Olbermann savages McCain about the troops

This is an excellent, spot on Special Comment by Keith Olbermann last week that I forgot to post, but it's still as apropos as ever. (Heck, it could have been last night and it would still be appropriate - better yet, maybe he should just keep replaying it.) In it, Olbermann takes on McCain's absurd comment that it "doesn't really matter" when the troops come home.

To his credit, Olbermann provides plenty of context for McCain's comments, too, including many of his asinine statements in the past about how quickly we were going to achieve victory in Iraq, and a myriad of other statements regarding the war, very few of which have proven to be true.

Recently, Olbermann has stumbled a bit at times, and I've been critical of him. After all, I'm not slavishly devoted to any commentator, liberal or (gasp!) conservative, but it's comments like these where Olbermann is at his very best, and, dare I risk hyperbole, he's doing an important service for his country. His show is still "can't miss TV" every single night. I hope he keeps the heat on McCain and Bush, as he's been doing for the last five years.

It's my hope that people who believe McCain is the strongest candidate when it comes to foreign policy are paying attention to all of his misstatements and inaccurate predictions about Iraq. There's a lot to choose from.

What's more, it's important to remember all of his war mongering about Iran, too. I almost spit up when I saw McCain's ad (below), which paints him as a man of peace, or something. Take a look...

The first seven seconds are all you need to realize how utterly inconceivable this ad is. "Only a fool or fraud talks tough or romantically about war..." Is he joking? He's been talking tough about Iraq for years, and recently, Iran.

McCain must think most Americans are pretty stupid, or indifferent. Does he think that we haven't been paying attention for the past eight years? What other conclusion could you draw? I guess he thinks a packaged, slick advertisement will be a good deodorant for the stench of dead Americans and Iraqis in the Middle East that he has whole-heartedly supported and endorsed for over five years.

Again, I sure hope that Americans remember this stuff in the voting booth.

McCain's Today debacle

A few days ago, John McCain appeared on NBC's Today, and I don't even know where to start to comment about it. During his 7+ minute appearance, he turned into a virtual gaffe machine.

First, his plastic, creepy smile is enough to give me the chills, but his words made up for my skeeviness, because I was belly laughing in no time.

It's so blatantly obvious that he's doing whatever he can to appeal to the GOP's base, especially the people who remain in la-la land, who believe that cutting taxes is the answer to our significant economic ills.

Enter McCain's proposed "gas tax holiday," which is a complete joke. I just don't know how else to describe it.

When asked by Matt Lauer what he or Barack Obama could do about gas prices, McCain lamely responds, "We could give them [American consumers] a break." Does anyone, and I do mean ANYONE with half a brain, honestly believe that if the federal government stops collecting the gas tax, that prices would go down at all?!? You don't have to be an economist to conclude that Big Oil would simply take up the slack by raising prices by the same amount or more (not to mention OPEC). Another highly undesirable result of suspending the gas tax - the federal government's deficit, which has already reached astronomical heights, would have another huge hole blown in it by another unaffordable tax cut. Not to mention our crumbling infrastructure (which, thus far, neither candidate has addressed in any significant way), which is already underfunded by Congress, would crumble even more. (The gas tax largely funds highway and infrastructure improvements.)

However, my favorite part of the segment above is when Matt Lauer asked McCain what he thought we would be paying for gas by election day. To be fair, it's a "Gotchya Question" (Nice job, Matt, and I don't say that often), but McCain handled it about as bad as he could have...

I'm not sure, because I think part of it depends on how we are making advances in alternate energy.

Lauer came right back at him with, "In that short amount of time?" It was great watching McCain hem and haw after that, saying we could come up with "a battery that could take a car 100 miles or more." Gimme a break. In six months?!? I sure hope I'm wrong and he's right. And those batteries? They've already been invented, senator, but thus far, automakers haven't been putting them in cars in significant numbers. (For those of you who are interested, see the movie Who Killed the Electric Car? for loads of more insight.)

