McCain's beliefs on our soldiers inconsistent

One of the running themes of this blog from now until election day will be pointing out John McCain's inconsistencies (I'm being kind) on a host of issues.

The footage above is from a little while ago on Meet the Press, when Tim Russert took McCain to task for some of his past words on a U.S. Military mission abroad - in Somalia. We all know how that tragically ended, and the war was certainly mismanaged. (President Clinton often gets ridiculed for that mission, but the record shows that President Bush (41) put our troops in the country, not Clinton.)

Anyway, Russert uses McCain's words against him about Iraq, and clearly McCain doesn't like it. Too bad.

Yes, Somalia and Iraq are different in many ways, but there are some similarities, too. McCain's stance on Iraq is wrong, and has been wrong for years. It should also be noted that it differs pretty widely from American public opinion about the war, but that doesn't seem to faze him in the least. We'll see if the American public thwarts his ultimate goal in about 151 days.

800k healthy kids, or one week in Iraq?

Few things have been more outrageous on the domestic front than President Bush's refusal to re-fund the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Actually, I don't know what's more absurd - Bush's refusal to fund the program, or his despicable and pathetic excuse for refusing to do so that "it's too expensive."

The War in Iraq, with the latest funding request, the tab thus far is over $600 billion. Yes, you read that right. And, if you think that's the end of the bill, think again. By the time it's all said and done, (will it ever be done?!?) the tab for the war could well end up over $1 trillion or more.

People like President Bush have never had to worry about medical care for anyone in his family, including his twin daughters, so what would he know about the importance of SCHIP?

If Democrats are smart, and God only knows most of the time they aren't, they will never, ever let voters (and Republicans) forget that the Bush administration didn't think it's important - that there's a price that was too high for our children.

The notion that President Bush is a fiscal conservative is one of the most laughable notions that this administration has ever tried to stuff down our throats.

Sleep tight, W.

Olbermann special comment on war funding

I know I'm bringing this one to you a bit late, but it's still apropos, and just as powerful as the day Keith Olbermann delivered it a little over a week ago.

This is one Olbermann's best, most powerful special comments in memory. I can't even add much to what he says, only that I emphatically agree. Sen. Harry Reid is an absolute disgrace - I no longer have any confidence whatsoever in his ability to lead the Democrats, and this Congress, to do anything resembling forcing our war-criminal president to withdraw our troops from Iraq.

And quite frankly, I don't have all that much more confidence in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The only solace I have in both Pelosi and Reid leading Congress is that at least they are stirring up debate about this war. But, in reality, that is about all they are doing. However, if Republicans still controlled Congress, there would have been no debate - it would have been another rubber-stamped war funding bill.

I do tire of World War II references in our political discourse, but in this case, Olbermann is right to bring up Neville Chamberlain; because that's exactly who the Democrats resemble right now.

Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and President Bush have all won again - there can be no doubt. I've never seen a party so scared to stand up for what the voters returned them to power for in the first place - to end this war. The Democrats resemble the scrawny geek on the playground who is scared of the class bully (the GOP); all the bully has to do is raise his fist and threaten violence, and the geek runs away.

It's worth noting that Republicans can and must share blame for the continuation of funding for this war - were it not for the large block of Republicans who voted against cutting off funding and putting in time lines for withdraw, the end of this war would be in sight. It's Republicans who prevented veto-proof passage of a bill with time lines for withdraw in both houses of Congress. Where I find major fault with Democrats is that they took one stab at sending Bush a funding bill with withdraw mandates, he vetoed it, and the Dems clapped their hands and sighed, "We tried."

Our troops are no closer to coming home today than they were the day after the elections last November, so the debate over funding is just political posturing that has made no difference in the lives of our soldiers and their families. Tell the troops in Iraq who are fighting, some of whom may die today and tomorrow, that Congress is "debating," and see what type of response you get.

