Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press!  Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary

The Morning Murmur – Friday, December 16, 2005

1.  Iraq’s Historic Vote:  Democracy’s Power – New York Post Columnist, Ralph Peters
The determination of Iraq's population to embrace their rough-and-tumble democracy is quite an embarrassment to those who predicted failure even before we marched on Baghdad. It's hard to insist that a massive voter turnout changes nothing.

2.  Pelosi Hails Democrats' Diverse War Stances – Washington Post
In an interview with Washington Post editors, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that when it comes to Iraq, "There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position."  Ruling out a Democrat position puts Pelosi at odds with her fellow Democrats.

3.  Democracy wins at Iraq polls – Washington Times Editorial
The willingness of Sunni leaders to embrace the political process means Islamist insurgents, like Abu Musab Zarqawi, will find themselves increasingly isolated as more and more Sunni insurgents lay down their guns. This election was also the first that saw Iraqi forces in charge of security, with U.S. forces ready if needed.

4.  Kerry's Impeachment Crack Not Funny, Republicans Say – CNS News
On the eve of the Iraq elections, Sen. John Kerry gave a short speech at a holiday party in a Washington bar advocating President Bush’s impeachment.  True to form, Kerry later tried to take back his words saying he was only joking.

5.  Turn the Tables: Can't We Indict Teddy Kennedy for Mary Jo Kopechne's Death? – Columnist Ann Coulter
Can’t we rustle up a right-wing prosecutor to indict Teddy Kennedy for Mary Jo Kopechne’s drowning? Unlike the cases against Limbaugh and DeLay, Mary Jo’s death was arguably a crime, and we could probably prove it in court.

For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov

FULL ARTICLES BELOW:

1.  Iraq’s Historic Vote:  Democracy’s Power – New York Post Columnist, Ralph Peters

By RALPH PETERS

WHERE were the "Pull our troops out now!" protesters yesterday, as 15 million voters from every ethnic and religious group in Iraq went to the polls to shape their country's future?

Surely, the anti-war crowd couldn't all have gone to the movies to see "Brokeback Mountain"?

The determination of Iraq's population to embrace their rough-and-tumble democracy is quite an embarrassment to those who predicted failure even before we marched on Baghdad. It's hard to insist that a massive voter turnout changes nothing.

Of course, few of those "anti-war protesters" are really anti-war. When Bill Clinton bombed Serbia, they cheered the use of military force. Our abandon-Iraq dissidents are driven by two things that have little to do with the situation in Mesopotamia.

First, they're just plain anti-Bush, closet authoritarians who have no more respect for the American voter than they do for the Iraqis. They long for voter rolls restricted to like-minded intellectuals — and a president who delivers his state-of-the-union address in French.

Which brings us to the second characteristic of the "declare failure" crowd: They don't much like democracy, no matter where it appears. Have any of those obsessed with giving Saddam a fair trial praised Iraq's attempt to build a democracy? Do they really believe that the millions who voted yesterday were better off under a brutal dictatorship? Was Saddam more humane and just than a free election?

Isn't it just plain racist to insist that Iraqis can't build a democracy? Not so long ago, our Democratic Party struggled to deny the vote to millions of Americans. Would today's critics prefer global Jim Crow laws for the billions beyond our shores?

One senses bitterness on the left that the terrorists didn't do more to disrupt the election. That isn't moral dissent — it's moral bankruptcy.

The America-haters will find their voices again. When the election results are announced, there's going to be plenty of bickering and, inevitably, allegations of fraud. Any slight irregularity will get the left excited, "proving" the vote was meaningless.

And let's face it: Even though the Iraqis have disappointed the American left again and again, they may fail to build an enduring, rule-of-law democracy. Much could still go wrong. But at least for now democracy exists where despotism prevailed for thousands of years. People whose hatreds go so deep that Americans can't fathom them are marking ballots, rather than turning to bullets.

There's no guarantee that Iraq's internal differences can be bridged, that those who've lost power will reconcile themselves to their changed status or that those who've gained authority won't abuse it. The best possible outcome will be far from perfect.

But must the standard be perfection, when we haven't even managed that ourselves? We're asking Iraqis to change not only their government, but their civilization, to overcome hatreds hallowed in torrents of blood.

And the Iraqis are trying. May God, by any name, assist their struggle.

Doesn't anyone on the left have the integrity to consider that, for all its deplorable faults, the Bush administration just might have done an admirable deed by giving 26 million souls a voice in their own future?

Our domestic left took sick leave during yesterday's election. They'll be back as soon as anything goes wrong. But Iraq's third and most-inclusive trip to the polls was a reality. No amount of spin and lies can change that.

The people of Iraq don't — and won't — love us. Except for the Kurds, they want to see the last of our troops at some point. Pride trumps gratitude in human affairs.
It will be enough if, on the day our last battalion furls its flag, age-old enemies have learned to respect the authority of the vote.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy."

