Printer Friendly
June
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 – Wednesday, June 21, 2006
1. Hastert doubts alien bill in 2006 - Washington Times
House leaders cast doubt yesterday on the possibility of passing immigration
reform legislation this year and said, in an unusual move, that they will
hold hearings across the country to gauge voter concern.
2. Barbarians - New York Post Op-ed
Thuggish, depraved butchers - that's what America is up against. If Congress
were to force retreat now, the horrific slaying and apparent torture of two
heroic American soldiers in Iraq and so many others will have been in vain.
America must not go wobbly.
3. Missile Defense Test - Wall Street Journal Op-ed
One reason North Korea -- and Iran -- decided to invest in developing nuclear
weapons and ballistic-missiles is simply this: The U.S. was vulnerable. Our
emerging missile defense system is making that less true, and a North Korean
test launch is an ideal time to demonstrate that we are willing and able to
defend ourselves.
4. Voting Rights Act Headed for Renewal - Associated Press
A bill to renew the Voting Rights Act for an additional quarter-century is
moving toward approval in the House with Republicans and Democrats
concurring that the law remains necessary to keep the polls open to all U.S.
citizens.
5. The real Jack Murtha - Washington Times Op-ed
That he's made a name for
himself now by slandering our troops and their mission deserves a brief
recital of some other activities associated with Mr. Murtha.
For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov
FULL ARTICLES BELOW:
1. Hastert doubts alien bill in 2006 -
Washington Times
By Charles Hurt
Published June 21, 2006
House leaders cast doubt yesterday on the possibility of passing immigration
reform legislation this year and said, in an unusual move, that they will
hold hearings across the country to gauge voter concern.
"I'm not putting any timeline ... but I think we need to get this thing done
right," House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, told reporters
yesterday after meeting with the chairmen of all the committees that oversee
immigration-related legislation.
Aides in both the House and Senate said yesterday the developments mean
immigration legislation is essentially dead for the year. Pushing something
through before the November elections would be too politically
unpredictable, they said, and there would be no incentive to do it between
the election and year's end.
Asked yesterday if it was realistic to think Congress could still pass
immigration legislation before the elections, House Majority Leader John A.
Boehner of Ohio said: "Maybe."
Immigration legislation has been stalled for nearly a month because of deep
opposition by House Republicans to the Senate's proposal, which provides a
path to citizenship for most of the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in
the U.S. The House last year approved a bill to secure the border without
dealing with the current illegal alien population or the "guest-worker"
program wanted by President Bush.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, who voted for the Senate
bill, said yesterday he "strongly supports" Mr. Hastert's decision to delay
legislation for additional hearings.
While the issue of immigration divides Republicans, the position that
Democrats are fairly unified behind -- granting citizenship rights to
illegal aliens -- is highly unpopular among voters, polls show.
"We're ready to go on a comprehensive immigration reform bill, one that
deals with security, one that deals with temporary guest-worker program,
one, of course, that deals with a pathway to citizenship," said Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who accused House Republicans of
stalling the legislation because they don't like the Senate bill.
House Republicans went to great efforts yesterday to suggest their
differences are not with the Senate, but with Democrats.
Though 17 Republicans supported the Senate's "amnesty" bill, House
Republicans are referring to it as the "Kennedy bill." Sen. Edward M.
Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, wrote much of the language in the bill that
passed the Senate but the slightly modified compromise version that passed
was sponsored by two Republicans, Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida and Chuck
Hagel of Nebraska.
Once the Senate "amnesty" bill is securely yoked to Democrats, House
Republicans will take the issue on the road in the months leading up to the
election.
"This is an issue that is on the minds of the American people," Mr. Boehner
said. "I think that we clearly want to solve this problem but the House bill
is very different than the Senate bill."
But Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, New York Republican, downplayed the impact
immigration will have on congressional races.
"It all depends on every district," he said. "The Number One issue in my
district is jobs and taxes."
The "field hearings" will be held across the country mainly during the
August recess.
Among the sharpest criticisms of the Senate bill are that it grants Social
Security benefits to illegals for work they performed here illegally, it
requires illegals to pay just three of five years in back taxes, and it
could lead to 100 million new legal immigrants during the next 20 years. Mr.
Boehner also noted that the Senate bill would allow illegals to get in-state
tuition at colleges and universities where they illegally reside.
While Mr. Hastert gave no indication yesterday that he would try pressing
forward with the issue this year, he declined to rule out the possibility.
"We're not going to pass it before it's ready," he said.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060621-124308-1332r.htm
2. Barbarians - New York Post Op-ed
June 21, 2006 -- Thuggish, depraved butchers - that's what America is up
against. And the horrific slaying and apparent torture of two heroic
American soldiers in Iraq couldn't have made that more painfully clear
yesterday.
Of course, the enemy's barbarism is no news; the terrorists' record is long
and chilling - in Iraq and beyond.
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley rightfully referred to them
yesterday as "a brutal enemy that does not follow any of the rules."
The news serves as a bitter reminder of the cold-blooded evil this country
must defeat, as it comes amid nonstop stories in the press of alleged U.S.
