Pinch me, because I must be dreamin'...

(And I'll probably type the above an infinite number of times between now and the middle of 2009, at the earliest)

Sorry for all of the recent inactivity on here - I've had one of the busiest and exhausting weeks in recent memory. Anyway, back to politics...

It seems that there's at least one journalist over at Fersatz News who has a shred of credibility, and his name is Sheppard Smith. Check out the exchange in the video above between Smith and Nick DiPaolo:

DiPaolo:...the MSM being so in the tank for Obama...

Smith: Oh, please. That's preposterous. The MSM reflected what was happening in this nation. It did not drive it. The blogs didn't drive this movement, the media didn't drive this movement. Barack Obama did not lose this election. It was his to lose. It was not John McCain's to win. The Republicans had no shot unless the Democrats gave it to them and they didn't and to blame the media is a cop out and ridiculous....

DiPaolo The MSM has been liberal since its inception. It's years and years of pounding...

Smith: How did George Bush win twice?

DiPaolo: I don't know. Karl Rove is a genius.

DiPaolo misses two key points: 1. Both elections were stolen, and 2. If Karl Rove is such a genius, then why didn't McCain's Swiftboating of Obama prove feckless? The answer is simple - America wasn't falling for it this time.

Maybe, just maybe, the GOP meme of blaming the media for all bad news and events that are unfavorable to Repubes will die with Obama's victory. Okay, now I am dreaming, but this strategy has been in play since the days of President Nixon, who so hated and despised the media.

And I guess that DiPaolo must have been asleep while the media raked Obama over the coals about these topics:

1. The bogus madrassa story (endlessly pimped by Fersatz News until debunked by CNN and some other networks)
2. William Ayers
3. ACORN (porn for Republicans)
4. His alleged ties to anti-Israel radicals
5. Insinuations that he isn't a US-born citizen
6. "Lipstick on a Pig" and the associated accoutrements shouted about by McCain and his enablers
7. Jeremiah Wright (for eight straight days on Fox, MSNBC, CNN and just about every other major news network when the story first went "national" after weeks and weeks of pimping by Fox, Limbaugh and Hannity)
8. The smear about Obama's aunt the weekend before the election
9. Then there's Rashid Khalidi - another phony guilt by association story that failed to stick just days before the election
10. One of my favorites (these are in no particular order) - McCain huffed that Obama hadn't been to Iraq and that he hadn't been to Afghanistan in years; once Obama went, then McCain and conservatives whined about Obama's press coverage, saying lamely that Obama was taking a "victory lap"
11. And who in the hell can forget Joe the Plumber, the Kato Kaelin of the 2008 campaign. I'll have much more on Joe a bit later.

###

What's more, up until a few years ago, McCain used to joke that the media was "his base." I guess I'd feel that way, too if the press ran up the flagpole whatever I decided to call myself without questioning it, i.e. - Maverick, Straight Talker, etc.

I have to agree with Sheppard here - the media wasn't necessarily rooting for Obama - it was merely reporting just how inept the McCain campaign was. When Sarah Palin wasn't even able to answer basic foreign policy questions, while asserting that being able "to see Russia from Alaska" gave her foreign policy expertise, then McCain and Palin merely got the coverage they deserved.

What's more, there was plenty that the media failed to explore - Sarah Palin's known links to the independent Alaska movement, McCain's many flip flops on a variety of issues, etc.

But, hey, whatever - who's whining? Not me - McCain got whupped. But, that's not going to stop the right from whimpering like babies for weeks (months? years?) on end. I'm getting a particular kick out of listening to Hannity, O'Lielly, Rush, Drudge and the rest all scrambling to discredit Obama, because for the next four years (and hopefully eight), they will have nothing better to do. They don't have ideas of their own - they merely want to tear Obama down. I hope the president-elect and his team will be prepared for it.

I know I am and will be.

As I've told countless friends and acquaintances since election night - our work is not over - it's just beginning.

Whining isn't limited to Phil Gramm

The pathetic ad above is the McCain campaign's idea of being witty, and this time his handlers are Phil Gramming about all of the favorable press coverage that Barack Obama is allegedly receiving.

First off, the video above is very poorly produced - are interns doing campaign videos now?

Secondly, I guess I must be living in an parallel universe, because in the pathetic corporate media that masquerades as a free press, I've seen lots of favorable McCain coverage, Here, Here, Here, Here and even Here. Probably the best roundup of all is Here, a collection of bullshit we've been spoon-fed about McCain for months on end now. And speaking of press and freedom of expression, McCain has disdain for people who don't share his views, which is beyond outrageous for a presidential candidate; Click Here and Here for some blatant examples.

(And I haven't even mentioned CBS's despicable doctoring of McCain footage yesterday - I'll get to that in a minute - it demands and requires a post of its own.)

Conversely, I've seen plenty of disgraceful coverage of Barack Obama & his supporters.

The Swiftboating of Gen. Wesley Clark Here, Here and Here.

Remember Jeremiah Wright? Well, the media wouldn't forget him, for weeks on end. I think I'd call that unfavorable coverage. Samples are Here, and Here.

And during his current trip abroad? Some media outlets have gone out of their way to nitpick Obama to death, most notably NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who's pretty much a disgrace of a journalist. Click Here. (More on Mitchell later.)

Yea, the press sure is in love with Barack Obama!

My guess is that the McCain campaign is jealous (and a bit peeved) that their candidate is getting some long neglected scrutiny in the press. After all, McCain had the nomination sewn up long before Obama did, and the press was busy with that horse race. Now that the media McCain isn't ceaselessly fawning over the GOP war hero, his handlers don't like it. And it has got to be adding to the campaign's frustration that every time McCain opens his mouth, he turns into a gaffe machine (when he's not flashing that creepy, plastic smile).

End of story.

Clark defends his McCain comments; Why?

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the latest installment of Al Gore "claiming" that he "invented the Internet." (Which he never said) - and it's General Wesley Clark's comments on Face the Nation on Sunday. The media firestorm that has been generated by Wesley Clark's comments (see video clip above) on Face the Nation this past weekend are amazing (but not at all surprising). It's yet another pseudo scandal - taking media time and coverage away from the issues that matter to voters most in their everyday lives. The media is now doing exactly the opposite of what it did to John Kerry in 2004. When Kerry was criticized for his military service in '04, it was said by many (and everyone on State TV Faux News) that it was "fair game" because he was running on his war record.

Now that McCain is doing everything but shooting campaign commercials inside the Hanoi Hilton, it's all supposed to be off limits. Wrong. I'm tired of writing it over and over (and I'm not going to any longer, even though society makes people feel like they have to), but I'll repeat it one more time - no one questions John McCain's patriotism, or his service to his country. But, that doesn't make his foreign policy positions bullet proof, especially when he advocates continued war in the Middle East, and he advocates torture of terrorism suspects.

What's more, the phrase that has the media in full-blown fury was given to him by Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer, but that part is conveniently cut off during the endless replays on cable news. Give me a friggin' break.

