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.

Olbermann on media coverage of Dems

I had to include a quick clip of Keith Olbermann this morning, talking about media coverage about the Democrats' selection of Steny Hoyer late last week. Again, I'm repeating myself, but you'd think the Democrats were having a fight to the death. Absurd.

Bush's "Whoops!" on Iraq

This Freudian slip is funny - I wonder if there will be a big outcry about what Bush really meant with this gaffe, vis-à-vis Kerry's flub last week? Of course not.

The more distance we get from Kerry's goof, the angrier I get at the GOP's trying to club us over the head with their messages about it. It's hilarious, but sad, too. Keith Olbermann put it best last week when he said that if you take quote in its entire context, there's no way you could cconceivably think that Kerry was referring to the troops: He spoke about being in Texas the day before, and that Bush used to live in Texas, now he's in a state of denial; he spoke of the importance of education and if you don't do well, you can get stuck in Iraq (he was referring, I'm guessing to Bush's bragging about his "C" average at Yale). The context is pretty uunmistakable to anyone who listens to an extended version of the clip, which I have, and not the 20 second clip played over and over on the "news" networks. Even the most partisan of hacks would have to admit that nowhere in his remarks was he even insinuating that the troops are stupid.

In essence, the GOP's running on a gaffe - what a laugh. Hey, they've got nothing else to run on, do they?

I'm sort of echoing Keith Olbermann's commentary from the other night as I type this (Get those clips from my blog Here), but really there is no boundry these people will not cross to stay in power. And I almost just typed, "The only thing they haven't used to stay in power is the military" and then I stopped myself. Because they have. The War in Iraq wasn't conceived solely for the Republicans to stay in power, but it's part of it.

Anyway, back to the boundries thing. Thanks to Karl Rove, "Swiftboating" has entered the political vernacular. In '04, Rove and the Republicans made Kerry, a decorated Vietnam Vet who earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star Medal and three Purple Hearts, sound like a traitor. How laughable is that, especially considering that most of the ass wipes who are criticizing him have never served one damn day in combat - President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Tony Snow among them. And Kerry isn't the only one that Republicans have done this to - Max Cleland and John Murtha are two other Hall of Fame examples.

What's more curious to me is how combat veterans could possibly support, much less condone and vote for people who see no shame in committing such reprehensible behavior. That's like an African-American supporting a KKK candidate for president.

Rush's hypocrisy abounds on MJ Fox

I got a bit thrown off my schedule about writing on this, thanks to John Kerry and the media, the latter of which is rife with talking heads, endlessly analyzing what Kerry meant, what will it mean next Tuesday, have the Democrats handed the Republicans a November gift, blah, blah, blah.

Raise your hand (or read on) if you're sick to death of hearing about this crap, especially as North Korea tests nuclear weapons, Iran tries to acquire them, an American soldier is missing in Iraq, we're told to leave a part of Baghdad (Sadr City), 105 Americans were killed in Iraq in October, and I haven't even touched on numerous domestic issues that face us all.

Anyway, my point is that Kerry's gaffe was a momentary slip of the tongue at best, and a dumb attempt at humor at worst, not an attack on our troops or military by a decorated Vietnam Veteran, as some have suggested. My point is, Kerry's comment was a mistake - his didn't come out right. Ever happen to you? Yea, me too.

This in contrast to my favorite Republican blowhard of all, Rush Limbaugh, who last week took off on a slander and burn campaign directed at Michael J. Fox, who supports Claire McCaskill in the Missouri Senatorial Race against Republican incumbent Jim Talent. McCaskill supports stem cell research, and Talent does not.

Uh oh, a speaker with credibility on stem cell research? Well, the GOP talking heads weren't going to stand for that. And, Republicans, before you come at me with the "Limbaugh doesn't represent Bush's opinions" defense, President Bush was on his program yesterday, well after Rush's sickening comments about Fox.



It's not news that Rush is totally gutless and soulless - he's been lying, distorting and slandering for years, so I'm not surprised by these comments.

What really irked me about Rush's Fox commentary was his comment that Democrats always using "victims" to make their political points. Oh, and I have to mention his mocking Fox's movements, too. I wonder if he would do this if the tables were turned and Republicans supported stem cell research and Democrats did not? Puleeze. I also wonder if a one-legged war veteran came home and cut a political ad for a Democrat, would Limbaugh hop up and down, mocking him, too?

