maybe a little. But nobody made big money in Whitewater. It was years ago. He was in Arkansas. He’s a good President. I am happy. No boy is dying overseas. Country seems to be coming around. Supreme Court is pretty good. Are you better off than you were four years ago? Yes. What I if I made that case?” — Larry King to Whitewater scandal figure Jim McDougal, April 21, 1997 CNN Larry King Live. “Let’s run some things down: the travel office, was that an example of your saying ‘I’m unhappy,’ and then people taking it further than that? Was that an example of what you spoke about earlier, you have to think of everything you say. What did happen?…Have you felt, like with grand juries and the like, beleaguered, put upon?…You may be too close to the forest for the trees, but with all the attacks that have occurred, how do you explain the popularity of Bill Clinton?….Mr. [Webster] Hubbell, were you just being a friend?” — Some of King’s probing questions to Hillary Clinton, April 29, 1997. Whitewater scandal figure Susan McDougal: “What kind of country has a mother go in and testify against her daughter?” Larry King: “But that they could always do, right?” Mark Geragos, McDougal’s attorney: “They can always do that, but…” King: “Germany did it, too.” — Exchange on CNN’s Larry King Live, February 24, 1998. “You’re also talking to people who are not popular because they closed the government; they’re not popular because they never came up with campaign finance reform, which they promised — that could be a moral issue, too, taking money from people to vote. So morality covers a lot of areas and some of the people you’re talking to have the questionable morals themselves.” — CNN’s Larry King to Focus on the Family head James Dobson, May 6, 1998 Larry King Live. Greta Van Susteren: “If the Southern Baptists want to do this, they have an absolute right to do it, and especially when you examine the history and see how many wars are fought in the name of religion, how many people are critical of other religions – you’ll see how dangerous it is.” Larry King: “Greta, the Ku Klux Klan said it was religious . Would it have been rude to criticize them?” Van Susteren: “Well, they also violated the law. They started killing people.” King: “When they violated the law. But on their edict it was wrong to criticize them that whites were superior…” — Exchange on Southern Baptist statement that a wife should “submit graciously” to her husband, who is to “love his wife as Christ loved the Church,” CNN’s Larry King Live, June 12, 1998. “Why, Lesley, do you think he’s so hated [Clinton]? He’s a moderate to a conservative right, basically?” — CNN’s Larry King to CBS reporter Lesley Stahl, February 2, 1999. “So it was not the, as has been termed, the wacko element? The far right or those who are conspicuously anti-Clinton who were pressuring her?” — CNN’s Larry King to the son of Clinton sexual-assault accuser Juanita Broaddrick after he said she only came forward to correct misleading stories, March 8, 1999. “Tipper, one of the things that Elian Gonzalez’s father said that I guess would be hard to argue with, that his boy’s safer in a school in Havana than in a school in Miami. He would not be shot in a school in Havana. Good point?” –­ CNN’s Larry King to Tipper Gore, April 20, 2000. That [Democratic congressional victory] may be the first defeat for the far right tonight….Since the far right did get into that race in upstate New York, is this a legitimate defeat for them tonight?…Do you see the far right as evidenced by — we all know who they are — as a threat to your party?” — CNN’s Larry King to various guests during his network’s election night coverage just after midnight, November 4, 2009.

More here:
Larry King Wasn’t Opinionated on CNN? Remembering His Shots at the ‘Far-Right Wacko Element’

S. 3480 – Liebermans Call To Silence the People…Shutting Down The Internet In "Emergency" (Kill Bill/Kill Switch)

As a network engineer I find it troubling that the government seeks to label the internet as a catalyst for any emergency on a catastrophic basis. The thought that congress and the senate is constantly seeking a means to control, monitor, and force their whims on the internet are a constant concern to me and my fellow engineers. To be clear, I want everyone to know that we who work for large scale ISP’s have no desire or wish to aid the government in doing this. On the contrary, we recognize how damaging such efforts would be not only to the industry, but to each and every single one of the millions of end users. As such, I feel it my responsibility to inform the American people of any act of legislation that will force upon them any of the above described actions (monitoring, regulating, controlling, and even disabling). I thought things were bad when President Obama furthered Bush’s attempts at internet monitoring via an executive order that described project Einstein. This order coupled with several acts of legislation already had me upset over the situati… http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?p=3615 added by: shanklinmike

