Huckabee slams pro-Huckabee group’s use of push polls; Update: Rudy hits Huck on taxes; Update: Romney camp unloads on Huck’s “feigned outrage”

posted at 4:42 pm on December 3, 2007 by Allahpundit

That’s super. But.

“Our campaign has nothing to do with the push polling and I wish they would stop,” Huckabee said. “We don’t want this kind of campaigning because it violates the spirit of our campaign. I don’t want to become President because I disabled the other candidates, I want to become President because I am the best candidate.”

Huckabee’s campaign manager, Chip Saltsman, also issued a statement describing the calls as “extremely counterproductive.”

“It takes the campaign off message at a time when Governor Huckabee is resonating with voters as never before,” Saltsman said. “It loses votes rather than gains them. It’s an underhanded way of doing business that is not welcomed by the campaign and it flies in the face of what Governor Huckabee stands for: integrity and clean politics. On behalf of Governor Huckabee and his campaign, I ask that these calls be stopped immediately.”

Is the group going to honor its hero’s wishes and knock off the shenanigans? Why … no, curiously enough. In fact, the guy running it tells Politico they’re just getting warmed up. What a dilemma for Huck to be saddled with this renegade group of supporters who are willing and able to do his dirty work for him while giving him plausible deniability. In fact, the two co-founders of the group’s parent group, Common Sense Issues, co-hosted a fundraiser for Huck on November 19. And still, he can’t bring them to heel. Fancy that.

More from Ambinder:

An extension [sic] portion of the TrustHuckabee website is devoted to recruiting, signing up and training precinct captains.

But 504(c)4 groups cannot legally recruit precinct captains for an electoral contest, much less for a specific candidate. It’s a soft money operation paying for a basic presidential campaign function, which some campaign finance lawyers might

And it begs the question: if there were no coordination, then the group could very easily duplicate effort and mess up Huckabee’s own field efforts. That is — campaign precinct captains needs to coordinate in order to make sure they’re not turning out the same voters. The campaign can’t turn over field responsibility to this group, and they can’t figure out together where to place people.

Election law is beyond my area of expertise, mainly because I have no area of expertise, so we’ll have to sit tight and see where this one goes. Any experts are, of course, encouraged to opine in the comments. The left is trying to find Giuliani’s hand in all this, the theory being that he’s eager enough to see Huck cripple Mitt in Iowa that he’d stoop this far to help him. Color me skeptical in light of today’s poll and the Florida poll last week. At this point, for Rudy the cure may be worse than the disease.

Update: Slublog e-mails with word of the end of the Pax Republicanus.

Update: It’s on: “Governor Huckabee cannot just stand by and feign outrage as these coordinated attacks are made in his name and for his benefit.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Didn’t you run a headline from the Telegraph in the last few days about Huck and Rudy taking it easy on each other?

see-dubya on December 3, 2007 at 4:46 PM

Christ…I think Huck is giving Hilldawg a run for her money in the “Worst pic on HA” contest…

MadisonConservative on December 3, 2007 at 4:46 PM

Yeah. That’s cited in the lefty post I linked. But it’s one thing to take it easy, another thing to help with dirty tricks. And like I say, the Rudy/Huck detente is going to end fast.

Allahpundit on December 3, 2007 at 4:46 PM

Trust Huckabee?

No.

thegreatbeast on December 3, 2007 at 4:48 PM

Mike Huckabee’s campaign is being aided by an independent group run by a former top aide at the NRSC and funded in part by a group of retired Procter & Gamble executives in Ohio.

Ain’t them those satanists?

thegreatbeast on December 3, 2007 at 4:51 PM

In fact, the two co-founders of the group’s parent group, Common Sense Issues, co-hosted a fundraiser for Huck on November 19. And still, he can’t bring them to heel. Fancy that.

Imagine.

You do realize, of course, that this post is un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life, right?

