FLASHBACK to Katrina and claims that federal authorities failed to respond appropriately ..... Why DID local authorities NOT ask for immediate federal assistance? Were the LA governor and New Orleans mayor taking cues from the DNC in a(nother) attempt to sacrifice human lives in order to discredit George Bush?
This blogger (who, coincidentally lost two friends in that tragedy) believes that BDS and the blind-hatred of George Bush are far stronger motivations than any regard for the lives and safety of the American people.
Why did Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius subsequently withdraw her charge(s) that critical National Guard equipment had been sent to Iraq?
This is a radio interview of the breaking story from Hannity Radio.
Check out the ONLINE trail of posts, letter from a DNC attorney to FreePress and the radio station, and comments from PowerLine blog.
From a FreePress post:
I was listening to the Quinn & Rose show this morning on XM radio when Host, Jim Quinn told his audience that Howard Dean called Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius early, around 5 am, one morning after the tornado had destroyed the town of Greensburg, Kansas and discussed with her what to say about the tornado and how to blame the war in Iraq and the Bush administration on a slow response to the aftermath.
He also said that she, Gov. Sebelius, called Senator Sam Brownback's office only to learn he wasn't there but then called him on his cell phone and reached him while he was in his car were she confessed to him that she had been instructed by her party leadership, (more specifically, Howard Dean) on how to politicize the tornado's destruction of Greensburg and attack the White House and the Iraq war for a seemingly slow response. She reassured the Senator that her allegations didn't blame him or Pat Roberts, also a Kansas Senator, for the lack of immediate response.
That would explain her public statements to the press that proved later to be untrue. She made statements to the effect that the Iraq war and the deployment of the national guard units to Iraq from her state has left Kansas without the equipment and man power needed to respond more quickly to the tornado's aftermath. This all turns out to be false and the governor herself has back tracked on her own claims.
Mr. Quinn also revealed that she confessed to Brownback that she couldn't pass up such an opportunity like this to attack the President whose approval ratings, in this hostile political climate, is so low.
These revelations are startling and if true should call into question the governors competence and her judgment. Quinn adamantly stressed that his source, who he didn't name because he was sure it would jeopardize his job, was extremely reliable and in a position that would give him direct knowledge of these revelations.
From the DNC letter to FreePress:
The statements quoted above are false and defamatory, are libelous and slanderous, and clearly threaten to interfere with the DNC's operations and ability to solicit support and raise funds by prejudicing the organization in the the eyes of Democratic Party supporters and the public. For these reasons, we demand that FreeRepublic.com (i) immediately cease and desist from further dissemination of the above-quoted statements or any statements similar in substance and (ii) immediately post a retraction of these statements in a location on its web page at least as prominent as that on which the original story appeared.
Please let us know by noon tomorrow (May 11, 2007) whether you intend to comply with these requests.
A PowerLine attorney responds:
The attorney who sent the letter on behalf of the DNC is attorney Joseph Sandler, representing the Democratic National Committee. In my view, Sandler is a thug representing a bunch of reprobates and bullies. Here's why.
Under the First Amendment, as construed by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, citizens are protected from defamation claim by public figures so long as the statements in issue are lacking in "actual malice," i.e, knowledge of their falsehood or reckless disregard as to whether they are false or not.
Accordingly, our reader's Free Republic post based on the statements of Jim Quinn is constitutionally immune from a defamation claim. Whether Quinn and those who broadcast his program have such immunity is a different question, but the same constitutional protection applies to them. Professor and First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh coincidentally makes a closely related point based on the Sullivan case today.
"Actual malice" is a tough standard for public figures to overcome. That's why defamation claims by public figures have essentially disappeared since the Sullivan case. Under the Sullivan case, the First Amendment affords wide latitude for the discussion of public figures as well as issues of public concern.
Sandler's letter to Free Republic incorporates no element of "actual malice." It is couched in the traditional common law of defamation that the Supreme Court killed for public figures in the Sullivan case. Sandler's letter carries Governor Dean's denial of Quinn's assertions, but it does not even allege that Jim Quinn had knowledge of the statements' falsity or made them with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.
We therefore associate ourselves with our reader's statements regarding Governor Dean and invite Mr. Sandler to sue us for defamation as he threatens to sue Free Republic. This is to put him and his client on notice, however, that we intend to seek our attorney's fees under federal law for the assertion of a frivolous claim if he does so.
I have minimal legal background, but wholeheartedly concur. No entity -- especially Howard Dean and the DNC -- has the right to control the blogosphere. So sue us, too. Sue every blogger who dares to exercise their right to speak.
Maybe Brownback will be asked to comment about this during the debate on Thursday. He should be.
Maybe it is also time to revisit the Katrina tragedy -- with a review of actual cell phone and email records from the DNC to LA.