3,351

From The Washington Post's "Faces of the Fallen"...

Sgt. William J. Callahan

Hometown: South Easton, Massachusetts.

Age: 28

Died: April 27, 2007, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Unit: Marines, 8th Engineer Support Battalion, 2nd Marine Logistics Group, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.

Incident: Killed while conducting combat operations in Anbar Province.

Hat tip to PoliticsTV

Broder embodies what's wrong at WaPo

Today's Washington Post, is a newspaper with amazing ability, yet one with an equally amazing amount of contradictions.

Very seldom do I read a newspaper column where I nearly jump out of my chair with outrage. Yesterday was one of those days. In a Thursday column (which I heard about yesterday), long-time WaPo political columnist David S. Broder wrote a piece, The Democrats' Gonzales, which almost defies description.

He begins his column with this whopper:

Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats -- a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.

If you answered "Harry Reid," give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.

To suggest that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is even on the same planet of incompetence and obfuscation as Alberto Gonzales is as asinine a comment as I've ever read from a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist.

To briefly compare...

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, this past week became the first political leader in Washington with enough moxie to publicly conclude what a majority of the American people did months (if not years) ago - that the war is lost.

On the other hand, we have Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has more controversy surrounding him than... Karl Rove. Oops.

From claiming that there is no constitutional right to habeas corpus (see video below), his involvement in the firing of U.S. Attorneys, and his alleged involvement in the NSA warrantless wiretapping and domestic eavesdropping, to compare Reid to Gonzo is just absurd.

Concerning the NSA eavesdropping controversy, we'll never know the truth, or Gonzo's role, because the investigation was abruptly shut down after President Bush denied investigators the required security clearances to conduct their investigation.

But, perhaps nothing Gonzales has done is more controversial, or has had more far-reaching implications than his 2002 memorandum to Bush opining the Geneva Conventions were "outdated." From WaPo:

Gonzales is perhaps best known for a controversial January 2002 memorandum to the president in which he argued that Geneva Convention proscriptions on torture did not apply to Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners, and that the conventions are, in fact, "obsolete."

Many reason that this memo, at least indirectly, led to the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib.

What's more, the Bush administration's blithe dismissal of the Geneva Conventions has done more to damage the reputation of the United States than perhaps anything other than our ill-fated invasion of Iraq.

And Broder compares Alberto Gonzales to Harry Reid?

I think Katharine Graham just rolled over in her grave.

Hey David, I've got a little something for you...

Clownin' on Coulter; Ducks in a barrel next

I'm really through with going off about Ann Coulter.

Okay, if you believe that, you'll also believe that I'm running for president in 2008. Please send money.

Seriously though, she's so far beyond even being worthy of hatred. I'm now convinced there's something very mentally wrong with her. (Some of you might think I'm a little slow on the uptake.)

Maybe Coulter and Britney should be sentenced to go away for a long, long time. I've got an idea - send them both to the South Pole to watch the glaciers melt. What's the difference? They're both going to be very, very lonely people when they get older anyway. And if they're not, it'll just be because they have money, or at least enough money to hoodwink some unlucky soul to spend any time with either one of them.

At any rate, my outrage at Coulter has achieved a sort of numbness. I'm actually now grateful for her, because she serves as an effective benchmark for the normal, sane people walking the planet.

For example - if there's someone out there who's a conservative, and maybe even a fringe conservative, a barometer of the craziness could go something like this:

"Yes, I know Conservative So-and-So is a little out there, but is he/she Ann Coulter crazy?"

Coulter's latest publicity stunt to make headlines sounds like something out of MTV's The Real World. Yesterday, at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Coulter called Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot."

"I was going to comment on John Edwards," she told conference attendees, "but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you say the word faggot."

What's more, only moments before her comments, she was introduced by presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Oops.

The only question now is, will she be marginalized by the right, and the candidates who have cozied up to her?

I seriously doubt it.

Her résumé of hate is long, sparkling and distinguished, if you're a fan of the hate mongering far right. Let's take a look at her checklist, shall we?