More kudos to Lauer (!) for mentioning the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan tax group, which has analyzed both candidates' tax plans, and has concluded that 80 percent of McCain's tax proposals would go to those Americans who need it least. Draw your own conclusions there. It is worth noting that McCain was very disingenuous when he talked about "millions of Americans" being affected by raising the Social Security income cap. Yes, that's true, but those affected by raising the cap, according to Obama's proposal, would be well into six figures, NOT lower income Americans. The same goes for capital gains taxes. However, most outrageous of all is how McCain wants to lower the corporate tax rate. Obama should use that as a political cudgel for the rest of this campaign, period.

McCain really was at his "best" when questioned about Iraq...

LAUER: Do you have a better estimate on when the troops can come home in Iraq?

McCAIN: That's not what's important. What is important is the casualties in Iraq.

Really? It's not important when Americans can come home? He's gotta be kidding. I can only hope that any family with a soldier in Iraq heard that comment (and soldiers in the field as well), and I hope they remember it in November. Of course, now that there's an uproar, McCain will undoubtedly reverse himself, but that reversal will be merely out of political necessity and not a reflection of his true feelings. Remember, McCain is the guy who said that we could be in Iraq for the next 100 years. (He later shortened it by saying that troops could be coming home by the end of his first term - how reassuring.)

I also tire of people like McCain citing Korea, Japan and Germany as examples of our troops being permanently being stationed overseas. A substantive political discussion of our military can never be had without a World War II reference. Too bad that those three examples are from the Cold War, something that ended long ago. Comparing the so-called War on Terrorism and the Cold War is like comparing the NFL to Pop Warner football. The two are simply not analogous.

I also found it interesting that McCain mentioned that General Petraeus is going to testify to Congress next month about when we can begin drawing down our troops. I've got a Benjamin that says he'll testify "another six months" or something similar, which is testimony he has repeatedly given Congress since he took over command in Iraq. I've written it before many times, and it bears repeating - it's foolhardy to ask a military general when troops should be withdrawn from the field of battle, because no general is ever going to say, "You know what, committee? What I'm doing in Iraq is a miserable failure. Bring those boys home." It's setting the system up for failure. The last time I checked, our military leaders take orders from civilians elected by the American people in this country, not the other way around. I've little doubt that our command structure in Iraq and elsewhere have the best of intentions at heart and that they do a terrific service to our country, but these repeated Congressional bull sessions where commanders are asked whether they are failing or not are simply ridiculous - it's a broken record every time.

Our corporate media gives a lot of credence to the fact that McCain knows a great deal about foreign policy. I think the man's clueless. And let's not even get started on the economic issues here at home. (Which, by the way, polls say is the most important issue this election season.)

I just don't see how anyone but the most rabid Republican partisan can possibly cast a vote for this guy.

All Kristol needs is W's old cheerleading uni

I'm looking forward to the highly predictable forthcoming testimony of Gen. David Petraeus on the progress of the "surge" in Iraq. Has anyone else noticed that the War is now called the "Surge" in every news report?

Anyway, William Kristol, the neocon-man who hasn't been right about just about everything about the War in Iraq, got a little testy earlier today when someone DARE question the sagacity of Petraeus, who in many respects has been merely a mouthpiece and puppet for what the Bush administration has wanted him to say about the war since assuming his post in Iraq.

I laughed out loud when Kristol said (at the beginning of this clip) that "the surge has worked; we're on course toward a satisfactory outcome of the war, and Democrats make fools of themselves when they criticize General Petraeus..."

I'd really love to know what planet this fact-less rube is living on, and does his planet have cheaper gas? I can't even take it - C&L has the rest...
From Crooks & Liars:

Juan Williams points out that Petraeus is seen as a mouthpiece for the Bush administration and what he and Crocker have really done is help to bring the level of violence down to 2005 levels and that any gains that have been made by the surge are fragile at best — which is not exactly seen as a triumph by the American people. As expected, Billy-boy takes exception to this and he scolds Williams for daring to speak ill of General Petraeus:

"You don't think it's been an exemplary and admirable act of generalship? I mean, leave aside the administration, aren't you proud of what Petraeus and Odierno and Crocker have done over the last year and a half in Iraq?"

