After George Tenet's freakish, yelping performance on 60 minutes I am surprised we did not get hit harder on 9/11. Excuses and defensiveness seem to define Tenet. Why can none of these men - and I include Condi Rice - simply apologize? Tenet blathered on about his honor and his integrity. His honor and his integrity are a pile of horseshit if he can't look at the camera and say "I am sorry" to the war widows, to the vets with legs blown off, to the country of Iraq he helped destroy. MEN OF HONOR STAND UP TO AUTHORITY WHEN THEY KNOW IT IS WRONG. Tenet caved to Cheney and Bush and bastards like Wolfowitz. He has no honor - when the others in the White House, none of them men of honor, threw him under the bus he should have expected it. That is what mafia men like Bush and Cheney do.
Tenet's whine on 60 minutes was a casserole of contradiction.
Iraq had weapons, but the war was trumped up..."Slam dunk" was not about the case against Iraq, it was about the C.I.A.'s ability to sell the case against Iraq to us gullible Americans...(Where, exactly , is the "honor" in this explanation?)..."I work my ass off...but I did not read the state of the union"- Tenet blamed his assistants for letting Bush lie about Niger. The leak of Valerie Plame's name was despicable, but hey, I'll take the medal of freedom.
And the National Intelligence Estimate Colin Powell recited at the U.N. seems to have no connection to the one Dick Durbin and the Senate Intelligence committee were briefed on. Iraq was an imminent threat for the U.N. in 2003. Iraq would not have a nuclear bomb for 4-7 years for 60 minutes in 2007.
None of these men have any honor - because none of these men had courage enough to stand up the the warmongers and war profiteers and delusional neo-cons. And now we are left to count the dead and wonder how long it will take to repair the damage this misguided war has done.
Poor, poor George Tenet. Tonight on 60 Minutes he said the worst thing that happened was hearing The Doughboy, Dick Cheney, say that the reason we went to Iraq was Mr. Tenet calling it a "slam dunk". Luckless George says he was used as campaign fodder.
Guess what Mr. Tenet? Isn't it far worse to be used as cannon fodder? Isn't it far worse for a soldier to be dead in a war of choice?
And PS - saying that the selling of the war was a slam dunk is also worse than your little personal hell.
We have got to impeach Bush & Cheney. Everything they touch turns to shit. We cannot possibly "win" in Iraq or anywhere else with them in charge.
In a troubling sign for the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq, inspectors for a federal oversight agency have found that in a sampling of eight projects that the United States had declared successes, seven were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, apparent looting and expensive equipment that lay idle.
Billions of dollars down the drain. Any hope of "good will" in the sewage with the medical waste.
You can see why the President will no longer talk of "progress" in Iraq.
George Tenet has a new book out. He should have called it, Poor Me, I am a Wuss Who Wants Everyone to Like Me.
It has been "pretty well confirmed" that this administration lied to get us into war. The only people who support the President are just a few dead enders who are in their last throes. It's a slam dunk that Mr. Bush will be viewed as our worst president ever. The smoking gun is the lack of a mushroom cloud since Saddam had no WMD, no ties to al Qaida and there was no reason to invade. We went to war with the administration we had instead of the administration we would like to have had. Incompetence thy name is Bush.
Because we could have won. But because of the incompetence of Bush & Co. and the disasterous mistakes (disbanding the army, de-Batthification, allowing the looting, appointing cronies instead of competence, ignoring the insurgence, not listening the "generals on the ground" who said we needed more troops) we are stuck. And an aside on the phrase "mistakes were made" - please GOD - mistakes were made, indeed. Using the passive voice as though the Keebler Elves are at fault.
Meanwhile, here we are; stuck in a quagmire that is worse than Vietnam. Because unlike Vietnam we didn't take over for the French, we started it. And at the risk of losing all my liberal street cred, we have to finish it. I'm not worried about the terrorists "following us home" like some lost puppy. They're already willing to follow us home whether we're in Iraq or not. I'm more concerned with the damage we have done to a country and their people. We have had five years to create a generation of kids who will hate us forever.
When I lived in Germany I met a man who said he would love America forever because of the Marshall plan and the Hershey chocolate. Granted, when I was there we were not tremendously popular since the largest concentration of American's outside the U.S. were living in Kaiserslautern and support the troops or not they didn't always make themselves shine in the eyes of the Germans. Not learning the language, a bit of arrogance and basically young kids drinking great German beer doesn't show us for the best we can be. However, Germany never started another war and they haven't followed us home to kill us. We rebuilt their country even though they started the war. How smart were we? And I can tell you from my hero, Howard Cavanaugh who was with Patten, that when we rebuilt Munich they brought out plans from the fifteenth century and said, this is what we need. And we did it.
