Right Wing Power Broker Questions Bush's Sanity -Calls for withdrawal from Iraq

Scaife-Owned Newspaper Calls for Iraq Troop Withdrawal -- Questions Bush's 'Mental Stability'


NEW YORK The Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday called the Bush administration's plans to stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide."

The editorial in the Tribune-Review added, "And quite frankly, during last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering about 'sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved,' we had to question his mental stability."

It continued: "President Bush warns that U.S. withdrawal would risk 'mass killings on a horrific scale.' What do we have today, sir?

"If the president won't do the right thing and end this war, the people must. The House has voted to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by April. The Senate must follow suit.

"Our brave troops should take great pride that they rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. And they should have no shame in leaving Iraq. For it will not be, in any way, an exercise in tail-tucking and running.

"America has done its job.

"It's time for the Iraqis to do theirs."

The editorial said it agrees with its local congressman on this: Democratic U.S. Rep. John Murtha.

Richard Mellon Scaife (born July 3, 1932 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is an American billionaire and newspaper publisher.

Scaife owns and publishes the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. With $1.2 billion, Scaife, a principal heir to the Mellon banking, oil, and aluminum fortune, is No. 283 on the 2005 Forbes 400.

Scaife is particularly well known for his financial support of conservative public policy organizations over the past two decades. Scaife has provided support for conservative and libertarian causes in the U.S., mostly through the private, nonprofit foundations he controls: the Sarah Scaife Foundation, Carthage Foundation, and Allegheny Foundation, and until 2001 the Scaife Family Foundation, now controlled by his daughter Jennie and son David [1] [2]. Scaife also helped fund the Arkansas Project, which ultimately led to the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton.

Sources
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003612271
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mellon_Scaife

Related:

From Publishers Weekly
Conason and Lyons (Fools for Scandal), veteran journalists respectively for the New York Observer and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, argue that if the opposition to the Clintons didn't quite constitute a "vast right-wing conspiracy," as the First Lady famously alleged, it was at the very least a "loose cabal" of "Clinton adversaries,... an angry gallery of defeated politicians,... right-wing pamphleteers, wealthy eccentrics, zany private detectives, religious fanatics and die-hard segregationists." They reveal how notable right-wingers like Richard Mellon Scaife (heir to the Carnegie Mellon fortune) and Jerry Falwell bankrolled the muckraking that led to scandals like Whitewater and Troopergate, neither of which, the authors claim, ever produced evidence of Clinton misconduct. Conason and Lyons also point out the ultraconservative credentials of Paula Jones's supporters, including Kenneth Starr, who privately abetted the harassment suit before he was appointed as a supposedly independent counsel. But what disturbs Conason and Lyons even more than the zeal of these conservative critics is the conduct of the national press. They make a case that their colleagues at the New York Times, Washington Post and elsewhere colluded with the most unsavory elements of the fringe right to bring unverified and frequently libelous allegations into the center of the mainstream media. The story of the Clinton scandals is a tortuous, labyrinthine puzzle, and Conason and Lyons do their best to simplify it. But their cast of characters is enormous, and their research overwhelming. Readers may not ultimately agree with the authors that the tactics of the Clinton enemies were worse than any mistake made by the president, but they will nevertheless gain a considerably more balanced and complex picture of the road to impeachment. 16 pages b&w photos. (Mar.)
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc
The Hunting of the President

US Troops being sent to Iraq without Training

The Republicans called the threat of the Democratic lead Congress to withhold funds for troops- "slow bleed".

But what the Democrats in Congress were really trying to do, is to make sure that the Presidents new "surge" of troops would be adequately trained and have sufficient equitment.

Somehow the Democrats didn't trust the administration to care that much about the troops.

Rushed by President Bush's decision to reinforce Baghdad with thousands more U.S. troops, two Army combat brigades are skipping their usual session at the Army's premier training range in California and instead are making final preparations at their home bases.

Some in Congress and others outside the Army are beginning to question the switch, which is not widely known. They wonder whether it means the Army is cutting corners in preparing soldiers for combat, since they are forgoing training in a desert setting that was designed specially to prepare them for the challenges of Iraq.

But as the Democrats were slow to provide politically exceptable wording for their plan- the Administration went ahead sending in the troops. Press Secretary Tony Snow took some questions about this:


Q There was also a report this morning that two Army combat brigades are being sent to Iraq without desert training -- the Associated Press has a story out today -- and that it's because they're being rushed to Iraq to help get the surge in place.