[cross talk]

"Shouldn't - seriously, I'm serious about this - shouldn't all Americans be proud of that?"

I don't know what I was thinking - after all, this was Fox News Sunday - like I should have expected some sort of reasonable political debate. I guess I'm not working on enough sleep.

In Kristol's eyes, anyone who isn't a shameless cheerleader for the war and this administration is only worthy of contempt, and little else. No one can discuss the war on State TV without waving a flag every 15 minutes, farting the Pledge of Allegiance and taking a blood oath to not criticize President Bush. And heaven FORBID someone not wear a lapel pin!

Kristol has such a fetish for Bush that he actually now exhibits the same Dubya grin whenever he's on TV, and that's fitting, because behind both of their respective smirks lies the intellect of a mountain goat.

McCain's Iraq campaign commercial funded by taxpayers

Judas John McCain is in Iraq shooting a campaign commercial strolling in the "safe" Baghdad Market, flanked by 50 soldiers on a campaign stop funded by American taxpayers. Lovely. I find it pretty ironic that the Senator who rails against "pork barrel spending" doesn't mind wasting tens of thousands of our weakening dollar to gallivant around Baghdad to vilify his political opponents and critics.

Kudos to CNN's John King for regurgitating the McCain campaign's talking points about how Democrats are waving the white flag:

King:”...John McCain says he's here as a member of the Senate, but it is a defining issue in the campaign. It is John McCain who says either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would wave what he calls the "white flag of surrender" by rushing to get troops out of Iraq at a time when John McCain, and he will make the case here, says the surge policy is working and that while he would like to get the troops home, if they need to stay, Senator McCain says as a Senator or as the next president he would make the tough decision to keep them here. This is John King, reporting from Fox News." (Okay, just kidding about that last part, but judging from this quotation, his working for Fox doesn't seem so crazy.)

I'm so tired of hearing about how the surge is working, by the way. The reason the surge is working is because we are paying off our enemies to not shoot and bomb us. Too bad it took us so long to figure that out, while hundreds of thousands of people were killed, including thousands of Americans, and hundreds of billions of our taxpayer dollars went up in smoke toward promoting democracy in the Middle East.

I'm sure, God willing if I live that long, that in the coming decades, as my taxes are skyrocketing to pay off our trillions in debt (exacerbated by this war) and as the services our government will be shrinking quicker than the current value of our dollar.

It's pretty outrageous that McCain has the hyper-annoying Sen. Lindsay Graham in tow, as well as fellow judas Zell Miller Joe Lieberman, both members and rabid supporters of his presidential campaign. It's sleazy at best, and completely and totally unethical at worst. I wonder if Graham got a good deal on rugs this time (wait for Graham at the end of the short vid) - what a cheap bastard. How much does a U.S. Senator make these days? Something like $170,000 or so?

And for those who think it's perfectly acceptable for McCain to go to Iraq because he's on the Senate Armed Services Committee I'd say this - you have a point, up to a point.

On the way home, McCain is stopping over in London for a fund raiser. So, will his flight from London back to the US be paid for by the taxpayers, or his campaign donors? It's a fair question.

Actually, the most interesting thing about his trip will be his boilerplate justifications as to how we can win in Iraq. He's going to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a US stooge who has the credibility of Jack Abramoff, and he'll also meet with Gen. David Petraeus, but no one had better question the General's conduct, or you'll be subjected to a McCain rant like the one below...

So, let me get this straight - anyone who questions an officer's motives should be kicked out of the country? Hmm, I wonder where McCain was in 2004 when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were accusing John Kerry of everything but fighting alongside the Viet Cong? Swallowing his tongue, that's where.

When I look at the above footage, I wonder whether McCain really understands what America is all about. If you don't know what I mean by that, check out the quote at the very top of this blog by Abbie Hoffman, because I can't think of a better way to put it than that.