Not to sound too John Lennon-ish but imagine if we took that $100 billion that Bush wants for the troops and used if for re-construction. We hired Iraqis to do the work and got rid of Halliburton. We worked with the Iraqis to give them back their country and their honor.
You can say I'm a dreamer. But I'm a dreamer who loves my country and our constitution and our ideals. I want them back.
Regardless of all this blather there not being "red" and "blue" states from the "nice" people trying to win elections - I wonder if the smart people (blue staters) should just ditch the red state people. Let them rot in their low tax base, fundamentalist nonsense. This teacher in Butthole, Indiana was reprimanded for letting her journalism students publish an article advocating tolerance of homosexuals. Yup, that's right she let her kids promote tolerance of gay Americans. Imagine that. What an evil woman.
Why are Red Staters so often morons? Anti-American, Anti-Christian morons. Indiana can go to hell. Along with Texas - and the rest. You red staters need New York and California and New England, and the Northwest - we, on the other hand, do not need you. OUR taxes are paying for your meth addled right wing horseshit.
Okay - I have a number of things to say about this debate the Dems had tonight. Most importantly - Hillary beat Obama. Period. Obama choked on the "if we are attacked" question. Clinton hit it out of the park. Other thoughts:
1. It is too damn early to be having any debates of any kind. These people should not be debating at all yet - at least until December. I know we all loath Bush but it is still to early to be seeing debates.
2. Thank God Mike Gravel was on the stage. The guy's a nut.
3. I am voting for Hillary unless Gore gets in. Period. Having said that - she does need to work on the "warmth" factor. Strong is not going to be a problem for her. Warmth is.
4. Can some one PLEASE explain the Obama phenomenon? Send me an email - post a comment something...I want to know - After this debate, I still don't see any reason to vote for him except he is sexy and a good speaker. I would like a reason besides he is sexy and a good speaker. He continues to say what everyone else says, with the added bonus of having less experience than everyone else in the race. Including Gravel.
Our glorious President was brought in to power by the Supreme Court. After he lost the popular vote and the recount was stopped in my state of Florida the judges of the Supreme Court gave the nod to him.
The first thing the boys who vowed to restore dignity and honor to the White House after stealing the election was accuse the Clinton administration of trashing the offices included taking all the "w"'s off keyboards. It wasn't true, of course, but that fact never got much traction.
It's no wonder that Rove and the gang thought they could get away with anything. And the list is staggering.
The guy they put in charge of student loans is being investigated for steering loans to his company.
The lack of funding to the FDA has lead to deaths of humans and pets.
The outing of a CIA agent for political purposes.
The GSA, which is supposed to be a-policical, being used to elect Republicans.
A gay hooker in the press corps.
The guy who changed the language on global warming, who wasn't a scientist, to make it less alarming. Fortunately he's working for Exxon now. Maybe he was then, too.
Jack Abramoff.
OSHA no longer protects workers.
Abu Ghraib.
Extraordinary Rendition.
Letting Osama Bin Laden get away in Tora Bora.
Letting oil companies write their energy policy and then claiming executive privilidge.
Katrina.
The guy who stole from Target.
Accusing others of not supporting the troops when they send our men and women into battle without the proper equipment or training. And the fact that Rumsfeld wasn't fired immediately when he responded to a soldiers questioning of that with "You go to war with the army you have; not the army you wish you would have had."
Pat Tillman.
Alberto Gonzalez.
Finally, we have a congress who will conduct oversight. We could have unending investigations until the end of the administration and well into the next.
But the biggest scandal of all is Iraq. We had the entire world with us after 9/11. Mr. Bush squandered all of that good will by invading a country that had not attacked us. He lied about everything leading up to the war. Everything. Ties to al Quada, WMD, smoking guns. He then had no idea or plan to deal with post-Saddam Iraq. The adage of hope for the best but plan for the worst was not a part of his Iraq strategy because he didn't have a strategy. We were not greeted as liberators. We were not welcomed with open arms. We lost as soon as we let the looting begin. And because of Mr. Bush's ego we are going to continue to let our men and women die policing a civil war because he cannot pull the plug on his legacy. Not only are our people dying but what about the Iraqis? Can you imagine living in a constant state of fear for five years? Yes, Mr. Bush, Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorists because the kid who was 10 at the beginning of your war is now 15 and hates us.
Because of you.
Watched a horrifying Nova tonight. We all know about Global Warming - how about Global Dimming? It ain't pretty. Global Dimming is the bastard brother of Global Warming and has the potential make things very hot, very quickly. After years of work by an Israeli scientist, a remarkable discovery was made on 9/12/01 when the skies were empty. Read about it.