The whole "fund the troops or they will be in jeopardy" is the biggest farce, the worst line of b.s. that I've heard in American politics in years, if not decades. Does anyone HONESTLY BELIEVE that Bush and the military would leave our troops in Iraq to die if they ran out of ammunition, fuel and food of funding were cut off?

The bottom line is that this was a game of political chicken, and the Democrats blinked. This should surprise no one. In the pit of my stomach, I knew the Dems didn't have the political will to do what was right. Republicans simply have a much more powerful, stronger PR and marketing effort in their campaign and efforts for perpetual war.

What's the worst that could have happened to the Democrats if they denied funding to the troops - if they had held their ground? The American public would have been outraged, (and I don't think so) and the Democrats would have lost power in 2008, BUT the troops would have had to be withdrawn from Iraq. Now, the troops remain in harm's way, and the Democrats may lose power anyway because they've been exposed as the spineless wimps they truly are.

W won the battle, but he's still losing the war

Senator Chris Dodd, to date, has been as sensible as any Democratic Presidential Candidate about the War in Iraq. He's right - Bush is unwilling to do anything about his policy and the War in Iraq.

I've been pretty angry with Democrats about how they have capitulated to President Bush on Iraq, but I'm much more outraged at Republicans, who, through their votes, have allowed this idiotic, misguided war to continue. As far as I'm concerned, Republicans who voted for this war to continue all have blood on their hands. (And that goes for any Democrats [Hi, Senator Lieberman] who voted in favor of funding with no time tables for withdraw.)

As Thom Hartmann so succinctly put it on his radio show the other day, our collective outrage really had ought to be directed at Republicans, who allowed funding to continue by not giving either house in Congress a veto-proof majority to end funding for this war. But I've still got plenty of venom left for Democrats, too.

I just don't get it.

On Wednesday, Carl Hulse in the New York Times cited "senior Democrats" in a new analysis piece:

Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break — the second recess since the financing fight began — and leaving themselves vulnerable to White House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.

Some lawmakers favored sending Mr. Bush another bill with a timetable for withdrawal and risking a second veto, the senior Democrats said. But they said they had questioned whether such a measure could pass the Senate a second time, raising the possibility that Congress would be left sitting on the bill and carrying the blame.

"It would have stayed at this end of Pennsylvania Avenue," Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said of a second timeline measure. I guess the current "leaders" in the Democratic Party have never heard of an idea called "having courage for your convictions."

First of all, who gives a DAMN about Bush criticism? I still cannot believe, after all that has happened in the last 6+ years, that the Democratic leadership still runs and hides at the threat of White House attacks. It pains me to write this, but somewhere, Rasputin Rove is sitting and laughing at this latest turn of events. Never in modern history in this country has a president with scarcely over 18 months left in his presidency wielded so much power.

The time table abandonment is particularly galling since the chief reason Democrats were put in power last November was to fight Bush on Iraq and to end this war.

The time for the Democrats to sink their teeth into Bush's rear end is now. The Democratic rank and file voters want them to do it. Public opinion is on the side of the Democrats, too. I'd like to know just what else they need to get this job done.

I've read all sorts of conflicting reports about what will happen next year - a second surge, increasing troops levels, a massive reduction in forces, or more of the same. I'm not sure what's going to happen, but this you can bet on - the Republicans will find a way to spin developments in Iraq to blame it all on Democrats.

But, who needs a crystal ball to figure that out?

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.

White House rejects Democratic proposal on war funding

This is probably the least surprising political news of the week. The White House, in yet another amazing show of hubris and stubbornness, has rejected the Democrats' latest war funding proposal.

Anyone with a pulse who has even heard of the word Iraq can't be surprised by this latest development. President Bush has grown accustomed to a blank check since this war began, and it's pretty obvious he's not going to give it up without a fight.

However, clearly there are some cracks developing in Republican Congressional support. Last week, 11 Republicans went to the White House to let Bush know that he can't count on their support forever.