Well, at least McCain didn't wear a clown suit while landing on an aircraft carrier.

h/t Crooks & Liars for top video and King's transcript

Thoughts on Gore's Nobel Prize

One of the saddest things about the political discourse in this country, specifically from the right, is its inability to even acknowledge the accomplishments of its opponents in any meaningful, respectful way.

For instance, my first thought when I heard that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize was, "I wonder what the scum on the right will do to try and smear Gore with this time." You may recall that after Gore's movie on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, won Oscars and received international accolades, the radical right, the very next day, came after Gore for his electric bill. (And I'm sure it was a total coincidence that the attacks occurred less than 24 hours after the Academy Awards, right?) Also, never mind the fact that the organization that went after Gore is completely funded by right-wing blowhards. (Amazing how little press that received.) Anyway, more on Gore's electric bill Here.

Anyway, it didn't take me long to find out if the right would come after Gore once more following his Peace Prize win.

The most notable feckless rhetoric came from OxyContin spokesman Rush Limbaugh, who whined on his radio show Friday after Gore won it (from The Politico:

"So now 'Algore' will join Yasir Arafat among the list of noble Nobel peace laureates," Rush Limbaugh said with much sarcasm at the top of his broadcast today. The Norwegian committee, Limbaugh said, has "rendered themselves a pure, 100 percent joke."

Citing Arafat, the former Palestinian leader, and former President Jimmy Carter's award in 2002, Limbaugh added that "The Nobel committee has lost all credibility since long before they awarded this award to 'Algore.'"

I love it - yet another institution responsible for recognizing a prominent Democrat who really wants to drive positive change in the world that gets vilified by right-wing blowhards. People like Limbaugh can't handle the truth - that Gore has done more to promote goodwill and positive change around the world in the past year than Bush has done since he was appointed president.

However, Limbaugh isn't the only one who can't handle success and recognition of a liberal. Laura Ingraham had this to say about Gore's win (again, from the Politico):

"I confess, I have been in a bit of a funk after learning of the Gore/Nobel news," conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham said in an e-mail. "I really thought Cindy Sheehan should have been recognized."

Yea, considering Sheehan might not have been a bad idea. I know this - Gore and Sheehan both deserve a great deal more recognition for promoting peace and progress in humanity than anyone, anyone, in the Bush administration.

Of course, Limbaugh had a few suggestions of people who should be considered for the award. His suggestion? "I call on Albert Arnold 'Algore' to redirect his Nobel Peace Prize to genuine agents of peace."

Rush had an idea of who that could be - Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. troops in Iraq. "If there has ever been an engine of peace, it’s the United States military," Limbaugh said.

Limbaugh must be bucking for a comedy act with that comment. Surely a career in comedy would last longer than his career at ESPN, which lasted about as long as a Twinkie on his breakfast table. Our military during the Bush presidency has wrought more death and destruction than arguably any other military on Earth. I don't fault the military specifically, because they are doing what they are told, but to even suggest that our military and its leaders should be awarded the Peace Prize makes Limbaugh fit for a straight jacket. Limbaugh may have been saying that quote tongue in cheek, but with him, is it out of the question that he wasn't?

And by the way - that Nobel Peace Prize? If war criminal Dr. Henry Kissinger could win it, just about anyone is fair game. I'd rate his winning it a few levels above Gore winning it on the outrage scale.

Mall of America Vs. Baghdad

Sadly, this is the all-too-real reality in Baghdad these days. Too bad President Bush's urge to surge has been nothing short of a tragedy for our soldiers as well as the people in Baghdad and Iraq. Honestly, do we really need to wait for General Petraeus to give his report in September or October to find out how poorly the war or surge is going? As long as one watches any channel but Fox News, the reality is there for everyone to see.

