Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Bush vs MoveOn

Just when the hubbub over MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad appeared to be receding into the political background, President Bush unleashed an attack on the group -- and the Democratic Party -- during a just-concluded press conference.

Bush called the ad "disgusting" and insisted it was not just an attack on Gen. David Petraeus but on the military more broadly. "I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat Party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad," Bush added. "That leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org -- are more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military."

Eli Pariser, executive director for MoveOn, immediately shot back. "What's disgusting is that the President has more interest in political attacks than developing an exit strategy to get our troops out of Iraq and end this awful war," Pariser said.

In the short term, it's hard to see this as anything but a huge boon for MoveOn.org. Its membership is adamantly opposed to Bush and the strategy he has pursued in Iraq and his decision to take the group on by name will almost certainly energize the MoveOn membership. "I think he just raised MoveOn several million more dollars," said Erik Smith, a Democratic media consultant. "I don't think being singled out by President Bush will do anything to dissuade MoveOn, in fact, I think their members will feel validated."

The long term impact is less clear. As we have written before, the agendas of the Democratic Party and MoveOn.org are not always the same and, at times, can be in opposition to one another.

Establishment Democrats want to keep hammering that this is President Bush's war and don't want any distraction from that messaging. They also know that Gen. Petraeus is a far more better-regarded figure at the moment than Bush and want to keep the focus on the chief executive.

From MoveOn's perspective, Petraeus is part of the problem and deserves to be called out for it. In the immediate aftermath of Bush's remarks, MoveOn pointed to a statement by Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) during a recent appearance with Bill Maher in which the Nebraska Republican accused the Bush Administration of perpetrating a "dirty trick on the American people when you send a military man out there to basically do a political sell-job...It's not only a dirty trick, but it's dishonest, it's hypocritical, it's dangerous and irresponsible."

Jennifer Lindenauer, a spokeswoman for MoveOn, sought to paint Bush's comments against the backdrop of a Senate vote yesterday in which the majority of Republicans opposed a bill to lengthen leave time for troops. "This is another betrayal of trust by [Senate GOP leader] Mitch McConnell and the Republicans," she said. "They say they support our troops but when given the chance they vote against them."

But, Bush -- like many of his Republican counterparts -- is seeking to equate MoveOn and the Democratic Party as a single entity aligned against the military. Take Sen. John Cornyn's (R-Texas) sense of the Senate resolution pending before the chamber that states: "General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and the integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces."

Democrats need to push back -- hard and quickly -- against this sort of rhetoric before it has a chance to harden into political reality. Democrats need only look back to the 2002 Senate race in Georgia -- where Vietnam veteran Max Cleland lost amid attacks by Republicans on his national security bona fides -- or the 2004 presidential race -- where Sen. John Kerry struggled to respond to attacks on his military credentials by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- to see the consequences of not offering a stern counter attack.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 20, 2007; 12:14 PM ET
Categories:  Democratic Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama's Return to Message of 'Change'
Next: Wag the Blog: Fundraising Foibles

Comments

'petra2' writes:
I've always voted Republican in elections -- going all the way back to Reagan. And guess what, barring something unforeseen, I'm planning to pull the lever for Hillary in November of 2008 (and yes, folks, I know there's that little matter of her having to win the nomination). I like Obama, too, but he's frankly a bit too far to the left for me. John Edwards just seems tired, and all the Republicans running are incredible pander bears (pandering to the extreme right wing, that is). It is somewhat disconcerting to have yet another dynasty member as our next president. But the times we live in are too critical NOT to choose the best person for the job. I don't care if she's not warm, or not spontaneous, or not likable. Dogonnit, she's clearly the most polished, intelligent, hard-working, well-prepared, and competent candidate running. We can't settle for anything else. I'm personally hoping for a Hillary-Obama ticket in 2008.
'freespeak' writes:
The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?
I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark.
Batter up?
I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire).
I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.
When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction.
Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.
Oh!
The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bush is doing' a heckuva job!
I get it.
'charly_n' writes:
After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.
The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the Republican Party which has controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats (yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.
In 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.
I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.
'jnurse' writes:
All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Republicans, what she has done to her fellow Democrats for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.
'winngerald' writes:
petera1, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicans view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by Republicans) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilitated image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republican candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.
You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.
I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republican-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!
'jmmiller' writes:
"As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."
'ogdeeds' writes:
jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at Clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. All this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. Mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. And oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich CEOs, etc., etc.)Which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other Americans? The last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. Clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all Americans as well as putting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting America" - just so one uninformed and ideological president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like Hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.
'wesfromGA' writes:
One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her anyway, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic Party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr. Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presence of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.
The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).
There is no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.
All the negative comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.
What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic President and its going to be Hillary this time!
People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.
I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.
In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.
People forget that Giuliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.
We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs. Hillary. Single point campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.
When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.
It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"
People underestimate the positive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.
It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.
It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.
'jmartin' writes:
For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.
In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.