Slublog on December 3, 2007 at 4:52 PM

this doesn’t pass the smell test…

Kaptain Amerika on December 3, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Didn’t you run a headline from the Telegraph in the last few days about Huck and Rudy taking it easy on each other?

see-dubya on December 3, 2007 at 4:46 PM

The calls attacked Rudy, too, though.

amerpundit on December 3, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Huckabee has said on many occasions that he won in Arkansas despite the Clinton (dirty tricks) machine — and stressed he has demonstrated that knew how to win.

I think the Huckster – is just that – a huckster who learned well from the Clintons.

centralcal on December 3, 2007 at 5:16 PM

NROs the Corner has a link to Huck getting praise from Grover Norquist today and Huck getting slammed by George Will.

Both worth reading.

amish on December 3, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Does Rudy really think that attacking the Fair Tax is going to gain him ground against Huck? Or is he trying for double-digits?

I’ve done the personal math, and I’d keep more of my money with the Fair Tax than with the current system. Mind you, I’m a homeowner.

I love Rudy, but he should at least have one of his minions read the friggin’ Fair Tax book before going out there and making such an ass of himself. Enacting the Fair Tax would take the restrictor plate off the world’s economic engine.

Kid from Brooklyn on December 3, 2007 at 5:21 PM

“Our campaign has nothing to do with the push polling and I wish they would stop,

Huh?

MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 5:22 PM

I don’t want to become President because I disabled the other candidates, I want to become President because I am the best candidate only candidate who has a soul.”

MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Kid from Brooklyn on December 3, 2007 at 5:21 PM

The major issue I have with Huckabee and the Fair Tax is that currently, Congress has the constitutional authority to tax income. Unless that constitutional amendment is dealt with, we will have both an income and a large consumption tax, and so far, I’ve heard zilcho from Huckabee on his plans to get rid of the income tax provision in the constitution. Someone really needs to tell him that getting rid of the IRS won’t end taxes.

Slublog on December 3, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Slublog on December 3, 2007 at 5:36 PM

The real issue is that the number of attorneys and accountants who would be put out of business by a fair/flat tax makes enacting it completely untenable. It’ll never happen. So, its little more than a talking point.

Getting rid of the amendment is secondary to the lobbying interests that -need- a complicated tax code.

lorien1973 on December 3, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Good god, where DID you get that picture?

mojo on December 3, 2007 at 5:42 PM

trustHuckabee: The Devil made us do it!

Huckabee: Oooh God! God: Hey your the one, I told you not to raise taxes and reward illegals.

I want to become President because I am the best candidate.”

Its God again: Then run in the left party were they appreciate bait and switch, just because you go to church that doesn’t excuse liberal governance.
Raise taxes, betray core values, uh-oh.

Speakup on December 3, 2007 at 5:43 PM

I’d trust Huckabee if he wasn’t a Bush clone, big government, big taxes, pro criminal aliens, tyson chicken eating big business loving, non federalist nanny stater.

Other than that he’s fine with me. Is he going to give a speech explaining his faith?

Buzzy on December 3, 2007 at 5:45 PM

lorien1973 on December 3, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Actually, there’s a bigger obstacle than that: double-taxing previously saved income of Americans. Anybody who took home a paycheck under the current system and put some of that money away to spend later has already paid income taxes on it, about 30% for most Americans. The Fair Tax would take an extra 23-30% out of that savings when it is spent, and you’ll have a hard time convincing middle class voters to go for that.

Big S on December 3, 2007 at 5:54 PM

I was interested in Huckabee, found his ultra-taxation and in-state tuition PLUS scholarships for ILLEGAL ALIENS policies, and DECIDED AGAINST HUCKABEE. That he has the sweet bubba smooth talking mannerisms of a successful Baptist minister does him well, obviously. But he simply shares the other side of the same political coin from Hope, Ark. with Bill Clinton–and enough is enough.

That said, Huckabee’s popularity in the Iowa Primary grants confidence in two matters of concern:

1) Fred Thompson’s conservative campaign can succeed likewise–ignore the negativity of the nay-sayers and keep on plugging, Fred. As a mature man, Thompson looks every bit as good as George Washington. Fred is consistent, a virtue.