Let's here it for George McGovern. He let's that coward Dick Cheney have it - here. It is past time these alleged "leaders" be impeached in the House and put on trial in the Senate for the lies and deceit and negligence. Cheney is wrong about everything all the time. He is an evil, vicious, idiot.
America can do better. We must do better than these bozos in the White House. How many more American Soldiers must die to protect Bush and Cheney's ego?
If someone could please explain the stock market to me I would appreciate it. It makes no sense that it continues to rise given the situation we appear to be in as a nation. We can't go on without other people's oil - (yes, Virginia, the WAR WAS ABOUT OIL) and we can't go on without out other people's cash. ( Special thanks to China and Japan) And yet - onward the market marches. My favorite cranky old white guy has some thoughts on it here. Money quote: Doug Noland over at Prudent Bear.com is right: we've entered a euphoric phase of financial arbitrage capitalism with extreme Ponzi overtones, a pyramid scheme of revolving credit rackets and percentage spread plays completely abstracted from any reality of fruitful activity. The reason we don't even call "money" by its former name anymore is precisely because we realize at some semi-conscious level that "liquidity" is not really money.
While eviscerating Paul Whatzawitz over at the World Bank Pat Buchanan says this:
This is not 1945. America is no longer the world's greatest creditor. She is the world's greatest debtor. In 2006, our current account deficit hit $857 billion. Beijing sits atop a mountain of $1 trillion in reserves. Japan sits on $850 billion. U.S. reserves are pitiful.
and yet the market rises...
Note: P.B. also throws in an anti-Semitic cue word (parasite) for his fellow travelers. It is so easy to take Wolfowitz down without walking right up to the edge of bigotry. Take him down because he is an arrogant, incompetent asshole - like most of those creepy people that "Bush has confidence in."
A Hostage Situation
By PAUL KRUGMAN
There are two ways to describe the confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration over funding for the Iraq surge. You can pretend that it's a normal political dispute. Or you can see it for what it really is: a hostage situation, in which a beleaguered President Bush, barricaded in the White House, is threatening dire consequences for innocent bystanders - the troops - if his demands aren't met.
If this were a normal political dispute, Democrats in Congress would clearly hold the upper hand: by a huge margin, Americans say they want a timetable for withdrawal, and by a large margin they also say they trust Congress, not Mr. Bush, to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq.
But this isn't a normal political dispute. Mr. Bush isn't really trying to win the argument on the merits. He's just betting that the people outside the barricade care more than he does about the fate of those innocent bystanders.
What's at stake right now is the latest Iraq "supplemental." Since the beginning, the administration has refused to put funding for the war in its regular budgets. Instead, it keeps saying, in effect: "Whoops! Whaddya know, we're running out of money. Give us another $87 billion."
At one level, this is like the behavior of an irresponsible adolescent who repeatedly runs through his allowance, each time calling his parents to tell them he’s broke and needs extra cash.
What I haven't seen sufficiently emphasized, however, is the disdain this practice shows for the welfare of the troops, whom the administration puts in harm's way without first ensuring that they'll have the necessary resources.
As long as a G.O.P.-controlled Congress could be counted on to rubber-stamp the administration's requests, you could say that this wasn't a real problem, that the administration's refusal to put Iraq funding in the regular budget was just part of its usual reliance on fiscal smoke and mirrors. But this time Mr. Bush decided to surge additional troops into Iraq after an election in which the public overwhelmingly rejected his war - and then dared Congress to deny him the necessary funds. As I said, it's an act of hostage-taking.
Actually, it's even worse than that. According to reports, the final version of the funding bill Congress will send won't even set a hard deadline for withdrawal. It will include only an "advisory," nonbinding date. Yet Mr. Bush plans to veto the bill all the same - and will then accuse Congress of failing to support the troops.
The whole situation brings to mind what Abraham Lincoln said, in his great Cooper Union speech in 1860, about secessionists who blamed the critics of slavery for the looming civil war: "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!' "
So how should Congress respond to Mr. Bush’s threats?
Everyone talks about the political risks of confrontation, recalling the backlash when Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in 1995. But there's a big difference between trying to force a fairly popular president to accept deep cuts in Medicare - which is what the 1995 confrontation was about - and trying to get a deeply unpopular, distrusted president to set some limits on an immensely unpopular war.
Meanwhile, there are big political risks on the other side. If Congress responds to a presidential veto by offering an even weaker bill, voters may well react with disgust, concluding that the whole debate over the war was nothing but political theater.
Anyway, never mind the political calculations. Confronting Mr. Bush on Iraq has become a patriotic duty.