What's really pathetic is that there are people, millions of them, in fact, who listen to Rush religiously. Saddest of all, many of these people can't think for themselves. Hey, they aren't called "Dittoheads" for nothing.

And, you may not believe me, but this isn't about politics, when someone like Rush gets this hateful. This is about a dreaded disease, Parkinson's, and this is about improving the lives of those who suffer from it. I'm so sick of Pro-Lifers clouding the issue, too.

What most sensible people who are pro-stem cell believe and advocate is the use of frozen embryos for research that would otherwise be destroyed anyway - most are not adopted and the facilities that store the embroyos will not keep them. I support this important research, with strict oversight. I can understand and appreciate the many important, ethical considerations involved in stem cell research, but that shouldn't prevent this important work from moving forward to hopefully lead to cures or treatments not only for Parkinson's, but for many other diseases as well.

Oh, and for those of you who think Rush might have a point when he says that Democrats always trot out victims or people as props largely immune to criticism to make political points, you may want to take a look at the video below. And, Action! ...



This is President Bush with Snowflake Families at a press conference in July '06 announcing his first presidential veto - a bill passed in the Senate, 63-37, authorizing research on discarded embryos. Snowflake children is a term used by organizations that promote the adoption of embryos left over from in vitro fertilization to describe children that result, where the children's parents were not the original cell donors. So, Bush appears with these families at a press conference, but that's not grandstanding or using people as props?



Another example of Republicans using people as props - video from the Boot Murtha campaign. I get a kick out of this one in particular - notice the people who speak at the pro-Murtha rally, then the people at the Boot Murtha rally. And notice the attendance, too; the Boot Murtha rally uses tight camera shots, but you can still see the rows upon rows of empty seats in the background of the speakers.

I get pretty roiled when I hear people say that "we are winning this war (in Iraq)." We aren't winning, and we aren't going to win. What exactly would victory be, anyway? If this isn't echoes of Vietnam, I honestly don't know what is. Another thing that makes me angry is when I hear people say that comments critical of an administration in war time "embolden the enemy." I don't think our enemies are watching TV to get motivated to fight us - their beliefs and moral values, however misguided (and of course I think they are just that) are what motivates them, not politicians disagreeing on TV.

Oh, and the clip immediately above has comments from a father of a lost son in Iraq, a WTC survivor, and also the father of Todd Beamer. It looks an awful lot like using people and victims as props to me.



MJ Fox responds to Limbaugh's comments on CBS News with Katie Couric. Notice how Fox takes the high road, resisting the temptation to slam Limbaugh for his drug use/addiction or the dozens of other things he could have said to make Limbaugh look bad. You're a bigger man than me, Michael.

Couric also talks about how Limbaugh gets angry because Democrats use victims to make political points because they believe they are infallible and immune from criticism. But, Republicans do, too. Just because someone is a victim, survivor or family of a survivor of something tragic or a celebrity, he or she doesn't lose his right to express his or her political opinion.

I don't care which party does it, one or both or none - I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Limbaugh for criticizing Democrats for using Fox, to say nothing of his comments about Fox's physical condition.

The only thing that does surprise me about the whole Fox fiasco is that Bill Frist hasn't diagnosed Fox by watching the video, Terri Schiavo style, or that Santorum hasn't rushed to his side to try to score cheap political points. Oh wait, Fox is campaigning for a Democrat. Sorry, Santorum.

More Coulter: I just had to

Boy, someone shut up in a hurry? Where did Ann Coulter go? Unfortuately, not to hell, yet. But, her cake hole has been notably silent since her book was exposed as a plagiarized steaming turd. I love how Hannity and Coulter trip over each other trying to attack the Democratic strategist. I gotta give credit here to a man who deserves so little - Alan Colmes. He actually takes Ann to task here on some stuff, and notice how she doesn't answer his question about her comment on John Murtha?

For those of you who don't know, Ann said that Murtha is "The reason soldiers invented fragging."

A bit on Murtha, courtesy Wikipedia:

In 1959, Murtha, then a captain, took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, Marine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.

What's the message here? If you are a war hero, don't run for public office. Just like Max Cleland and John Kerry before him, Murtha is latest victim in the long line of Swiftboat Attacks.

And the part in the beginning of the above video about liberals apologizing about WMDs is a riot.