Gratitude Campaign - please pass it on

This is one of my favorite things I've ever received on the Internet, ever, thanks to my father-in-law, Ralph, and it involves a campaign to thank our soldiers, in person. It's called the Gratitude Campaign, and it's a simple way to thank soldiers for all they have done in service of our country. Like the video above says, it's not about politics, it's not about whether you believe in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, it's about our true heroes who deserve or gratitude, respect, and support, for the rest of their lives.

Please, take a few minutes to watch the video above, and pass it on. The Gratitude Campaign's Website is Here. If you would like to pass along a link to this CMB post, it's Here. If you would like to support the Gratitude Campaign, you can visit the campaign's online store Here; 50 percent of all proceeds go toward sending the troops care packages, so you're supporting two great causes with your purchase.

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.

Olbermann on war crimes by W's cabal

This one's a little old, but it still merits a mention. Just under a few weeks ago, Keith Olbermann unleashed a tirade against the Bush administration for its conduct in Iraq. After thinking about it, Olbermann clarified his remarks backed up his proverbial bus, and ran over Bush and his war-making cabal again, calling some of them (including Bush, and presumably, Dick Cheney) "cold blooded killers." I won't apologize for agreeing with him.

Bush and many in his cabinet (but not all, as Olbermann rightfully points out) almost certainly deserve to be tried for war crimes. It's a pretty sticky issue that many would take offense to - so be it. But, any American who can possibly even try to evaluate and analyze the War in Iraq objectively would almost certainly come to the conclusion that if Bush were the leader of another country, invading a neighbor, the U.S. would most likely be up in arms, beating the drums of righteous indignation, calling for a war crimes trial. Oh wait, haven't we already done that? Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein are two recent examples that come to mind, specifically Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, an invasion we went to war over. Desert Storm was a farce in many (but not all) ways. We certainly weren't liberating a democracy, that's for sure. But, I digress.

Anyway, it's important to note that neither Olbermann nor probably the overwhelming majority of liberals (including me) lump our troops under the statement or thoughts behind his label "cold blooded killers." Olbermann in the footage above rightly classifies them as the heroes they truly are, and on this Memorial Day, it's worth mentioning again that we can and must give them the resources they will need, for the rest of their lives, to confront, combat and conquer the physical and emotional obstacles that await them once they return home from battle.

This administration and those who support it make great sport of constantly repeating, over and over, the slogan of this war by many on the home front: Support the Troops. Well, Supporting the Troops is going to take a lot more than putting a ribbon on your car in the coming years. Yet, thus far, this administration has done little more than just that for returning troops, and for many troops in the field, some of whom have had to go without adequate body armor, etc.

At the end of his Special Comment, Olbermann takes one final swipe at two of his critics by saying, "Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin, why do you hate our troops?" I don't know what he's specifically referring to there, but that's bound to stoke the flames of partisan bickering in the weeks and months to come, which will surprise no one. But, in the end, Olbermann is spot on for calling out this administration for its massive, criminal negligence in not giving our troops what they need.

Olbermann truly is a voice in the wilderness - an island of reality in a sea of diarrhea that passes for what many call our "free press," which should be called what it really is - our corporate media. Frankly, it's a miracle that NBC lets him air his show at all. Make no mistake - it's only because there's money to be made, not because of his political views.

Dodd won't support Iraqi War funding; will other Dems follow his lead?

Each and every Democrat running for president should listen to Sen. Chris Dodd and think about what his words mean - the majority opinion of the American people.

I'm sickened, disgusted and appalled that the Democratic Party is caving to President Bush on funding this mindless, ill-conceived and seemingly endless war (that's now lasted longer than World War II). Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves. As usual, the Republican Party has successfully undermined democracy by demonizing anyone who dares disagree with their strategy of perpetual war. Their Support the Troops campaign slogan has taken the word cliché to new lows. If you Google Support the Troops, I wouldn't be surprised if you find a synonym that reads, "Shut your mouth - Bush knows what he's doing. Only traitors criticize a policy while troops are in the field."

My optimism (but not hope) has all but evaporated following the Democrats' victory in November - my party is quickly reverting to the pathetic party it was in the 1980s - spineless wimps who won't stand up to a president who's leading us down the path of consolidation of wealth, belligerent nationalism, runaway military spending, a disastrous foreign policy, crushing debt and a middle class that's shrinking quicker than Dick Cheney's approval ratings.

