Piquing PolitiFact: the Leahy/Kyl update

In my original post in the new "Piquing PolitiFact" series, I shared an e-mail message I sent to PolitiFact asking for a fact check of a statement by Sen. Pat Leahy (D, NY). I have now received a brief and somewhat amusing reply. It's show and tell time.

First, a reprint of the original message:

Dear Truth-O-Meter,

I recently read a press report that included an unusual statement from Sen. Patrick Leahy concerning an amendment offered by Sen. John Kyl. Kyl's amendment would have prevented certain funds from being used to bring Palestinian refugees to the United States, or at least so it appeared. But Leahy's interpretation seemed to view the amendment as far more expansive:

Frankly, it is unnecessary and for the United States, a Nation of immigrants, it goes against everything we stand for. We don’t resettle anybody from Gaza, nor do we resettle anybody from Gaza who is living in the U.N. refugee camps in the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. The amendment is a solution looking for a problem. If a Palestinian from Gaza gets to a place like Italy, or somewhere in Europe, the amendment would prevent the State Department from even considering that person for resettlement to the United States. We would have to tell them 'Sorry, you can’t come in, because you are from a place that has terrorists.'

True or false? Or somewhere in between?

Cheers,
Bryan

And the reply:

Check out our story on this one here:http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/08/chain-email/money-humanitarian-aid-not-emmigration-assistance/

--
Bill Adair
Washington Bureau Chief
St. Petersburg Times and PolitiFact.com

They read their mail, at least--in a manner of speaking. The link provided by Adair leads back to the "press report" that I talked about in my original e-mail. Perhaps Adair thought that the statement is verified if it is merely quoted in a PolitiFact piece. Or, more likely, he skimmed my message to the point of thinking I was interested in the nature of the Kyl amendment rather than about Leahy's characterization of it.

I suppose it's too early to get my hopes up about seeing an evaluation of Leahy's remark at PolitiFact. But I have yet to entirely give up hope. I sent Adair a reply of my own:

Dear Mr. Adair,

Coincidentally, that is the media source I was talking about in my original e-mail. The story to which you referred me does not fact check the Leahy statement. It simply presents the statement as though it very well might be true.

But it seems worth fact checking to me. Do you not agree?

Cheers,
Bryan

More stupidity from Democrats (I shouldn't be surprised)

The Democrat-controlled Congress is hands-down worse than I ever thought it would be. Very fortunately, part of its ineptitude includes an inability to meet its own legislative goals.

Fresh from their absolutely idiotic insistence of giving official recognition to the Armenian genocide from early last century (straining U.S. relations with Turkey at a critical juncture), Democrats continued to parade their stupidity via their questioning of Michael Mukasey.

Under sharp questioning about the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, Mukasey said there may be occasions when the president's wartime powers would supersede legal requirements to obtain a warrant to conduct wiretaps.

In such a case, Mukasey said, "the president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law. . . . The president doesn't stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Constitution."

Judge Mukasey tried to give the Senate committee a lesson in constitutional law--the branches of government are equal, and therefore Congress can't take away the President's powers--but it was pearls before swine. Dim bulb Patrick Leahy didn't get the point:

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he was "troubled by your answer. I see a loophole big enough to drive a truck through."

There you have it! The Constitution: it's a loophole!

(Powerline)(embedded material from the Washington Post)

Democratic leaders have been in full-on meltdown mode ever since their key strategic victory (losing in Iraq) began to slip away.

*****