Media omission: Coffman favors re-deployment of advisory troops in Iraq

(Wait, what? – promoted by Colorado Pols)

On a Denver radio show Friday, Rep. Mike Coffman affirmed his opposition to the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, adding that, even now, he'd deploy U.S. military personnel to Iraq, if they were invited, to serve in an advisory role.

Asked by KNUS talk-show host Dan Caplis if he'd support "boots back on the ground in Iraq," Coffman replied:

Coffman: Certainly an advisory role, but certainly not anything beyond that. And that's if requested. I think we have to be very careful once out about reentering that particular conflict. I would say, in terms of regular troops on the ground, absolutely not."

During the interview, Coffman expressed regret that U.S. troops are not on the ground in Iraq today, to help the Iraqi government confront sectarian violence.

"Some residual force would have maintained at least that military-military, government-to-government ties that we would have had some influence there," Coffman told KNUS' Dan Caplis Friday. "Right now we have no influence."

Listen to Coffman say he favors re-deployment of advisory troops to Iraq.

Coffman didn't offer details on the size of the "residual force" he had in mind, but back in 2009 he endorsed the Administration's plan envisioning an American force of up to 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq.

On the radio, Coffman criticized President Barack Obama for withdrawing troops from Iraq. If Obama hadn't pulled out so many troops, it's possible a residual force could have been left in Iraq, Coffman said, and the current crisis might have been avoided.

Coffman: "I think the Administration was looking for a narrative that we ended war in Iraq. And the Iraqi government had requested some kind of residual presence, if anything to be symbolic to the Iraqi people that we were still engaged. And that's, I think, very important, probably to this day, although the decision has been made… But what the Administration kept doing is lowering the number of troops, and obviously insisting, as they should, that Status of Forces Agreement keep U.S. military personnel under U.S. jurisdiction, as we always insist on. The Iraqi government clearly had to expend the political capital to accept that. And they were willing to until the numbers dropped so low that it wasn't worth it to them to do that. And so the Administration is now saying, 'Well, we gave them the opportunity, and they didn't take it, in terms of the Status of Forces Agreement.' But the Administration just wanted out. And I think we're suffering some of the consequences of that today." [BigMedia emphasis]

Under the Status of Forces Agreement, Obama planned in 2011 on keeping 10,000 troops in Iraq. Later, he lowered the number to about 5,000, before the troops were asked by the Iraqis to leave. Based on this, and his statement above, Coffman appears to have been prepared to leave at least 10,000 troops in Iraq or more, if necessary to make it worth it to the Iraqis politically.

Coffman's announcement that he favors the re-deployment of advisory troops to Iraq appears to be a reversal of a position he took in 2011, when he stated that he supported President Barack Obama's decision to remove all troops from the country.

View the original article here

Media omission: Exposing criminal signature gatherers is “just another tactic of the left,” says Hudak recall organizer

(Deny, deflect, rinse, repeat – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Yesterday on KNUS, a Hudak-recall leader said that facts, documented Wed. by Fox 31's Eli Stokols, that a criminal is collecting signatures to put the recall measure on the ballot, are "just another tactic of the left."

Yet, reporters should know, the two recall leaders, Mike McAlpine and Laura Waters, pledged not to hide from the public, and to be "up front" about the situation.

Here's part of what they said at 48 min in the second hour of the Peter Boyles show Nov. 13.

Boyles: Laura and Mike, what are you going to do about this?

McAlpine: Well, we’re going to be in a position, Peter, where we have to check on this. We need to make sure everything is above board. We’ll do what’s right.

Boyles: You literally have to. This makes the case that the left wants to believe…. What you must do is confront this. We'll call Dudley this morning This is, as my grandma used to say, is the fly in the ointment.

Waters: When we saw the piece last night, we immediately looked through our volunteer records. We did not recognize the man…. What we’re seeing this is that people in the community are recognizing this as just another tactic of the left.

McAlpine: …Most of us live in the area and work this out of passion for change…Anybody who’s interested can hear the truth from us. We’re not going to hide behind a series of veils. We’re going to be up front about it.

