Rupert Murdoch's fourth divorce...

This time, it's from reality.

Listening to Rupert Murdoch defend President Bush strikes me as profoundly sad. It reminds me of parents whose child has been caught in a nasty prank, when the evidence is overwhelming, and they are the only people left defending the child. Admirable and understandable in many ways, but hardly a credible source. And Murdoch falls into that same category - hardly a credible source - papa Rupert defending his infant, W.

Murdoch, attending Michael Milkin's Global Conference in Los Angeles, resumed his hackneyed Bush PR campaign earlier today. (Isn't that what your network and newspapers are for, Rupert?)

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Murdoch remains solidly in the president's corner:

The News Corp. chairman and CEO said that, personally, Bush is "persuasive, strong and articulate" but that "he seems to freeze whenever a television camera appears."

Motioning to Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch said, "Apart from your newspaper and mine, there's a sort of monolithic attack on him every day of the year."

News Corp. is the parent company of Fox News Channel, the New York Post and dozens of other media assets.

"The atmosphere is absolutely toxic," Murdoch said of the partisanship of U.S. politics and much of the media. "You can't really expect anything to be achieved in the next 18 months, and it's a very serious, sad problem for this country."

Yes, the atmosphere in Washington, and in fact around the U.S. is toxic, but Murdoch and his media outlets never, ever miss an opportunity to slam, defame and defile anyone with the audacity to oppose President Bush and his disastrous policies, both foreign and domestic.

The examples are too numerous to mention, and quite frankly, I grow bored of pointing out all of them. Okay, disclosure - it's fun, especially when there are so many who insist that Fox News is merely doing what other networks have done for years. Yea, sure.

I haven't been above some name-calling at times when someone really makes me angry, but I'm not running a daily newspaper with a circulation into the hundreds of thousands, either.

The New York Post has made sport out of embarrassing Democrats or anyone who dares oppose the president. The example at right is just one of literally dozens of examples. This headline ran when the Iraq Study Group (a.k.a. the Baker-Hamilton Commission) released its report saying what the rest of us have known for years - that the War in Iraq is a waste of American and Iraqi lives, to say nothing of the half-trillion dollars we've spent (and counting). (The Baker-Hamilton was a bipartisan group made up of five prominent Democrats and Republicans.)

Again, I repeat - it's people like Murdoch, who defile and denigrate those who oppose Bush's radical, right-wing agenda, who are principle architects of the toxic atmosphere in Washington.

One other thing from Murdoch's comments that had me heaving with violent fits of laughter - he called Bush "persuasive, strong and articulate." Yea, and I'm Tickle Me Elmo.

Has Rupert gone senile? Maybe he thought he was at a Comedy Central roast of President Bush.

Iraq debate on Meet the Press

For the record, there are Republicans I like and admire. There really are! Arlen Specter, Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chafee, even Lindsey Graham, but the former, short-lived Speaker of the House John Boehner (above, right) is one annoying guy.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) (above, left) got into a pretty spirited debate this morning on Meet the Press that I found simultaneously interesting and irritating.

The heart of the debate centered on Iraq, where the two leaders and their respective parties fundamentally disagree. Like that's news. (Quick aside - I'm mildly amused at the seating arrangements above - notice the Democrat is on the left and the Republican is on the right.)

Anyway, Iraq can never be brought up these days without two things being immediately stepping to the forefront - the troop escalation, and cutting off funding. Boehner and Hoyer didn't disappoint this morning. (Another quick aside - I'm sick to death of the term troop surge - it's an escalation, Republican morons!)

Quite naturally, Boehner went on the offensive, suggesting that Democrats are going to cut off funding for the troops "in the field," and Hoyer took great pains to assure viewers that Democrats would never do that. This was an exercise in Political Posturing 101.

My only question to Steny Hoyer is, "Why WOULDN'T Democrats cut off funding for the troops?" as a last resort? We've heard nothing but rosy forecasts from this administration since the war began nearly four years ago - "Another six months... another six months... another six months...etc." is all we ever hear. When does the senseless killing end? If it takes the Democrats digging in their heels and cutting off funding to do just that, then so be it.

Does anyone honestly believe that President Bush would leave the troops in the field without MREs, bullets, socks and armor? Yea, right.

What irks me most about the War in Iraq is that both parties have refused to budge, because one side won't admit defeat. I guess simply doing the right thing died a slow death in American politics a long time ago.

The bottom line is that if funding is cut off, the troops are coming home. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it may have to happen. Bush and the Republicans will do or say anything to keep the troops over there, and thereby averting defeat of their party's ideals and the fact that a Republican president started this war. So, while both parties bicker and debate, our troops are facing a hail of bullets, terrorism and civil war each and every day. Sleep well, lawmakers.

But, hot dog! Bush hasn't lost this war, yet! So, Republicans hold out hope that they can save face as a party, no matter how many lives, American or Iraqi, it takes. And that's the biggest tragedy of all.

