Stewart takes apart McLame's speech

Wow - when Republicans make it this easy, I wonder if it's even fun for the writers of The Daily Show. However, I know this - it sure is fun for Jon Stewart, and it really is fun to watch.

As I noted on the night of McCain's acceptance speech, where were all of the people at the GOP convention mocking McSame's Vietnam service record? Hmm, nowhere to be found. Stewart brilliantly points this out above, and I'm very happy that someone, anyone in the media bothered to point this out.

Kudos to Stewart for also pointing out McSame's obviously hypocritic blubbering about "vetoing the first bill the crosses my desk with pork barrel spending in it! {...} You will know their names!" Well, we know one name already - his vice presidential choice, Sarah Palin. What's most amusing about that inconvenient fact is hearing McCain and the right trying to defend it. (I've got some pretty amusing video of conservatives trying to do just that earlier today. Stay tuned.

It's good to see that Stewart is in midseason form as we roll toward the election. If it weren't for Stewart, Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann, there would be virtually no prominent, sufficiently angry liberal voices in the media.

McCain disses WSJ reporter

This is some pretty telling footage of John McCain dissing a reporter from The Wall St. Journal a few days ago, supposedly for coverage that he didn't find very flattering in the paper's pages.

First, check out Sen. Lindsay Graham's expression off to the right - hilarious!

On a more serious note, for the life of me, I'm wondering why McCain would do such a thing? I'll never understand why candidates and presidents do that - a smarter guy would realize that whatever coverage he's unhappy with, it's not going to stop if he refuses to take questions from a certain media outlet's reporter. In fact, it won't get him any favor with the WSJ, in all likelihood. I think it was Winston Churchill who once most famously said, "Never get in a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel."

What's more, since the WSJ was taken over by Murdoch, it's maintained its reputation as a very conservative newspaper, which is on McCain's turf, so that makes it all the more puzzling. If the snub was directed toward the New York Times, I could understand it better (but certainly not condone it).

200k hear Obama in Berlin

I don't know what I like more, listening to Barack Obama's truly inspiring speech in Berlin earlier today, or jealous Republicans griping and complaining about the coverage that Obama is getting. I think it's hilarious that the insipid Sen. Lindsay Graham was on TV just days ago, bragging that McCain and his fellow Republicans had "chased him to Iraq and Europe," and yet now, these same people are complaining about the world of good the trip is doing his campaign. Serves them right.

Obama's speech was a breath of fresh air to our stale, partisan politics - he really is the most charismatic political leader in my lifetime, or at the very least in my adult life. Sure, Obama is a great speech maker, but he's more than that - he's giving us hope, something that's been snuffed out in many ways during the last eight years. Many of Obama's critics love to say, "Sure, he's a great speech maker, but what is he going to do?" Well, his speeches are laying the groundwork for what he will do as president. I mean, he's a candidate for president - what's he supposed to do, invade a country?

Quite frankly, I'm not at all surprised at the reception he's received on his trip, for many reasons, but perhaps the biggest is how Bush has treated much of Europe during his presidency, especially during the run-up to the War in Iraq. Many countries, including Germany, were reluctant to go to war, but Bush had made up his mind that war was the way, and anyone who was against the war, Bush took it as a personal insult. (See France.)

It was widely reported that Bush bashed German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder when he wouldn't support the invasion of Iraq. This is one of the many miscalculations that passes for Bush foreign policy - disagreements are taken as personal slights, and immediately diplomacy goes right out the window.

It's little wonder that Europe and the Middle East are crying out for a different kind of American politician, and Obama is that man.

You can read the full text of Obama's speech Here (If you're reading this longer than a week after my original post, you will have to be a New York Times member to view it).

I was impressed not only by Obama's delivery (who isn't other than the most rabid Republican?), but also the breadth of his speech. He touched a lot of bases today in a very short amount of time.

I was heartened to hear him mention global warming, because quite frankly I haven't heard enough to date from him on the subject:

As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.

Great to mention it, but we need more specifics from him, and soon (But, I know Berlin wasn't the place to do it). I urge you all to write him and ask for those specifics. I will be writing his campaign a long-overdue letter shortly.

I found this particular passage inspiring, too:

Now the world will watch and remember what we do here – what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?

Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words “never again” in Darfur?

Right on, although we can't take on these many challenges ourselves - we do need Europe's help. This particular passage is one of the many reasons I'm proud to call myself a Democrat and identify with liberalism - helping others and the least among us. Granted, we have a lot of work to do here at home, too, and New Orleans tops the list.