2) Heartland Iowa would turn the tables to vote for Huckabee vs. Romney. Look through the pretty-boy mask–Mitt, whose only consistency is opportunism, is NOT a shoo-in winner despite the Mormon fortune invested in his campaign. Mitt can not count on buying votes. Mitt’s two-faced facade of a platform is NOT shatterproof. As with Mormon authorities, no one is allowed to question their authority. To insiste upon doing so leaves one excommunicated from their midst and the target of persecution and character assassination. There’s plenty of sweet talk to make you a convert–but that’s as far as comraderie with outsiders goes. Mitt is testy and NOT a nice guy to anyone who counters him with the truth. Mormons will deny, deny, deny. Yet, as a Mormon temple recommend holder, he knows that by official Mormon revelation with the Mormon god speaking directly with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et.al., in order to live with the Mormon god, everyone MUST be a polygamist (escape clause following the Manifesto–be polygamous ASAP). Note well THE SHAM: every Mormon temple recommend holder is dishonest and self-righteous for claiming to be COMPLETELY HONEST IN EVERY DETAIL OF LIFE. Speech? DOUBLE-SPEAK served on a silver platter.

maverick muse on December 3, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Huck Sucks! We have to stop this seemingly coordinated Huckabee love-fest going on in the media. It makes no sense. I’d almost rather have McCain than Huck, and that’s saying a lot.

NTWR on December 3, 2007 at 6:13 PM

This Huckster shyster is starting to make Rudy look good by contrast.

Pretend like I didn’t say that.

This comment will self destruct in 5, 4, 3 …

MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 6:15 PM

If so many people have their eye open about Huckabee not being “all that”, what’s the deal with the polls/attention/momentum?

BigS – You’re spot on… to say nothing about the middle class not being too happy about the redistribution of wealth that is part of the Fair Tax.

The only “fair” tax is a low flat tax used to fund Constitutionally mandated Federal expenditures. The more money Americans keep, the more America wins.

What I don’t understand is why Duncan Hunter, who seems more in the mold of the ‘common man cum politician’ isn’t getting more play. I haven’t made a final decision yet, but I have to say he’s been a fighter for all the right things in Congress.

linlithgow on December 3, 2007 at 6:27 PM

I’m shocked, SHOCKED! I don’t know whether the proper Wisconsin analogy is the 1992 Democratic Senate primary where “nice guy” Russ Feingold used the mud the two front-runners tossed at each other to take the nomination and ultimately the seat, or the 1998 Senate race where Feingold successfully used a heap of out-of-state independent groups to slime Mark Neumann while pretending to stay above the fray.

steveegg on December 3, 2007 at 6:29 PM

Maverick muse–did you forget your meds today?

Vanceone on December 3, 2007 at 6:30 PM

Eh, I mean its politics. I think Huck’s a bit of a weasel, and totally screwed up on economics. If he became a supply side convert I’d live with him, but he’s got that big gov’t lib vibe that’s really scarin’ me away from him.

Iblis on December 3, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Yup,and what’s worse,I turn on CNN,and they,
themselves are having a hard time keeping with
hit pieces on the Republican frontrunners,right
now it seems Huckabee,and Romney,have the dirt
flying.

canopfor on December 3, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Big S on December 3, 2007 at 5:54 PM

You know. I’ve never actually considered that double taxation in my support of the fair tax. That’s an interesting point and I wonder what the fair tax people would say about that!

lorien1973 on December 3, 2007 at 6:48 PM

I don’t trust Huckabee in my gut, and I believe Hillary would beat him.

thareb on December 3, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Slublog on December 3, 2007 at 5:36 PM

As written, the Fair Tax enters in effect upon the ratified repeal of the 16th Amendment.

Kid from Brooklyn on December 3, 2007 at 7:15 PM

Huckabee is the candidate the Dems want.

Because he’s beatable by any schmuck or schmuckette they cough up.

He’ll made a good ambassador to Turkey.

profitsbeard on December 3, 2007 at 7:17 PM

As written, the Fair Tax enters in effect upon the ratified repeal of the 16th Amendment.

Whew. It would be nice to see Huckabee clarify that, instead of simply calling the Fair Tax a “magic wand.”