The fact is that Mr. Bush's refusal to face up to the failure of his Iraq adventure, his apparent determination to spend the rest of his term in denial, has become a clear and present danger to national security. Thanks to the demands of the Iraq war, we're already a superpower without a strategic reserve, unable to respond to crises that might erupt elsewhere in the world. And more and more military experts warn that repeated deployments in Iraq - now extended to 15 months - are breaking the back of our volunteer military.
If nothing is done to wind down this war during the 21 months - 21 months! - Mr. Bush has left, the damage may be irreparable.
Sunday- and I am heading to church and a ballgame - yes it's true liberals go to church and ball games, too-
Things worth reading:
Sheryl Crowe touches Karl Rove. Reading this I realized that Rove's real mentor and guru was not Lee Atwater - but Roy Cohn. Of course, Cohn's self hatred was overwhelming - Rove is just a snotty little prick who isn't pretty enough or smart enough to be a Hollywood producer so he works for Republicans - whose standards are generally lower.
The oil problems are still here - and here.
Lazy Americans and dead bees matter. Bill Maher on it here- another article here.
And since I am heading to church in a minute - let me just say something about McCain - it is bad enough that he sang -badly- about bombing Iran but what's worse is his alarming response when questioned about it - he said "Sensitive to who? The Iranians?" Actually, Senator McCain - yes the Iranians. You see, let's say the Iranian President sang something silly about bombing an American city - see that's not so funny- like it or not - there are human lives ending when bombs drop. Joking about that, even if a war must be fought, is degrading and insensitive. Why is the "pro life" party always so trigger happy?
Oh and Obama is actually just like everyone else in the race. Gore/Clinton 08!!!!
John's post below about the wall in Bahgdad being an admission of failure is true. Joe Biden said months ago we need to divide the country into three with a loose federal goverment. Ali Allawi says the same thing in his new book, Iraq, Winning the War and Losing the Peace.
We can't continue the way we are going. Nor can we just leave. Perhaps dividing the country and creating the largest Marshall Plan ever will help to solve our problem in Iraq. Because the bottom line is that 70% of the children of Iraq are showing signs of imense stress. They walk by dead bodies every day. They don't know if they will come home alive from the market or if their parents will. They don't have access to mental health because most of the psychiatrists (along with the rest of the upper/middle class) have left the country. What are we creating? More suicide bombers.
Does anyone remember the ad that George McGovern ran in 1984? It was a little girl looking in the camera. She was from Nicaraqua. The ad said something like, "She hates you. Because last night you killed her father and last month you killed her brother." That's what we are doing in Iraq. You can't win hearts and minds when you a slaughtering civilians. As Bill Maher said last night on Real Time, "Thirty-two dead in Iraq is a good day."
Since no one is willing or capable of telling the truth about Iraq (or anything else) in the administration. Let me point out a few truths:
1. The wall being built now by the U.S. in Baghdad is an admission of failure. It says to the world - "we, the U.S., cannot control what we unleashed. The elected pro Iranian Shia government cannot control the civil war either." The symbolism is extraordinary - the country is being carved up, starting with the Capital.
2. The Baghdad wall also means we can and should, call this a civil war. That's what it is. We have got to learn precisely how this became a civil war (RumsfeldWolfwitz are largely responsible.) in order to find a political solution. The Left is fond of saying "No justice, No peace" - which is a fine sentiment and a threat all at once. Now that Bushco has destroyed a country we need to reverse that sentence - without peace their can be no justice - only revenge.
If Bushco policy is not corrected the Baghdad wall will need get longer and longer....
Harry Reid spoke the truth about Iraq and everyone knows it. But let's be clear as to who lost the war - Bush and his cabal of greedy idiots lost the war. Not the U.S. Military, not the Amercan people and certainly not Americans who knew from the gate that Bush and the Neocon cultists were wrong and spoke up about it - only to be ignored by the media.
Additionally plenty of American who supported the invasion of Iraq knew that the Rumsfeld military plan was idiotic. Those people also spoke up but were drowned out by Fox News and the rest of the media. Any 14 year old who has played Risk could have seen that the Bush Iraq catastrophe was inevitable.
America did not lose this war, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, Rice, the Neo con cultists, The GOP sycophants in the House and Senate, and the lazy, compliant media lost the war.
Don't drag the rest of us down with them. As usual, the Left got it right.
We are a strange society - if you watch the news. We have A.D.D. and forget what happened last week and are obsessive about the tragedy of this week. If you watched MSNBC or CNN the only story you would be versed on is the Virgina Tech killings.
You wouldn't know about 200 people killed yesterday in Iraq.
You wouldn't know that the Supreme Court is taking down Rowe v Wade.
You wouldn't know what is happening with Paul Wolfowitz .
You wouldn't know that the FBI searched Congressman Doolittle's house yesterday in connection with the Jack Abramaff scandal.