However, this administration hasn't done a damn thing about Darfur, other than issue a few words of condemnation. As I wrote yesterday, too bad for the people of Darfur that there isn't billions of barrels of our oil under their soil. If there were, Bush would no doubt be on TV saying, "The people of Darfur deserve freedom" and "Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir (the Sudanese President) is a brutal dictator" and blah, blah, blah. We all know the Bush boilerplate by now. Bush has blood on his hands for doing nothing, and so does America. We should have done something, just like President Clinton should have with regard to Rwanda in the mid-1990s. (Clinton has often stated that it was one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency.)

Another passage I found interesting, which was very obviously no accident in this speech:

But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived – at great cost and great sacrifice – to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom – indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us – what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America’s shores – is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.

Also, when you watch the footage above, notice that Obama has a flag pin on his lapel, something he now wears with regularity. I don't view that as a bad thing, but I think it's disgraceful that there are mindless morons in this country who feel that you have to wear a flag to be patriotic. That point can't be repeated enough, either, because stupid rumors persist on the Internet that Obama won't say the Pledge of Allegiance (not true), hates America (Really?!?) and won't put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance (also untrue, and there's video evidence to prove it).

It's a little ironic that Obama had these patriotic words to say about America in a city that once passed laws that required members of the Nazi Party to wear the sinister swastika as a sign of party loyalty. Sometimes, I feel we aren't that far away in America, when a nominee for president has his patriotism impugned for not wearing a 50¢ pin (that was probably made in China). Sickening.

Anyway, I found his speech truly inspiring, and probably one of the finest in his career. And I'm happy he didn't go too overboard with a German phrase, circa President Kennedy.

Predictably, McCain is taking great pains to downplay Obama's trip and today's speech, calling it a "premature victory lap." (Sort of like McCain's last stroll through Baghdad, where he nearly talked himself to death about the Surge and how great he thinks thing are going?) Just wondering.

Lindsay Graham: Iraq war "still a good idea"

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) is one of the smarmiest, ideological members of the U.S. Senate. Just the sight of him makes me angry. His many moronic statements, like his comments above, is the main reason why I despise him.

So, let's get this straight - Graham "absolutely" still believes that invading Iraq was a good idea? Granted, the real questions about Iraq should be "where do we go from here," but how we got where we are will be debated for decades to come, too.

It's pretty clear to most Americans (and polls back this up) that invading Iraq was a monumentally stupid idea for so many reasons, chief among them the cost in blood, our standing in the world and the trillions the invasion and occupation will cost us when it's all said and done (and God only knows when that will be).

Yet, people like Graham constantly go on television, smugly telling America that Obama was wrong about the surge, we are winning/will win in Iraq, and blah blah blah. Most of the time, I simply ignore comments like Graham's, but we cannot afford to ignore these comments, any longer, because this ideology will play a part in giving us more of the same - war, war, war, if John McCain is elected president.

What's more, I don't hear any of the warmongers in Congress spelling out exactly what constitutes "victory" in Iraq. The reason we don't get it is because we will never, ever achieve "victory" in Iraq, at least in a traditional sense. The country will very likely in the foreseeable future to be continually plagued by violence, while sucking hundreds of billions from our treasury, all the while keeping soldiers away from their families (Not to mention casualties). To date, 4,125 Americans have given their lives, and for what? A free Iraq? From what I see and read, Iraqis don't seem to care either way, and the country is much worse off now than before we invaded.

And I'm sick to death of people like Graham saying how "evil" Saddam was. It bears repeating, since many people seem to have forgotten WHY we went to war. The Bush administration kept throwing reasons against the wall until one stuck, which ended up being WMD and his nuclear program. At least that's what we were publicly told were the reasons for the war. In hindsight, we went to war for two reasons: to create a free state in the Middle East, and oil. (Scott McClellan backs up the former in his book, which I'm almost done reading.) Whenever I hear the "Saddam is evil" argument, I always think about Darfur. The leaders there have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and Bush has done nothing about it. I guess the Darfur area of Sudan has no oil.

If Saddam Hussein was so evil, then what does that make the leader of Sudan, Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir? (Who by the way was indicted last week for war crimes by the International Criminal Court.) Just wondering.

It's sad and pathetic that over five years after the war began, people like Graham continue to keep flogging the "We are better off without Saddam" argument. Someone needs to slap morons like Graham in the back of the head, because the record playing in his brain keeps skipping back to the same old, trite arguments about the War in Iraq, and how we'll ultimately "win." (The same goes for McCain.)

Even if we do "win," (whatever that constitutes), I'll never be convinced that the cost in lives, blood, money and our decreased standing around the world will have been worth it.

~~

Speaking of "winning wars," McSame had this to say last night in front of about 200 GOP backers during a fundraiser in Baltimore: "My friends [I'll never stop hating it when he says that], I know how to win wars."