Slublog on December 3, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Huck is a flash, the only candidate worse would be Paul. Tax raiser, big government, open borders…helllllooooo any conservatives home?

right2bright on December 3, 2007 at 7:34 PM

I don’t trust Huckabee in my gut, and I believe Hillary would beat him.

thareb on December 3, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Probably about like Reagan beat Jimmy I.

MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 7:35 PM

lorien1973 on December 3, 2007 at 6:48 PM

Most of the explanations I’ve heard have been along the lines of “don’t worry, it’ll all work out in the end.” It very well may, but you’ll have a hard time convincing enough people that it will in order to take the chance of voting for it. That’s why I see supporting it as Huck’s biggest mistake-Rudy or Romney, who know a thing or two about financial matters, could really bash him with this if it came down to it. Any details that Huck could offer would employ a lot of speculation, as well as a whole lot of tax lingo (if he could even pull that off.)

Big S on December 3, 2007 at 7:54 PM

For those Fair Taxers on this board, it’s also worth taking a look at the “negative income tax” schemes by Milton Friedman and others. If you could get past the guaranteed minimum income, such a plan could be used to eliminate the minimum wage while merging the tax and welfare bureaucracies into one entity, thereby trimming the size of government. In short, they would involve a flat tax on income above a certain level (say, 25% tax above $25,000/year earned), with rebates paid to the earners if they fall short of the minimum income. The trick to this is calibrating the minimum income, as well as rebate rates.

Big S on December 3, 2007 at 8:20 PM

Slublog on December 3, 2007 at 7:17 PM

For that to happen, you’d have to change the debate format to something similar to Fred’s proposed one-on-ones. The current format doesn’t really allow fo anything other than canned soundbites.

The best ways to learn about the FairTax are by reading the self-titled book, or by clicking here. I’d urge everyone to at least give it a read before believing the hate.

Kid from Brooklyn on December 3, 2007 at 8:21 PM

I meant clicking here.

Kid from Brooklyn on December 3, 2007 at 8:22 PM

I am really beginning to think that the Republican party probably is doomed for 2008.

When so many Republicans think so little of the recent front runners that they are willing to stampede to an obvious shyster.

The only chance that Republicans may have is for Hillary to be the democrat nominee, but even that huge advantage may well not be enough.

If either Obama or Edwards is the nominee, forgetaboutit.

MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 8:34 PM

The thought of two Arkansans going against each other in the general election makes me want to shower.

–A Texan

paulsur on December 3, 2007 at 8:35 PM

When so many Republicans think so little of the recent front runners that they are willing to stampede to an obvious shyster.

Well put. Wish I had thought of that.

sanantonian on December 3, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Glad to see you’re still on the FU*K Huck band wagon. You Go Guys.

R D on December 3, 2007 at 11:42 PM

Trust Huckabee?

Yes I do at this time, and for those new to American law, we in America consider a person to be innocent until proven guilty. Our Heroes in the Haditha/Murtha blame game know this to be true just as they know that political expedience can screw up even that fundamental American right.

Show proof of Huckabee’s culpability or it did not happen.

DannoJyd on December 4, 2007 at 1:20 AM

Is it just me, or does Hucklebee look like the guy from American Beauty?

Tzetzes on December 4, 2007 at 1:34 AM

Show proof of Huckabee’s culpability or it did not happen.

DannoJyd on December 4, 2007 at 1:20 AM

Tis is not like in a court of law.

For a candidate for President to get my support and vote he has to proof himself to me, not the other way around.

MB4 on December 4, 2007 at 2:00 AM

Wow. This slime must think that Mitt plans on having more than one First Lady:

…as a Mormon temple recommend holder, he knows that by official Mormon revelation with the Mormon god speaking directly with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et.al., in order to live with the Mormon god, everyone MUST be a polygamist (escape clause following the Manifesto–be polygamous ASAP). Note well THE SHAM: every Mormon temple recommend holder is dishonest and self-righteous for claiming to be COMPLETELY HONEST IN EVERY DETAIL OF LIFE. Speech? DOUBLE-SPEAK served on a silver platter.
maverick muse on December 3, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Malicious Muse, You have a lot of freaking nerve talking about “honesty” and “double-speak”. I’d like to write you off as being a garden variety nut, but this screed proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you’re no charming eccentric.