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/58691.htm

2.  Pelosi Hails Democrats' Diverse War Stances – Washington Post

By Dan Balz
Friday, December 16, 2005; A23

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.

Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad.

"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.

Pelosi recently endorsed the proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for a swift redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq over a period of six months, but no other party leader followed, and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) publicly opposed her.

She said her support for Murtha was not intended to forge a Democratic position on the war, adding that she blocked an effort by some of her colleagues to put the Democrats on record backing Murtha.

Her comments ruling out a caucus position appeared to put Pelosi at odds with some other party officials. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean recently said Democrats were beginning to coalesce around a strategy that would pull out all troops over the next two years. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said on the day Murtha offered his plan, "As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we'll have a position."

Pelosi, one of the most liberal Democrats in the House, opposed the war and, as the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee before the invasion, argued that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States. She served as Democratic whip when Congress authorized Bush to go to war, and she rallied 126 Democratic votes against the measure when then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), the Democratic leader, supported the White House.

Pelosi said she had not consulted with Dean or Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) before taking her position. Her action angered some Democrats, who believed it left the party vulnerable to criticism from the Republicans, but cheered the party's antiwar activists who want party leaders to challenge Bush more vigorously on the war.

Meanwhile, House Republicans are planning to seek a vote as early as today on a resolution saying that an "artificial timetable" for the withdrawal of troops is "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq."

In a wide-ranging interview, Pelosi labeled the Republican-controlled Congress "the most corrupt in history" and repeated her assertion that Democrats will make ethics a central issue next year. She said that the issue and ethical climate in the country point to Democratic gains next year, and noted that if the elections were held today, Democrats would take control of the House.

If Democrats are able to win the majority next year, Pelosi pledged aggressive oversight of the administration on issues including the war, intelligence and how the government responded to Hurricane Katrina.

Pelosi said Democrats scored significant victories recently, the biggest coming on Social Security, on which she said Democratic opposition to Bush's proposed private or personal accounts blocked any hopes the White House had for changing the government retirement insurance program this year.

"Not only did we take him down on that, but we took down a lot of his credibility as being somebody who cared about 'people like me,' " she said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501814.html

3.  Democracy wins at Iraq polls – Washington Times Editorial

December 16, 2005

There was an interesting development in the war with Iraqi insurgents before yesterday's successful parliamentary elections. As Paul Martin reported from Baghdad, U.S. field commanders negotiated a cease-fire with most of the main insurgent groups for several days prior to the nationwide vote. An official response from the Pentagon clarified that the meetings were with Sunni leaders and "not insurgency leaders with blood on their hands." But an anonymous U.S. official said "that only rules out a few individuals, and even then they can send 'cleaner' representatives to talks with us."

However it came about, the negotiations worked. Continuing the trend from last January's elections, violence was light on election day, as millions of Sunnis who had previously boycotted the political process lined up to vote. Early reports told how polling stations in Fallujah, which U.S. forces liberated from Sunni insurgents last year, ran out of ballots due to the unexpectedly high turnout. Elsewhere, the voting deadline had to be extended by another hour.

As we suggested yesterday, the willingness of Sunni leaders to embrace the political process means that they have finally come to regard democracy as the future of Iraq. It also means that the Islamist insurgents, like al Qaeda thug Abu Musab Zarqawi, will find themselves increasingly isolated as more and more Sunni insurgents lay down their guns. It remains to be seen how long the peace can be held.

Convincing the Sunni population to go to the polls was also a top political priority for the United States. The Sunni boycott of the January elections allowed the Shi'ite majority to dominate the interim government with candidates espousing strong pro-Iranian sympathies. The Sunni vote counters the Shi'ite clerics and their political parties, like the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Ironically, Iraq's sectarian divisions, which have always threatened to tear the country apart, could lead to a more inclusive, secular government. Although we won't know the makeup of the 275-member National Assembly for at least two weeks, the Sunni turnout alone augurs well for a parliament far more representative of the people than the current one.

This election was also the first that saw Iraqi forces in charge of security. With U.S. forces ready if needed, it was mostly Iraqis protecting Iraqis in one-time hotbeds of insurgent activity like Ramadi, where violence during the January elections made sure almost no one voted. Things were different in Ramadi yesterday, as Western journalists noticed the change with thousands of celebrating Iraqis going to the polls.

With so much good news and so little violence, we're curious to see how Democrats and their allies in the media decide to play the elections. When each election is more successful than the last, the honest observer sees progress. Maybe on his return from Baghdad Sen. Joe Biden can enlighten the defeatist wing of his party on what he witnessed and why the United States cannot now abandon this fledgling democracy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051215-092213-1202r.htm

4.  Kerry's Impeachment Crack Not Funny, Republicans Say – CNS News

By Susan Jones, CNSNews.com Senior Editor
December 16, 2005

(CNSNews.com)- The Republican Party sees nothing funny about Sen. John F. Kerry's crack that President Bush should be impeached.