I am not discounting the pain of what happened at Tech. It's horrible. But, how is it possible that the President managed to make it to the ceremony mourning the loss of those killed at Tech but has never attended a single funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq. Unfortunately, he would have many more opportunities since his surge.
From October 2006 through last month, 532 American soldiers were killed, the most during any six-month period of the war. March also marked the first time that the U.S. military suffered four straight months of 80 or more fatalities. April, with 58 service members killed through Monday, is on pace to be one of the deadliest months of the conflict for American forces.
What about mourning our fallen soldiers? How is their loss any less devastating?
It's time to have more than a conversation about Iraq. It's time to have a strategy. It's time to have a conversation about gun control. It's time to have a conversation about impeachment. But like the Imus story when all you heard was that this would begin a conversation about race the talk was about the conversation we should have instead of having the conversation.
We need news that actually covers the news and not vultures who go from one tragedy to the next.
So was Cho Seung-Hui going to join the Virginia militia? He had the receipt for the gun in is backpack. He bought it and shot it. Enough with this "right to bear arms" as the all purpose excuse for not strictly controlling guns. You and I do not have the open ended right ot bare arms. Walk around a mall with a rocket launcher and see how far your right to bear arms goes. How about a black hawk helicopter? Wanna pop over to walmart and pick one up? The relentless slaughter of innocents in this country correlates directly to the availability of guns.
The right to bear arms is already "infringed" severely. Fearful people who believe that guns protect them control the debate hiding behind the second amendment. No one in this country has the right to bear whatever arms he wants. The 2nd Amendment is already interpreted with broad latitude. A strict constructionist view might conclude that either we have the right to any arms we want - (can I put a functional cannon in my front yard if I feel threatened by the guy across the street?) or we only have the right to muskets...
It is perfectly legitimate to re-think the second amendment. And we ought to do it. Lord knows, the "loyal bushies" are re-thinking the first amendment all the time.
The breathless analysis of Obama's huge haul is off the mark. The conventional "wisdom" is that since 100,000 people contributed to Obama and only 50,000 to Clinton, and since Obama's contributors did not contribute all they legally could - the presumption is that Obama will be able to return to these donors for more money later.
This presumption is questionable. It is just as logical to presume that Obama is the flavor of the month and that many of 100,000 contributors did not give the legal limit but they did give THEIR limit. With very little extra cash I happily gave Howard Dean 50 bucks in late 2003. Many of us on the Left got very excited about Dean. And then Dean came in 3rd in Iowa, and the disconnect between enthusiasm and getting people to vote for you was laid bare. Of course, Dean was actually saying things of substance. Obama has yet to SAY much of anything.
Time and time again in 2004 when GOPs were asked why they were voting for Bush they said something like "He's a strong leader" though the evidence was overwhelming even then that he was a distracted, weak leader.
Ask an Obama supporter now why they support Obama and the answer is just as simple minded. "He's new" He's fresh" - and that's about it. Since he rarely says anything specific no one has any real idea why they support him. "He's not Clinton" is pretty much all Obamasupporters like David Geffen and Arianna Huffington have to offer. Those who do not like Clinton have a place to direct their energy in Obama.
I loath American Idol - but I am watching of late to vote for Sanjaya. He can't sing - but he is sweet, handsome and charming - and a fine vehicle to attack that annoying show. Obama is charming, handsome, gives good speech - it is not at all clear he is a true talent. BUT HE IS NOT HILLARY CLINTON. That is enough for many liberals. Not me. As a Democrat I demand substance - not bromides about a "new" politics in Washington - which FYI is the oldest bromide of them all.
I have yet to be given a reason to vote for Obama that is not vapid. I would like to hear one. There are very good reasons to vote for most of the rest: Clinton- experience, intelligence, Edwards - a good streak of true FDR liberalism, Biden - an actual plan for Iraq, Richardson - The best resume of the bunch, Dodd - decency, solid experience, integrity, Kucinich - a true blue lefty with his heart in all the right places...
Obama??? nothing. He opposed the war from the Illinois state senate, and gave a great speech at the 04 convention. The rest is spectacle and trendiness.
Anyone get the irony? The Bushies can tap our phones, scoop up our emails, and spy on us illegally all they want - but they say they "lost" Rove's emails. Can we stop being polite about these scumbags in the White House? They are vicious, greedy, lying punks. Rove has gotten away with his bullshit long enough. It is past time he was forced out in disgrace.
Imus, schmimus. I'm over it. What he said was horrible and he should have been fired immediately and taken Rush with him.
What about the troops having to say another six months in combat? What about how the military determines the level of disability of our troops? Cheating them out of money and care by telling someone who has lost the use of his arms that he only has 30% disability. Do you use your arms only 30% of the time? Didn't think so. Then the President and Vice President use the troops as a back drop for their speeches. Coup anyone?