● Questioning the legitimacy of former Georgia Senator Max Cleland's war wounds while serving in Vietnam. (He lost three limbs)

● Accusing 9-11 widows of "enjoying their husband's deaths"

● Calling liberals "Godless" people "Who hate America"

● Questioning the legitimacy 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry's three purple hearts

● Accusing former President Bill Clinton of a whole host of crimes, for which he was never changed or convicted

● Stating that any country responsible for 9-11 should be bombed and their people converted to Christianity

● Saying this of the New York Times during an interview: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building"

● Saying anyone who doesn't "support the troops" "hates America"

● Calling 2008 Presidential Candidate John Edwards a "faggot"

I wonder what could be next?

What's more, I wonder what she could possibly say to make her irrelevant and ignored? Fat chance of that happening.

As long as there are young, horny neoconservative men who will vote for a Republican at any cost, Coulter will always have a ready-made audience who will snap up her books and fawn over her every word.

The only way you can affect someone like Coulter is to put your money where your mouth is and not buy her books. As long as she has an audience, she will continue to pimp this made for headlines hate to sell books and make money.

I thank God that my country has free speech, but Coulter is the downside to that free speech. I guess we have to live with tolerating the intolerance, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

As of 3 p.m. today, I haven't heard or read of any Republican presidential candidate condemning Coulter's remarks. We'll see how this one plays out.

UPDATE:
McCain, Romney and Giuliani have all condemned Coulter - I just read it in a story on the New York Times Website. However, nothing on AP's Website, and nothing from the New York Times in today's story about the CPAC conference. The Washington Post's story today about the CPAC conference buried any reference to Coulter's comment, putting it in paragraph seven, but the paper did not print the word "faggot." The Times only ran a story about Coulter's remark when McCain, Romney and Giuliani spoke out against her. By the way, the Post and Times are typically accused of being two of the most liberal papers in the country.

One final note ~ not one of the Republican candidates' Websites has any reference to Coulter whatsoever, so this is anything but a strong condemnation.

I read this on another blog this morning, and it about sums it up:

John Edwards and John Kerry stated the truth, that Mary Cheney is a lesbian (to
point out the GOP's
hypocrisy on gay marriage), and all hell breaks loose.

Coulter calls Edwards a
faggot...

[crickets]

McCain declares, Joe Biden style...

...with a major gaffe.

Last night, Judas John McCain appeared on David Letterman to basically announce that he is going to announce that he is running for president in 2008. No real surprise there.

What WAS a surprise is when he mentioned that "we've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure over there [in Iraq], which is American lives.

I wonder how the neocon talking head morons will spin this one? Michelle Malkin comes to mind first, considering her diatribe on Barack Obama after he made a similar remark last month.

Every candidate for president is going to have gaffes along the way, and Judas John is no exception. I'm not going to crucify him for that, but in the overall context of McCain's recent position changes is quite amazing. If it's not obvious to you that this man will say or do anything to be elected president, it soon will be. McCain switches positions more than Jenna Jameson.

Anyway, what irks me more than anything is the coverage that McCain's announcement on Letterman received the next morning. Some major media outlets didn't even mention McCain's gaffe in stories about his announcement. What's that all about?

The proof is in the pudding. I went to these Websites and read the stories firsthand. Take a read. Bear with me, I know there's a lot here, but it's worth reading...

From the March 1 edition of The New York Times:

In Newly Usual Way, McCain Says He’ll Run
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Senator John McCain of Arizona took the platform of a late-night talk show Wednesday and said he would formally announce his campaign for the presidency in early April. His remarks erased entirely whatever doubt could have existed about his ambitions for the Republican nomination.

"The last time we were on this program — I’m sure you remember everything very clearly that we say — but you asked me if I would come back on this show if I was going to announce," Mr. McCain told David Letterman. "I am announcing that I will be a candidate for president of the United States."

"Oh," Mr. Letterman replied with what seemed at least a glimmer of surprise.

Mr. McCain is known as something of a free spirit, and his aides suggested that his remarks to Mr. Letterman were, if formal-sounding, extemporaneous rather than a result of careful planning by his campaign. Nonetheless, aides said, his appearance clearly fit into the campaign’s effort to stir as much excitement and interest as possible in his plans — a point Mr. McCain himself made as he and Mr. Letterman bantered on.

"By the way, I’ll be making a formal announcement in April," Mr. McCain said. By way of explanation, he added: "This is the announcement preceding the formal announcement. You know you drag this out as long as you can. You don’t just have one rendition. You’ve got to do it over and over."