Of course, the way cable news is these days (or any news broadcast, for that matter), I don't rely on any television station to get any sort of accurate, relevant information about what's going on around the nation and world. Unless, of course, you want to know how Lindsay Lohan's rehab is going, or the debate that raged about whether Paris Hilton was getting human treatment in jail.

Getting back to Iraq - I've said it once and I'll say it undoubtedly dozens of times more - is it really realistic to ask General Petraeus how the surge is going in Iraq? No general worth the stars on his shoulders will ever say that his soldiers aren't getting the job done and that we ought to go home.

But, you have to give President Bush credit - he plays the role of neo-conservative to a T, especially when it comes to the war. I laugh to myself every time I see him on TV saying, "I don't think politicians should be telling generals how to wage the war in Iraq." And when he says this, he's also implying that the generals should determine when we've lost and when we've achieved "victory" in Iraq.

As usual, Bush needs another history lesson (just like Rudy Giuliani, but that's another post for tomorrow). The last time I checked, our military leaders answer to Washington, not the other way around. But, Bush is playing the idiotic, debilitating oversimplification that Reagan practically made a national motto: "Government isn't the solution, it's the problem." Does anyone else notice the irony that the people who most despise and mistrust government - Republicans - are running part of it?

Sure, that makes sense.

Congress passes bill, W vetoes, Congress fails to override (and other thoughts)

It's been a pretty remarkable week in Washington - the anniversary of Mission Accomplished, Congress finally passing a Bill to fund the troops, Bush vetoes it, and Congress fails to override his veto.

I've got some video clips below with some thoughts, but first, Bush's latest self-imposed nickname:

Uniter, Not a Divider
War-time President
The Decider
The Commander Guy

On Tuesday, Bush vetoed the Bill passed by both houses of Congress fully funding the war (and then some), but mandating that the troops begin to come home. Congress failed to override his veto yesterday, and that's when Bush made comedians everywhere jump for joy, yet again.

"The question is, 'Who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders?," said Bush. "As you know, my position is clear – I'm the commander guy." [Emphasis Mine]

Both sides said after Congress failed to override Bush's veto that they believed compromise was possible. That's news, considering it hasn't been possible so far. Personally, my view is that Congress had better hold its ground. That's what the Democrats were returned to power to do.

Yesterday, Bush vowed if Democrats try to tie his hands in prosecuting the war, he will issue another veto.

Coming Soon: The Vetoer

My thoughts on the last few days...

I got a kick out of White House spokeswoman Dana Perino calling the signing ceremony held by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid a "cynical publicity stunt." What a sanctimonious, hypocritical thing to say from an administration that has turned publicity stunts into cliché. Considering the sheer absurdity the Bush administration resorts to in order to prove its political points, it's not hard to imagine some White House events being skits for Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show, except we never get the punchline. On Monday, America just observed the fourth anniversary of the biggest (and saddest) political publicity stunt ever.

Anyway, YES, what Pelosi and Reid did was a publicity stunt, without question, but they did it to make a powerful political statement. It appears that getting in the face of the President Bush and the American public is necessary to bring this war to a merciful end. To date, more subtle means have proved fruitless.

Oh, I've got lots to talk about with this one. Above is video of Bush's press conference, immediately after vetoing the funding Bill.

Bush begins with:

"Good evening. Twelve weeks ago, I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave men and women in uniform the funds and flexibility they need. Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians, for the judgment of our military commanders."

My first thought after hearing Bush blabber on about "substituting the opinions of politicians," was... um, no, Mr. President.

These politicians have passed a bill that respects and reflects the will of the American people, who spoke up loud and clear last November, and who continue to do so around the nation in just about every opinion poll I've read. The American people want this war over. NOW. Currently, opposition to the war is running at about 66 percent, give or take a few points, depending on the poll.

Think I'm exaggerating about the election last November? Then why did every Democrat up for reelection retain his or her seat in Congress?

I grow so tired of this administration bemoaning Congress' insistence that deadlines be attached to funding the war. Of course, you can find 24 sound bites coming out of the mouth of a Republican, depending on which day of the week you listen, that says, in so many words, "It's setting a date for defeat" or "Our enemies will simply set their calendars and wait."