What's more, Clark is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT - getting shot down in a plane doesn't make you qualified to be president. What's even more astonishing is Schieffer's response: "REALLY?!?!?"

This is hardly even worth spending more time on, but Clark sure is - he appeared on Dan Abrams' show last night to explain himself, and to try to douse the media firestorm that's erupted because someone dared to criticize the media's darling candidate, John McCain...

Clark's comments above are totally, absolutely unnecessary. I was happy to at least hear Clark mention that the words were given to him by Schieffer, although Clark doesn't mention him by name. Clark should have been much more forceful on that point, however.

New anti-McCain ad hitting airwaves

Greg Sargent over at TPM has the latest on the new anti-McCain video above, which began airing today:

Here's a first look at the first ad being run against John McCain by Progressive Media U.S.A., the new pro-Dem third-party group headed by David Brock that's planning to raise $40 million to bloody up the GOP nominee in advance of this fall's election. The ad, called "Out of Touch," will be running on cable beginning tomorrow and can be seen in D.C. on CNN and MSNBC — which is to say, it's a small buy aimed at an insider audience of potential future donors, political operatives, and the like.

My first thought when I saw this - "Excellent." In years and elections past, I might have thought to myself, "that's playing dirty." But, after seeing what the GOP shamelessly did to Al Gore in 2000 and most notably the Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004, I hope there are many more efforts just like this one. When Democrats try to take the high road by being the "better party," they become the better, MINORITY party. Democrats won't retake the White House until they learn to fight Republicans on their turf. Is it dirty and nasty? Sure, but there's too much at stake right now to be worried about being portrayed by some as being just that - Republicans have been doing it for years, most notably since the early 1990s when an Arkansas governor decided he'd like to run for president.

It's also good to see that David Brock isn't resting on his laurels with all of his Media Matters success, although no one could blame him if he did. The more people like Bill O'Reilly hate people like Brock for what he is doing - exposing the lies and distortions of the right-wing media - the more I love and am thankful for guys like Brock.

h/t Crooks & Liars

Picking the Fox scab, & finding lots of pus

What's been going on for over a year is now beginning to pick up steam - the Swiftboating of Barack Obama. There is so much crap and misinformation floating about on the Internet now, and I just hope Obama's campaign (or Hillary's, if she is the nominee) acts swiftly (pardon the pun) to refute the lies and misinformation. Anyway, the people over at Fox Attacks have put together a number of insightful videos that are great montages of the attacks against Obama over the last year and a half or so by Fox and its talking heads.

Evidence of Fox's smear campaign against Obama is not hard to unearth - the difficult part is documenting it all, since there's so much of it: the bogus madrassa story, lies about his not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and his egregious offense of not wearing an American flag lapel pin every minute of every day, and so on. In many ways, Fox and its disciples are like the ocean tides - it just keeps on coming. But that doesn't mean the truth should remain hidden behind the network's blatantly obvious partisan and biased reporting.

This one's a blast from the past - Part I from February '07...

(I know I just posted Part I last week, but in case you missed it (or even if you didn't), it's worth another look.)

My personal favorites from Part I:

"Barack Obama in a bathing suit!"

"...The network America trusts for fair and balanced reporting." *Snicker*

All of the "he's a black candidate" crap, as well as the fact that Obama is "surrounding himself with white people."

"Barack... HUSSEIN... Obama"

"He is, get this... a cigarette smoker" [Emphasis in Original]

"Apparently when he was a little boy, he attended a Muslim school, a madrassa... THIS... IS... HU-YOOGE!" [Emphasis in Original]

"We're gonna be the headquarters for the 2008 election..."

Um, yea, maybe the '08 headquarters for intellectual midgets and right wing neo-cons who want to practice cognitive dissonance by listening to O'Lielly blathering about the Nazis, or Sean Insanity blubbering endlessly about Obama's middle name. I don't know many people outside of those categories who take Fox seriously. But, there are enough people who do for it to be necessary to refute these distortions and outright lies.

And here's Part II, just released by Fox Attacks...

Yep, the latest installment has some pretty good highlights, too. Here are my favorites, in no particular order:

"He's a 'half-rican' anyway..." Really? This Rush Limbaugh-ism is so overtly childish and racist it defies description, but I'll try. Of course, some would say, "but Obama is!" but that doesn't necessitate bringing it up. For instance, I don't hear anyone calling Limbaugh "Limbephant" because of his pachyderm-like appearance. Bringing up Obama's ethnicity, that he's half black, is the same reason that all Fox announcers never miss an opportunity to say "Barack HUSSEIN Obama"; it's to exploit people's fears and prejudices about race and religion, PERIOD.

"People are literally passing out at Obama rallies." First of all, I haven't heard that, but if it's true, it's almost as if the talking heads at Fox are jealous of Obama's surging popularity. Even if it is true, it still contrasts pretty nicely to McCain rallies, where people pass out because they haven't had their afternoon nap. Okay, that was low, but hopefully you get my point.

"...the kind of popularity that Chairman Mao only dreamed of." Which is it? Is he a Muslim or a communist? Maybe both? I haven't heard of many Muslim Communists, but I guess the do exist. Far-right Repubes really need to come up with better material than calling someone a communist; that's so, um, 1950.

"Will President Obama blame America first?" This was in the aftermath of Michelle Obama having the temerity to say that she wasn't proud of her country. In the aftermath of this, it also became an "issue" that Obama doesn't consistently wear a "flag lapel pin." (the faux "necessity" of wearing something representing an American flag reminds me of something else [at right], at the risk of inciting Goodwin's Law.) Obama has sagely pointed out on numerous occasions that you "don't have to wear a lapel pin to be patriotic," and he's absolutely right. Brit Hume's assertion that outright displays of patriotism for the Obamas is "a little icky" is, sadly, exactly the type of churlish comment I've come to expect from a once-respected journalist. I really wonder how these people at Fox look at themselves in the mirror every morning - making no doubt hundreds of thousands if not millions to intentionally distort, deceive and lie. I couldn't do it.

However, my personal favorite from the above vid - the "Jeremiah Wright" mention by college drop-out Sean Hannity. I guess it's not enough that Obama has repeatedly distanced himself from and denounced Wright's controversial comments. Since when does a church member follow or believe everything that his/her member of the clergy practices or preaches? It's ridiculous. For example, the pastor of the church I went to when I was young had a sexual affair with a young staffer, and as a result, his wife divorced him and he was kicked out of my church. Does that mean I support or believe in adultery? No. Put differently, should certain Catholic congregation members be accused of supporting or condoning pedophilia because their priest has a penchant for altar boys? Please. This is simply a sad, pathetic, transparent attempt to find dirt on Obama - sadly, this "controversy" seems to "have legs" as the saying goes, in the non-Fox mainstream media - it's been all over the news lately, including NBC News, Time Magazine, CNN, etc. Here's hoping that Americans who think for themselves (non-Fox viewers) will see it for what it is - a network with an agenda that will stop at nothing to smear Obama. It's Bill Clinton all over again. Sadly, many will believe what they see and hear on Fox.