Now, September seems to be the buzz month du jour - we're promised if things aren't better by then, there will have to be a Plan B.

I don't think this administration has a Plan B. If it did, we would have seen it long ago, because Plan A certainly isn't working.

It doesn't take a political consultant to figure out that the only reason Republicans are even doing this is because there's an election coming up, and they need political cover to prevent a colossal disaster in the '08 election.

Bush has given in on benchmarks, but he remains firm on no timelines. He simply wants an infinite war, or at the very least, war until noon on January 20, 2009, so his precious legacy is protected. That way, Bush won't be the president who pulled our troops out of Iraq in defeat.

From today's New York Times:

Congressional Democrats and the White House remained at odds over a war spending measure on Friday after a crucial negotiating session ended with both sides expressing disappointment and accusing the other of being intractable.

Democrats said the White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, rejected their offer to eliminate non-Pentagon spending and give President Bush the authority to waive a timeline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq in return for their approval of about $95 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30.

"No - everything was no," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, characterizing the response by White House officials and Republican leaders of the House and Senate who took part in the talks.

Republicans said they were caught by surprise by the Democratic posture in the meeting, in the offices of the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, given that Mr. Bush has already vetoed one spending measure containing a withdrawal timeline and has made it clear that he will not accept such a proposal.

"The Democratic leaders did talk about having timelines for withdrawal that might be waivable," Mr. Bolten told reporters after the morning meeting, saying Democrats seemed dug in on the timeline issue. "We consider that to be not a significant distinction."

What I find breathtaking is that Bolten thinks that the president vetoing the first funding bill should have or would have signaled the end of Democratic opposition to the war. As if a veto takes away all Congressional opposition, and Democrats should simply tuck their tail between their legs and submit to Bush's will.

Not a chance. At least, not a chance if Democrats hope to remain in control of Congress beyond 2008.

I urge every one of you to call and/or e-mail your Congressional representatives and urge them to not cave to Bush on funding this war.

One other quick footnote to the funding - pretty funny how the U.S. Army still seems to be functioning. I remember a month ago, it was going to be the end of the Earth if the funding didn't get approved immediately. Well, the Army is still standing.

3,401 U.S. soldiers and counting...

Is there any end to this tragedy?

Photo from HuffPo

Another veto looms - tell Bush NO

[Click the pic to go to petition]

It's unthinkable that President Bush is threatening another veto on a Bill that would fund our troops for at least two months.

Democrats really are trying to come to a compromise here, without giving Bush and his military war machine a blank check. But, that's exactly what Bush wants and it seems like he will settle for nothing less, despite going before the cameras and telling everyone that he is "willing to compromise." The last time I checked, "compromise" means that you meet somewhere in the middle, while conceding that you aren't going to get everything you want.

Please take 30 seconds to sign the petition today.

Pelosi on point about war funding

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is at her best in the clip above. Point-by-point, she takes Bush to task on vetoing the supplemental funding bill, and how this war cannot and should not be an open-ended commitment.

I blogged about this a few days ago - a blind person can see why this administration doesn't put the entire cost of the war in the general budget - there would be an open revolt by many Americans at this war's cost, and it would give voters a true snapshot of the ballooning deficit, which is spiraling out of control. Instead, the Bush administration just asks for money several times during the year. That ploy may have worked with the rubber-stamp GOP Congress, but it won't now.

As for time tables about when we should leave, even Bush's own secretary of defense is leaning in favor of them, but that doesn't stop chicken hawks Cheney and Bush from insisting on having things their way, which is to say, "We'll leave Iraq when we want to leave Iraq, and not before."

Pelosi continues: "The president wants a blank check, we will not give it to him."

I can't say it enough - right on, Madame Speaker. More importantly, I strongly urge all of you to write your Senators and House Representative and tell them not to cave to the president on the supplemental war funding bill. I haven't had the time to write impassioned letters to my legislators, but this weekend I'm going to be writing many letters, and of course I will share them with you. It's the end of the semester, and I just haven't had the time to write letters AND keep up with the blog.