Well said, Mr. Dodd. I hope all of the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates listen to your thoughts. But I'm not holding my breath.

My thoughts on troop funding

I've updated this post - take a look at the 5th video down - the one with Donald Rumsfeld. I posted the wrong one yesterday. This new one isn't quite as good resolution wise, but it's much longer, and you get to hear Rummy tripping over his arrogance when trying to answer the soldiers' questions as he's put on the spot. When you hear the audio, you'll know it doesn't make a difference.



Lots and lots of rhetoric is flowing out of Washington, D.C., about funding and supporting the troops.

Perhaps no one is more eloquent on this subject than Patrick Murphy, a freshmen Democrat from Pennsylvania's 8th District (my old district!). He beat incumbent Republican Mark Fitzpatrick in a bitterly contested and very close election last November - the final vote count was 125,656 to 124,138. You can bet that the Republicans will go after Murphy three times as hard in '08. If we are still living in Pennsylvania next year when the election rolls around (heaven forbid), I'm campaigning for this guy, and contributing, too. He's a wonderful guy, an Iraq war veteran, and a true American patriot. Here's my favorite passage of Murphy's from the video clip above:

To those on the other side of the aisle who are opposed, I want to ask you the same questions that my gunner asked me when I was leading a convoy up and down Ambush Alley one day. He said, "Sir, what are we doing over here? What's our mission? When are these Iraqis going to come off the sidelines and fight for their own country?" So to my colleagues across the aisle - your taunts about supporting our troops ring hollow if you are still unable to answer those questions now four years later.

Pretty tough words from a man who has earned the right to say them. However, something tells me Republicans will figure out a way to try and smear him. If Max Cleland and John Kerry can get smeared, Murphy can to. Watch your back, Patrick. Better yet, Pennsylvania Democrats will have your back, and you can count me among them.



Speaking of men who have earned the right to talk tough about the War in Iraq...

Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine who knows what it's like to wear the uniform, also had some pretty harsh words for the president after the House passed the spending bill which set a withdraw date for our troops.

Murtha at times can be a loose canon, but he's right on here. I flat out love the guy - he's courageous, respected in the military community, and he backs up his tough talk with action. Most importantly, he's got something Dick and Bush can only dream of ever having - credibility on military matters.



But, President Bush was at his bullshitting best following the passage of the House Bill that sets a deadline for the troops to come home.

Let's set the table, shall we? Because there's lots to feast on in this 4:17 meal.

I love how the president never misses an opportunity for a photo-op when it suits him politically, like here, with soldiers and vets lined up behind him. But, did anyone catch the news a few weeks ago that an amputee from the Iraq War was uninvited to a ceremony at the White House because he refused to wear pants instead of shorts? You probably didn't, because it didn't get a whole lot of press. Apparently, we have a president who doesn't like to see the real costs of war, in this case an amputee veteran, unless you count going to the one Marriott-like ward at Walter Reed to meet with a few of our wounded.

Bush wastes no time working in the empty "Support Our Troops" line - which should be to no one's surprise. Too bad Bush wouldn't know the meaning of the phrase if it hit him in the face - lack of adequate body armor, too few troops, mandating stop-loss for troops due to leave the military, ridiculous and appalling conditions for our returning wounded, Bush's proposal to cut health care in his latest budget sent to Congress, the list goes on and on. About the only thing this president does do to support the troops - coming up with slogans the press eats up like a cannoli in South Philly. And "Getting our troops the resources they need to do their job" is another line from the video clip above that's fit for Comedy Central.

But, don't take my word for it - I'm just a blogger who's sick of all the GOP's rhetoric. How about we hear from some people who are out on the front lines, putting their lives on the line each and every day, regardless of the idiocy of this war. Let's roll some tape, shall we?



Pathetic, sad and outrageous that any U.S. soldier would ever, ever have reason to say this on film. Want another example of this administration not giving soldiers the resources they need? Mission Accomplished!...



What an amazing piece of footage. Keith Olbermann is right on the mark - this type of candor from any leader is extraordinarily rare in wartime, so for that I'll at least give Rumsfeld a nanogram of credit.

