Did Howard Dean and democrat leaders instruct the governor of Kansas to deliberately lie about the availibility of National Guardsmen and equipment to bring relief to the victims of a recent tornado?
If she lied to perpetrate discredit to the President, to the Iraqi War, to the National Guard and attempted to misrepresent the federal government's ability to assist it's citizens in a national disaster, she should be removed from office.
From Perish the Thought.
Did DNC Tell Kansas Gov. to Lie?
FLASHBACK to Katrina and claims that federal authorities failed
to respond appropriately .....
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.
If any of the above is accurate, all parties involved in this lie should be immediately removed from office.