September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.

Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.

Posted by: Ajay Jain, Dallas, USA | September 25, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Of course the whiney toad doesnt like free speach. He also didnt like the hecklers on inaugeration day and dissenters at party functions and anyone who could burst his bubble that he was hand picked by god to start Armageddon. However, here in the real world, he must go on playing the president on TV until a real one can be found. Given the fact theat all the candidates are vieing for the "role" rather than the office, we are in for a tough time. For a president to create a Golum to battle in public is dispicable, but something we must face. The world image of Bush is in the chitter, and it is obviously a set up job, a done deal, but we are still the people, and the owners of this country, and can make enough noise for at least the malfeasance to be revealed. As for the Moveon mess, free speach is going to stay with us, and the apt analogy is: if the democrats were to cease funding the NASA program, the repubs would respond with: "they do not support the astronauts" For Bush to pretend that the soldiers are unsupported both dinigrates the soldiers and the public at large. He can do this because the people have been dumbed down to accept that the military Choose to go to Iraq to be chewed up in a meaningless war, while the war mongers create emotional motivators for peopel who do not have enough information to make a decision. The right wing projects a secret, hidden threat which can only be intuited by those who fear they have something to lose, which would be
pseudo christians, or christendom, without god in their heart.
Or is it that they Know there is no god and have to pretend that whole layer of confusion also? Whichever it is, and it may be a third path, the obfuscation, the lying, the pretense, is for covering something which hasent hit the mainstream, and that is the flinging to the wolves the substance of this country for fun and profit. Act they must, and everyone has their price. very few have any moral standard, however, and seen in this light leaves a chill in the spine of honest Americans

Posted by: bebeyond49 | September 24, 2007 3:59 AM | Report abuse

I have looked at MoveOn.org in the past...


a better group couldn't be found.


when you join, they have a list and a personal response area, that asks


you, as an individual what is important to you.


they don't have an agendae, except to kick the beeeeejeeezubus out of non_representational MSM


that tends to represent Rupert Murdoch/Clear Channel and all of those people bent on


porking AMERICANS, while selling you patriotism....aka


"the enemy,"


something like Webb must be feeling towards Warner for misleading him about giving troops some real downtime between tours...

as a dad, I am sure he feels like taking a ball peen to that old charlatan.

.

Posted by: HELLO WORLD.... | September 23, 2007 7:06 PM | Report abuse

as an independent voter i thing bush is one of the worst presidents in history,however i could never vote for a liberal, and there are a lot of us who feel that way. which is why its almost impossible for a liberal to become president.

Posted by: jim | September 23, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

MESSAGES FROM MOVEON

Yesterday, an amazing thing happened. After the Senate's shameful vote, and after President Bush called MoveOn "disgusting,"1 our email started to fill up with messages like this one:

"I'm currently in Iraq. I do not agree with this war, and if I did support this war, it would not matter. You have the RIGHT to speak the truth. We KNOW that you support us. Thank you for speaking out for being our voice. We do not have a voice. We are overshooted by those who say that we soldiers do not support organizations like MoveOn. WE DO. YOU ARE OUR voice."