Most importantly, though, is the fact that these are issues that are raised by troops in the field, so this footage is bulletproof, unlike the armor issued to our military for troops and Hummers. No word yet on whether Dick Cheney has questioned the soldiers' patriotism or if Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity have whined that the soldiers asking Rummy those questions "hate America."

Rummy's whopper "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had" is a line that will live on in infamy. That might be true when you are attacked, like when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, but that doesn't hold up for two seconds when referring to the War in Iraq.

Other than that, Rummy's comments defy description. Words fail me to describe the absurdity of his responses. His pathetic answer about production problems as the reason why our troops didn't have the resources they needed at the time (and it still holds true) is probably his biggest lie and distortion during his six years as secretary of defense. To its credit, the press was all over that one, exposing it for the lie that it truly was. I even remember representative from the company that makes body armor being interviewed, and he explained that they had the capacity to make twice as much as they were delivering to the military.

Yes, yes, Rummy's gone, but you know what? These clips are highly indicative of how seriously this administration has taken "supporting the troops" during the four years of the Iraq War (three and a half of which Rummy was the secretary of defense). How dare the Republicans say that Democrats "don't support the troops"! It makes my blood boil. The best way for Democrats to support them is to bring them home, since this administration, and the generals taking marching orders from these people, have not done the job, or have not had the tools to do the job.

This administration has zero credibility, except with the most partisan and ideologically driven voters and Republican hacks. I say this not out of joy (and that's the God's honest truth - believe it if you will) - I say it out of disgust for our troops who continue to come home maimed physically or mentally, or in body bags.

One last thing that really gets my Irish up. Whenever people such as Patrick Murphy, Jack Murtha or Nancy Pelosi propose that we put limitations on additional troops being sent in the field by making sure they are adequately trained and properly equipped, they were venomously attacked by the Bush Administration once more. Can anyone possibly explain what's wrong with that? Nothing, but this administration's only possible response to those who suggested it was to attack the messenger, not the message.

Back to Bush's message above...

If true, (and I'm sure it probably is, to a certain extent) Democrats deserve some criticism for tacking on stuff to a bill that have nothing to do with winning the War on Terrorism. But, that criticism coming from Bush is outright hilarious, since he has made spending an art form. Bush has yet to veto one spending bill during his entire administration, so his whining about Congressional pork rings very hollow.

And the act of tacking stuff onto a bill so the opposing party will vote it down is done by both sides - Republicans did this time and time again during their rule in Congress over the last 12 years. One instance of note came during the creation of the Department of Homeland Security - Repubes tried to take away government workers' right to collective bargaining, knowing full well that Democrats would oppose such a move. When Democrats did, they weren't "concerned with winning the war on terrorism."

Bottom line - Bush doesn't like having to work and negotiate with Democrats, since he never to and showed no propensity for wanting to during his first six years in office. Now, he has no choice. But, my prediction, hardly a revelation, is that he will get out his veto pen instead of trying to come up with solutions, all the while decrying Democrats' "obstructionism."

In a way, the House bill annoys me though - because it gives Bush and his devoted sheep a bit of ammunition. Just watch the tape above - about two minutes in, he's whining about how this bill is depriving the troops of resources just as we are turning the corner (I'm paraphrasing). So many people will listen to that garbage and believe it.

By the way, our arrogant president persists in saying that if Congress cuts off funding, he still won't be forced to accept restrictions and timetables for withdraw? I know even he doesn't believe that. If Congress is successful in cutting off the purse strings, the troops are coming home, and Bush would have little say in the matter. We're far from that happening right now, but this legislative fight is far from over.

I'll end with one more example of this administration's giving our troops old, outdated equipment to do the job in Iraq. This is a campaign ad that was used against former Virginia Senator George Allen last year in his race with Democrat and eventual winner Jim Webb. Take a look...



Now that's supporting the troops!

Sleep tight, Mr. President.

Stay the Course & Cut 'N Run - DOA

This is one of my favorite pieces from MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Personally, there's nothing sweeter than the Bush White House getting caught in a lie (Tony Snow in this case), and it's not hard to find cases of it these days. (Or the old political stand-by, the half-truth that Clinton made so famous.)