How about the Bush administration trying to cheat Americans by hiding their dirt on RNC laptops? Obviously proof that Rove is not as smart as he thinks he is - he's just a lying bully. Now they've "lost" emails crucial to the investigation of the US attorney scandal. Shocking!
Imus, like Anna Nicole is not news. Both are distractions when we should be trying to figure out what we are going to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Darfur and Chad. Those are your world crises. Here at home we have the looming housing crisis, oil prices, water shortages. We need to focus on what matters because the future doesn't look bright.
The fact is Bush has failed at everything he has ever done. The Iraq failure is his biggest failure of all - so he wants to appoint a "war czar" to fix his fuck ups in Iraq and Afghanistan. To put it another way: he wants to abdicate his role as commander-in-chief but still be President - make speeches, ride his bike, have a big plane to go places...
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the idiots in the White House failed, they created and unnecessary war based on lies, and then lost that war. Now Bush wants to walk away from his failure.
Sunday in the Market With McCain
By FRANK RICH
JOHN McCAIN'S April Fools' Day stroll through Baghdad's Shorja market last weekend was instantly acclaimed as a classic political pratfall. Protected by more than a hundred American soldiers, three Black Hawk helicopters, two Apache gunships and a bulletproof vest, the senator extolled the "progress" and "good news" in Iraq. Befitting this loopy brand of comedy - reminiscent of "Wedding Crashers," in which Mr. McCain gamely made a cameo appearance - the star had a crackerjack cast of supporting buffoons: Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who told reporters "I bought five rugs for five bucks!," and Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, who likened the scene to "a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime."
Five rugs for five bucks: boy, we've really got that Iraq economy up and running now! No wonder the McCain show was quickly dubbed "McCain's Mission Accomplished" and "McCain's Dukakis-in-the-Tank Photo Op." But at a certain point the laughter curdled. Reporters rudely pointed out there were 60-plus casualties in this market from one February attack alone and that six Americans were killed in the Baghdad environs on the day of his visit. "Your heart goes out to just the typical Iraqi because they can't have that kind of entourage," said Kyra Phillips of CNN. The day after Mr. McCain's stroll, The Times of London reported that 21 of the Shorja market's merchants and workers were ambushed and murdered.
The political press has stepped up its sotto voce deathwatch on the McCain presidential campaign ever since, a drumbeat enhanced by last week's announcement of Mr. McCain's third-place finish in the Republican field's fund-raising sweepstakes. (He is scheduled to restate his commitment to the race on "60 Minutes" tonight.) But his campaign was sagging well before he went to Baghdad. In retrospect, his disastrous trip may be less significant as yet another downturn in a faltering presidential candidacy than as a turning point in hastening the inevitable American exit from Iraq.
Mr. McCain is no Michael Dukakis. Unlike the 1988 Democratic standard-bearer, who was trying to counter accusations that he was weak on national defense, the Arizona senator has more military cred than any current presidential aspirant, let alone the current president. Every American knows that Mr. McCain is a genuine hero who survived torture during more than five years of captivity at the Hanoi Hilton. That's why when he squandered that credibility on an embarrassing propaganda stunt, he didn't hurt only himself but also inflicted collateral damage on lesser Washington mortals who still claim that the "surge" can bring "victory" in Iraq.
It can't be lost on those dwindling die-hards, particularly those on the 2008 ballot, that if defending the indefensible can reduce even a politician of Mr. McCain's heroic stature to that of Dukakis-in-the-tank, they have nowhere to go but down. They'll cut and run soon enough. For starters, just watch as Mr. McCain's G.O.P. presidential rivals add more caveats to their support for the administration's Iraq policy. Already, in a Tuesday interview on "Good Morning America," Mitt Romney inched toward concrete "timetables and milestones" for Iraq, with the nonsensical proviso they shouldn't be published "for the enemy."
As if to confirm we're in the last throes, President Bush threw any remaining caution to the winds during his news conference in the Rose Garden that same morning. Almost everything he said was patently misleading or an outright lie, a sure sign of a leader so entombed in his bunker (he couldn't even emerge for the Washington Nationals' ceremonial first pitch last week) that he feels he has nothing left to lose.
Incredibly, he chided his adversaries on the Hill for going on vacation just as he was heading off for his own vacation in Crawford. Then he attacked Congress for taking 57 days to "pass emergency funds for our troops" even though the previous, Republican-led Congress took 119 days on the same bill in 2006. He ridiculed the House bill for "pork and other spending that has nothing to do with the war," though last year's war-spending bill was also larded with unrelated pork, from Congressional efforts to add agricultural subsidies to the president's own request for money for bird-flu preparation.