Again, I ask, exactly how is that? What experience does he have in "winning wars?" As far as I can tell, this is his formula:

1. Volunteer to go to Vietnam (he wasn't drafted, he finished 894th in a class of 899 at the U.S. Naval Academy; I guess he really is like Bush)

2. Bomb innocent people in North Vietnam

3. Get shot down

4. Spend the rest of the war in prison.

And the last time I checked, Senator, we LOST that war.

The GOP myth of Supporting the Troops

This is a very hot topic with me, and one that is hopefully gaining much needed momentum and attention by voters around the country. I'll be writing about this much more later today or definitely tomorrow, including some letters I've written to my legislators.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, originally introduced by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), is an important bill that absolutely must be passed by members of Congress. Yet, amazingly, there are people who are opposed to this bill in its current form, and who want a watered down bill because of cost, among them President Bush, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. And these are three of the biggest cheerleaders about Supporting the Troops.

I find their reasons for opposing this bull downright stupefying for a number of reasons. So does Jon Stewart (take a look at the video above). Much, MUCH more about this in the coming days.

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

An outrageous War With Iran montage

This is a great compilation of the War With Iran Rhetoric, put together by the fine folks at Talking Points Memo.

It's beyond frustrating, and in fact downright frightening that the corporate media continues to talk about a war with Iran as if it's an inevitability. This should bring back plenty of unpleasant memories of the run-up to the war with Iraq, but no one seems to be listening.

What's happening now is exactly what the Bush administration hopes will happen - keep repeating over and over and over that a war with Iran is all but inevitable, and eventually everyone will treat it as a fait accompli. This is the PR phase of Bush's next war, and so far, there is no resistance.

I hear these talking heads on television talk about a war with Iran, and it's hard to not get cynical about the lack of meaningful political discourse in America today, and by that I mean every day people. I'm guilty of it, too - I feel like I don't do enough, and I'm changing that very soon. I've made a commitment to myself to become even more politically active - to make my voice heard loud and clear - that we don't desire another war, and that all diplomatic possibilities must be brought to bear on any situation in the Middle East, including Iran.

Of particular note in the video above is Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) - a walking, talking jackass in the Senate if there ever was one. He's the Senator who, while on one of John McCain's non-listening tours of Baghdad, snorted during a press conference, "I bought five rugs for five bucks!"

Whenever I hear his annoying voice and regurgitated White House talking points, I ask myself, "What in the hell are the people in South Carolina thinking?" I swear to God, there must be a five-foot string on the back of Graham's head, and all you have to to is pull it to hear five Bush talking points about the War in Iraq or the War on Terrorism.

South Carolina is currently suffering from one of the worst droughts on record, and it seems like that drought has also affected political coherence as well. How this moron ever made it to the U.S. Senate is beyond me.

Graham & Webb cross swords

Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Jim Webb (D-VA) squared off on Meet the Press this past Sunday, and it was as heated of an exchange as I've seen on that program in quite a while.

Needless to say, Graham made a fool of himself going up against Webb. However, I have to admit, I had thoughts of CNN's old show, Crossfire, when I watched this - just people trying to talk over one another. Very annoying.

Anyway, I can see why Republicans fear Webb - they have good reason to. He uses logic and doesn't talk in political soundbites, unlike Bush sycophant Graham, who uttered this laugh out loud phrase during their exchange, in his annoying southern twang:

History will judge us, ma freend, not when we left but what we left behind.

Hey Senator Graham, I believe history has already rendered its verdict, and that's that we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place. There's no easy way out now. But, It amazes me that there are still people like Graham who still insist that We can win in Iraq. Let 'em win.

As if the only reason we're not winning this war is Congressional Democrats (and an overwhelming majority of the American people) who want our troops home, NOW. I can just about guarantee that this war will somehow be blamed on Democrats when the presidential campaign begins in earnest next spring. In fact, you can put fat cash down on it, because I guarantee that's exactly what the GOP is going to do.

Graham's Let 'em win blarney is little more than political posturing to the far-right war mongers in the Republican Party. There is not a military expert or general alive who believes we can win there. The only generals who are saying we can win are the ones who are on the ground over there now. And what else would you expect those generals to say? "I know you put me in charge over here, but we have no chance in winning." Of course they aren't going to say that.

Graham embarrasses himself even further with these whoppers:

"I've been to Iraq seven times" (To which Webb replied, "No, you've been to the dog-and-pony show.") Well said, Senator Webb.

"It's not about winning an election." Really, Senator Graham? That could be the most blatant lie I've heard in 2007 on MTP. Wait, has Cheney been on this year?

The only, and I mean the only reason Republican senators are running for cover now is because there's an election in less than 18 months, and the GOP is hoping to retain control of the White House. If it were 2005 right now, Republicans would be in lockstep with Bush's disastrous Iraq policy.

