McCain's Iraq cred. problem rears its head

I won't pretend to fully understand the so-called Anbar Awakening, or all of the incredibly complex situation in Iraq, but then again, I'm not running for president; John McCain is.

And I do know that this past week, McCain proved to the world (for about the dozenth time) that he doesn't have a GD clue about Iraq. You know, the country that he can't stop talking about, because he has no real clue about how to fix our problems at home.

To get something as major wrong as the Anbar Awakening, which took began in September '06, a full three months before the Surge, which was announced in January '07, is very telling about McCain's credibility.

Whenever I see McCain on TV, I hear him saying, over and over, as if his brain is set to repeat, "Barack Obama was wrong about the Surge. We are on our way to winning in Iraq." I don't know if Obama is wrong about the Surge, and neither is McCain. Right now, things look better than they did, but it's very much premature to say that we are on our way to "winning," especially because no one can really explain to me what will constitute a victory, and how we're going to get there. (Especially without a draft.)

More importantly, though - Obama may have been incorrect about a few things in Iraq, but McCain is wrong on just about everything else. He's clueless about time lines, who's killing our U.S. soldiers, etc. And the media is very kind in calling his dozens of "misstatements" "gaffes." They aren't gaffes, they are ignorance.

Nice job by Keith Olbermann of pointing out the obvious. We are very lucky to even have his show, because of our corporate dominated, (mostly) right-wing media. I'm just glad that lies like this get exposed on an almost-nightly basis by him, because according to most on the right, if it's not on The Drudge Report, or it doesn't appear on Fox News, or if addict Limbaugh didn't say it, then it never happened.

Oh, and CBS, by doing McCain such a huge favor, makes McCain look even more foolish by complaining about all of the favorable press that Obama is getting.

Barack does Letterman

It was good to see Barack Obama on David Letterman last night. I thought it was a pretty good appearance. For me, the highlight was when Letterman asked Obama about a possible Clinton/Obama ticket. He responded, "You don't run for second place," and he's right.

Letterman presses him and asks him about a ticket with the both of them, and Obama asks, "What order are we talking about here?" I like it that he keeps his sense of humor, even in the face of questions he may not want to answer. Hillary Clinton would never take the Veep slot, though.

No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, if it's not Obama, I think he will be on the ticket in some way - he's still very young, and he's a little inexperienced. However, I don't believe his inexperience is any reason to not vote for him. Bush Jr. had virtually no experience, save for his 5+ years as Texas governor, an office he won because of his father's buddies.

President Kennedy had very little experience, too. It's about who you surround yourself that counts just as much as the qualifications of a candidate. In the end, that goes back to the candidate, too; if a candidate has sound judgment, he or she will select a presidential cabinet wisely.

Obama would make a fine president.

Here are the Letterman clips.

Part I...



And Part II...

Imus suspended for two weeks

Don Imus has been suspended for two weeks. Big deal. So CBS and MSNBC gave the old lizard a two-week vacation.

Earlier today, Imus appeared on Al Sharpton's radio program, and it got pretty heated - people were calling in and shouting at Imus, and of course Imus returned the fire.

After I put up a post about this earlier today, I did some more reading about this incident, especially a lot of opinion pieces about Imus. The one thread that many of the articles had in common was this - politicians who go on his show enable his behavior, whether they consciously wish to or not.

If the guests didn't call in or show up, he's clean up his act or get out of the business.

The same thing applies to Rush Limbaugh. By Dick Cheney frequently going on his program, it does nothing but verify Limbaugh's legitimacy in the eyes of the mindless people who gobble up every syllable of hate that comes out of Rush's mouth.

So, people like Rush and Imus are only around because the people who go on his show and the sponsors who advertise on them are enabling this to happen.

That is in no way excusing the crap these two fill our airwaves with every day, but it is an explanation as to why the companies that employ these two continue to do so.

Here's partial video (apologies for the Fox clip)



For a full-length video clip, click Here.

What annoys me most about Al Sharpton getting involved is that he's despised by many, many people, so that merely distracts from the issue of what Imus did in the first place. That distraction has already started.

I know it's just a stupid comment on a Website, but I couldn't resist reposting this comment from the YouTube clip above, from a mindless GOPer...

Imus is a moron, but Sharpton is a liar and a hate monger. Now that he's involved in this, Imus doesn't seem so bad at all. Sharpton what the hell do you do for a living? Are there people really that stupid to donate to your self serving cause?

I'm not a fan of Al Sharpton's, and never will be, for many reasons. His getting involved in this just distracts from what Imus did, and that helps no one. Unreal.

What a shock from Fox

Found this last night, and it's making its way around the 'net. I found it on Arianna Huffington's Website, and I'd like to think that if she ran with it, she had a good source. According to her site, it's a leaked internal memo (below) obtained from a source at Fox News. Penned by the network's vice president of news, John Moody, it reveals Fox's game plan the day after Democrats won control of both the Senate and the House. Really, should anyone be surprised by this?

The Department of Homeland Security should put out an APB for all Republicans how still piss and moan about "Rathergate," the incident prior to the '04 election where Dan Rather did a report on President Bush's time in the National Guard. It was revealed the story was based on forgeries and false documents. "Bias! Bias! Bias!" righteously indignant Republicans screamed. I'm not sold on Rather's bias, but it was sloppy, stupid reporting, and Rather should have known better. But, if Rather's reporting was biased, that would make this Fox News memo WHAT?

If Rupert Murdoch has any balls whatsoever (and we know he doesn't), he'll immediately fire John Moody and apologize to all of FN's viewers. Moody is the new Dan Rather, but on official state TV, there are no consequences.

Two quick afterthoughts here. On the drive home yesterday, thinking about this memo and how it relates back to Dan Rather and his forged documents, two things struck me:

1. I wonder if Rather was trying to get back at Bush 41 with the report on W in September '04. Anyone remember when Bush Sr. was running for president in 1988 and he got in a shouting match with Dan Rather, and Bush really got the best of him by mentioning when Rather walked off the set in the early 1980s?

2. Speaking of documents, I wonder why the forged documents, hyped as "proof" by the Bush administration, are never brought up in the phony Iraq purchase of yellow cake in Niger? (An incident which gave rise to the whole Valerie Plame affair, by the way.) Rather was duped by forged documents, just like the Bush administration was. One led to war and the senseless death of tens of thousands, the other to embarrassment, not of Bush, but of Rather.

I only bring up Rather now because the analogy is already being made between the so-called bias at CBS and the blatant bias at Fox News. They are not analogous, but I can guarantee that Republicans will try to make that distinction. Christ, I could practically write Sean Hannity's show for today.

It's gonna be an interesting two years of Democrats ruling Congress.