Acting a bit downcast, Mr. Letterman responded, "How do you think that makes me feel?"

The exchange was the latest example of how the customs of presidential campaigns are changing. Not all that long ago, an announcement was a defining moment in the evolution of candidates, in which they truly opened their campaigns. For 2008, on the other hand, candidates have been not only announcing but also pre-announcing on Web sites and various television shows and in random interviews.

In truth, Mr. McCain has been running for the White House for nearly two years and, ever since forming a presidential exploratory committee in November, has repeatedly told interviewers that there are no circumstances he can foresee in which he would not run.

He has assembled a full campaign staff, and his organization has been churning out nearly daily pronouncements of the latest political figure to endorse him. In Iowa two weeks ago, he talked at three events about what he would do as president. And he is going to the West Coast this weekend to raise money.

Mr. McCain’s aides said Wednesday that they would not disclose any details about the announcement tour until later, no doubt in anticipation of drawing yet another round of publicity. "Details on the formal announcement will be forthcoming," said Brian Jones, campaign spokesman.

From the March 1 edition of The Washington Post:

McCain Says He'll Seek Presidency, Plans to Make It Official in April

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 1, 2007; A01

Sen. John McCain of Arizona declared last night that he will join the 2008 race for the White House and will formally announce his candidacy in April.

McCain used an appearance on CBS's "Late Show With David Letterman" to say what has been clear for many months, erasing whatever doubts may have existed that he intends to battle for the Republican nomination, which eluded him in 2000.

"I am announcing that I will be a candidate for president of the United States," the former Navy pilot and Vietnam War prisoner told Letterman.

McCain's decision to use the program to declare his intentions followed a pattern increasingly common in this presidential contest, as candidates have used multi-step announcement schedules to garner maximum attention for their bids.

In this case, however, McCain, 70, may have additional motives for using the late-night comedian's show, as he tries to rekindle some of the spontaneity and unpredictability from his first campaign. He cast himself as an insurgent politician in 2000, but this time, weighed down by a supportive position on the Iraq war that is out of step with the public even as he methodically woos the GOP establishment, he has struggled to project the buoyant personality of his first effort.

McCain lost a bitter contest for the Republican nomination to George W. Bush in 2000. But he emerged as the early leader in the race for the 2008 GOP nod, in part because of his support for the president's leadership on the Iraq war but also because he has spent months courting Bush loyalists and the Republican establishment that had spurned him.

In recent months, however, his star has been eclipsed somewhat by that of former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who now leads McCain in many national and some state polls testing the Republican field. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday showed Giuliani leading McCain 44 percent to 21 percent. A month ago, Giuliani's advantage was much narrower, at 34 percent to 27 percent for McCain.

McCain advisers said the decision to declare that he will join the Republican race was not a direct result of concern that Giuliani has gained ground in the past two months but rather part of a long-planned strategy to make his intentions known around this time.

McCain is one of the leading congressional advocates for Bush's troop increase in Iraq, a position that has tied his presidential aspirations to progress in the conflict there. McCain has been highly critical of the administration's management of the war, describing what has taken place over the past few years as a "train wreck" and calling Donald H. Rumsfeld "one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."

In addition to McCain and Giuliani, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is seen as a potentially strong candidate for the GOP nomination. The McCain and Romney camps have been circling each other for months, attempting to corral activists and major fundraisers both nationally and in states with early contests next year.

Other Republicans already in the race or contemplating running include former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, former Wisconsin governor Tommy G. Thompson, former Virginia governor James Gilmore and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) may also join the race, although he appears likely to wait until at least late summer before deciding.

McCain was one of the first Republicans to establish a presidential exploratory committee, filing papers with the Federal Election Commission weeks after the GOP drubbing in the midterm elections last November. At that time, McCain also filed a statement of candidacy, in essence a declaration of his intentions to run.

He recently made his first trip to Iowa as a prospective candidate and made clear that he would run hard for the Republican nomination.

The 2000 race was hard-fought and highly negative. Bush entered as the dominant front-runner, while McCain, who had often parted company with the GOP, was seen as a dark horse.