Our soldiers are dying in Iraq, there are a record number of mortgage foreclosures, oil is trading above $110 a barrel & our economy is collapsing, yet Fox wants to insult its viewers with tales of what Obama's pastor said years ago? I just don't believe these "Karl Rove" tactics are going to wash in 2008. I pray I'm right. But, Democrats cannot and must not take anything for granted - there are millions who believe all of this stuff. Speaking of Rove, is it ANY SURPRISE that Fox has hired this guy? The "network" really is a disgrace.

I find it astounding, but not surprising, that Repubes consistently whine and complain about the "librul media" (Bush pronunciation) when the highest rated cable news network is Fox, and one of the most visited Websites on the 'Net, and definitely the most visited political site, is the Drudge Report. Both of these propaganda media drive the rest of the media - Tim Russert taking his cues from Fox News in Part II above is a stark example of this.

And the Russert example above is not an exaggeration - it happens all the time. There are numerous examples of stories that first appear on Drudge, and it quickly makes its way into the rest of the media, reported as news.

By the way, guess which current federal office holder holds the record for Meet the Press appearances - it's John McCain, with 52 appearances. The media must be librul, right?

Yet, despite these truths, even some smart people drink the Fox Kool-Aid. I received this e-mail from one of my best friends yesterday about Obama:

Coming Home to Roost

Jeremiah Wright = Swift Boating 2008

As I said in my last e-mail - Obama needs to somehow sidestep his 20-year relationship with this time bomb, and even if he does, this one is not going away. What was a whisper is not being shouted from major networks.