Mr. Bush's claim that military equipment would be shortchanged if he couldn't sign a spending bill by mid-April was contradicted by not one but two government agencies. A Government Accountability Office report faulted poor Pentagon planning for endemic existing equipment shortages in the National Guard. The Congressional Research Service found that the Pentagon could pay for the war until well into July. Since by that point we'll already be on the threshold of our own commanders' late-summer deadline for judging the surge, what's the crisis?
The president then ratcheted up his habitual exploitation of the suffering of the troops and their families - a button he had pushed five days earlier when making his six-weeks-tardy visit to pose for photos at scandal--ridden Walter Reed. "Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines," he said. "And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to."
His own failures had already foreordained exactly these grim results. Only the day before this news conference, the Pentagon said that the first unit tossed into the Baghdad surge would stay in Iraq a full year rather than the expected nine months, and that three other units had been ordered back there without the usual yearlong stay at home. By week's end, we would learn the story of the suspected friendly-fire death of 18-year-old Pvt. Matthew Zeimer, just two hours after assuming his first combat post. He had been among those who had been shipped to war with a vastly stripped-down training regimen, 10 days instead of four weeks, forced by the relentless need for new troops in Iraq.
Meanwhile the Iraqi "democracy" that Mr. Zeimer died for was given yet another free pass. Mr. Bush applauded the Iraqi government for "working on an oil law," though it languishes in Parliament, and for having named a commander for its Baghdad troops. Much of this was a replay of Mr. Bush's sunny Rose Garden news conference in June, only then he claimed Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was taking charge of Baghdad security on his own. Now it's not even clear whom the newly named Iraqi commander is commanding. The number of military operations with Iraqis in the lead is falling, not rising, according to the Pentagon. Even as the administration claims that Iraqis are leading the Baghdad crackdown, American military losses were double those of the Iraqi Army in March.
Mr. Bush or anyone else who sees progress in the surge is correct only in the most literal and temporary sense. Yes, an influx of American troops is depressing some Baghdad violence. But any falloff in the capital is being offset by increased violence in the rest of the country; the civilian death toll rose 15 percent from February to March. Mosul, which was supposedly secured in 2003 by the current American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is now a safe haven for terrorists, according to an Iraqi government spokesman. The once-pacified Tal Afar, which Mr. Bush declared "a free city that gives reason for hope for a free Iraq" in 2006, is a cauldron of bloodshed.
If Baghdad isn't going to repeat Tal Afar's history, we will have to send many more American troops than promised and keep them there until Mr. Maliki presides over a stable coalition government providing its own security. Hell is more likely to freeze over first. Yet if American troops don't start to leave far sooner than that - by the beginning of next year, according to the retired general and sometime White House consultant Barry McCaffrey - the American Army will start to unravel. The National Guard, whose own new involuntary deployments to Iraq were uncovered last week by NBC News, can't ride to the rescue indefinitely.
The center will not hold, no matter what happens in the Washington standoff over war funding. Surely no one understands better than Mr. McCain that American lives are being wasted in the war's escalation. That is what he said on David Letterman's show in an unguarded moment some five weeks ago - though he recanted the word wasted after taking flak the morning after.
Like his Letterman gaffe, Mr. McCain's ludicrous market stunt was at least in the tradition of his old brand of straight talk, in that it revealed the truth, however unintentionally. But many more have watched the constantly recycled and ridiculed spectacle of his "safe" walk in Baghdad than heard him on a late-night talk show. This incident has the staying power of the Howard Dean scream. Should it speed America's disengagement from Iraq, what looks today like John McCain's farcical act of political suicide may some day loom large as a patriot's final act of sacrifice for his country.
The comparison between W's confrontation with Congress over ending the Iraq war, and Clinton's smack down of Congress over medicare cuts in 1995 is specious. Everyone needs to stop making it.
Reasons:
1. Medicare was popular. Bush's endless war based on lies in Iraq is not.
2. Clinton was popular at the time relative to W now.
3. W is no Bill Clinton. Bush is a pissy little man - especially press conferences. Clinton was a President.
Despite Obama's cave in, the Democrats should stick to their guns and push Bush hard on the funding/timetable bill.
In the midst of all the ruckus surrounding Obama $$$ haul - I want to point out 2 things:
1. A very interesting number in the latest granite state poll- Obama's support did not change. Rock star crowds, massive intake of cash, press dead set on the "Hillary is a phony" narrative and Obama still did not move in the poll. Clinton lost support - to Edwards.
2. I have been squawking for weeks that Obama simply was not going to fly in some core Democratic constituencies and that i strongly suspect that Obama is Howard Dean 2.0 - more bells and whistles, just as delusional about the "net roots" but less actual substance.