That's what they are already doing. If Bush ever picked up a history book (like that's gonna happen), he'd know that the template for defeating the giant American military machine has been in place since Vietnam. (Of course, had he not dodged serving in Vietnam, he'd know, too, but I digress.)

In a war of attrition, the way to beat the United States is by steadily chipping away, day by day, American death by American death. Sooner or later, the American public will grow tired of dead sons and daughters coming home in flag-draped coffins. Of course, this is not always the case - the important variable in this theory is that the cause and reason for the war must be just in the eyes of a majority of Americans. In World War I and World War II, it was. In Korea, call it a push. In Vietnam and the current War in Iraq, the answer is an emphatic "no."

Bush continues:

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength, and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq.

Noo, they aren't trying to do that now, are they, Mr. President?

Here's a whopper - "I believe setting a deadline would demoralize the people of Iraq," Bush says. You mean the same people who polls consistently show want us OUT of Iraq? (By overwhelming margins) Those Iraqi people?

And another - "...that means commanders in a combat zone would have to take directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C." 1. That's what Donald Rumsfeld did for nearly four years - from the start of this war until he "quit" the day after the 2006 election. Rummy constantly (and tragically) issued a constant stream of marching orders to commanders on the ground. 2. Don't our military leaders answer to the civilian politicians who are elected by the American people? I think I read that somewhere once.

I'm NOT for micromanaging the war, 1960s Lyndon Johnson-style, when members of his administration, most notably Defense Secretary Bob McNamara, personally selected bombing targets. That's beyond absurd. But, here's a thought that I'm yet to hear anyone say - maybe the commanders in our military are incompetent and don't know what they are doing? They are in a tough spot, no question, and Bush sent them there, but the bottom line is, they are not getting the job done. Our military commanders have had over four years to get the job done, at a cost of over 3,300 American lives, $500 billion and countless wounded and maimed soldiers. It's time for this madness to end. But, no politician dare say that - if you do, you're not "supporting the troops."

Yet, Bush and Republicans want an endless war. We're consistently told that "we need time to see if this plan will work."

This administration has been wrong about every single aspect of this war, every step of the way. Without running through a laundry list of things Bush and his cabal have been wrong about (who has that much time?!?), I'll just stick to one - the reasons for going to war.

Weapons of Mass Destruction
Bring Democracy to the Middle East, where it will flourish
He was an imminent threat
Iraq was involved in 9-11
(Followed by "We never said that.")
The supposed Prague meeting between al Qaeda and Iraqi leaders
He has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program
To liberate the people of Iraq (we'll be greeted as liberators

And on and on and on. This isn't a war, it's a PR effort with deaths. It's not the policy, or the war - it's the message. Apparently, no one gets it in American except the White House.

From before the outset of hostilities over four years ago, Bush has continuously kept trying out new labels or ideas until they found one that stuck. (It reminds me of the saying, "Throw a bunch of things at a wall, and see what sticks.")

Bush's decrying of pork-barrel spending (in the video above) is beyond comedy. Keep hammering away at those talking points, Mr. President. Does Bush have any credibility left? One can't find a single spending bill he has ever vetoed, because he never has. Funny how when the Republicans were in power, pork was never an issue.

I don't agree with it tacking on spending to bills, and the Democrats are not completely innocent when it comes to pork. But, it's how things get done in Washington. Certainly, it needs to change, but we can't solve all that is wrong in Washington with one bill. It's just another in a long line of examples of Bush using a canard to distract from the real issue.

Bush has no idea what political deal making is, because he's never had to do it while president. With an exception of about 18 months when Jim Jeffords defected from the Republicans, temporarily giving the Democrats a one-seat majority in Bush's first term, Bush has had an all GOP, rubber-stamp Congress. He hasn't had to make any deals, nor has he ever had to reach out to Democrats to accomplish anything. He's now faced with that reality, and quite frankly, he has no tolerance for it, and he doesn't even know how to go about it.

