Made It to Washington to Grandstand, Though

It's been 293 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared U.S. victory in Iraq; more than 428 US military personnel have been killed in Iraq since Sen. Clinton's declaration of victory.

Also, it's been 310 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared the U.S. mainland safe from terrorists.

I'm just getting home from work so I have not heard any audio of Senators Clinton or Obama questioning General David Petraeus, though the news web sites are all reporting that both will/did. It is remarkable that these two cowards, who would be President, have not been able to make it to Washington to vote on a war funding bill since September 7, 2006 yet they can make it to Washington today (as we all know, Sen. McCain has been able to get to Washington rather recently to vote on war funding; he thinking it important and all). I have no doubt there will be few questions for the General. I have no doubt there will be much speech making.

I think it is unlikely either Sen. Clinton or Obama will insult the General as Sen. Clinton did the last time Gen. Petraeus reported to the Senate. But, I do think they will try to cast him in a negative light. Accordingly, it would be helpful to the American people if anyone in the liberal media could ask either Clinton or Obama, if elected, will you fire Gen. Petraeus?

I also know I have a huge research task before me. I made mental note of every quote from President Bush and Gen. Petraeus over the last nine months of every time they talked of the "surge" that they always qualified any suggested success, usually in the form of a question from a member of the liberal media, with how precarious it was. I've already seen one quote today from Sen. Carl Levin giving the impression that the Bush Administration hyped the success of the surge. He will not be the last. However, Sen. Levin is simply wrong and so will be everyone else who trys to suggest the same. I'm on it and I'll find the quotes; please give me a few days.

A letter regarding U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno's investigation of President Clinton; it needs no further introduction:

Editor,

For at least the fifth time in the last 2 1/2 years, the (Boston Globe) editorial page has sought to perpetuate the liberally extreme misbelief that the investigation of President Clinton’s perjury and obstruction of justice in his sexual harassment case, which led to his bi-partisan impeachment in the U.S. House of Representatives, was the result of something other than U.S. Attorney Janet Reno’s request to expand an independent counsel’s investigation of the Predator (letters, April 6, 2008; December 9, 2005; November 1, 2005; and early October 2005; commentary, Kuttner, March 24, 2007).

The following are excerpts from General Reno’s January 16, 1998 petition to the Court requesting the expansion:

"In accordance with the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994, I hereby notify in writing the special division of the court that I have commenced a preliminary investigation . . . As a result of my inquiry into this matter, I request expansion of the jurisdiction of Independent Counsel . . . to further investigate and determine whether prosecution is warranted. The court has already been informed of this matter and my request orally . . . It would be appropriate for Independent Counsel . . . to handle this matter because (counsel) is currently investigating similar allegations involving possible efforts to influence witnesses . . . ." (End of letter regarding U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno's investigation of President Clinton.)