One more quick thought on the video above...

Pelosi continues, "Next the president said that Congress is substituting our judgment for the judgments of commanders six-thousand-miles-away.

"Wrong again, Mr. President. We're substituting our judgment for your judgment 16 blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue."

This is one of the best speeches I've heard her give as speaker.

I just hope she can hold the Democratic caucus together and keep it from caving to Bush on funding this war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coming Soon: The Vetoer

My thoughts on the last few days...

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

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

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

Bush begins with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photos at top from HuffPo and AP

House passes Iraq & Afghanistan funding; WITH a deadline

The House has passed an appropriation bill that funds the troops, but requires the troops begin coming home by Oct. 1. The Senate will almost certainly pass an identical bill today.

Coming soon to a political theater near you: a Bush veto, with political props in the background (probably some hawkish veteran Repubes).

Well, you'll have your "clean bill," Mr. President - no pork, no b.s. The only thing that it does have is a timetable for withdraw, which a vast majority of Americans overwhelmingly support. The rest is up to you.

From The New York Times:

Only hours after Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, told lawmakers he needed more time to gauge the effectiveness of a troop buildup there, the House voted 218 to 208 to pass a measure that sought the removal of most combat forces by next spring. Mr. Bush has said unequivocally and repeatedly that he will veto it.

"Last fall, the American people voted for a new direction in Iraq," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. "They made it clear that our troops must be given all they need to do their jobs, but that our troops must be brought home responsibly, safely, and soon."

Republicans accused Democrats of establishing a "date certain" for America's defeat in Iraq and capitulating to terrorism.

"This bill is nothing short of a cut and run in the fight against Al Qaeda," said Representative Harold Rogers, Republican of Kentucky.

On the final vote, 216 Democrats and 2 Republicans supported the bill; 195 Republicans and 13 Democrats opposed it.

Rogers' quote would be noteworthy, but it's become boilerplate for most GOPers - "the Democrats are the party of cut and run," blah blah blah. Republicans tried that last fall, and it fell flat.

This is what Democrats were put in charge of Congress to do, and they're doing it. Bravo.

Your move, Dubya.

April 17 is here - open up your wallet

Yay, our favorite day of the year - tax day. At least it came two days later this year.

I e-filed this year, and it never ceases to amaze me how brazen our federal and state governments are when fleecing citizens our of their hard-earned cash. To file federal and state taxes, I had to pay nearly $15 for each. I couldn't believe it - all to send an electronic file to the government? It's bad enough the middle class gets screwed at every turn, but those idiotic charges struck me as excessive, even for our government.

It's been on my mind a lot lately, so I guess today's the day it steps to the forefront of my thoughts, but we desperately need radical change in our government's tax policy. I'll be writing a whole lot more about this in the days and weeks ahead, but other matters are on my mind right now.

With all of the inefficiencies in our government, I'm soo happy that tens of billions of our money is headed over to the Middle East, where it has a better than average chance of not being tracked, managed or monitored properly.

Cheney is such a Dick

I despise Vice President Cheney probably more than any "elected" public official I can think since I've followed politics. I mean that. And, considering who he beats out for that distinction, it's saying something.

Before I even get to Cheney's ludicrous statements yesterday on Rush Limbaugh's show, a quick word about Limbaugh himself. I know a great deal of conservatives, and whenever the name Rush comes up, all I ever hear about is how he represents extreme viewpoints that don't really represent what a majority of Repubes believe.

Really? If Rush is so extremist, why has Cheney made a concerted effort to go on the show? He's been on Rush's show at least a half dozen times since being Vice President, and those are only the ones I can remember.