Media Ignore Planned Parenthood’s $1.3 Billion Federal Funding Discrepancy

If $1.3 billion is unaccounted for and the media don’t report it, did it really happen? According to an  American Life League review  of Planned Parenthood’s annual reports, the organization received more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts between 2002 and 2008. A June 16 Government Accountability Report, however, found that the organization spent just $657.1 million of taxpayer money in the same time period. The $1.3 billion discrepancy failed to catch the attention of the nation’s major media outlets. None of the networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) or major newspapers (Los Angeles times, The New York Times, USA Today and The Washington Post) reported it. A Culture and Media Institute review of coverage found that only one newspaper listed among Nexis’ “major newspapers” – The Houston Chronicle – even mentioned the GAO report. The Chronicle’s June 16 article noted that Planned Parenthood spent $657 million of federal money over seven years, but did not mention the income/outlay discrepancy. Don’t Follow the Money The media have made Planned Parenthood a go-to source for several stories over the last six months, including debate over abortion language in health care reform legislation, the trial of the activist who killed abortionist Dr. George Tiller, and the 50 th  anniversary of the Pill. From Dec. 28, 2009, to June 28, 2010, the broadcast networks and the “Big 4” newspapers mentioned Planned Parenthood 56 times in news stories. None of those stories mentioned the GAO report, and only one article reported the amount of federal money going to Planned Parenthood. The February 27 article in The New York Times mentioned an investigative operation by pro-life activist Lila Rose which found Planned Parenthood clinics willing to accept donations from people who wanted African American babies aborted. A separate New York Times report on January 28 characterized the investigation as “prank calls” to Planned Parenthood. Four reports referred to state funding of Planned Parenthood, but did not mention federal resources granted to the organization. Planned Parenthood’s 2008 Annual Report says $349.6 million in taxpayer-funded grants and contracts accounted for more than a third (36 percent) of the organization’s income that year, second only to health center revenue.  Federal funding for Planned Parenthood has increased by 45 percent since 2001-2002, when it  received a reported  $240.9 million from taxpayers. While federal orders mandate that government money not be used directly for abortions, pro-life advocates point out that federal money used to cover non-abortion costs frees up private money to pay for abortions. Favorite Experts Planned Parenthood is by far the most cited pro-abortion group when it comes to national media coverage. In the last six months, 30 broadcast and print reports have quoted Planned Parenthood representatives and another 26 have mentioned the organization. The 56 mentions of Planned Parenthood dwarf other pro-abortion groups, including the National Organization for Women (30) and NARAL Pro-Choice America (15). When abortion was a major focus of health care reform debates, the media turned to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards and other affiliated representatives to statements and analysis. When the media celebrated the 50 th  anniversary of “the Pill,” the media commemorated Planned Parenthood’s role in making it possible. A February 26 profile in The Washington Post painted a glowing picture of abortion doctor Carol Ball. The article described a “difficult time” for Ball and other doctors who perform late term abortions in South Dakota. When Planned Parenthood produced an ad in response to Focus on the Family’s pro-life Super Bowl ad, the media praised it. USA Today noted it “defend[ed] abortion rights,” although the Focus on the Family ad did not target abortion “rights.”   The New York Times on January 27 turned to Richards on the increase in teen pregnancy rates, and she used the opportunity bash abstinence education. “This new study makes it crystal clear that abstinence-only sex education for teenagers does not work,” Richards said. In addition to news reports related to Planned Parenthood, newspapers published five letters to the editor from readers mentioning the organization and fives letters to the editor from Planned Parenthood executives. Another seven op-eds and entertainment reviews mentioned Planned Parenthood, as well as 15 death notices, and a couple of comedians’ jokes. All told, the networks and newspapers mentioned Planned Parenthood more than 80 times in the last six months. But when someone noticed a $1.3 billion discrepancy in Planned Parenthood’s handling of federal money – crickets. The Sound of Silence One letter to the editor in the Los Angeles Times February 7 illustrated the effect the media blackout has had on public perceptions of Planned Parenthood. Responding to the media-manufactured controversy over Focus on the Family’s pro-life Super Bowl ad, a reader wrote, “If I had it, I would give millions to Planned Parenthood to advertise on CBS during the Super Bowl.” Well, dear reader, your wish has already come true. You might not know it from reading the Times, but Planned Parenthood already receives more than $350 million every year from you and every other American taxpayer, with no oversight from the “watchdogs” in the media. Like this article? Sign up for “Culture Links,” CMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter, by   clicking  here.