President Bush has been preaching "Stay the Course in Iraq" to the American people for well over two years now. Funny what the potential of your party getting its ass kicked in an upcoming election can do to your point of view. Iraq is getting bloodier and bloodier, and more and more Americans are dying (over 100 in October now), and for what? To try to impose Democracy on a Middle Eastern country that simply does not want us there? Nearly 70% of Iraqis in a recent poll want us OUT, yet this administration arrogantly plows ahead, unwilling and/or unable to admit its terrible mistake.

Funny how the president just smirks that arrogant smirk of his and says, with a straight face, "We've never been stay the course." How fucking stupid does he think the American public is? Evidently, pretty stupid.

And, Sean Insannity jumps right on the bandwagon, parroting the White House line on official state TV, Fox News.

I'm sure the phrase sounded good to Republicans when they started using it for Iraq, just like Cut and Run. I'm so sick of these slick PR gimmicks that Republicans dream up, but I've got to give them credit - they seem to be better at the PR game than Democrats.

Probably my favorite non-war related GOP PR euphemism is the Death Tax. Sorry, folks, but I'm not for millionaires inheriting wealth and paying no taxes. The rich need to pay their fair share, too. If Democrats were smart, they would call the Death Tax the "Paris Hilton Lifetime Laziness Tax" or something like that. Look at it this way - if I hit the lottery, I pay wicked taxes. Why? It's unearned income! On the other hand, if I ever inherit $25 million (yea, that's happenin'!), that's also unearned, and should be taxed. I'm no economist, but that's my take. The deficit shouldn't skyrocket so Republicans can line the beds of their rich benefactors. It's such a no-brainer ~ I'm not going to collect my Social Security check when I turn 70 (hell, it will be 80 by the time I retire if I live that long), so country club kids can collect fat trusts from Mommy and Daddy? Hmmm, that's really a tough one!

Anyway, getting back to the issue at hand - Cut & Run is another one I get a kick out of. This one sooo smacks of Vietnam it isn't even funny at all. No one wants to look like a pussy, so all legislators in Washington puff their chests out and say, "I'm not for cutting and running." Hey assholes, I wonder how many of you have sons and daughters in the line of fire? I'm sure there are a few, but probably damn few. This is the same kind of reasoning that gave us Vietnam, and 58,000+ dead Americans - because no one had the courage to say, "This isn't working - we gave it our best shot, but it's time to bring 'em home." (Cue tape of Richard Nixon, campaigning in '68 that he had a secret plan to end the war, and he did! A five-year plan - the cease-fire was signed in January of '73.)

So what if pulling out costs someone an election - sometimes doing the right thing is a helluva lot more important than winning an election. And besides, to be rankly materialistic for a second - all ex-presidents become millionaires these days, and Bush will be no exception, nor will his successors.

So, the real question is, how many dead Americans will it take before someone who really can make a difference will say, "Enough is enough." I'm not holding my breath and I seriously doubt it'll happen anytime soon.

Regardless of what happens a week from Tuesday, you can bet your ass that Bush will indeed change policy in Iraq after November 7. This course simply cannot continue.

We need to send a message to these morons in Washington, and we need to do it in eight days. This is bigger than party politics now - it's about American lives.

The whole "Support the Troops" silliness really makes me full hot, too. Any Republican who says that we shouldn't question military actions while troops are in the field has no idea what this country is founded upon and doesn't deserve to hold public office, period. "Support the Troops" is another way of saying, "Keep your mouth shut." Ain't happenin', capt'n.

For those of you with short memories, I have many, many recollections of Republicans asking lots of very public questions during the War in Kosovo, calling Clinton incompetent, a liar and worse. (Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, Dennis Hastert, Rick Santorum, Orin Hatch, I could go on and on.) A few quick questions about that war - 1. Was the intelligence cooked? 2. Did Clinton try to cook the intelligence? 3. Did we succeed? 4. Oh, and how many troops did we lose again?

Ain't history a bitch?

Debunking the "Support The Troops" sheep mentality

I had an interesting conversation with a guest in the restaurant the other day. She noticed the "Count Me Blue" bracelet that I've been wearing since the disastrous 2004 elections. I wear it with pride, but I'm not obnoxiously political (in person at least - this blog notwithstanding!), and I certainly won't discuss politics at work unless pressed. Anyway, she asked me what the bracelet meant, and I told her.