And then came the donations. By midnight, over 12,000 people had donated $500,000-more than we've raised any day this year-for our new ad calling out the Republicans who blocked adequate rest for troops headed back to Iraq.

The message from MoveOn members was loud and clear: "Don't back down! Take the fight back to the issues that matter!"

So today we're shooting for a very ambitious goal: Reach $1 million so we can dramatically expand the campaign we launched yesterday going after politicians who support this awful war.

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/mcconnell.html?id=11275-8371548-FLSi0q&t=2

All day, messages from vets and military family members kept pouring into our email, many of them aimed at the Senate:

"I have given a son to this country. My brother, my father, my uncle have all served honorably and bravely. I am a loyal American. I am outraged and sick to death of the tactics this administration uses to try to silence dissent to a war that is unjust, built and maintained on lies, political power, and greed. I was content to let others fight more loudly, but no more."
-Sharyn W., NC

"I am a prior soldier who served in Iraq for 13 months, and am now an expecting mom with a husband who is deployed in Baghdad. I don't think I can ever forgive the Bush administration for the lies that tricked America into this war and hurt my family so badly. I am ashamed of those American politicians who would condemn an organization for practicing the Freedom of Speech that so many soldiers have died for."
-Danielle B., OH

"As a US Navy veteran and an Iraq war veteran of over a year I want to ask, What has happened to us? What has happened to our voice? Where is this country going with stopping free speech and free press? ... Every time I think of the long nights I had in Anbar remembering what I was fighting for, well here it is...."
-Ahmad H., LA

These folks have made sacrifices many of us can't imagine. Their charge to us was clear: "keep speaking the truth about how President Bush and the Republicans have betrayed our trust."


Posted by: paul | September 22, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Bush made Petraeus the target, because Bush has lost all credibility with his dismal record in Iraq. He's hiding behind Petraeas and using him a "cannon fodder".


Posted by: afam212
The Moveon commercial was over the top. Petraeus is trying to do the best job that he can. Does anyone think that he wants to fail? The President is right to say that the General should not be a target.

Posted by: DC | September 22, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Bush made Petraeus the target, because Bush has lost all credibility with his dismal record in Iraq. He's hiding behind Petraeas and using him a "cannon fodder".


Posted by: afam212
The Moveon commercial was over the top. Petraeus is trying to do the best job that he can. Does anyone think that he wants to fail? The President is right to say that the General should not be a target.

Posted by: DC | September 22, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

About MoveOn: They began as a group who tried to tell the Republicans to forget about impeachment, censure Clinton and MOVE ON! They were right, as the Republicans discoverd to their dismay.

Now they are pointing out that Petraeus used stats he knew was, at best, misleading. Every other report confirms this. He then pretended that he was not giving a White House report. Shame. MoveOn is right again. The public believes it as Republicans will discover to their dimay.

Posted by: freckles | September 22, 2007 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Uh, Cassandra, I am pretty sure that was the "fake" KOZ.

Posted by: roo | September 21, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com
Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.

"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.

Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."

Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.

Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.

In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."

In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.

During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.

The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .

-------------------

From this article We get a picture of the goals of the Catholic Church worldwide, and why they are insistant in the U.S. about harboring illegal aliens and promoting the breaking of our nation's immigration laws. The facts are that most of these illegal aliens come from predominantly Catholic countries. If our elected officials and the Catholic church get their way regarding amnesty for millions of illegal aliens that have invaded our country with the aiding and abetting of both our government and the Catholic church, the church plans on using the Catholic vote to do the same in our country as what they have proposed for the European nations and that is to have the state enforce their dogma...history is trying to repeat itself and the church wants all the power and control over mankind she once had.

Notice what Pope Benedict XVI states: "Your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday." Picture of things to come? Prophecy states it will and then the end will come.

Posted by: calumonit | September 21, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Think of how many Generals Bush has gone through in his administration! I abhor this Administration's attempt at passing the buck of accountability to a soldier (who has to follow orders). The General is not responsible for the policy of the Commander in Chief! I thought the General handled it delicately enough, even at one point answering "I don't know" when asked about the effectiveness of this strategy. To me, that was absolutely brave to put in question the policies that he has sworn to carry out, regardless of his personal opinion of them.