I'm so sick and tired of politicians on television, regardless of party (but admittedly, mostly Republican), getting on TV saying that "Failure is not an option" and that "We must win this war." We are failing, and we aren't winning. But wait! I'm not Supporting the Troops if I say that, right? I'm laughing in the face of the next person who says that to me, because as I've said many times before, people who say that don't understand America, Democracy or freedom.

I have to give props to Hoyer for one thing this morning. Boehner was whining and complaining about cutting off funding for the troops, and Hoyer looked at him and said, "With all due respect, didn't you vote for a non-binding resolution that was against sending 20,000 troops to Bosnia in 1995?"

"That was before troops were in the field," said Boehner.

"Well, the 20,000 the president wants to send is the surge [troops that aren't yet there]," said Hoyer. Score one for Steny. What Hoyer is implying by that statement is that the Democrats are considering cutting off funding for the additional troops that Bush wants to send to the Middle East, not troops who are there now.

A leading proponent of this idea is Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), who had been widely quoted as wanting to add several restrictions about the president's proposed troop escalation.

In this morning's Washinton Post, as discussed on MTP this morning, this was reported about Murtha:

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a sharp critic of the war and the chairman of the subcommittee that oversees defense funding, is separately preparing language to block money for the additional troops in Iraq unless the military meets certain readiness standards. He said he will introduce his proposal on March 15 as an attachment to Bush's request for Iraq war funding. "The hope is we will affect the surge," Murtha said.

Also, from CQ Today (on Murtha):

Murtha said he would probably [try] to block the use of funding to extend the tours of soldiers beyond one year. "We're going to stop that," [Murtha] said.

I don't see nothing wrong with either proposal by Murtha.

Hoyer went on to further explain what Murtha meant, and that's that the additional troops who are headed into the field in Iraq have the proper training and equipment, and if they don't, they aren't going. What Democrat or Republican honestly thinks that's a bad idea?

Boehner had a few more whoppers that are worth mentioning...

"I think we need to find a way to help the Iraqis build a safe-and-secure Iraq," said Boehner at one point. Hey John - the best way we can do that is to leave. I guess he hasn't been paying attention the past four years. With intelligence like this in Congress, I have to ask myself why I'm not running. Not that I'm brilliant or anything like that, but I have common sense and the decency to not put people into harm's way when it's not warranted, and to get those same people out of harm's way when a war isn't working.

Boehner wasn't done with his demagoguery yet, though.

He went on to state that he believes that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists might follow us all the way over here [to America] (and I'm paraphrasing here, but click Here to read the transcript if you don't believe me!).

Is Boehner great, or what? Someone get me the Tom Ridge scare color chart and the duct tape and plastic for the bottom of my door. The terrorists are coming! The Terrorists are coming!

Someone needs to rip that scare tactic out of Karl Rove's playbook and burn it.

And Boehner, like most Republicans, continues to rail that "Democrats don't have a plan." Hey genius, Republicans haven't had a plan for four long years. What about that?

It's time for something different.

Lastly, DemocratIC leaders have stated they want to implement many/most of the Baker-Hamilton Commission's recommendations.

Sounds like a plan to me. Perfect plan? Nope, but it's got to be better than the course we've been taking.

Quick! Run for your lives! Hillary's in!

You never forget your first, and I got my first "Hillary is the sign of the devil" forward since she declared her candidacy for president in 2008 from one of my aunt's friends a few days ago.

I'll let the idiocy speak for itself, other than to quickly note that I discovered, after a little research, that Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan and the senior Bushes also still have Secret Service protection (as they are entitled to, as all ex-presidents and their wives are). In 1997, the Republican-controlled Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, a bill that limits Secret Service protection to 10 years after leaving office. This was done for a good reason - former first families were essentially using the Secret Service as a limo service. (I have this on pretty good authority - I personally know a former Secret Service agent who was on presidential detail.)

Former first families of both parties are guilty of this. Does anyone honestly think that the Carters, Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan or Lady Bird Johnson are really in any danger? They are not.

Also, the forward below mocks the Clintons for moving to New York so Hillary could run for the Senate. Didn't the Bushes used to live in Connecticut? In fact, or current prez was born there. This is America - people are free to move and live where they like.

Anyway, enough from me - check out this gem. I tried to recreate the forward with the colors, and of course, the priceless pictures. I replied to all the recipients with my brief thoughts on this truly eloquent forward (and I actually kept those thoughts brief, even though this post is not. Sorry.) and asked the sender to refrain from sending me any more of this garbage.

Well, enjoy. My comments appear in parenthetical references, in red. ...

"United We Stand!!"

"The real definition of Rotten"

You really should be sitting down when you read this one.

Gold Star Mothers (G.S.M.) is an organization made up of women whose sons were killed in military combat during service in the United States Armed Forces.

(Too bad GSM has 3,000 new members, and growing, on President George WMD Bush's watch, all for a lie in Iraq. Anyone with a plan on how to get out of this mess, write to the president at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20081-0001. Trust me, he needs the advice, but it's doubtful he'll listen.

Just like he didn't listen to the Baker-Hamilton Commission, a bipartisan group that made over 79 recommendations, with a report that was 160 pages in length. But, all I ever hear is the president and Congressional Republicans (but the number of the latter is shrinking) who whine that the Democrats have no plan. The last I read, Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats want to put most of those recommendations in place, but Bush and Cheney continue to ignore those recommendations. How much taxpayer money was wasted there?)