Kudlow, Forbes Debunk Krugman’s ‘Third Depression’ Call

It’s hard to imagine an economist being provocative, but Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner, has managed to do so. In his June 28 New York Times op-ed , Krugman argued that since governments around the world aren’t willing to double-down on Keynesian policies meant to stimulate the global economy, the United States and the rest of the world are facing a third depression. But on CNBC’s June 28 “The Kudlow Report,” host Larry Kudlow asked if Krugman’s premise were true, how come none of the measures being applied, which Krugman advocates more of, have failed to have any effect on the current economy. “Steve Forbes, I want to focus this, coming out of G-20,” Kudlow said. “Paul Krugman’s remarkable op-ed today in The New York Times – he says, we are already in the early stages of a depression. He calls it the third depression in U.S. history. He says that it’s primarily a failure of policy. But, Steve, the so-called spending cuts or tax increases or deficit reduction hasn’t happened yet. In the last two years, we’ve had gargantuan spending and ultra-easy money which is what Professor Krugman has been advocating the whole time. And he still thinks we’re in a depression. So I need to ask you, maybe his policies are what threaten the depression.” Forbes magazine CEO Steve Forbes argued the pro-growth approach was the proper means – a stronger dollar and low tax rates.  “Well, it’s like the old physicians who continue to bleed the patient and wonder why the patient isn’t getting better and then bleeds the patient even more,” Forbes explained. “What we should be doing, yes, we should be cutting back spending because it takes money from productive citizens. But as you know, Larry, two other things have to be done, reducing tax rates or at least not increasing tax rates and stabilizing the dollar. So people can trust it again. Sound money, low tax rates, that’s the cure.” However, Dean Baker, a liberal economist and the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. argued the U.S. dollar was strong enough, because as investors flee from other currencies , they are seeking safety in the U.S. dollar and treasuries. But against gold, as Forbes pointed out, the U.S. dollar has taken a dive . “Well, Steve must have not been following things very closely because people have a lot of faith in the dollar,” Baker said. “That’s why it’s been rising so much.” “Not against gold, which is the best barometer of the dollar,” Forbes fired back. Nonetheless, Baker continued to make Krugman’s case – that this was analogous to a forest fire with only a few buckets of water to put it out, which aren’t working meaning there was a need for more so-called medicine from the government. “That’s fine, every other currency in the world,” Baker said. “Interest rates are at near-record lows, so that’s not keeping people from investing. Low tax rates – well, tax rates were higher back in the 90s when the economy was growing at a record pace. So none of that really fits. Krugman’s on the mark here. And the point here is that it’s sort of like if we had a big forest fire and we got a few buckets and you go ‘hey that didn’t put it out.’ Well, water’s not going to work. I mean we lost over a trillion dollars a year in annual demand. We tried to replace it with the stimulus that it came to from the federal sector about $300 billion a year, you subtract out the cuts at the state and local level, that’s $150 billion a year. Where I come from $150 billion isn’t going to make a loss of a trillion. That’s simple arithmetic.”