Posted by: Patrick | September 21, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Human garbage. I ask others to weigh in. Do you find this attitude acceptable? I personally am revolted beyond belief."

zOUK IS A FASCIST. i TOLD YOU :)

But move on and daily koz get censored. How is Fox and Rush still on the air agian, after teh imus lesson?

Posted by: rufus | September 21, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

IMPORTANT NEWS

Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com
Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.

"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.

Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."

Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.

Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.

In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."

In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.

During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.

The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (the return of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exaltheth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4

"If protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."--Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the cardinal in a letter of Feb. 10, 1920.

Does the Papacy acknowledge changing the seventh-day Sabbath? It does. The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for the priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day.'--Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345. The same, in slightly different wording is in the McHugh and Callan translation (1937 ed.), p. 402. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? "Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church."--Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p. 58. (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris {1916 ed.}, p. 67.) "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3d ed.), p. 174. "The Catholic Church,...by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."--The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Question: Is Saturday the 7th day according to the Bible & the Ten Commandments? Answer: I answer yes. "Question: Is Sunday the first day of the week & did the Church change the 7th day--Saturday--for Sunday, the 1st day: Answer: "I answer yes." "Question: Did Christ change the day? Answer: I answer no! Faithfully yours, "J. Card. Gibbons"--Gibbons autograph letter.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for the doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9

Receiving the mark of the beast or the seal of God in the mind or the hand is not a literal "mark" to be put on our foreheads or our hand but it is our consent to whom we will obey. "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey? Romans 6:16


Posted by: calumonit | September 21, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

ACTION NEEDED

Senator Dick Durbin's deceitful plan to keep Americans in the dark about the "Dream Act" and quickly pass it through
the Senate is failing under withering grassroots pressure!

Lacking the needed 60 votes for passage, a desperate Durbin, who opposes the war, is now attempting to use it for political
gain by pitching the "Dream Act" amendment as a military recruiting tool to aid in the Iraq War!

Note: military recruiting aspects of the amendment were in the bill before the amendment was presented. And laws addressing the military status of immigrants are already on the books.

This is just another scam being perpetrated by our unscrupulous
lawmakers to push through a massive amnesty plan.

Phone, fax and email your Senators today to REJECT THE "DREAM ACT"---INSIST THEY USE YOUR VOTE TO VOTE "NO" TO ADDING THIS AMNESTY AMENDMENT TO THE DEFENSE BILL.

Posted by: calumonit | September 21, 2007 9:30 AM | Report abuse


'What do I care if some U.S. soldiers are killed in Iraq? If they die, they die for a cause I have been taught by my party to support, thus their deaths are a regrettable necessity.
They volunteered for the armed forces anyway, didn't they? Those who chose other professions chose not to take that risk. And don't waste my time whining about soldiers from poor parts of the country who "had no other professional options." Waaah.

Our leaders are playing a complicated game of chess against the fanatic militants who hate freedom, and if we lose a small, acceptable number of casualties, we must trust in the wisdom of our elected leaders that their deaths will in the long run benefit the rest of us here at home.'

This tells you everything you need to know about the despicable character who call himself kingofzouk here. This tells you everything about the modern Republican party. This is someone so breathtaking callous, so unspeakably inhuman, that I call on all of you to say something to him, to stand up for human decency, no matter which party you are in. This is beyond partisan and goes deep into the hatred for our fellow americans that exists so deeply today because of the culture of Hate Radio and the whole rightwing slime brigade.

He's a classic war cheerleader and chickenhawk. Won't fight himself, but wants the war to last forever and let others do the fighting for him. He 'doesn't care' if some US soldiers die in Iraq. He just -- doesn't care. Means nothing. No big deal. An 'acceptable number' of casualties... 'waaah' he says. It's just fine for others to die a horrible death or be maimed, because it might, in some way, benefit him.