McCain chose to skip the Iowa caucuses that year and concentrate on New Hampshire, where independents play a more significant role in the process. His maverick style and "Straight Talk Express" theme caught fire and he soundly defeated Bush in the nation's first primary.

That set up what turned into a nasty clash in South Carolina, where McCain was the subject of scurrilous attacks. His advisers blamed the Bush camp for the attacks, but Bush advisers said they were not responsible. Bush won the primary and McCain and his team emerged angry and bitter.

McCain would later find himself in conflict with religious conservatives after he delivered a speech sharply critical of the influence of Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson, among others, describing them as "agents of intolerance."

Those kinds of remarks have soured some conservatives on McCain as a potential party standard-bearer. Some doubt his commitment to social issues, despite a long record opposing abortion rights, and others believe he has not been a strong advocate for supply-side tax cuts, which have been at the heart of GOP economic philosophy since the administration of President Ronald Reagan.

Some Republicans who opposed McCain in the past have warmed to the prospect of his candidacy, in part because they see him as a potentially strong candidate. But those moves to court conservatives have cost some support among independent voters, and the issue of the war has further complicated McCain's ability to project himself as a nominee who could attract Democrats and left-leaning independents.

And finally, from The Los Angeles Times:

California titans join McCain's campaign team

Although the GOP senator hasn't officially joined the presidential race, he tells David Letterman he is in

By Dan Morain, Times Staff Writer
March 1, 2007

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) unveiled a presidential campaign finance committee Wednesday dominated by Californians and New Yorkers, including some of the biggest donors to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and President Bush.

McCain's 13 national finance committee co-chairmen include five Californians: Orange County billionaire Donald Bren; investor George Argyros; Univision Chairman A. Jerrold Perenchio; Cisco Systems Chief Executive John Chambers; and San Francisco venture capitalist J. Gary Shansby.

Altogether, McCain named 70 Californians, 68 of them men, to his finance team. They will be expected to raise $100,000 or more for the campaign.

"I'd be very disappointed if I didn't raise over $2 million," said Shansby, former chairman of Shaklee Corp., who helps run an investment fund.

The California list includes executives in the entertainment, investment, banking, telecommunications, real estate, gambling and alcohol industries, and current and retired politicians.

Other co-chairmen include New York Stock Exchange Chairman John A. Thain; JP Morgan Vice Chairman James B. Lee; New Jersey banker Lawrence E. Bathgate; GOP fundraiser Lewis M. Eisenberg of New York; and former New Jersey Rep. James A. Courter, chairman of the telecommunications firm IDT Corp.

Though McCain hasn't officially announced his candidacy, he said in a taping of the "Late Show With David Letterman" on Wednesday that he was running and would "announce" it in April.

The release of his finance committee is aimed at showing other candidates the depth of his support and convincing donors that he is the front-runner.

Perenchio is one of at least eight Californians on McCain's list identified as a Bush "pioneer," meaning he raised in excess of $100,000 for the president's campaigns.

Perenchio is Schwarzenegger's largest single donor, at $4.8 million. McCain also tapped Schwarzenegger's lead fundraiser, Marty Wilson, as part of his California
finance committee.

Argyros, Bush's first ambassador to Spain, has spent more than $960,000 on federal campaigns since 1997, including $200,000 on Bush's 2005 inaugural.

Chambers has given more than $1 million to federal campaigns since 1997, and his company has accounted for $1.6 million during the last four years.

Bren and his wife, Brigitte, have given $267,000 to federal campaigns since 2003. Bren's Irvine Co. has accounted for $250,000 to Schwarzenegger.

Shansby has been a relatively small federal donor in the last decade, giving $35,000, Federal Election Commission records show. But as managing director and chairman of TSG Consumer Partners, a San Francisco-based fund that invests in consumer products, he has the potential to raise significant sums.

Damn liberal media!

Absolutely absurd and inexcusable that three of the leading papers in the country would fail to report McCain's gaffe. And a deadline is no alibi here; there is plenty in each story on McCain about not only his announcement, but quotes from the "I'm announcing that I'll announce" candidate.

A special shout out has to go to Media Matters - an organization that does a fantastic job of monitoring stories just like these.