What's more, Limbaugh has 13 million viewers and is widely (no pun intended) regarded as one of the most successful radio talk show hosts in America. So, when he inevitably says something stupid, which happens pretty often, people who attempt to dismiss him as an obscure extremist aren't accurately dealing with the facts.

Rush, you're up:

Now, let's start talking about the supplemental funding bill for Iraq. I have to tell you something that I heard last night as I'm watching some of the cable news network shows. Some of the Democrats and Democrat commentators, are saying publicly now they expect that the president is eventually going to back off the veto threat because he will he will eventually realize that he cannot be seen as de-funding the troops.

Predictably, Cheney flatly denied that Bush would back off his veto threat to avert the perception that he is defunding the troops:

No, he has been very, very firm in his insistence, Rush, that if they send him a bill with limitations on his ability to function as commander-in-chief or restrictions on the troops or with a withdrawal date that in effect would tell our enemies we're going to quit, he will veto it. He's also said the same thing if the bills are loaded up with pork on non-essential spending. So he's been very, very clear. No one should be mistaken about that.

Predictably, Rush asked loads of leading questions to try to bring out the partisan in Cheney that is always bubbling not too far below the surface. Dick's response to a question about Democrats' "theatrics" that are intended to cause defeat of U.S. forces, causing our troops to come home defeated:

Well, I think that the policies that they are recommending would in fact produce that result. I've got some friends on the other side of the aisle, and I don't want question everybody's motives. I do believe that a significant portion of the Democrats -- including, I think, Nancy Pelosi -- are adamantly opposed to the war and prepared to pack it in and come home in defeat, rather than put in place or support a policy that will lead to victory.

I can't even begin to describe how sick to death I am of hearing ideological rubes like Cheney continue to cheerlead that victory in Iraq is possible. The only thing I've give the Veep credit for here is consistency - he's been holding onto this pipe dream for over four years. He's been consistently wrong, but remarkably consistent.

In response to Oxymoron's absurd question about the Democrats' "allegiance to defeat":

It seems to me so abundantly clear, Rush, that we really need to prevail in this conflict, that there's an awful lot riding on it. It's not just about Iraq. It's about our efforts in the global war on terror, and that entire part of the world, affects what's going on in Iran where we're trying to make sure they don't develop a nuclear weapon. You can imagine the extent to which the Iranians would be heartened in that effort, if they see us withdraw from Iraq next door. We got Musharraf and Pakistan and Karzai in Afghanistan, who put their lives on the line every day, in effect, supporting our efforts to deal with the extremists and the terrorists in part of the world. If they say us bail out in Iraq they clearly would lose confidence in our capacity to carry through and get the job done. So, it's absolutely essential we do it. I don't know what the motive is. They seem to think that we can withdraw from Iraq and walk away from it. They ignore the lessons of the past. Remember what happened in Afghanistan. We'd been involved in Afghanistan in the eighties, supporting the Mujahideen against the Soviets and prevailed. We won. Everybody walked away, and in the nineties, Afghanistan became a safe haven for terrorists, an area for training camps where Al-Qaeda trained 20,000 terrorists in the late nineties, and the base from which they launched attacks on the United States on 9/11. So those are very real problems, and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point, it seems to me, simply would play right into the hands of Al-Qaeda.

Nice try on Afghanistan, DICK. Pretty funny that Cheney covertly admits one of the Senior Bush administration's foreign policy failures, and that was walking away from Afghanistan after the Soviet Union admitted defeat and withdrew its forces. Cheney served as Bush Sr's only secretary of defense.