Big S on December 3, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Re the Fair Tax – what are you talking about? What double taxation? Can you extrapolate on this further?

Buy Danish on December 4, 2007 at 8:46 AM

Mitt accusing Huck of feigning anything is too rich!

LOL

Note Well:
Mitt will faithfully disavow opponents rights of reason. See a president scoff at your existence in order to excuse his own. NO THANKS.

Witness Hillary’s vulnerability, despite her political clout. Witness the history of dirty politicking by a front-man Obama–getting a court to BREAK SEALED DOCUMENTS on an opponent’s divorce in order to scandalize, yet barely winning his seat, and not accomplishing anything of merit. Besides his plastic allegiance determined by political polls, Mitt has his own very real vulnerability on the single issue that he vaults his own invulnerability, using family life to create his own eternal pyramid scheme granting no rights to those outside of his camp. Huckabee’s record of high taxation to buy BFFE PORK and pay for illegal aliens by cutting citizens’ scholarships and social benefits will prevent his election.

Vote consistent conservative platform if indeed that is what you want. Get past gloss.

maverick muse on December 4, 2007 at 9:00 AM

Re the Fair Tax – what are you talking about? What double taxation? Can you extrapolate on this further?

Buy Danish on December 4, 2007 at 8:46 AM

It’s just during the transition between the current system and the Fair Tax. Any money you make now is subject to income tax, and if you put it in the bank, and the Fair Tax gets passed, you’ll pay another 30% when you take it out and spend it. It amounts to a 23% or so tax increase on income saved prior to the enactment of the new tax law. The Fair Taxers will tell you that this will be balanced out by the drop in “hidden” costs built in to the price of goods under the current, but that really depends on the situation and requires that a fair number of assumptions be made about how the economy will adjust. Overall, it’ll be difficult to convince people who’ve been saving up for something to vote for a 23% “retroactive” tax on past saved income, even if the Fair Tax gurus claim that there’s no proble. The only hope the Fair tax has of gaining widespread support is if people think the transition will be easy; it won’t so the Fair Tax, as structured now, will not be able to pass.

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 9:34 AM

That “30″ should be “23″

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 9:34 AM

Mitt will faithfully disavow opponents rights of reason. See a president scoff at your existence in order to excuse his own. NO THANKS.
maverick muse on December 4, 2007 at 9:00 AM

What the hell are you talking about? This is how Mitt Romney was raised:

George also enforced his belief that his Mormon children had to be integrated into the world and respect people of different backgrounds. Cortella remembers his Roman Catholic mother’s being apprehensive about sending her son into the bosom of a Mormon family — until the first Sunday he spent at the Romneys’ house. “It was about 11 o’clock in the morning,” Cortella says. “Mr. Romney said, ‘You come with me.’ He took me to the Catholic church not far from the house. He said, ‘From now on, every Sunday you will come to this church,’ and he was getting mad if I was not going.” In an even starker example of the senior Romney’s live-and-let-live policy, Cortella says the Romneys allowed him to smoke cigarettes in his room.

I can’t find a link to the full article even at Newsweek, but it’s from Newsweek’s October 8th cover story entitled A Mormon’s Journey/The Making of Mitt Romney by Jonathan Darman and Lisa Miller.

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 9:34 AM

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification about this being during the transition only. Where are you getting the 30% number on income saved? Does this affect one’s “life savings” like cash in money market funds and CDs, or just money saved in the year prior to the transition?

Buy Danish on December 4, 2007 at 9:56 AM

Big S,

Sorry, I just saw your correction of 30 to 23, but the other questions still stand.