A little Monica - yes, THAT Monica

I found an article about an article on Monica Lewinsky yesterday, and it was so well written (and short), I wanted to share it. It's from The Huffington Post, one of my favorite blogs, in a column called Eat the Press. It's a brilliant piece by Rachel Sklar, a witty woman the same age as Lewinsky. I was laughing before I even read the article - even the title is funny. Anyway, here's the piece, and I'll offer my thoughts afterward.

##

Richard Cohen Defends Monica Lewinsky, Weeps for Her Barren Womb

WaPo's Richard Cohen makes some very good points in his defense-of-Monica article today — she was young; she had the misfortune to have her dirty laundry aired in public (cue blue Gap dress joke); she's always been remarkably dignified in the face of public scandal; she's just received her Master's from the London School of Economics; and as if you haven't messed around with skankier than a sitting President, for God's sake. Cohen was reacting to this WaPo article by Libby Copeland, which poked fun at Lewinsky for graduating from LSE, which she rather snottily said made one "question your fundamental assumptions about the world," but really just made me question where Libby Copeland was a year and a half ago when the news broke that Lewinsky would be entering that program.

Cohen offers a fair and chivalrous defense of someone who has probably about served her debt to society by now, hmm? (For God's sake, even Nixon got a pardon!), and I would have cheered it had he not felt the need to wander into Lewinsky's private life:

But she is now a woman with a master's degree from a prestigious school and is going to be 34 come July. Her clock ticks, her life ebbs. Where is the man for her?

OH MY GOD SHE IS GOING TO BE 34 COME JULY!!! WHERE IS THE MAN FOR HER? HER CLOCK TICKS! HER LIFE EBBS! Cohen says "It would be nice, too, and fair, also, if Lewinsky were treated by the media as it would treat a man... Where, pray tell, is the man who is remembered just for sex?" I would add, where, pray tell, is the 34-year old man whose sad prospects of singledom are bemoaned in a national newspaper? Practice what you preach, Richard; but as for the rest of it, I and my wasting, shriveling 34-year old ovaries couldn't agree with you more.

##

Well done, Rachel. I certainly sympathize with Lewinsky, mostly. I really do. What Clinton did was inexcusable, and how he and his administration moved to discredit her in the wake of the scandal is also indefensible.

Having said that, I don't feel totally sympathetic for all of the publicity she's received in the wake of the scandal, because in many ways, she sought to capitalize on her notoriety by appearing on reality television shows and even launching her own line of handbags.

At the risk of sounding condescending, it is good to see that she is making something of her life and moving on, finally. God only knows the press has not made it easy for her to do that, so good for her.

One more note on the Lewinsky matter, and then I'll close. I didn't intend to get on some diatribe about a political scandal that is dead and buried, but, some people (Sean Hannity) have selective memory & neglect to remember that the scandal was between two consenting adults. I got a kick out of Hannity's bringing Clinton up in the wake of the Mark Foley sex scandal this past fall. Hannity is the reason mothers sometimes eat their young. I've got great video of Hannity that I'll share soon.

Woodward should thank Foley

Bob Woodward should thank disgraced House member Mark Foley for his recent sex scandal.

Why?

Were it not for Foley, I absolutely guarantee that Bush, Karl Rove and their cabal would be coming after Woodward, guns blazin'. The question isn't if they will do it, but how. I write this because once the Foley mess dies down (or maybe even despite it), they will not let Woodward's unflattering tome of the Bush Administration go unanswered.

This is a ruthless party that will stop at just about nothing to stay in power. I bought State of Denial on audio CD and I've been listening to it every day on the way home from work. It's a sobering experience.

Woodward's paper, The Washington Post, largely gave the president a pass during the run-up to the War in Iraq (along with just about every other major newspaper and media outlet in this country). Another black mark for Woodward is his paper's coverage of the Valerie Plame Affair (I read the Post, so I have some perspective).

However, having said all of that, Woodward has about the best reputation and highest integrity of any journalist in our mainstream media today, and it's well earned. I'm not going to get into all of the reasons why or BW's past accomplishments (which are many), but it's tough to argue with his credentials, and that's due in no small part to his sources, many well placed and high up in our government.

My point? When Woodward makes accusations about an administration, people on both sides of the political aisle listen. And what he has to say in State of Denial is startling, damning, and it should frighten every American citizen.

When I finish the book, I will write a complete review.

Stay tuned.