Originally posted here:
Kudlow, Forbes Debunk Krugman’s ‘Third Depression’ Call

Chris Matthews Disgracefully Uses Sen. Byrd’s Death To Bash Bush

It goes without saying that Monday’s media coverage of Sen. Robert Byrd’s (D-W.V.) death was predictably sycophantic on a disturbing number of levels. However, the award for most disgraceful use of a politician’s passing to further one’s agenda has to go to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews who ended last night’s “Hardball” memorializing a senator he had great esteem for by attacking former President George W. Bush. “Let me finish tonight with a tribute to a U.S. senator who shared my deep American objection to the Iraq War,” he began. Readers are cautioned that where Matthews went from here was offensive in the extreme (video follows with transcript and commentary):  CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with a tribute to a U.S. senator who shared my deep American objection to the Iraq War. I love this country and believe in its historic greatness. I don`t know how those Founding Fathers found themselves in Philadelphia in the late 18th century but they did. And we are incredibly fortunate for that. And I love the symbol of the Gadsden flag that, coiled rattlesnake against a field of yellow. “Don`t Tread on Me` — it warned our enemies, and that included especially the British government and London. This morning, a man died who treasure this country and that flag. For those reasons, Senator Robert Byrd opposed both wars — both wars with Iraq. Here`s what he said in the fall of 2002: “For the first time in the history of the republic, the nation is considering a preemptive strike against a sovereign state. And I will not be silent.” And on the eve of that second Iraq War, he said, quote, “We proclaim a doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We saw that the United States — or we say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. There is no credible evidence to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11.” I was personally stunned and remain in awe that a president of George W. Bush`s abilities was able to take the attack on us of 9/11 and upturn two-plus centuries of American doctrine “Don`t Tread on Me.” We don`t attack but if you attack, we attack back. We oppose aggression. We are not the aggressors. Stop the tape! A president of George W. Bush`s abilities? What kind of nonsense is that? A man you admire dies, and that’s the occasion to mock a former President? How utterly disgraceful. But it got worse:  President Bush and his cohorts in and out of the government were able to construct a new doctrine: If we don`t like you or your policies we attack. If you cause trouble in your region, we attack. If we think you have WMD, we attack. Well, couldn’t that therefore apply to Woodrow Wilson and World War I? America was never attacked. And maybe Franklin Delano Roosevelt should be similarly excoriated for getting involved in Europe during World War II, for Germany never attacked us. Neither did Italy.  As such, using the Matthews Doctrine, we should only have attacked Japan after Pearl Harbor. And we never should have gone into Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq in 1991 for none of those countries attacked us either. Taking this further, Clinton never should have sent troops to Somalia in 1993, or Bosnia in 1995, or Kosovo in 1999. And he certainly shouldn’t have bombed Iraq in 1998. Add it all up, and in the past almost 100 years, Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton have all gone against the Matthews Doctrine. Yet, on the occasion of Sen. Byrd’s death, this so-called journalist chose to once again attack George W. Bush. And he wasn’t finished:  And millions went for it, hook, line and sinker. Senator Byrd did not. That he was so alone out there makes the swooning of America generally Bush`s war so frightening. If someone of Bush`s ability can make America forget its most basic, most time-honored standards, then imagine what a gifted demagogue could do. It`s one thing to send us off to Afghanistan, the base of those who hit us. Bush was able to then drive the entire country off to an altogether different direction. That`s what Bush did. Bush’s war?  Didn’t the Founding Fathers give Congress the sole responsibility to declare war? Why is it that shameless liberals like Matthews forget that in October 2002, both chambers of Congress debated giving Bush the authorization to invade Iraq if Saddam Hussein didn’t accede to various United Nations demands? And why is it that shameless liberals like Matthews forget that on October 10, 2002, the House approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution by a vote of 296 to 133? 81 Democrats voted “Yea” including Dick Gephardt, Jane Harmon, Steny Hoyer, John Murtha, and Henry Waxman.   And why is it that shameless liberals like Matthews forget that on October 11, 2002, the Senate approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution by a vote of 77 to 23? 29 Democrats voted “Yea” including Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, John Breaux, Maria Cantwell, Max Cleland, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan, John Edwards, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson (Neb.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, and Chuck Schumer.  As such, quite frankly, Americans like me are SICK AND TIRED of people like Matthews calling this Bush’s war!!!  And to use the occasion of a Senator’s death to do so is disgusting to say the least. The folks at General Electric must be so proud to not only have an employee like this, but a television network that encourages and celebrates such un-American behavior. Yes, I said un-American, because the Iraq War Resolution was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, and 75 percent of this nation approved of the invasion five months later. As such, WE THE PEOPLE went into this fight TOGETHER no matter how liberal media members like Matthews continue to shamefully depict it now. Will it ever stop? 

See the original post:
Chris Matthews Disgracefully Uses Sen. Byrd’s Death To Bash Bush