Because he''s been 'taught by his party' to support this 'cause'--then it's okay. Would have been a good German -- would have supported the Nazis in whatever they did.

This is someone who gets on this blog every day,all day long, for the purpose of sliming Democrats. Half of America. That's his so-called 'life' -- hatred for his fellow Americans.

Human garbage. I ask others to weigh in. Do you find this attitude acceptable? I personally am revolted beyond belief.

Posted by: Cassandra | September 21, 2007 8:44 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal investigators are examining allegations of criminal misconduct related to $6 billion worth of contracts for equipment and services needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior Pentagon official said Thursday.

The financial scope of the inquiries was provided during a congressional hearing at which Defense Department representatives were criticized for moving too slowly to deal with a growing number of cases of contract fraud and abuse.

Posted by: it's all about money | September 21, 2007 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Hi,

This General is an honorable man who has dedicated his life to OUR country and has the Bronze Star Medal for Valor

___

Gen. David H. Petraeus
Commanding General ~~ Multi-National Force - Iraq


General David H. Petraeus assumed command of the Multi-National Force-Iraq on February 10th, 2007, following his assignment as the Commanding General, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth. Prior to assuming command at Ft. Leavenworth, he was the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, which he led from June 2004 to September 2005, and the NATO Training Mission- Iraq, which he commanded from October 2004 to September 2005.

That deployment to Iraq followed his command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), during which he led the "Screaming Eagles" in combat throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His command of the 101st followed a year deployed on Operation Joint Forge in Bosnia, where he was the Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations of the NATO Stabilization Force and the Deputy Commander of the US Joint Interagency Counter-Terrorism Task Force-Bosnia. Prior to his tour in Bosnia, he spent two years at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, serving first as the Assistant Division Commander for Operations of the 82nd Airborne Division and then as the Chief of Staff of XVIII Airborne Corps.

General Petraeus was commissioned in the Infantry upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974. He has held leadership positions in airborne, mechanized, and air assault infantry units in Europe and the United States, including command of a battalion in the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and a brigade in the 82nd Airborne Division. In addition, he has held a number of staff assignments: Aide to the Chief of Staff of the Army; battalion, brigade, and division operations officer; Military Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander - Europe; Chief of Operations of the United Nations Force in Haiti; and Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

General Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983. He subsequently earned MPA and Ph.D. degrees in international relations from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and later served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the US Military Academy. He also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University.

Awards and decorations earned by General Petraeus include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Defense Superior Service Medal, four awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and the Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm.

He is a Master Parachutist and is Air Assault and Ranger qualified. He has also earned the Combat Action Badge and French, British, and German Jump Wings.

In 2005 he was recognized by the U.S. News and World Report as one of America's 25 Best Leaders.

LIAR...I do not think so.

Peace!
Steve
http://davidbetrayus.com/

Posted by: Steve Johnson | September 21, 2007 5:22 AM | Report abuse

Don't you see this means nothing? Your whole life is pointless.

Posted by: Miguel Ferrer | September 21, 2007 2:02 AM | Report abuse

"NO - we do not want to lose the war.
NO - we do not want to raise taxes
NO - we do not want the Senate running the military
NO - we do not want the Liberal agenda passed into law.
NO - we do not want socialized medicine." - kingofzouk

Who the hell are you talking about when you say "we"? I hope that you are not claiming to speak for the majority of the American people, b/c they overwhelmingly disagree with you on four out of five of those statements you just listed.

Posted by: Ohio guy | September 20, 2007 10:45 PM | Report abuse

This is really not going to develop into much. Bush has little credibility left omn this subject. His condemnation is merely preaching to the choir, and that choir is dwindling down to a quartet at best.
I don't support the MoveOn opinion of Patreas. I think he is a fine officer doing the best he can with what he is given. But the fact is the report swayed no one. This war has lost the support of not just Democrats but all of middle America. Only the most die hard Republicans favor it and only then because one of their own is President. Given the same circumstances but a Democrat for President, they would suddenly (wink) see the war for what is is and be screaming for the troops to come home.