I'd also like to point out that Webb has about 1000 percent more credibility than Graham does on military issues; Webb has actually served in combat and knows the cost of war. Graham's experience? Being recalled to active duty during Desert Storm and serving in... South Carolina. (Graham did serve on active duty in the 1980s.) Wait, another war-mongering Republican who has spent time in the Air National Guard? Hmmm - sounds familiar.

I love Senator Webb because he's not afraid of a street fight with Republicans over military issues. There aren't enough Democrats like him. However, toward the end of the duo's appearance on MTP last Sunday, Webb put his hand on Graham's shoulder and called him "my friend." He's not your friend, senator. That won't win you any points with Democrats who want to see the party toughen up to take on these Republican bullies.

I hardly watch the news on television anymore, because of full of politicians on both sides of the aisle spewing forth sewage, b.s. and lies, and Graham is the best example I've seen in the past week. Wait, there are others, too, and I'll get to them later today.

All we've ever heard from this president and Republican leaders is "give this surge a chance to work." And in six months, we'll be hearing it again.

It's been four-and-a-half years - the Iraqis have had enough time.

KO's worst people - spot on again

This episode of Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World, from yesterday's show, is notable for a number of reasons.

First - Matt Drudge. It really angers me that a person like Drudge, who has ethics and scruples much lower than the rest of the civilized world, will smear any enemy of the Republican Party, or even someone who has merely embarrassed the GOP.

Drudge's latest target - CNN Iraqi Correspondent Michael Ware, who has more than embarrassed Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain before and during his current visit to Baghdad. Really, McCain has embarrassed himself; Ware has merely succinctly pointed it out.

Yesterday, Drudge posted some inaccurate and disparaging information about Ware on his über-popular Website, The Drudge Report, as Olbermann states above, including that Ware heckled McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) at a press conference along with the insinuation that Ware has a drinking problem.

As soon as Ware flatly denied the report, stating on CNN "check the videotape," video indeed appeared on the Web, backing up Ware's claim - not a speckle of heckle. Mysteriously, Drudge's entry on Ware disappeared from his Website. Surprise!

Drudge has a history of disparaging individuals on his site - Sidney Blumenthal comes to mind as one of the more noteworthy cases. Drudge posted libelous statements about Blumenthal, senior political adviser to President Clinton in his second term, (I won't rewrite them here) and Blumenthal sued him. Blumenthal later dropped the suit when it became clear that it wasn't worth the time or effort to go after Drudge. (Quick plug - Blumenthal's tome, The Clinton Wars, is arguably the best book on Clinton's presidency available anywhere. [aside from Clinton's autobiographical My Life] Sid's book is an awesome political read. )

It's not a stretch to say that Drudge has a "post it now, verify later, if at all" mentality, journalistic standards be damned. This right-wing shill dares people he's disparaged to come after him. It's also a well-known fact that Drudge is in regular contact with leaders of the Republican National Committee, who give him talking points.

And Drudge's stories make it into the mainstream media with stunning regularity. The Ware case is the latest example - I'll repost the CNN footage:



Notice how Soledad O'Brien brings the rumor up in this exchange with Ware. Two schools of thought here: 1. She brought up Drudge's b.s. to give Ware an opportunity to respond to the ridiculous allegations, or 2. O'Brien did what many other MSM anchors do these days - if it's on Drudge, it's news. History suggests the latter is more accurate - since Drudge "broke" the Monica Lewinsky Scandal on his site, he's shockingly become the darling of MSMs looking for news on the Web.

One recent example - when John Edwards announced a few weeks ago that he would have an announcement about his wife's health the following day, Drudge and The Politico leaped into action (these two Websites seem to be entangled in a passionate love affair as of late). The Politico, which has plenty of credibility problems of its own as of late, reported that Edwards would drop out of the race with a one-source story. Drudge pounced, reporting it on his site as fact, and from there, it went to all of the cable news networks, including CNN. The next morning, I was listening to Thom Hartman on my drive in to work, and he announced that Edwards was dropping out of the race, "according to CNN."

Twenty minutes later, Edwards was on television announcing he intends to stay in the race.

Whaaaaa Whaaaaa Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaant.

Virtually every cable news network got the story wrong - because they relied on dopes like Matt Drudge to get their story, in lieu of getting a story the old fashioned way - by cultivating sources and doing some investigating. I guess that's too much work for journalists these days. Drudge is as credible as a jilted spouse who's been cheated on, looking for revenge in a divorce proceeding. Reliability police - pull over!

##

Anyway - Olbermann's other target in the clip above - Bill O'Reilly. It's beyond comedy the way O'Reilly treats people, especially military veterans who know more in their toenails about the military than O'Reilly could ever hope to learn in a lifetime.

Update: I found the video of Billy dressing down Col. Ann Wright, a 29-year military veteran. Check it out:



There you have it - Fox News - Fair and Balanced; Bill O'Reilly, fairly imbalanced.