If Democrats take back the House in 2006, there would be a "solid case" to bring articles of impeachment against Bush for "misleading" the country about prewar intelligence, the National Journal's Hotline quoted Kerry as saying.

Kerry spoke Wednesday night at a holiday party for those who worked on his losing 2004 presidential campaign. He gave a short speech at a Washington bar.

Hotline said several of the 100 Democrats who attended the party quoted Kerry as advocating President Bush's impeachment.

Kerry's communications director David Wade later said his boss was joking, but Republicans are not laughing.

"With his impeachment advocacy last night, John Kerry once again showed how out of touch he is with American people and how in step he is with the far left fringes of the Democrat party," said RNC Communications Director Brian Jones in a statement.

"For one of the leaders of the Democrat party to begin a push for presidential impeachment, in seriousness or jest, on the eve of the Iraq elections is both foolish and shortsighted."

Kerry reportedly is mulling another run for Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

5.  Turn the Tables: Can't We Indict Teddy Kennedy for Mary Jo Kopechne's Death? – Columnist Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter
Posted Dec 14, 2005

I’m getting a little insulted that no Democratic prosecutor has indicted me. Liberals bring trumped-up criminal charges against all the most dangerous conservatives. Why not me?

Democrat prosecutor Barry Krischer has spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to find some criminal charge to bring against Rush Limbaugh. Political hack Ronnie Earle spent three years and went through six grand juries to indict Tom DeLay. Liberals spent the last two years fantasizing in public about Karl Rove being indicted. Newt Gingrich was under criminal investigation for more than three years back in the 1990s when liberals were afraid of him. Final result: No crime.

And of course, everybody cool in the Reagan administration was indicted. Or at least investigated and persecuted. Reagan’s sainted attorney general Ed Meese was criminally investigated for 14 months before the prosecutor announced that he didn’t have anything (but denounced Meese as a crook anyway).

I note that nobody ever wanted to indict Bob Dole or Gerald Ford (except, of course, other Republicans).

In the Nixon administration, liberals even brought “Deep Throat” up on charges -- and he was one of you people! What, now I’m not even as hip as “Deep Throat”?

I’ve done a lot for my country. I think I deserve to be indicted, too. How am I supposed to show my face around Washington if I haven’t been “frog-marched” out of my office by some liberal D.A. looking to move to D.C. for the next Democratic administration? What’s a girl have to do to become a “person of interest” around here? Mr. Krischer, where do I go to get rid of my reputation?

Barry Krischer has been going around calling El Rushbo a criminal for more than two years but has yet to bring any charges. Last month, Krischer’s assistant, James Martz, told the court that his office has “no idea” if Limbaugh has even committed a crime. I’m no lawyer -- hey, wait a minute, yes I am! -- but it sounds like maybe Krischer’s maid has been out scoring him stupid pills again.

These liberals are fanatics about privacy when it comes to man-boy sex and stabbing forks into partially-born children. But a maid alleges that she bought Rush Limbaugh a few Percodans, and suddenly the government has declared a war on prescription painkillers.

Liberals are more optimistic about the charges against Tom DeLay than they are about the charges against Saddam Hussein -- and the only living things Tom DeLay ever exterminated were rats and bugs.

In the remaining money-laundering case against DeLay, the prosecutors have acknowledged that they cannot produce the actual list of candidates who allegedly gained from the purported money-laundering scheme. But they hope to introduce a facsimile cobbled together from someone’s memory.

In other words, during Rathergate, the case against the president consisted of a faked memo, whereas the case against Tom DeLay consists of an imaginary one.

Charges like these are not brought at random. They are brought against people who pose the greatest threat to liberals. (What am I? Miss Congeniality?)

The only difference between the Stalin-era prosecutions -- also enthusiastically defended by liberals -- and these prosecutions is that it’s possible to get acquitted here. But the validity of the charges is about the same.

The only way to stop the left’s criminalization of conservatism is to start indicting liberals.

It wasn’t calm persuasion that convinced liberals the independent counsel law was a bad idea. It was an independent prosecutor investigating Bill Clinton (who actually was a felon!).

It wasn’t logical argument that got them to admit that -- sometimes -- women do lie about sexual harassment. It was half a dozen women accusing Bill Clinton of groping, flashing or raping them.

It wasn’t the plain facts that got liberals to admit that, sometimes, “objective” news reports can be biased. It was the appearance of Fox News Channel.

Can’t we rustle up a right-wing prosecutor to indict Teddy Kennedy for Mary Jo Kopechne’s drowning? Unlike the cases against Limbaugh and DeLay, Mary Jo’s death was arguably a crime, and we could probably prove it in court.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10874&o=ANN001

###