First, he mentions "Swift Boating 2008" as if it's a good thing. My ill-informed friend no doubt has not seen the video comparison above, nor has probably seen any of the Democratic debates. Even if he has, his mind has no doubt been polluted by the intellectually dishonest snake oil salesmen at Fox, and its disciples.
~~~
However, the best interpretation of just what Fox, Roger Ailes & Rupert Murdoch are up to comes from the aforementioned Fox Attacks in a recent blog entry:

I had a very disturbing talk with my dad about Barack Obama.

I was on the phone with my parents telling them about the video I was working on, FOX ATTACKS! Obama Part 2: Spreading the Virus, and brought up how FOX (Sean Hannity, in particular) has been desperately trying to create a connection between Louis Farrakhan and Barack Obama because a magazine founded by Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and run by Wright's daughters recently gave Louis Farrakhan an award. I told my parents how Hannity went from saying the magazine gave Farrakhan the award to claiming Wright gave him the award (which he didn't) to saying that Obama "associated" with Farrakhan (which he hasn't). Hannity would mostly use these "stories" so he could rattle off some of Farrakhan's most offensive comments and mention Obama in the same breath, effectively linking the two in the minds of FOX viewers. He just wants to say, "Obama — Farrakhan — racist — anti-Semite" over and over again until they are linked, just as FOX did with "Iraq — Al Qaeda — 9/11 — terrorism" in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Of course, Hannity almost never mentions that Obama has repeatedly denounced Farrakhan's racist, anti-semitic, and inflammatory remarks, has called for more cooperation between the black and Jewish communities, has spoken before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and has been defended by the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and other prominent Jewish organizations. But Hannity doesn't want his viewers to know this. He just wants them to have a vague impression that Obama is an anti-semite and a black separatist.

When I mentioned this example to my parents, my dad said, "Wait, didn't Louis Farrakhan give Obama an award and Obama accepted it?" When I told him that this was completely off, he said, "Oh, I guess I must have heard it wrong."

Somewhere, Sean Hannity, Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch are poking holes in an Obama voodoo doll, laughing.

FDNY stokes Rudy ire fire

This is a pretty damning video by the national firefighters union, the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), about Rudy Giuliani and his "leadership" before, during and after 9-11. It's too early to tell whether it will have any political ramifications, but if anything, it must be pretty embarrassing to a man who could turn a Girl Scout cookie sale into a lesson about 9-11.

"The urban legend of America's Mayor need to be balanced by truth," a line uttered pretty early on in this video, is perhaps the best single sentence I've heard yet about Giuliani, who really has profited monetarily from 9-11 more than the any other individual, by far. (Of course, the award for who has profited politically the most from 9-11 is the most obvious of all - President Bush.)

It's pretty amazing that I hear Giuliani on television now never missing an opportunity to slam Democrats, particularly the Clinton administration, for the 1990s and how poorly prepared we were for 9-11. I've been writing for months that Giuliani's preparation in NYC for an attack following the 1993 WTC attack deserves closer scrutiny. I'm glad the firefighters union is stepping up efforts to inform an American public that has been snowed over by the mayor's slick, expensive PR effort to paint him as an American hero.

I find two allegations by the IAFF particularly disturbing: the pathetic radios that the Giuliani administration authorized the purchase and use of by FDNY without testing, and Giuliani's brilliant decision to locate his crisis command center at World Trade, despite the 1993 attack.

The radio controversy is particular damning - it's not like the city didn't have years to fix the problem -- 8 1/2 years elapsed between the World Trade Center attacks. And why a no-bid contract for the radios? Someone got paid, that's for sure. Why would I not be surprised if that someone is the mayor himself? It's not a stretch to say (and several firefighters do in the video above) that the pathetically inadequate radios the firefighters were equipped with cost dozens and dozens of firefighters their lives on 9-11.

Locating the command center at the World Trade Center is so utterly idiotic of a decision that it almost defies description. Just imagine if Japan was discovered to have sabotaged the U.S. Navy's base at Pearl Harbor in 1939, and Roosevelt insisted that the entire Atlantic fleet should still be located at Pearl? Then, boom - December 7, 1941. That's pretty much what Giuliani did in New York City - he decided to locate his crisis command center at the one place in NYC with the biggest bulls eye - the World Trade Center. I suppose he deserves credit for not putting the command center at the top of the Empire State Building, or on the 101st floor of the North Tower.

With stupid, ill-advised decisions like these, perhaps Giuliani could be described as a bald George W. Bush. Yea, just what we need - four (or, GASP! EIGHT!) more years of decision making like we've had to endure since 1.20.01.

Some will inevitably ask: "What does all of this have to do with Giuliani running for president?" Plenty. If the mayor of America's largest city makes idiotic decisions like this, what would he do as president?

Another potential Repube counter-attack will predictably go something like this:

Democrats complained about the supposed Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004, but now they are gleefully cheering the IAFF slamming Rudy Giuliani in this election season. What about this hypocrisy, Ann Coulter?

Wow, that was pretty good - I wonder if Karl Rove is hiring? Seriously though, how hard is it to envision Sean Insanity or Bill O'Lielly blabbering the above lines on their respective shows, and the sheeple who listen to them sopping it up on a plate with a biscuit?

This is not similar to Kerry's '04 Swiftboating, which was a despicable attack funded by far right financiers. This is the firefighters union, which Giuliani has pimped himself as being a champion of, slamming him for his decisions during 9-11 and for his lack of adequate preparation in the wake of the 1993 attacks.

The fallout from this will be the most interesting of all. Hopefully the 2008 Democratic candidates for president are storing this Giuliani stuff away; if the mayor receives the GOP nomination, fire away.

I still maintain my belief that Giuliani will not even receive the nomination, however. For once, I'm cheer leading the far fright right - he's moderate on a number of things that make him completely unacceptable to hardcore conservatives.

Bravo.

New Tenet book should be a solid read

I'm putting together a list of books I want to get through this summer, and former CIA Director George Tenet's book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, will be somewhere on that list.

Tenet is a study is contradictions, in my view, especially when dealing with the run-up to the War in Iraq, as well as the 9-11 attacks. You pick those two scabs, you uncover a lot of puss. There's no question in my mind that he deserves to shoulder some of the blame for 9-11, the greatest intelligence failure in U.S. history.

As for the War in Iraq, he deserves some blame, but he also jumped on a grenade for the Bush administration. We've all heard about his mindless assertion that the intelligence proving Iraq's WMD fetish was "a slam dunk." Hell, it wasn't even a lay-up.

So, I'm very interested to read his side of the story on these two critical events and what his perspective is. I wonder if it will be a "tell-all" book of sorts, much like Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies and Ron Suskind's book on Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill. (By the way, both books are excellent - if you haven't had a chance to read them, I highly recommend both.) If Tenet's book is on par with those two, we're in for a good read, and some additional insight into the schizophrenic workings of the Bush White House.

The more I think about it, Tenet's book just vaulted to hear the top of my reading list. I'll bring you my thoughts later this summer after I've digested this much-anticipated book.

P.S. - Keep an eye on the White House's reaction to this book. If it's in the vein of Clarke's and O'Neill's, the question won't be if they'll Swiftboat Tenet, but when.

Tenet's book goes on sale April 30.

Gore's Repube opponents bring lots of bark, very little bite

Could these morons be any more trite? This past week, Al Gore testified on Capitol Hill about global warming. I've already posted video of global warming denier-in-chief Jim Inhofe getting a beat down from Barbara Boxer, and that was good to see, but that didn't stop Repubes from bashing Gore on the talk show circuit.

I'm not going to repeat myself over and over in defending Gore on his home consumption habits - the "story" has been thoroughly debunked, especially when you consider the source; and that would be The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, and it's CEO, Drew Johnson. (Read more about that Here.)

From some of the less partisan stories I've read, maybe he could do a little better with energy consumption, but he's probably doing a helluva lot better than most Repubes, who think nothing of global warming. Many Repubes don't even acknowledge that global warming exists at all, so I'm quite certain that Gore is doing more to combat global warming than they are.

Terry Holt has a lot of balls being outraged at the supposed "hypocrisy" of Gore, stemming from his energy use at his home. I wonder if Holt is every bit as outraged at Newt Gingrich, who saw fit to go over President Clinton for adultery when Gingrich was getting some "Speaker of the House booty" on the side, while married?