What's more, Bush has made so many enemies, it'll be tough getting anything done before he leaves office. Considering Bush's conduct during his 6+ years in office, if I were a DemocratIC member of Congress, I would be in no mood to work with him at all.

Here's another thought - why does Congress have to continuously pass these emergency appropriation bills? Why isn't all of this money included in Bush's original budget? How in the world can an administration be hundreds of billions of dollars off in its estimate for the war's cost? (Flashback: It's "fuzzy math") The reason's pretty simple - if these numbers were included in a yearly budget, that budget would have zero chance of passing, because even the spend-crazy Congress would get sticker shock.

Bush whining about "getting the troops the equipment they need," is the height of hypocrisy, since the troops haven't had all of the best technology and equipment available to them since the war began. (The best Humvees and body armor are only two examples, and let's not forget about Walter Reed and the disgraceful neglect that troops suffer once they do return home.)

Bush continues: Al Qaeda is "the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting." You mean Osama bin Laden? That al Qaeda? (By the way, can this White House hire a linguist? It's SUBVERT, W, not "subert.")

Bush no doubt took great delight in mentioning what General David Petraeus said last week in Washington: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front in of all al Qaeda's global campaign." That's because the United States is occupying Iraq.

And finally, it's a Bush staple to never miss an opportunity to bring up "September the 11th," as he calls it, in ANY speech about Iraq, even though he's publicly admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, but two minutes later, he'll imply the two are linked. Lie, lie, lie until you start to believe it, right, Mr. President?

This is Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi responding to Bush's veto. I don't have much to add here, other than to reaffirm that these two are spot on - our troops are in an open-ended civil war in Iraq.

Good point by Pelosi about then-Governor Bush calling for Bush to lay out a timetable for the War in Kosovo circa 1999.

I'd say Bush is a hypocrite, but that's a double negative.

Photos at top from HuffPo and AP

"Progress" continues in Baghdad

If this is progress, I'm praying for no setbacks.

Earlier today, a bomb ripped through the Iraqi Parliament cafeteria in Baghdad's Green Zone, killing three lawmakers and wounded many more.

In a separate attack, a suicide bomber blew up a bridge over the Tigris River, sending scores of cars into the water, killing 10 people and injuring dozens.

No word from Senator John McCain on whether he went over the now destroyed al-Sarafiya bridge with General Petraeus during his feel-good tour of the Iraqi capital.

And the debate to continue funding this disaster continues. It's amazing to me that there's any debate at all. This is about Republicans not wanting to admit defeat abroad, which will lead to a political loss at home. Period.

The only thing remarkable about yesterday was that President Bush didn't do another cheap, disgusting photo-op to let everyone know for the 29th time that he will veto the bill passed by both Houses of Congress that sets a deadline for troop withdraw.

On Tuesday, Bush went to a Fairfax, Virginia, American Legion to blabber on and on about Democrats not funding the troops, cliché, cliché, cliché...

Was Bush's trip on Tuesday really necessary? We GET IT. Democrats get it. The American people get it. You're going to veto a bill that will fund the troops.

What did Bush and Cheney say about political theater again? It's slipping my mind when I look at the absurd photo above (from gop.com).

I'll have plenty more to say about this later today when I have more time.

Yesterday also brought more great news for the troops - all 145,000 troops were told that their tours of duty are being extended.

Just wondering - I wonder which direction the support for this war will go now? If I'm a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan, I would totally resent the fact that the only people who are sacrificing in this war are the soldiers and their families and friends.

It turns out John Kerry was right in 2004 - if this isn't a Back Door Draft, I have no idea what is.

Top photo AP via The New York Times, second photo from gop.com, bottom photo from HuffPo
Information for this piece was taken from The New York Times Website

McCain: I didn't need no stinkin' security!

John McCain's verbal diarrhea continues to shatter what little credibility he has left.