If exposing the criminal backgrounds of signature-gatherers is just an empty tactic, then you have wonder what's not just a tactic. What's meaningful? Boyles didn't ask.

View the original article here

Media omission: GOP recall spokeswoman says she fought Republican Party more than Morse

(Schadenfreude – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

In an interesting Spot Blog Post Sunday by The Denver Post's Kurtis Lee, Republican State Chairman Ryan Call defends himself against recent accusations from Republican activists that he did not support the recall campaigns of Democratic State Senators Angela Giron and John Morse. Call told The Post that the State GOP, in fact, supported Republican recall candidates with cash, legal backing, get-out-the-vote activities, and other ways. The Post also reported:

"In an e-mail exchange, Call offered to attend a news conference in support of the recalls, but he was turned down by a spokeswoman for the recall organizers."

The spokeswoman for the recall organizers was Jennifer Kerns, and she was apparently not given the chance respond to Call's allegation. Either that or she deferred to Victor Head, the Pueblo activist, who was quoted in the article, slamming Call. But, in any case, on KLZ radio Friday afternoon, Kerns said:

Kerns: "This is my first time speaking out as the spokesperson for the recalls, and I'm doing it right here first on Grassroots Radio to say that the [Republican] Party blocked us every step of the way, whether it was phone calls into Pueblo from Ryan Call to suggest that they shut down those recalls, and they not aid and assist the guys from Pueblo Freedom and Rights, or if it was our chairman calling into Pueblo again the night of the elections telling George Rivera that he ought to prepare a gracious concession speech before the polls even closed…." "I've often said to my colleagues, and I'll say it first here publicly. As much as we fought John Morse and Angela Giron, the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and OFA, I have to say I actually fought my own Republican Party more, and I'm so sad and disgusted that I actually have to say that. But it's the truth." [BigMedia emphasis.]

Partial transcript of comments by Jennifer Kerns and KLZ host Ken Clark on KLZ's Grassroots Radio Colorado, Friday, Sept. 20:

Jennifer Kerns: This is actually my first time publicly peaking out about this, in regards to the [Republican] Party. But the fact that Ken is taking his vacation time to call in about this. One person inspires another. Ken is exactly right. We just came off a very historic recall. Both of those recalls were driven by the grassroots and people who had never been involved in politics. And I have to say this. This is my first time speaking out as the spokesperson for the recalls, and I'm doing it right here first on Grassroots Radio to say that the Party blocked us every step of the way, whether it was phone calls into Pueblo from Ryan Call to suggest that they shut down those recalls, and they not aid and assist the guys from Pueblo Freedom and Rights, or if it was our chairman calling into Pueblo again the night of the elections telling George Rivera that he ought to prepare a gracious concession speech before the polls even closed…. I encourage everyone who's listening to get involved or else there will be no Party…. I've often said to my colleagues, and I'll say it first here publicly. As much as we fought John Morse and Angela Giron, the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and OFA, I have to say I actually fought my own Republican Party more, and I'm so sad and disgusted that I actually have to say that. But it's the truth. We have to stay involved in the fight. And, again, it's the Party that has to make peace with us…. They need us more than we need them, and we just proved it in two different races. Ken Clark: We are all Andrew Breitbart. And we understand one thing that I don't think the Republican Party understands at all: We are at war. And we will not back down. We understand what's at stake in the United States of America. We understand what's at stake in Colorado…. Republicans are supposed to stand for something. When I was a kid, they did. It was called the Reagan revolution. And Ronald Reagan was able to articulate his principles in such a manner that the entire country wanted to follow him. And follow him they did…. As a Republican, I stand for principles. What the Hell do you stand for? I really want to know. Do you stand for the Party itself? Is it the Party that you're trying to protect. Is it your own power that you're trying protect? Or is it principle? Is it fighting for the very life of this country? Because that is what is at stake, ladies and gentlemen, that is what is at stake.

View the original article here