What annoys me more than anything is the right's continued assertion that Gore said, "I invented the Internet."

It's one of the biggest bullshit lies of all time, yet Republicans, to dramatic effect, have repeated it over and over and over again. Repetition of this lie has been so great that the mainstream media has dutifully reported it as fact since before the 2000 election.

What Gore really said was this, during an Interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer in 1999:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have been important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Funny, I don't see anywhere in that statement where Gore was saying that he invented the Internet. Read the entire CNN interview transcript Here.

To read of a thorough dissection of this staple from the GOP lie book, click Here.

Best of all, read about Gore's role in Internet legislation from one of the Internet's true innovators, Vint Cerf, click Here.

Actually, it's boring to fight arguments that are eight years old, but to be honest, as long as Repubes keep spewing them forth, they are worth rebutting, because some people hear this stuff, and believe it.

Olbermann uncovers facts behind Gore Swiftboating

Speaking of global warming, I've been meaning to get to this one.

It took less than 24 hours for the smear mongers to come after Al Gore following his big night at the Academy Awards. Pretty impressive, actually. Unfortunately, pretty predictable, too. Haven't we seen this play before? John Kerry knows the answer.

By now, it's pretty obvious the neocons weren't about to let Gore enjoy even the slightest adulation without attacking him in some way.

Enter stage left - the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. On its Website, the TCPR presents itself as "an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to providing concerned citizens, the media and public leaders with expert research and timely free market policy solutions to public policy issues in Tennessee."

It takes less than 30 seconds of poking around on its site to quickly figure out that the TCPR is about as nonpartisan as Rush Limbaugh.

What really irked me about the Gore smear campaign is how it was reported as hard news (Read: fact) by so many new organizations. This is a case study about how a smear migrates to national news. A right-wing think tank issues a smarmy smear, which of course leads to Matt Drudge putting it on a plate and sopping it up with a biscuit. And the road from Drudge, a known right-wing shill for the Republican Party, to the national media is a short one. It's amazing how much credibility Drudge has. Funny how the stories he gets wrong don't seem to get reported, but that's another post for another time.

Anyway, media such as CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC, ABC and a host of other highly visible, popular media outlets reported the "facts" without obviously doing much, if any, reporting, unless you consider reporting as reading what Drudge and the TCPR Websites published and presenting it as news.

Here's an example of tertiary reporting at best, which took me inside of 10 minutes: Drew Johnson (right), the president of TCPR, has this line in his biography on TCPR's Website: "Johnson’s work has appeared in over 300 publications including USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and Human Events."

Any journalist who can find his rump with his own two hands should have raised a red flag when reading that in his online bio. Considering the coverage, I doubt anyone decided to read it. Does anybody actually investigate anymore, or is that something looked upon as quaint or old fashioned? One can imagine some of these "reporters" sniping, "That was something that Woodward and Bernstein did, but I don't have time for that - I've got deadlines to meet!"

USA Today aside, the other three publications mentioned in Johnson's bio are known right-wing publications; National Review and Human Events make Rush Limbaugh look liberal, and the Wall Street Journal's editorial page reads like a press release from the RNC.

One person who did bother to do some research was Keith Olbermann. If you haven't listened to the clip above yet, click on it and listen.

Olbermann ticks off some great facts about Johnson, highlighted by his work for the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank which denies global warming exists. The AEI has received funding from these credible, non-partisan sources: ExxonMobile and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. Anyone familiar with the Clinton witch hunt in the 1990s knows the name Scaife.

The number that sticks in everyone's mind is that Gore's electric bill is "20 times the national average." Nevermind that the average home in the United States is about 2,500 square feet. Gore's house has 20 rooms, two offices and a guesthouse, as well as other security measures that are necessary as a former vice president. Why would a house like that use more electricity? It escapes me.

As usual, let's not let facts get in the way of a good 'ole fashioned Swiftboating.

This is PR 101, as well as a well-used page out of Karl Rove's playbook: Put out the smear, knowing that it might be debunked by anyone who bothers to perform 20 minutes of actual reporting. But, the lie will stick more than the facts that come out after the smear is widespread.

In a sick, twisted way, you almost can't blame the GOP and its supporters. This tactic has worked before - remember "I invented the Internet"?

My favorite part in the Olbermann clip is when he wonders how the global warming deniers get around the fact that even President Bush, one of our most anti-environmental presidents ever, has acknowledged that global warming is a problem, as well as evangelical clergymen.

What we are seeing here is the pathetic, last gasps by big business and its donors against a global problem that just about everyone who isn't to the right of Ann Coulter on the political spectrum has acknowledged - is that global warming is here to stay. And it really is an inconvenient truth to some.

Global Warming is the New Big Tobacco

Global warming is beginning to remind me of big tobacco. For decades, the cigarette companies denied, denied, denied and paid hundreds of millions to keep their big lie going. Eventually, the house of cards (or should I say, cash) collapsed around them, and they had to acknowledge what scientists had been saying for years - that smoking cigarettes kills.

I really hope Gore gets in the '08 race. I'd love nothing more than to see Gore settle the score from the 2000 race, and to trounce whomever the GOP nominates.

Urge Al to run by clicking Here.

Kerry grills major SBVT donor

Well, this came nearly three years too late, but better late than never, I guess.

Sam Fox, the Bush Administration's nominee for ambassador to Belgium, had to face the fire recently from the man he helped slander, defame and attempted to politically destroy - John Kerry, the Massachusetts Senator and 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee. Fox donated $50,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), a tax-exempt 527 founded in 2004 by long-time Republican benefactor John O'Neill. (More on O'Neill in a bit.)

I got a particular kick out of Fox's blatant ass kissing of Kerry toward the end of the video clip in the face of Kerry's steady, unyielding questioning. Kerry wouldn't let him off, and Fox had nowhere to go. Evidently, Fox at one point called Kerry "a hero," but it's not in this clip.

Unbelievable.

There's no freakin' question that Fox was lying through his teeth - who would donate $50,000 and not remember where it went? Anyone who donated that much to the SBVT certainly was very aware of what that organization was saying about Kerry. Clearly, he supported the lies and slander that were being spread (truth be damned), or he wouldn't have donated the $50,000.

There were some left-leaning 527s in the 2004 campaign as well, most notably MoveOn.org. MoveOn aired some anti-Bush ads and were working against Republicans and the Bush campaign, no question, but there were no established ties between the Kerry campaign and MoveOn that I've read about, anyway, and I've done a fair amount of reading on the subject.

Anyway, the bottom line is that MoveOn and the SBVT paid whompin' fines last December for campaign finance violations. The SBVT paid the highest fine, which was around $300,000.

The founder of the SBVT, John O'Neill, is human garbage who can't seem to let go of the fact that Kerry has been a success despite the '04 campaign. He has long ties to the Bush family (as does Sam Fox) and is a regular contributor to Insanity and Colmes.

Following Fox's testimony and grilling by Kerry on the Hill a little over a week ago, O'Neill, of course, appeared on Insanity and Colmes. Just a tidbit:

HANNITY: So are you wondering if Senator Kerry is bitter? Joining us now is the man who created the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, John O'Neill is back with us.

John, first of all, your reaction to the overreaction and this real bitterness of Senator Kerry?

JOHN O'NEILL, SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH: Sean, he just won't let it go. You know, he spent 37 years obsessed with three-and-a-half months in Vietnam. Everybody else went about their business, had jobs, you know, did other things. Our kids didn't even know we were there. You can see it again the same way.

But the retaliation by Kerry follows a very — a pattern that's gone on ever since the election. They went and picketed my home during my daughter's wedding.

Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam was a Captain George Elliott. Immediately before — while his wife had cancer, he received an e-mail, she did, wishing, hoping that she died. She did die three weeks later. He really should be ashamed for what he's done.

HANNITY: Well, I want to ask you this, because you talk about the politics of personal destruction. Clearly, you're the victim of this here.