Buy Danish on December 4, 2007 at 10:04 AM

Buy Danish on December 4, 2007 at 9:56 AM

The “30%” was a mistake, and should read “23%”. I had started to make a different point to begin the post, deleted it, and somehow my number from that got left in. Oops! Also, keep in mind that the “transition” can be quite long, depending how fluid peoples’ assets are (i.e. how long it takes them to spend what they’ve earned) and how long it takes the economy to adjust. To answer your last question, the Fair Tax would specifically eliminate many of the taxes that occur upon withdrawal from tax deferred accounts and such, but as far as I know, there’s no provision for determining what you earned before and after the new tax law takes force. That means that it really applies to your whole life savings, even if there may be some compensating effects from the repeal of other taxes. The Fair Tax people count on these compensating effects when they sell their plan, but there’s really a lot of uncertainty and fudging of numbers there. I’m not saying it can’t be fixed somehow, or even that it all won’t work out in the end, just like the Fair Taxers say, but it’s a point that makes the politics of the issue very sticky, and provides ample space for somebody to bash its supporters.

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Thanks. It seems to me that these issues could be satisfactorily addressed, but I understand your point about it leaving room for opponents to bash it.

For the record, I do not like Huckabee at all, but I do like the Fair Tax a lot.

Buy Danish on December 4, 2007 at 10:23 AM

Boortz went on the air 3 hours ago, and he’s still unloading on Rudy over his ill-informed crack on the FairTax.

Kid from Brooklyn on December 4, 2007 at 11:42 AM

I’ve been vocal about being wary of Huckabee before and people have brought up (valid) points of how Giuliani and Romney haven’t always been as conservative as they seem.

That’s true, but I have less of a problem with them than Huckabee and I’ll tell you why. Government shouldn’t be about morality; I’m a Christian, I have a strong faith in God, but it’s not government to decide what a good cause is, and Huckabee, to me, seems as someone who doesn’t have a problem with that. From his defence of school opportunities for kids of illegals, to his not completely intellectualy honest defence of his raising of taxes (the people voted for it! I just agreed!), he just oozes moral justification.

I don’t want that in a President; I think that is part of the problem with President Bush. From more money to all sorts of causes, to prescription drugs, to being soft on illegals, it all stems from one thing – he wants to be perceived as being ‘moral’ or ‘good’ or ‘compassionate’.

That’s better exercised by private individuals than government, IMHO. Romney and Giuliani, although liberal in some areas, have had to deal with criticism over them, whereas any challenge to Huckabee leads to a denial that there’s anything to discuss. Scholarships for illegal kids? ‘It’s moral, I have to do what my soul tells me!’ The parole of a rapist while I was governor? ‘I didn’t have a hand in it, Guy Tucker reduced the sentence!’, even though parole board records show he interceded personally to secure the parole and several board members said they changed their vote after his intercession!

I don’t like that type of denial; it’s very disingenuous and makes me incredibly suspicious. Giuliani may be saying more of the ‘right’ things and Romney to, and in that is a tacit acknowledgement that some of the things they supported in the past don’t sit well with the GOP and they are willing to revisit them. That’s hard to do when a person won’t even admit that there might be a disconnect; this to me is one of Huckabee’s biggest flaws.

As someone mentioned, Bennett is spot on; War, Immigration, Taxes. Giuliani is great on the first, good on the last, and says the right things about the middle one, whereas I see Huckabee as weak on two and three. Plus, he can’t win. Purple America will not vote for a Baptist minister with some cute soundbites who has liberal tendencies.

This is not to say I’m pimping Giuliani; I do have some things to come to terms with him. I just think in the general calculus of what is important, I find Giuliani in key areas less alarming than Huckabee. Remember, we’ve got things like the estate tax and expiring cuts to worry about.

linlithgow on December 4, 2007 at 8:50 PM

For a candidate for President to get my support and vote he has to proof himself to me, not the other way around.

MB4 on December 4, 2007 at 2:00 AM

Apples and oranges, my friend. I concur that a candidate must prove that he/she is fit to be our next President, but I also stand by my statement that if no direct proof can be offered to prove Huckabee was directly involved in this push poll then the man must be considered to be innocent. To believe otherwise would be as silly as believing in man made AlGorbal Warming while the Martian polar caps melt, or as henious as believing Murtha’s speech on the House floor when he convicted our Heroes in the Haditha case. In this instance there is no bloody glove … yet.

DannoJyd on December 5, 2007 at 1:06 AM