Earlier today at a press conference, in the safe environs of Phoenix, Arizona, the delusional presidential candidate said that he didn't need any security when he want on his Mission McComplished Baghdad trip stroll last week.

From AP:

Sen. John McCain said Monday he would have taken his tour of an Iraqi market last week even if he hadn't been accompanied by heavily armed U.S. soldiers.

The Republican presidential hopeful said he would have walked through the Bab al-Sharqi market in Baghdad without the military protection, but the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, had recommended the armed escort.

"I'm not notorious for being nervous about going anywhere," said McCain, R-Ariz. "I'll gladly go almost anywhere in the world, under any circumstances, but I did respond and do what General Petraeus asked me to do."

McCain and other members of a congressional delegation toured the market last week, traveling in armored military vehicles and wearing body armor during their hour-long excursion.

The congressional delegation said the trips were proof that security was improving in the capital. Some Iraqis in Baghdad said McCain's account of the visit to the market didn't represent the current reality in the capital.

At a news conference Monday in Phoenix, McCain said he talked to many Iraqis in the market who told him that, while they still worried about a sniper operating there, they felt as though things were getting better.

"That place is being rebuilt today and is a functioning market," McCain said. "Of course it isn't entirely safe, but it certainly is a functioning market and progress is being made there."

Good job, McCain - blame all of the security on U.S. General David Petraeus.

It just keeps getting funnier and funnier.

The flush was made last week - his campaign is now circling the large bowl of denial, and it's only a matter of time...

Say hi to Karl Rove for me while you're down there, senator.

McCain in Baghdad - situation improved - it's just the media getting it wrong

Interesting to hear Judas John McCain take shots at Democrats from war-torn super-safe Baghdad earlier today. I wonder if his trip had anything to do with the fact that he was embarrassed on CNN last week, when he opined that U.S. General David Petraeus routinely rides around in Baghdad unguarded in an open vehicle. McCain was almost immediately slapped down by CNN correspondent Michael Ware, who has been in Iraq for the better part of the last four years. (More on McCain's CNN gaffe Here, including video.)

Above, McCain speaks during a press conference at the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, earlier today. A Republican congressional delegation led by Sen. John McCain blasted Democratic efforts to impose a deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and McCain charged that the American people were not getting a "full picture" of progress in the security crackdown in the capital.

Maybe we're not getting the full picture, and from the Green Zone in Baghdad, I'm sure things look just rosy, but if you think that McCain is traveling in Baghdad (or to and from the airport) with no security, you're out of your mind.

What's more, McCain fails to mention (surprise) that violence has escalated in other parts of Iraq since the Bush troop surge began to arrive in Iraq that McCain supported. So, even if things are great in Baghdad, there's also the rest of the country to think about, Senator.

No word on whether McCain is thinking of walking around Baghdad without any security, as he wrongly asserted last week that General Petraeus does. Also, I've read of no indication that McCain will take CNN reporter Michael Ware up on his offer of visiting the Baghdad neighborhood McCain bragged was so safe so the two of them can walk down the street.

I don't know if McCain's trip was planned well in advance, but I'm betting it wasn't. I'm also betting that as soon as he got bitch slapped on CNN, his handlers and advisers told him he needed to immediately go to Baghdad to save face.

"Just as we read about all the negative events in Iraq the American people must be aware of the positive developments under this new plan, and the media has a responsibility to report all aspects of what is taking place," said McCain during a press conference.

Fair enough, Senator, but when a car bomb goes off and outside your safe little Green Zone in Baghdad, it's still news. I've read many opinions recently that the terrorists are just waiting out the surge and concentrating on other areas, since so many of our troops are in Baghdad.

Also interesting to hear McCain go to the dog-eared play book of the GOP to call this trite play: "Things aren't going well, so we're gonna run the good 'ole liberal press hyping bad news pass to the end zone. And Fox, make sure you dodge that defender U.R. Accountable - he's been giving us problems all year! Ready... BREAK!"

See you when you get home, judas.

(AP Photo/Sabah Arar, Pool)