"Dumb Democrats," she teased, and we had a good laugh about it. Hey, I can take a ribbing, even about my political affiliations.

Then she said something that pissed me off. "I just don't like it when people don't support the troops," she whined. "People shouldn't criticize the troops while they are in the field."

I just smiled and walked off. Hey, I was at work, and alienating tables is never a good idea, especially when I'm working for a tip... and guests' hoped-for generosity. Anyway, the more I thought about it, the more angry I became.

On the drive home, I couldn't help but think of the trite but apropos quote often attributed to Oscar Wilde: "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." In the case of the war in Iraq, I have a hard time disagreeing.

I'm about had my fill of people, Republicans mostly, using the whole "Support the Troops" mantra to attempt to silence critics of the president's ill-conceived war in the Middle East. I often hear this from supporters of the president's policy in Iraq, and this includes Republican leaders who decry criticism of the use of our troops in Iraq: "People should not criticize the use of troops once they are in the field. The president made the decision, and they are there, so let's get behind them."

People who parrot the above quote without analyzing our troops use and deployment don't understand America, Democracy and freedom, and I'd also like to point out that these people have a very short memory span.

During the War in Kosovo, when President Clinton was in the Oval Office, it certainly was a different story. Let's travel back in time, shall we?

From Texas Governor George W. Bush...

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

Do I need to comment on the irony there?

From Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R)...

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

Don't worry, Rick. Your time is just about up, and come November, you will hopefully be home, unemployed, where you can ponder your hypocrisy and obsess over new ways on how to exclude homosexuals.

From Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of candidate George W. Bush...

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

From Tom Delay (Remember him?!?)...

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."

AND...

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today."

Was this about Kosovo in 1999, or Iraq in 2006? Can Tom DeLay see into the future? That would be the one quality that would be admirable in him.

AND...

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

Okay, enough on DeLay. The irony here is thicker than his corruption file.

From Tony Snow (yes, THAT Tony Snow, the new White House Press Secretary)...

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." (Fox News, 3/23/99)

Lastly, from Sean Hannity of Republican News Channel fame...

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" (Fox News, 4/6/99)

AND...

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it." (Fox News, 4/5/99)

Sure, Sean - we distort, you decide. The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.

The bottom line here is that Americans have every right to not only criticize why the troops were put into harm's way in Iraq in the first place, but whey they are still there. There is clear evidence that not enough troops were sent to do the job, and they are walking targets right now. I'm reminded of a John Kerry quote from Vietnam, and I'm paraphrasing to fit the war in Iraq: "Do you want to die in a hot, miserable land where the people mostly don't want us, all for a lie?" Oh, wait - Kerry was a coward - he went to Vietnam and won three purple hearts. Beetle Bailey has more combat experience than Dick and Bush. I'm always amazed when men who don't know the price of war are quick to rush into one. This was the argument that Republicans used against Clinton the "draft dodger" in '92, but it was inconvenient for them when Bush became president.

Another thing that annoys me is when I hear people who get annoyed with criticism of Bush or the way the country is headed. "If you don't like the US, leave!" they obnoxiously suggest. I always laugh when I hear this one. My first thought on that is, if you don't like the criticism, you leave. This is how a democracy works - people, events and policies get criticized, debated and analyzed - so deal with it.

Republicans continue to point out that many Democrats, including Kerry, voted for the war. Yep, they did, at first, when the "intelligence" was presented to them. When it was later revealed by Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill and others who were in the administration when these decisions were made that the intelligence was cooked, many Democrats said, "Wait a minute here." Then Republicans, hoping that people really weren't paying attention, simply said that the Democrats were flip floppers. Yea, right.

Democrats have the right to change their minds when new evidence comes to light, just as all Americans do, whether troops are in the field or not. Opinions evolve as events unfold. I'm still amazed that people continue to use the whole "We should support the troops while they are in the field" mantra. It's just a thinly disguised attempt to tell me to shut up. Well, I won't shut up, and I don't think any American should, as long as our troops continue to get cut down in the prime of their lives over lies about WMDs and the "threat" that Saddam posed.

If bin Laden wore a blue dress, the Republican-controlled Congress would have found him by now. Let's rename him Osama bin Lewinsky and send that scumbag Ken Starr after him. I'd give it about five days and we'd have Osama's head on a stick.