More importantly, you know, here's a guy that's up for a position. He has a different political point of view. Now, my take is that, if the real liar the person that really smeared individuals, well, that was John Kerry. John Kerry smeared the good character, the good name of Vietnam vets like yourself, and he lied about them, and he made accusations that they were murderers, and that they were terrorizing people, and cutting off head and arms and limbs, etc.

We don't have to rehash all of it here, but it seems to me it's John Kerry. But the important question is here, because somebody dared to disagree with him, donate money to a campaign that was against him from president, he now is using his position, or misusing his position, to take revenge. Is that what you saw in this?

[...]

COLMES: Mr. Fox, by the way, who John Kerry was questioning, just referred to John Kerry as a hero. Do you agree with your contributor, Mr. Fox, who said that?

O'NEILL: Mr. Fox and 155,000 other people, but, no, the great heroes we had, Alan, are all back in Vietnam. They all died there. I think if you talk to the people in our unit, you would find that we believe those are the great heroes we had. And I think you'd find also that most of us don't live on our experience there like Kerry does.

HANNITY: I don't know if George Bush would have won re-election but for you guys telling the truth. And as far as I'm concerned, you're all heroes. John O'Neill, you're a great American. Thank you for being with us.

O'NEILL: Thank you, Sean.

Oh, what the hell - take a look at the Insanity and Colmes video - here it is - see for yourself. I'm warning you though, anger is sure to follow.



This video clip just enrages me, although I know it shouldn't. Hannity is a gutless, uneducated, soulless person who does or says anything to advance the cause of Fox News and his hero, President Bush. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard Insanity say to O'Neill, "Clearly, you are the victim here." I'll let that one stand on its own.

Does anyone really believe that John Kerry, or someone in John Kerry's stead, really e-mailed a dying wife and wished death on her? O'Neill is the lowest form of human filth who will say or do anything to smear Kerry. It's well documented that part of O'Neill's animosity toward Kerry stems from Kerry's anti-war activities once he returned from Vietnam. Never mind the fact that Kerry was exercising his constitutional right to speak out against a war that he felt was immoral and unjust. (Score Kerry right on both counts.)

O'Neill has a long and storied history with the Republican Party, going all the way back to the Nixon White House, who recruited him to combat Kerry in the court of public opinion. Kerry's Congressional testimony and anti-war activities infuriated Nixon.

Secondly, college drop-out Insanity calling O'Neill a hero is about what I'd expect from a right-wing ideologue who would spin President Bush murdering someone into it somehow being the Democrats' fault (and if he could tie in Bill Clinton somehow, all the better). If I were to ever meet Insanity, I'd have a hard time controlling my absolute, right-down-to-my-bones hatred for him.

It's not a stretch to say that the SBVT played a pretty significant role in Kerry's defeat in 2004. In a close election decided by less than four million votes, it could have made the difference. It's just too bad that Kerry waited nearly three years too long to aggressively combat the SBVT's lies, slander and falsehoods. O'Neill and his band of liars did have an impact, and I witnessed some of it personally - a few of my Republican best friends bought into the SBVT's lies and distortions hook, line and sinker.

Now in his early sixties, Kerry has probably missed his chance to ever be president. For what it's worth, I still have a tremendous amount of respect for Kerry and his wife, Theresa Heinz Kerry, despite the campaign Kerry ran in '04 that was beleaguered by poor decisions and even worse advice from incompetent advisers. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, enough people bought into the SBVT's b.s. to have an impact on the election.

Score another phony Mission Accomplished for President Bush.

Time for more cartoons

I found some great political cartoons on the Internet today, most of them from Slate Magazine. As many of you know by now, I have a profound love of the political cartoon, especially the biting ones that get straight to the point. The less words the better - I like the story to be told in pictures.

This one hits close to home, but it's true.

I'm really going to miss Dick Cheney after 1.20.09, because there is no one I love disliking more than him, and that's saying something, considering the level of incompetence of many in the Bush Administration. Above are just a few examples of the absolute bunk that comes out of Cheney's pie hole.

This one is money. I'm SO tired of the idiotic, oversimplification of Cut and Run. I love it that when Great Britain announces its withdraw of forces from Iraq, it's "a sign of the success" in Iraq, but when Democrats want to bring our troops home, it's Cut and Run. Damn liberal media!

Speaks for itself. I'll have more on the Cheney close call a bit later.

Another one that's tragically right on the money. I was listening to Sean Insanity this past week, and I heard him blabbering on about how we should be going to war with Iran and how we should be treating that country in the strictest possible terms. Mark him down as another Republican who knows nothing of war, since he never served, but who is all gung ho to send more troops to another country. If it comes to war with Iran, it comes to war, but, unlike Iraq, let's exhaust all diplomatic options first. Since up until this past week we haven't even been talking to Iran, we've got a long way to go before we can declare that we gave diplomacy every chance to work.

I'll have more on this one soon, too, but the cartoon is a good summary of what is going on with cervical cancer vaccines.

Right on the money. Thank God for small favors - President Bush returned to the Gulf Coast this past week for the first time in six months. Without even checking, I wonder how many times Bush has been back to his Crawford "Ranch" since he last visited Hurricane Katrina victims? And I wonder if a stop off in New Orleans, Mississippi and other hard hit areas from the worst natural disaster in history would really have been that inconvenient?

Katrina and the federal government's response (and seeming indifference) to it reminds me at least a little to Hurricane Andrew, a devastating Category 5 hurricane that struck south Florida in 1992. President George H.W. Bush was slow to respond to that disaster, but not on the scale of the ineptitude of his son's handling of Katrina.

Good for Al Gore. He's battled Republican lies, slander, distortions and outright lies for decades, but, with the exception of the 2000 presidential election, he's rarely melted like so many polar ice caps. This week saw more of the Karl Rove playbook, when an allegedly non-biased think talk went after him for his electricity bills, less than 24 hours after his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Oscar for best documentary. The Swiftboating sure was swift, and thankfully, so was the revelation that the whole attack on Gore was bunk.

Love it.

This one hits close to home, too, because of bitter memories I have about the '04 presidential campaign. Yes, Kerry flip flopped (I'm soooooo effin' tired of that term) on several issues, but Bush's list was twice as long. And, what did we get from the Kerry camp? Silence.

This time around, so far it's McCain, Giuliani and Romney who are doing their best to be all things to all people. All three of the GOP front runners have, thus far, switched positions more than a porn star.

When I say I love political cartoons that say a lot by saying a little, this is the kind I'm talking about, and this one almost certainly is the truth. But, we'll probably never know Libby's whole story, or how Bush & his cohorts lied to get us into the war, considering this administration's Nixon-like penchant for secrecy.

I'd be remiss if I left out the Walter Reed controversy. This story is far from over & bears watching over the coming months, if not years.

It's hard to comprehend how our troops are being treated and "cared for" at Walter Reed and elsewhere.

It looks like help finally is on the way, thanks to some investigative journalism on the part of two Washington Post reporters, Dana Priest and Anne Hull. In a day where responsible and relevant journalism is becoming more scarce by the day, it was good to see that journalism can still function as The Fourth Estate, thereby effectively bringing about much needed change in our government. There isn't nearly enough of this today.

I don't think it's overreaching to say that if something happened today with the scope and size of Watergate, it would probably go at least partially unreported or perhaps even covered up. Lazy journalism is now the norm; slipshod reporting can no longer be referred to as isolated or seldom seen. Lazy journalists have been around for hundreds of years, but the level and quality of journalism seems to be regressing.

So, it appears that Bush never knew about conditions at Reed. I don't accept that, but even if I did, how could this have happened at the Pentagon? Where was defense department oversight? Two words: Donald Rumsfeld.

Another one right on the money.

Phew! Okay, that's enough cartoons for a while. But, I found all of these today and I couldn't decide which ones to post, so I decided to put 'em all up.

Al's back - Attack! Attack!

Well, that didn't take long. Less than 24 hours after An Inconvenient Truth took home two Oscars, including Best Documentary, the Swiftboating of Gore (Above, with Truth's Director, Davis Guggenheim) has begun, led by GOP shill Matt Drudge.