But now that we know he is a real contender here is what is going to happen - the Obama narrative is going to go from "This guy is fresh and new" to "where's the beef?" - Evidence is already trickling in - from the LA times piece on his cash haul:
At a Building and Construction Trades union gathering in Washington, D.C., the following week, the crowd screamed their approval for Clinton, Edwards of North Carolina, and even dark horse Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. Obama delivered a sometimes-monotone address focused on his desire to change Washington, eliciting a more muted response.
or
At a recent firefighters' convention in Washington, D.C., Obama did not measure up to his rivals, at least in the view of some union members, said Harold Schaitberger, president of the influential International Association of Fire Fighters.
or
But after the first session, some participants told to the Portsmouth Herald, which sponsored the forum, that they found Obama's appearance wanting."He gave no specifics. I have no firm idea where he's going," one told the newspaper.
or
At a union-sponsored health-care forum last month in Las Vegas, a questioner pressed Obama for details on his health plan, noting the sparse offerings on his campaign Web site.
Hillary Clinton raised $26 million, Obama raised $25 million, Edwards $14 million.
It is obscene to raise that much money and use it to be President. Think of what $65 million could do. The money for the Peace Keepers in Darfur is going to run out in October. New Orleans is still a mess. There are poor people everywhere who wouldn't mind having something to eat.
But instead, we are going to see all that money going to television ads that we are going to TiVo over.
Can you even imagine a candidate saying, you know what, I'm giving my money to charity, vote for me because I'm not going to saturate your tv. Sounds like a winner to me.
Bill Clinton, the smartest politician alive today, said this - "Democrats like to fall in love, and Republicans like to fall in line." I would add one other note about my political party - Democrats like to fall in love first, and fall in line later.
2004 - We fell in love with Howard Dean and fell in line with John Kerry.
2000- We briefly fell in love with Bill Bradley, who ran to the left of Gore. Gore beat Bradley 52 to 48% in New Hampshire. And then never came close again.
1996- We had a lover.
1992- If you look at it closely Harkin, Tsongas and Jerry Brown all titillated - as did Clinton until the sex scandals broke - and then he made his "comeback" by coming in second in N.H. After that Clinton the moderate White Southern Democrat was our lover and our leader - in fact Tsongas was deployed to make sure Brown did not win in New York - the pesky left wing of the party being what it is.
1988- final delegate count - Michael Dukakis 2687 - Jesse Jackson 1218 - back then we fell in love with Jesse and fell in line with Dukakis.
1984- Loved Gary Hart - Fell in line with Walter Mondale.
1980 - Fell back in love with a Kennedy and fell in line behind President Carter.
1976- Had a late blooming love affair with Jerry Brown that did not pan out. ABC - anybody but Carter - became a movement on the Left to stop Carter. But it was too late.
1972 - interesting year - The one the Left loved got the nod. Much of the party was so angry about it that delegates openly worked for Nixon. Some Dems angry that McGovern got the nod instead of Muskie voted for Mao Tse Tung for vice president at the convention.
1968 We fell in love with Eugene McCarthy, then Robert Kennedy, and fell in line Hubert Humphrey. Of course Kennedy's murder made a difference but the night he was shot the delegate count was :
Hubert Humphrey 561
Robert Kennedy 393
Eugene McCarthy 258.
Keeping with the themes of Florida and climate change Colorado State University has some bad news for this year.
The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season should be “very active,” with nine hurricanes and a good chance that at least one major hurricane will hit the U.S. coast, a top researcher said Tuesday.
Not what anyone living in Florida wants to hear.
Now that the right wing has been shown to be wrong on Global Warming - (adding another item to the long list of Right Wing/Tory failure and stupidity - from slavery to suffrage to civil rights, the Right is always Wrong. ) Here our friends and enemies at the NYT give us a piece on global warming/climate change but call the human response to it a "war on warming."
It is not a war. War on warming implies some mysterious, dangerous force is threatening us and we must fight back. Climate change is not that mysterious anymore. We caused it - not some climate terror cell from Venus. It is very dangerous. But what we need to do is change, not fight. We need to communicate, move away from conflict - (even moving away from using war metaphors) - and toward community and compassion and intelligence. And we need to do it quickly. The truth of climate change is going from inconvenient to catastrophic.
Ten things you can do right now - here. (PDF)
Unlike every other GOP in the field now Fred Thompson is a real threat to defeating Clinton or Gore in Novemeber 08. He could get in because the GOP field stinks to high heaven at this point.The Democratic field is terrific - almost any of could win in the general - except Obama and Kusinich. Obama would lose for bigoted wrong reasons, but he'd still lose - Kucinich would just lose because....
Beware Fred Thompson. I still think it's 50/50 he'll even run - but if he does he will be a real force.
|
|