This next one is great, and Keith Olbermann does an awesome job at slamming this one off in the door - Repubes decrying Democrats' attempted elimination of the term "Global War on Terrorism." (More on that in another post in a little while.):

RUSH: It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08, is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes, but they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill, and thus official government language, of that term. Does that give any indication of their motivation, or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

DICK : Sure. Well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton. I worked closely with Ike when I was secretary of defense. He's chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike's a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about it. Just to give you one example, Rush. Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, an Al-Qaeda affiliate. He ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda, then migrated after we went into Afghanistan and shut 'em down there, he went to Baghdad. He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then of course led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the booming of the Samarra mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shi'a and Sunni. This is Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. There's no way you can segment out and say, "Well, we'll fight the war on terror in Pakistan or Afghanistan but we can separate Iraq. That's not really, in any way, shape, or form related." It's just dead wrong. Bin Laden has said this is the central battle in the war on terror.

In response to Oxymoron Rush's question about Nancy Pelosi's trip to the Middle East, including Syria, Dick was just getting warmed up:

Well, it's not helpful. I made it clear earlier that I thought this created difficulties, if I can put it in a gentle form. Obviously, she's the speaker of the House and ought to travel to foreign nations and ought to conduct visits.

[...]

[Pelosi's] not entitled to make policy. She, in this particular case, by going to Damascus at this stage it serves to reinforce, if you will, and reward Bashar Assad for his bad behavior.

On how much "damage" Pelosi has done by visiting Syria, Dick had this to say:

Well, I think, clearly, she stimulated a reaction out of the Israeli. Prime Minister Olmert immediately made it clear that she was not authorized to make any such offer to Bashir Assad. Among other things, of course, the Syrians have not renounced their support for terror. The major terrorist organizations that are dedicated to the destruction of Israel, such as Hamas, are headquartered in Damascus, Syria. It was a non-statement, a nonsensical statement. It didn't make any sense at all that she would suggest that those talks could go forward as long as the Syrians conducted themselves as a prime state sponsor of terror.

Pelosi issued a clarification on her statement HERE that went virtually unreported in the Western Mainstream Media. Dick's answer wasn't satisfying or controversial enough for Rush, so the Oxymoron proceeded to poke Dickie the Tiger with a stick, until he got the desired response about Pelosi's behavior. *Ding! Ding!* Pavlov's dog responds:

(Chuckles) Well, I've been around a long time. I'm obviously disappointed. I think it is, in fact, bad behavior on her part. I wish she hadn't done it, but she is the speaker of the House, and fortunately I think the various parties involved recognize she doesn't speak for the United States in those circumstances. She doesn't represent the administration. The president is the one that conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House.

Hey, if your administration is solely responsible for foreign policy, as you assert Dick, then conduct foreign policy. No one's saying that Syria has been a model nation - in fact, quite the opposite. But, talking to our enemies can and does have value. We even talked to the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. And Tony Blair resolved the British Soldier hostage situation with good 'old fashioned diplomacy - a concept this administration considers an anathema.

The Oxymoron saved the best for last though, with a question about the controversial Sam Fox appointment as the Belgian ambassador:

RUSH: One more, and that's the recess appointment of Sam Fox. Sam Fox is from my home state, and I know of Sam Fox. He's an immigrant, a Ukrainian-Jewish immigrant whose parents had nothing. When they died, they had nothing. He is a totally self-made man, a great American, and he was treated horribly by Senator Kerry and others on that committee, simply because he had made a political donation. They essentially told him he did not have free speech in this country, and until he would apologize, 'til he would go up to Kerry and apologize for supporting the Swift Boats... Now the president has recess appointed him, and of course the Democrats say they're going to investigate this and going to look into this. This is the kind of move that garners a lot of support from the people in the country. This shows the administration willing to engage these people, and not allow them to get away with this kind of -- well, my term, you don't have to accept it - "Stalinist behavior" by those people on that committee.

DICK: Well, you're dead on, Rush. I know Sam well. He's a good friend of mine and has been for many years, I think he's a great appointment and he'll do a superb job as our ambassador to Belgium. I was delighted when the president made the recess appointment. He clearly has that authority under the Constitution -

RUSH: You go on vacation, this is what happens.