"abuses" at Guantanamo and elsewhere.
And amid much Page One attention to alleged killings of Iraqis by American
forces; on Monday, the Army announced charges against three U.S. soldiers
suspected of fatally shooting three detainees in Iraq last month.
News of the brutal murders of the U.S. soldiers - Pfcs. Kristian Menchaca,
23, and Thomas Tucker, 25 - also came as Democrats pressed the U.S. Senate
to endorse a hasty exit from Iraq.
Does anyone really think these blood-thirsty monsters (al Qaeda terrorists
in Iraq claimed their new leader, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, conducted the
slaughter personally) won't link their hideous deeds to the Dems' call for
retreat? To rejoice in having used terror to scare the world's sole
superpower?
Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: The real triumphs seem
to be accruing to America: A U.S. airstrike this week killed yet another
senior leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, the group's religious emir.
That came on on the heels of the killing of butcher-in-chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
- a setback that has the terrorists scrambling to prove they're not quite
dead and can still terrorize America.
The terrorists captured the two GIs last week in an attack on a U.S.
checkpoint near Youssifiyah, in the Sunni "Triangle of Death." Yesterday, an
Iraqi official said they had been "killed in a barbaric way." It's likely
that means torture and mutilatation beyond recognition - for definitive
identification of the bodies had to await DNA analysis. Language in the
boasts on al Qaeda's Web site suggests the soldiers were beheaded.
All of which gives much-needed perspective to all those stories of alleged
U.S. "abuses": Forcing a prisoner to stand naked or "disrespecting" a copy
of the Koran doesn't quite hold a candle to slitting a helpless captive's
throat.
As for the charges of murder against the U.S. soldiers, they too highlight a
key difference between America and the its enemy: This country indicts those
who commit such deeds; al Qaeda brags about them.
Democrats, meanwhile, seem to be itching for defeat. Yesterday, in Capitol
Hill debate, they proposed a non-binding resolution - reportedly crafted
with significant input from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton - calling for troop
withdrawals this year. Even though it sets no firm deadline for completion,
it sends a clear message: America can be cowed into surrender.
So what if the bill takes pains not to use the word "withdrawal" and to call
for an open-ended deadline? Its meaning remains obvious: As Sen. Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.) said, it's not cut and run - "it's cut and jog."
"The last thing you want to do when you have the terrorists on the run is
give them notice that you're going to leave," he said.
He's right: The focus on Iraq must be sealing the victory - and eradicating
the enemy. Not withdrawal.
If Congress were to force retreat now, the deaths of Kristian Menchaca and
Thomas Tucker and so many others will have been in vain.
And many more will follow.
America must not go wobbly.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/barbarians_editorial_.htm
3. Missile Defense Test - Wall Street
Journal Op-ed
June 21, 2006; Page A12
As we went to press in the U.S. last night, morning was breaking at the
Musudan-ri launch facility in the remote northeast of North Korea. It's
possible we'll wake up to the news that Pyongyang has tested the long-range
ballistic missile that is fully fueled and which U.S. satellites have
monitored for more than a month.
If so, we hope we'll also learn that the U.S. responded, as defense
officials said late yesterday it might, by testing its newly operational
missile defense system and blowing the Korean provocation out of the sky.
What better way to discourage would-be nuclear proliferators than to
demonstrate that the U.S. is able to destroy their missiles before they hit
our allies, or the U.S. homeland. Even a miss would be a useful learning
experience all around.
Consider what's at stake. We've known for years that North Korea has several
nuclear weapons at the very least and is developing the missile technology
to threaten America. Pyongyang's test missile is believed to be a
Taepodong-2. A two-stage version could reach Alaska, Hawaii or the West
Coast, according to a study in March by the Center for Nonproliferation at
the Monterey Institute of International Studies, while a three-stage model
could reach all of the continental U.S.
North Korea may not yet have the ability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead --
but then again it may. In any event, it's small comfort that the Taepodong-2
is probably inaccurate. If it misses Seattle, that's not necessarily good
news for Tacoma or Portland.
The last time North Korea launched a missile that caught the world's
attention was in August 1998, when it shot a Taepodong-1 over Japan and into
the Pacific. Pyongyang has since tested shorter-range missiles many times,
including as recently as March. Its inventory of ballistic missiles totals
about 800, including 100-200 Nodongs and Taepodong-1s capable of reaching
Japan. North Korea is also developing a land-based mobile missile known as
the Taepodong-X, with a range of 4,000 kilometers that could land anywhere
in Japan.
Missile exports have also long been a major source of foreign exchange for
Pyongyang, with customers in Pakistan (whose "Ghauri" missile is a renamed
Nodong) and throughout the Middle East. Its longtime best customer is Iran,
which last year was reported to have purchased technology that allowed it to
extend the range of its Shahab-3 missile to 3,500 kilometers from 1,500. In
the blunt words of the German daily Bild last December, "this means that the
'madmen of Iran' could reach targets in the whole of Germany."