Look how they chided Clinton for a military operation in the Balkans that acheived its purpose with very little in the way of American loss.

The GOP is trying to make tactics of the past work again for them. It's really a straw man argument. The wn't to take a group at the extreme and portray it as mainsteam Democratic doctrine. In other words, credit your opponent with an argument that's easy to refute, instead of facing your opponents real argument.

Ask most retired generals who are free to speak (active duty generals are not) and they will point out the hundreds of mistakes this administration made at the start.

Remember how the outgoing chief of staff of the Army told Congress it would require 700,000 troops at least to occupy Iraq. He was shouted down by chicken hawks like Wolfowitz. Yurns out he knew what he was talking about. But of course a career soldier who rose to the top of the Army could not know as much about deploying troops as a president best known for dodging his National Guard drills.

Posted by: alan in Missoula | September 20, 2007 10:01 PM | Report abuse

As usual dimwit Bush and hate the troops Republicans are disgusting. How can these people sleep at night?
I just donated money to MoveON.ORG.


Posted by: Stella | September 20, 2007 8:18 PM | Report abuse

I am pleased to hear the Senate can pass something," Hoyer said

funniest line of the Day. too bad all the old school Libs voted against it including dirty Harry.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

"Senate votes to do P.R. for MoveOn

By: Ryan Grim
Sep 20, 2007 05:39 PM EST


Former Sen. Max Cleland lost both legs and an arm fighting in Vietnam.
Photo: AP


SAVE
Digg
del.icio.us
Technorati
reddit
SHARE
COMMENT
PRINT
EMAIL
RECOMMEND




The U.S. Senate may not be the fastest moving body, but it did get around to weighing in on the now famous MoveOn.org ad calling Gen. David Petraeus "General Betray Us."

Since the Senate was offering up its negative opinion of the liberal organization's ad, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) figured it might as well condemn a few other things while at it. She proposed an amendment that would also give a thumbs-down to the Swift Boat ads accusing Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) of lying about his war record, and to a TV ad from 2002 showing then-Sen. Max Cleland next to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Boxer quoted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to make her case against the Cleland ad. "I've never seen anything like that ad," she quoted McCain saying. "'Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a picture of a man who lost three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible." McCain, meanwhile, ended up voting against Boxer's amendment.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the man behind the resolution, accused Boxer of trying to "change the subject." Democrats responded by noting that Cornyn himself was changing the subject with his resolution.

"We want to talk about the war. They want to talk about an ad in a newspaper," said Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

"What my colleagues fail to recognize," Cornyn said, "is those of us who volunteered to put ourselves up for public office know what we are going to be subjected to in the back-and-forth of a political campaign."

"I'm sorry, but that isn't good enough," said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) of Cornyn's fair-game logic. "If the principle is sound, it's sound whether it's in a political campaign or not."

But his logic didn't win the day: Boxer's amendment fell nine votes short of the 60 needed.

Though agreement wasn't reached on the Kerry or Cleland ads, there was consensus that Petraeus is a heckuva guy. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) called him "one of the finest officers in the history of this country, a guy -- he has a Ph.D. from Princeton. He is not a normal person."

After Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky sang Petraeus' praises, Reid added a note. "The only thing that my friend left off regarding Gen. Petraeus, he also has a Ph.D. from Princeton," he offered.
Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) added that the Cleland ad didn't deserve condemnation because it alone didn't cost him the election. "To assume that Max Cleland lost his seat solely because they questioned his patriotism is to ignore the entire political process," he said after the vote. "I think the argument was that he voted wrong and the voters decided that argument was correct."

Cleland lost both legs and an arm fighting in Vietnam; Reid described in detail the consequence of those wounds. "Every day of his life, including today, he wakes up and spends two hours getting dressed. He dresses himself. He does his exercise, running on a mattress with his stumps," said Reid. "But he wasn't patriotic enough to serve in the Senate, according to people who are in this chamber."

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats, took issue with Bennett, too. "It's not a question of whether he lost his seat," Sanders said of "the most vicious ads" that were "personal attacks against honorable, patriotic Americans."