Stalinist behavior? Hmm. I guess the endless Nazi comparisons and analogies have run their course, at least for now, so Republicans have now moved on to comparing Democrats to Josef Stalin. Yet another example of elevating the discourse.

More on vacations by lawmakers in a moment, too.

Going into Easter Weekend, it's great to see that the Bush administration's penchant for comparing political opponents to mass murders. Nice job, men.

Read the whole transcript of Rush's Dickfest Here.

Russ Feingold on Bush's threatened veto

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold appeared on Countdown With Keith Olbermann a few nights ago to talk about President Bush's promised veto and rhetoric about the emergency appropriation for the War in Iraq. Feingold is as spot on and articulate as anyone I've heard on the subject.

Feingold rightfully points out that there is plenty of precedent on ending funding for combat operations during war time, most notably during the Clinton Administration when we had forces in Somalia during Operation Restore Hope. After we lost 18 U.S. troops in the Battle of Mogadishu. (By the way, I tire of hearing Repubes deride Clinton for the loss of those soldiers - he deserves some blame, but it was President George H.W. Bush who put our troops in Somalia in December 1992.)

Anyway, Feingold hit it right on the head - if Bush vetoes the spending bill, it's going to be on his head, or at least partially. He rightfully reasons that the Democrats were sent to Congress to do the bidding of the people, and that's to end this war:

Well, it's just incredible to me that the president of the United States is planning on vetoing a bill that actually provides the funds that he wants for this next phase of the war. And the reason is, is, that he thinks he shouldn't have to follow the will of the American people, which was expressed in November, and that is that somehow this war has to start to end.

The bill is a very reasonable approach, and the president is being beyond stubborn in saying that we have to provide the funds and have no reaction at all to the fact that the people of this country want us out of this war. It's incredible to me that the president is this detached from reality.

Of course, some hear this and get all hysterical, that the Democrats are simply Bush hating. No, they are not. What we are seeing now is a president who had no oversight for the first six years of his presidency. Bush is totally incapable of compromise, or reaching across party lines. For a man who ran in 2000 as "A uniter, not a divider," he's shown a shocking indifference to even having a dialogue with the Democrats. More from the interview:

OLBERMANN: He referred to, in this news conference, in some of the questions, some who believe our strategy there is not working, a group who believes that we should not be there in the first place. Is it possible, do you think, Senator, that the president does not realize that this group of some people constitutes about seven out of every 10 Americans?

FEINGOLD: Well, he must know at some level, but he refers to the fact that we're back in our states, listening to the people in our states, as a vacation. Well, he needs a vacation like that, or he needs to get back onto a place like Wisconsin, in the rural areas where I am this week, Keith, doing town meetings, where people are telling me, For God's sakes, when are you going to get out of there? How can you possibly have this thing continue? What is the president thinking?

He is truly out of touch with the people of this country. This is not a position of a few people in the Democratic Party. It is virtually a consensus of the American people that we have got to have an orderly end to this war, safely redeploy the troops in the next few months.

[...]

Senator Harry Reid and I have concluded that a bill or an amendment that would make that date a year from now, March 31, 2008, is the next step, if necessary, if he truly does veto the supplemental bill.

OLBERMANN: To the power of the purse, for all the president's talk of alleged irresponsibility on the part of Congress in his news event this morning, it would seem, in his answer to that question about the power of the purse, the president was forced to admit that what you and your colleagues are doing is, in fact, entirely legitimate. And if that's true, and he says it's true, doesn't that make his veto the cause of any interruption of funding for the troops, in the unlikely event that happens?

FEINGOLD: Absolutely, Keith, unless we've shifted into a monarchy. The whole idea of our system is that these powers are divided. The president's the commander in chief, but the Congress is given the power of the funding, the appropriations power. We had to provide the funding in the first place, and if we decide this war is a bad idea, which I think just about everybody's concluded, then it's our—not just our right, but our responsibility to say, "Well, by X date, we will no longer do the funding."