MR. SNOW: Again, let me stress, what happens is, a lot of times you will also do training in theaters, as well as equipping in theater. The generals have made it very clear, and military commanders have made it clear, nobody is going to go into combat activity without proper equipment and training. Period. So if things --

Q But the story flatly says that two brigades are going in without desert training in California. So that doesn't sound like --

MR. SNOW: All right, I understand.

Q -- they're getting the training.

MR. SNOW: Well, but they can get desert training elsewhere, like in Iraq.

House votes against troop surge in Iraq & Tim Ryans speach

In this post we have the Washington post on the House of Representatives Historic nonbinding but symbolic vote of NON CONFIDENCE in the President's plan forward in Iraq.

And, my favorite speech from the debate from Tim Ryans (D). Who points out that sending in these troops would mean sending in men and woman who would not have the equipment necessary to do their job. He points out that the administration has a poor record for carrying for our troops.



House votes against troop surge in Iraq
By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published February 17, 2007


The Democratic-led House yesterday voted against President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, a nonbinding but symbolic action that Republicans said is defeatist and a step backward in the war on terrorism.

"Today we have had an historic victory for the American people," said House Speaker , who voted against the war in 2002.

The 97-word resolution, which opposes sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq, passed 246-182. The vote was preceded by 44 hours and 55 minutes of debate over four days. Seventeen Republicans voted for the measure, and two Democrats voted against it.

The president's spokesman said the resolution won't change Mr. Bush's plan, adding that early signs of its success would leave those who voted for the resolution having to explain themselves later.

"Members of Congress have taken their own gamble here. They're gambling on failure -- some members, at least," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.

The White House is downplaying yesterday's House vote -- and one planned for today in the Senate on another Iraq war resolution -- arguing that the more important votes were last month's Senate confirmation of Army Gen. David H. Petraeus to command U.S. forces in Iraq and an upcoming vote on an emergency spending bill to fund the war on terrorism.
Meanwhile, House Republican leaders are vowing to defeat Democratic plans to begin slowly choking off funding for the war. Democrats intend to introduce legislation next month that they hope will limit the president's use of money in the supplemental war-funding request.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican, said the resolution "is clearly the first step toward defunding the troops and the war against Islamic totalitarianism."

Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, said Thursday that he hopes to require certification for adequate training and equipment for any deployed troops, and to place caps on how long those troops can serve and be enlisted.

"They won't be able to do the deployment," said Mr. Murtha, who voted in favor of authorizing the war.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, denounced the plan "to eliminate funding for our troops that are in harm's way."

Democrats insist the best way to "support the troops" is to take them out of what they say is a civil war in Iraq.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, who voted for the war, said it "has weakened our fight against al Qaeda. In fact the war has enhanced the group's recruitment."

Republicans insist that Iraq is a hard but necessary fight against terrorists and insurgents backed by Iran and Syria, and that the conflict is part of the country's broader fight against terrorism.

The four-day debate, in which 392 of 434 House lawmakers participated, came to a dramatic conclusion yesterday afternoon.

Republicans sent Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas, a prisoner of war in Vietnam for almost seven years, to the House floor as their last speaker.

"Let my body serve as a brutal reminder that we must not repeat the mistakes of the past," said Mr. Johnson, 76. "We must not cut off funding for the troops."

Republicans gave Mr. Johnson a two-minute standing ovation and were joined by the smattering of Democrats in the chamber.

Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri closed the debate for the Democrats. Mr. Skelton, who voted to authorize the war, said that sending more troops "will embroil [them] more deeply in a sectarian conflict [that] cannot be won militarily."

Immediately after the resolution passed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, sent out a release that said the Senate "must join the House and vote on the escalation."

Mr. Reid has taken the unusual step of bringing senators in for a weekend vote today on closing off amendments to an anti-surge resolution identical to the House bill.

Democrats say Republicans are avoiding an up-or-down vote on the surge, but Republicans say they want to vote on alternative resolutions, one of which would guarantee no funding cuts for the military.

"Senate Republicans want a vote in support of funding for the troops," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, who said he expects to defeat Mr. Reid's attempt to stifle debate on other resolutions.

• Stephen Dinan contributed to this article.


Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) delivers his speech on the Iraq War Resolution during Thursday's debate on the floor of the house.