Now Gore's utility bills are being discussed all over the Internet. I'm not even going to get into specifics, because frankly it's a waste of my time, but at first glance, his energy bills are higher than the national average, and Drudge's Website goes on to list the dollar amounts of his bills. What's lost in the right-wing rhetoric is that Gore also owns a house much larger than the national average. In less than 10 minutes this morning, I read with glee on a few Websites, including the right-wing blog Wizbang, conservatives who are busting Gore's balls for owning a large home (and also John Edwards).

Can you imagine? Conservatives, the party of the rich and shameless, decrying the estates of Gore and Edwards? Both men have earned large sums of money; Gore as a politician and activist, and Edwards first as a trial lawyer. They weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths, like some presidents we know. But, I digress.

Predictably, right-wing hate mongers immediately went on the attack. Cue footage of Sean Insanity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc. People, if Ann Coulter said that 9-11 widows are enjoying their husbands' deaths, what do you think she'll say about Al Gore's energy habits?

Some conservatives are blubbering about how environmentally friendly President Bush's Crawford "Ranch" is, and how it gets no press. It doesn't, and that's not fair. But honestly, how can conservatives expect Bush to get good press about what he's done on his ranch, when he's done virtually nothing beneficial for the environment as president? Someone, anyone, tell me five meaningful things he's done to help curb greenhouse gases since taking office. He did do one meaningful thing, right after taking office - he broke a 2000 election campaign promise for mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions. Oops. But hey, Mr. President, nice job on making sure your "ranch" is environmentally friendly. Now, how about doing something environmentally friendly for the rest of the country, since you haven't for over six years as president?

These attacks come as no surprise, though. Much of the effort to combat the science and reasoning behind global warming has come from Big Oil, which has billions of dollars at its disposal to distort and deceive. Who among us expected Big Oil and its paid-for politicians (and the pundits who support them) to just go away and give Al his due?

Gore has responded by saying that he purchases carbon offsets to make up the difference for his energy consumption. Call me incredibly presumptuous, but I believe him. Why wouldn't I? If Gore cared that little about the environment, why would he go around the globe trying to combat it? Why not just retire? Or give the occasional speech for a nice speaking fee and continue teaching, thereby leading a low-profile life?

Instead, Gore chooses to lead, to try to make a difference. Yes, he is indeed a horrible man.

Part of his response to right-wing snooping into his utility bills is this:

He buys 100 percent of his electricity from renewal power sources (Tennessee Valley Green Power Switch). What is Green Power Switch? The revolutionary idea is simple - harness the natural power of the wind, the sun, and the earth to create an energy source that's usable in our homes and everyday lives. TVA and local public power companies, working in cooperation with the environmental community, developed Green Power Switch as a way to bring "green" power - electricity generated by renewable resources (for example, solar, wind, & methane gas) - to Valley consumers, where Gore lives.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, but of course, what are the chances that his answer and explanation will mollify conservatives? About as much of a chance as our leaving Iraq anytime soon. Hmm, I can see how that would annoy conservatives. Maybe that's what I'll do from now on - whenever conservatives have a point, I'll just bring up the War in Iraq, then deny that I was making any kind of connection. Kind of like President Bush brings up 9-11 whenever he wants to make a point about anything, including Iraq.

One final thought - people wonder why good candidates never want to run for public office. This would be an example. The politics of personal destruction has so denigrated our political process, it's to the point where you would almost have to be crazy to seek higher office these days. Gore is probably laughing to himself this morning and shaking his head. Could anyone honestly blame him for saying to his wife, Tipper, over scones and fresh crepes (because that's what snobby, polluting liberals eat every morning for breakfast) "You wonder why I don't want to run for president again? This is why."

Pathetic and sad.

I still hope he runs. And if he does, I hope he has a lot more fight in him than he did in 2000. I have no doubt that he would, but all along he's been a long shot to run. This morning, the odds of a Gore candidacy are probably got a little longer.

Well, I spent about twice the amount of time on that as I thought I would. Vandra tells me I spend too much time blogging, and she's absolutely right, but sometimes I can't help myself - I have this incessant need to ridicule right-wing stupidity when I see it.

I wonder about Down Under

I was shaking my head in disgust today when I read a story on Google News about Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

In it, Howard, a noted sycophant of President Bush, is quoted as saying this about 2008 DemocratIC presidential candidates, specifically Barack Obama :

"If America pulls out of Iraq in March 2008 [as Obama has called for] it can only be in circumstances of defeat,'' said Howard. "If I were running Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.''

First off, wanker, mind your own country. Howard Stern makes more sense than you do, Mr. Howard.

Do I even need to discuss how outrageous it is that Howard would make such a claim? Who did this guy call for political advice, Dick Cheney? (Who can forget Cheney's remarks in the fall of 2001 that legislators who dared to vote against the USA Patriot Act were "siding with the terrorists." I know I won't let people forget.)

To his credit, Obama didn't take those remarks sitting down.

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1,400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq,'' Obama told reporters in Iowa.

If Howard did not take up the invitation, Obama said the comments would become nothing more than "empty rhetoric.''

Good call, Obama. Australia's criticizing Obama and our DemocratIC presidential candidates? Who's next, Poland? (Remember Bush in '04? He snickered, "You Forgot Poland!" to John Kerry in a presidential debate when Kerry was talking about the War in Iraq and the "massive" coalition Bush had gathered before the war.)

"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced [I would run for the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination]," said Obama.

Ya heard?!?

Two things were very clear about Obama on the very day his 2008 campaign officially kicked off - this guy is no John Kerry, and he's not going to be Swiftboated.

Quick! Run for your lives! Hillary's in!

You never forget your first, and I got my first "Hillary is the sign of the devil" forward since she declared her candidacy for president in 2008 from one of my aunt's friends a few days ago.

I'll let the idiocy speak for itself, other than to quickly note that I discovered, after a little research, that Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan and the senior Bushes also still have Secret Service protection (as they are entitled to, as all ex-presidents and their wives are). In 1997, the Republican-controlled Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, a bill that limits Secret Service protection to 10 years after leaving office. This was done for a good reason - former first families were essentially using the Secret Service as a limo service. (I have this on pretty good authority - I personally know a former Secret Service agent who was on presidential detail.)

Former first families of both parties are guilty of this. Does anyone honestly think that the Carters, Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan or Lady Bird Johnson are really in any danger? They are not.

Also, the forward below mocks the Clintons for moving to New York so Hillary could run for the Senate. Didn't the Bushes used to live in Connecticut? In fact, or current prez was born there. This is America - people are free to move and live where they like.

Anyway, enough from me - check out this gem. I tried to recreate the forward with the colors, and of course, the priceless pictures. I replied to all the recipients with my brief thoughts on this truly eloquent forward (and I actually kept those thoughts brief, even though this post is not. Sorry.) and asked the sender to refrain from sending me any more of this garbage.

Well, enjoy. My comments appear in parenthetical references, in red. ...

"United We Stand!!"

"The real definition of Rotten"

You really should be sitting down when you read this one.

Gold Star Mothers (G.S.M.) is an organization made up of women whose sons were killed in military combat during service in the United States Armed Forces.

(Too bad GSM has 3,000 new members, and growing, on President George WMD Bush's watch, all for a lie in Iraq. Anyone with a plan on how to get out of this mess, write to the president at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20081-0001. Trust me, he needs the advice, but it's doubtful he'll listen.

Just like he didn't listen to the Baker-Hamilton Commission, a bipartisan group that made over 79 recommendations, with a report that was 160 pages in length. But, all I ever hear is the president and Congressional Republicans (but the number of the latter is shrinking) who whine that the Democrats have no plan. The last I read, Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats want to put most of those recommendations in place, but Bush and Cheney continue to ignore those recommendations. How much taxpayer money was wasted there?)

Recently a delegation of New York State Gold Star Mothers made a trip to Washington, D.C. , to discuss various concerns with their elected Representatives.