All of which demonstrates once again the need for the missile defenses that
the Bush Administration has steadily been developing. The objective of the
integrated system -- which U.S. officials stress is "limited" and still
under development -- is to provide a "layered" defense, with multiple
opportunities to take shots at an incoming missile. The highly complex
system depends on swift coordination among elements based on land, at sea,
and in the air or space.
On the ground, a key element are the interceptor missiles newly deployed at
Fort Greeley, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. There are
also interceptors aboard the Navy's Aegis cruisers, two of which are
currently patrolling near North Korea. Sensors are located aboard ships, in
space, and at several sophisticated radar stations world-wide.
North Korea clearly intends any launch as an act of intimidation, part of
its long-held belief that nuclear threats give it political leverage.
Knocking the missile out of the sky, or even trying to, would tell the North
that it can't succeed with such tactics. It would also reassure Japan and
other U.S. allies that we have the will to protect them from rogue madmen.
The demonstration effect would be useful around the world, not least in
Iran.
As North Korea weighs a launch, it's a useful moment to recall how we got to
this pass: Amid the arms-control era of the Cold War, the U.S. chose to
defend itself against attack by plane or ship or ground but not by missile.
One reason North Korea -- and Iran -- decided to invest scarce resources
into developing nuclear weapons and ballistic-missiles is simply this: The
U.S. was vulnerable.
The emerging missile defense system is making that less true, and a North
Korean test launch is an ideal time to demonstrate that we are willing and
able to defend ourselves.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115085116368485853.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep
4. Voting Rights Act Headed for Renewal -
Associated Press
By LAURIE KELLMAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) - A bill to renew the Voting Rights Act for an additional
quarter-century is moving toward approval in the House with Republicans and
Democrats concurring that the law remains necessary to keep the polls open
to all U.S. citizens.
Still, controversy follows the legislation 40 years after it first
prohibited policies that blocked blacks from voting.
Several Southern Republicans, led by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia,
forced their leaders to allow an amendment to be considered during
Wednesday's floor debate that would ease a requirement that nine states win
permission from the Justice Department or a federal judge to change their
voting rules.
The amendment's backers say the requirement unfairly singles out and holds
accountable nine states that practiced racist voting policies decades ago,
based on 1964 voter turnout data: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
Westmoreland says the formula for deciding which states are subject to such
"pre-clearance" should be updated every four years and be based on voter
turnout in the most recent three elections.
"The pre-clearance portions of the Voting Rights Act should apply to all
states, or no states," Westmoreland said. "Singling out certain states for
special scrutiny no longer makes sense."
The amendment has powerful opponents. From Republican and Democratic leaders
on down the House hierarchy, they argue that states with documented
histories of discrimination may still practice it and have earned the extra
scrutiny.
The overwhelming support for the bill was foreshadowed by the Judiciary
Committee's 33-1 vote last month to report the renewal to the full House.
"This carefully crafted legislation should remain clean and unamended," Rep.
John Conyers, D-Mich., who worked on the original bill, which he called "the
keystone of our national civil rights statutes."
By his own estimation, Westmoreland says his amendment stands little chance
of being adopted.
Other efforts to chip away at the act have faltered under pressure from
powerful supporters.
One effort, sponsored by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, would have stripped a
provision that requires ballots to be printed in several languages and
interpreters be provided in states and counties where large numbers of
citizens speak limited English.
"It seems sort of redundant to have both of those provisions," said Rep.
Phil Gingrey, R-Ga. He added that any foreign-speaking voter must prove some
English proficiency to win citizenship.
However, Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., called
that logic an effort to mix the divisive debate over immigration reform with
the Voting Rights Act renewal. Three-fourths of those whose primary language
is not English are American-born, he said.
"They grew up here. They need the help," said Sensenbrenner, using Puerto
Rican natives as examples. "They are just as entitled as everyone else to
understanding the ballot."
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-cong/2006/jun/21/062102109.html
5. The real Jack Murtha - Washington
Times Op-ed
Published June 21, 2006
Rep. John Murtha is thinking big thoughts. Since coming out for an immediate
withdrawal from Iraq last year, he has accused Marines of murder "in cold
blood" before a preliminary investigation is even complete; accused the
military of a cover up over the same incident; declared his candidacy for
the House majority leadership post; and, most recently, refined his
cut-and-run strategy in Iraq to mean "redeployment" to Okinawa, Japan.
That's quite a splash for such a veteran congressman, who a year ago had
zero name recognition outside Washington. That he's made a name for himself
now by slandering our troops and their mission deserves a brief recital of
some other activities associated with Mr. Murtha.
Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the
defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose
lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million
from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA
Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide
Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for
27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times
reported.
In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S.
Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to
the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the
rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been
behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills
that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania
Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive
Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as
the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election
cycle.
As Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, has said, "If there is a
potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure
appropriations that also benefited relatives of those members, I believe
this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee."
It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after
corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable
actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the
darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings,
scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the
subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr.
Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator."
Maybe the next time the new Jack Murtha thinks up another big idea someone
can ask him about the old Jack Murtha.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060620-083859-8753r.htm
### |