Recently a delegation of New York State Gold Star Mothers made a trip to Washington, D.C. , to discuss various concerns with their elected Representatives.

According to published reports, there was only one politician who refused to meet with these ladies. Can you guess which politician that might be?

Was it New York Senator Charles Schumer?

Nope, he met with them.

Try again.

Do you know anyone serving in the Senate who has never showed anything but contempt for our military? Do you happen to know the name of any politician in Washington whose husband once wrote of his loathing for the military?

(The Clintons grew up in the 1960s and went to college during Vietnam. Despising the military then was about as exclusive as the white pages. How dumb does the author of this e-mail think I am? I guess pretty dumb.)

Now you're getting warm! You got it!

None other than the Queen herself, Hillary Rotten Clinton!

(Rotten? Wow, that's original - almost as original as my admittedly lame "Bill O'Lielly" [thanks, Al Franken]. And the picture is priceless - God, I love Photoshop and people who have this much time on their hands. Hey, I guess I have a lot of time on my hands, too. Oops.)

She refused repeated requests to meet with the Gold Star Mothers.

Now, please don't tell me you're surprised. This woman wants to be President of the United States -- and there is a huge percentage of voters who are eager to help her achieve that goal.

May you sleep in peace always...and please...hug or thank a veteran for that privilege.

(So, I guess people should not hug or thank Senator John Kerry, the '04 Democratic Nominee who was Swiftboated and made to look like a traitor for winning three purple hearts and a bronze star medal. At right, a churlish rube at the GOP 2004 Republican Convention shows her thanks to Kerry by wearing a purple heart Band-Aid. Does that qualify as thanking a veteran?

What about hugging Dick Cheney, the beneficiary of five deferments, who is one record as saying he had "other priorities" during the Vietnam War, or the president himself, who, in the words of Maureen Dowd, so famously leapfrogged over thousands of other applicants to get a spot on the Texas Air National Guard to "protect Texas from Oklahoma.")

Think about this one!!

Don't forget, our girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York Senator, now comes under this fancy Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan. It's common knowledge that, in order for her to establish NYS residency, they purchased a million+ dollar house in upscale Chappaqua, NY. Makes sense.

Now, they are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting. The mortgage payments hover at about $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residency had to be built within the acreage in order to house the Secret Service agents.

The Clintons now charge the Secret Service $10,000 monthly rent for the use of said Secret Service residence and that rent is just about equal to their mortgage payment, meaning that we, the tax payers, are paying the Clintons' mortgage, their transportation, their safety and security, their 12-man staff, and it's all perfectly legal.

(So, if it's legal and you're upset, Commander, write your legislators and press to have the law changed. Quick! Before another Democrat gets in the White House and we have to needlessly spend taxpayer money to keep said Democrat and the first family safe.

I wonder how much the government has paid and will pay for the extra facilities on the president's Crawford Ranch, during his presidency and after? And Nixon's Western White House? Or Reagan's?

If you do some research, [unlikely that Sean Hannity, the probable author of this forward, did much research or that he even knows the meaning of the word - he didn't even finish college] there are some interesting figures out there, specifically with Nixon's improvements to his homes, all at taxpayer expense, while he was president. But hey, let's not let numbers and facts get in the way of a Hillary Swiftboating.

Anyone who wants to complain about taxpayer money being wasted should read about the Starr Report - $70 million, all to investigate a blow job. For you mathematicians, that's 7,000 months of the government's alleged payments to the Clinton's for the Secret Service's facilities at their Chappaqua home, but I digress.)

Sincerely, Cmdr. Hamilton McWhorter U.S.N. (retired)

P.S.: Please forward this to as many people as you can. We don't want this woman to even think of running for President. (Too late.) So, just how many people can you send this to? (None.) It will take no more than 2 minutes. Thanks. (Now that I didn't forward it, will something bad happen to me in 10 minutes?)

##

Thanks for your service to our country, Commander. However, since you have so much time on your hands, if, in fact, you are the author of this e-mail, perhaps you have time to write to the president to implore him to end this idiotic and stupid war. While you're at it, maybe you can illustrate to him the real costs of combat in terms of human sacrifice, much less the hundreds of billions being spent to rebuild a country we were so intent on destroying. Because the president has no idea about combat, since he and his vice president took pains not to go when their generation was called to fight.

Ultimately, I don't know if Hillary is qualified to be president or not - that's what I hope to find out during next year's presidential primaries - who the best qualified candidate is. However, I'm reasonably confident that she's more qualified and a great deal brighter than the current occupant of the oval office.

And I'm not forwarding this e-mail to anyone, but it sure was fun debunking it. If I get any more like this, my DELETE button is one keystroke away. Let's quit fighting the pseudo-wars of the 1990s against the Clintons, and let's turn our energies to finding Osama bin Laden, the man responsible for the 9-11 attacks, and also toward ending the War in Iraq.

Have a nice day.