And if you—you can ask Republican senators who say this is a bad idea, why did they vote for a date to cut off the funding for Somalia in the early '90s? Remember Black Hawk Down, we lost those 18 brave Americans, and we said, You know, this isn't working out very well, we ought to stop this.

And so John McCain and John Warner and all of us voted for a date certain by which the troops were safely redeployed. And at the end of it, the funding was cut off. They've already voted for this approach. It's not extreme. It's right in the absolute core of our constitutional powers and our responsibilities as members of Congress.

###

Uh oh - I'm bringing up those pesky 1990s again. How inconvenient. I not-so-fondly remember Repubes howling and screaming whenever President Clinton did anything militarily. No matter the cause, he never, ever had the support of a Republican-controlled Congress - Somalia (which he inherited), Bosnia, Kosovo or any actions to combat terrorism.

At every turn, it was Republicans who were screaming about Clinton's misuse of the military, or worse. Funny how I never heard "When troops are in harm's way, we don't question the operation - we get behind the president." Feingold rightfully reminded viewers of this the other night.

Speaking of supporting the president, one final thought. I realize that it's difficult for most of us (myself included, on most occasions) to reflect on our foreign policy in the 1990s through a 9-11 looking glass. Fine.

But, what really roils me is the persistent, idiotic rumors that float around the Internet about Clinton not doing enough about Osama bin Laden while he was president. Part of that is a valid point - he even admitted as much during his contentious interview on Fox News with Chris Wallace last September.

However, I also vaguely remember President Clinton wanting to do more to fight terrorism, but the Republican-controlled Senate and House wouldn't give him the budget increases he asked for. I also remember his missile attacks on Baghdad in retaliation for the attempted assassination of President Bush Sr. in Kuwait, and also the missile attack on a bin Laden compound that missed the terrorist by hours.

But again, to hear Republicans talk about it, they all wanted to invade Afghanistan and get bin Laden immediately, but Clinton didn't want to. Lies, lies, lies. In fact, when Clinton was leaving office, the one thing that the Clinton team told the incoming Bush administration to pay particular attention to was bin Laden. Call that one Operation Ignore, as the Bushies did nothing.

Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism expert, served under presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and until 2003, President George W. Bush. He's confirmed the current Bush administration's willful indifference to bin Laden during the first eight months of the administration. And this has also been confirmed by Bob Woodward and Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary. But, they're all lying, right Mr. President?

For more reading, I highly recommend Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies; and Ron Suskind's book, The Price of Loyalty : George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill.

These are two fantastic books, told by former Bush administration insiders, and they both offer insight into how Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq before 9-11, a conveniently forgotten fact.

The truth of the matter is that Bush and the far right want perpetual war, with no end in sight. It's hard to conclude otherwise, considering their stubbornness and obfuscation in the face of Democrats' attempts to end this war.

A showdown over Iraq looming large

Lots more to get to later today. The Senate has passed a bill calling for the almost immediate withdraw of our troops from Iraq, beginning in about four months. I'll have lots more to say about this tonight, but this is precisely what Democrats were sent to Congress last November to do - clean up the corruption that has so infested our federal government, and to end this misbegotten war.

I wonder if Bush will get on TV today to hammer home his already trite talking point - that the Democrats are engaging in "political theater" by passing bills in both Houses of Congress mandating that the troops be brought home. What an asinine thing for Bush to say, especially coming from a president who shamelessly uses theater to propagate his myopic views as to why the War in Iraq was/is so necessary.

This is how President Bush announced earlier this week that he would veto legislation that had any sort of deadline for American forces to withdraw from Iraq. Nah, no theater there. Look at who's standing in the background - Members of various veterans groups and their families.

How dare the Democrats participate in political theater!

President Bush would never stoop to such levels for political gain. He's beyond rank partisan politics and cheap photo opportunities. I repeat, he'd never do that.

Nope, never.

Ever.

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.