According to published reports, there was only one politician who refused to meet with these ladies. Can you guess which politician that might be?

Was it New York Senator Charles Schumer?

Nope, he met with them.

Try again.

Do you know anyone serving in the Senate who has never showed anything but contempt for our military? Do you happen to know the name of any politician in Washington whose husband once wrote of his loathing for the military?

(The Clintons grew up in the 1960s and went to college during Vietnam. Despising the military then was about as exclusive as the white pages. How dumb does the author of this e-mail think I am? I guess pretty dumb.)

Now you're getting warm! You got it!

None other than the Queen herself, Hillary Rotten Clinton!

(Rotten? Wow, that's original - almost as original as my admittedly lame "Bill O'Lielly" [thanks, Al Franken]. And the picture is priceless - God, I love Photoshop and people who have this much time on their hands. Hey, I guess I have a lot of time on my hands, too. Oops.)

She refused repeated requests to meet with the Gold Star Mothers.

Now, please don't tell me you're surprised. This woman wants to be President of the United States -- and there is a huge percentage of voters who are eager to help her achieve that goal.

May you sleep in peace always...and please...hug or thank a veteran for that privilege.

(So, I guess people should not hug or thank Senator John Kerry, the '04 Democratic Nominee who was Swiftboated and made to look like a traitor for winning three purple hearts and a bronze star medal. At right, a churlish rube at the GOP 2004 Republican Convention shows her thanks to Kerry by wearing a purple heart Band-Aid. Does that qualify as thanking a veteran?

What about hugging Dick Cheney, the beneficiary of five deferments, who is one record as saying he had "other priorities" during the Vietnam War, or the president himself, who, in the words of Maureen Dowd, so famously leapfrogged over thousands of other applicants to get a spot on the Texas Air National Guard to "protect Texas from Oklahoma.")

Think about this one!!

Don't forget, our girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York Senator, now comes under this fancy Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan. It's common knowledge that, in order for her to establish NYS residency, they purchased a million+ dollar house in upscale Chappaqua, NY. Makes sense.

Now, they are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting. The mortgage payments hover at about $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residency had to be built within the acreage in order to house the Secret Service agents.

The Clintons now charge the Secret Service $10,000 monthly rent for the use of said Secret Service residence and that rent is just about equal to their mortgage payment, meaning that we, the tax payers, are paying the Clintons' mortgage, their transportation, their safety and security, their 12-man staff, and it's all perfectly legal.

(So, if it's legal and you're upset, Commander, write your legislators and press to have the law changed. Quick! Before another Democrat gets in the White House and we have to needlessly spend taxpayer money to keep said Democrat and the first family safe.

I wonder how much the government has paid and will pay for the extra facilities on the president's Crawford Ranch, during his presidency and after? And Nixon's Western White House? Or Reagan's?

If you do some research, [unlikely that Sean Hannity, the probable author of this forward, did much research or that he even knows the meaning of the word - he didn't even finish college] there are some interesting figures out there, specifically with Nixon's improvements to his homes, all at taxpayer expense, while he was president. But hey, let's not let numbers and facts get in the way of a Hillary Swiftboating.

Anyone who wants to complain about taxpayer money being wasted should read about the Starr Report - $70 million, all to investigate a blow job. For you mathematicians, that's 7,000 months of the government's alleged payments to the Clinton's for the Secret Service's facilities at their Chappaqua home, but I digress.)

Sincerely, Cmdr. Hamilton McWhorter U.S.N. (retired)

P.S.: Please forward this to as many people as you can. We don't want this woman to even think of running for President. (Too late.) So, just how many people can you send this to? (None.) It will take no more than 2 minutes. Thanks. (Now that I didn't forward it, will something bad happen to me in 10 minutes?)

##

Thanks for your service to our country, Commander. However, since you have so much time on your hands, if, in fact, you are the author of this e-mail, perhaps you have time to write to the president to implore him to end this idiotic and stupid war. While you're at it, maybe you can illustrate to him the real costs of combat in terms of human sacrifice, much less the hundreds of billions being spent to rebuild a country we were so intent on destroying. Because the president has no idea about combat, since he and his vice president took pains not to go when their generation was called to fight.

Ultimately, I don't know if Hillary is qualified to be president or not - that's what I hope to find out during next year's presidential primaries - who the best qualified candidate is. However, I'm reasonably confident that she's more qualified and a great deal brighter than the current occupant of the oval office.

And I'm not forwarding this e-mail to anyone, but it sure was fun debunking it. If I get any more like this, my DELETE button is one keystroke away. Let's quit fighting the pseudo-wars of the 1990s against the Clintons, and let's turn our energies to finding Osama bin Laden, the man responsible for the 9-11 attacks, and also toward ending the War in Iraq.

Have a nice day.

McCain's misguided Iraq proposal

Here's judas John McCain pontificating on how we are going to win or lose in Iraq in the next "several months" on Sunday's Meet the Press. What a truckload of crap. I'm sick and tired of hearing politicians say we can win in Iraq, all for political gain. There IS NO WINNING IN IRAQ, period, and the sooner our leaders realize it, the better. What, exactly, would constitute a victory? The terrorists laying down their arms and pledging not to kill any more Americans or Iraqis? That will never happen.

McCain is insane if he wants to send in more troops to that hell hole. An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the move, and in this case, I think the opinion polls have a point. McCain correctly points out that you can't conduct foreign policy from opinion polls. I'd add "most of the time" to that phrase, though. And in this case, I'm afraid the American people are right.

What are more troops going to accomplish? More combat deaths. It's funny, as I listened to the whole episode of MTP, I was struck by the overtones of Vietnam in McCain's choice of words, i.e. - using phrases like "sweep and hold" and talking about the need for more troops. His reasoning, that chaos would spread in the area if we pulled out, is reminiscent of Vietnam; the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations all felt that if Vietnam fell to the communists, then all of Southeast Asia would fall to communism. This "domino effect" never happened, and we paid for that mistake in a tragic amount of American blood - over 58,000 war dead. I hope and pray that we don't ever make that same mistake again, but we may be on the verge of doing just that. I feel analogies to Vietnam have been wildly overdone in the press, but it seems like we get closer and closer every day to that analogy becoming all too real.

What really riled me was when Russert pressed McCain on why the American people should believe him, or believe that his strategy would work, the Senator replied that people should trust him because of his military background. Spoken sotto voce, McCain is implying that because he spent 5 1/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton, we should trust his foreign policy proposals? Sorry, I ain't buyin' it. I'm not Swiftboating McCain here - he's a hero and I can't even begin to imagine what he went through as a POW. But, that doesn't qualify him to set Iraq policy, or be president.

Just as an aside, where were the Democratic Senators on MTP on Sunday? I realize that Harry Reid, the soon-to-be Democratic Senate Majority Leader, was on Face the Nation, but I'm sure Tim Russert could have found someone from the Democratic side of the aisle. Joe Lieberman barely qualifies, since he's a self-identified "I.D.," as in "Independent Democrat," as he told Russert.

I wax and wane on whether I like Russert or not - it depends on the week, the guests, and the show, but most times he does a pretty effective job at taking politicians to task on their answers, especially when it differs from their past answers on the issues. One thing's for sure - Russert is always prepared, researched and ready to interview his guests, and most of the time, he's not afraid of the hard-hitting question, and that applies to Democrats and Republicans alike. Journalists of his ilk are in shockingly short supply these days.



Just a quick blast from the past. This is McCain on Meet the Press earlier this year, explaining that Jerry Falwell is NOT (emphasis mine) "an agent of intolerance." The Senator has a nice dodge at the end of this clip, too, when Russert asks him if he thinks Falwell is just that: "I think Jerry Falwell can explain his views on this program when you have him on."

I sure hope Democrats store away this video clip for the '08 campaign - this is shameless pandering to the far right for votes, and it sickens me. I won't even waste my time explaining why Falwell is so despicable, save for one example: following the 9-11 attacks, he opined that gays and abortion doctors were part of the reason the attacks happened.

Does that sound like intolerance to you?

Senator McCain, please run. Please.

He'll get torn to pieces, if the Democratic Nominee has any backbone.

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.