Sanders argued that the Senate need not opine on every opinion. "We live in a Democratic society and people are allowed to do dumb things. Your newspapers do dumb things. And if every time something dumb is done when we have a debate on this issue, I think it's not only a waste of time, it's not what America is about," he said.

Another '08 presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), agreed, and didn't vote for that reason. "The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements. ... By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics."

The executive branch also weighed in on the MoveOn ad today. "I thought the ad was disgusting," said President Bush at a press conference. "I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat Party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad," he said, using an incorrect name for the party, which irritates Democrats.

Later in the day, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri suggested to his colleague, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), that the House ought to weigh in on the resolution the Senate had just passed by a 72-25 margin.

"I am pleased to hear the Senate can pass something," Hoyer said.

"

Posted by: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5945.html | September 20, 2007 6:46 PM | Report abuse

zouk is a fascist :)

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

coward - it must be very frustrating to be so outclassed and out manuvered at every turn. Is that why you resort to your childish antics of posting falshoods under my name? Knowing your MO and the Lib approach, I bet you will use this in the future to put false words in my mouth and "quote" me from above.

If you have to fall back on those tactics, I suggest you have already lost. Maybe its time to find a more calming hobby for a while. you are clearly on the edge of a total breakdown.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 20, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Back to posting under false names again I see. you lead a pitiful existance.

Posted by: trotsky | September 20, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

What do I care if some U.S. soldiers are killed in Iraq? If they die, they die for a cause I have been taught by my party to support, thus their deaths are a regrettable necessity.
They volunteered for the armed forces anyway, didn't they? Those who chose other professions chose not to take that risk. And don't waste my time whining about soldiers from poor parts of the country who "had no other professional options." Waaah.
Our leaders are playing a complicated game of chess against the fanatic militants who hate freedom, and if we lose a small, acceptable number of casualties, we must trust in the wisdom of our elected leaders that their deaths will in the long run benefit the rest of us here at home.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 20, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

"Today's vote on the Cornyn amendment is unconscionable. Warner stabs Webb in the back as the Republicans torpedo his amendment that supports the troops, but then Democrats cower and vote for this repulsive amendment. They took another step at destroying our freedom of speech.

Bush hid behind Gen. Petraeus' skirt as he did with Colin Powell. How quickly we and the media forget about his speech to the UN that brought us into this immoral war. He admitted it was the low point of his career. Here's the Barbara Walters interview from the wondrous C&L archives:

Powell: I will forever be known as the one who made the case for war.

Download (2899) | Play (1751) Download (1305) | Play (1202)

Dodd speaks out:

"It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war." - Chris Dodd

Paul Begala is shrill also.

"

www.crooksandliars.com

Posted by: One sided government. | September 20, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Roo, why would a foolish Brit know anything about american politics?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Thank roo for some common sense over this whole silly tempest in a teapot. I can't believe the crap the wingers get their knickers in a knot over.

Posted by: Jane | September 20, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

We can and obviously are of many minds about whether the language in the MoveOn ad was inappropriate. That is a Red Herring argument. So here is a little game for all of us with some slightly loaded questions (reality has a liberal leaning):

1. Do you think that Petraeus' presentation used accurate information and correctly analysed that information? Keep in mind that not one but TWO independent government analyses are directly contradicting Petraeus' facts AND analysis.

2. If you think that Petraeus' presentation was not factually or analytically correct, how would you phrase this firmly but politely? Is "betrayal of trust" too strong a wording?

Posted by: roo | September 20, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

You really aren't that bright are you coward? that was one of yours.

Was it a head wound or pre-existing? They should have known by the 19 on your ASVAB/AFQT.

you must have just squeezed in under the IV - C category.

Posted by: Dimdem | September 20, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Why not just admit it Zouk, you're no different than Clinton or Bush. And as a bonus, you could be President too,

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

It's "combat boots," Zouk. But combat's something you're personally afraid of, isn't it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Sssshhh! A blogger by the name of "Ihatebush" is over a Daily Kos right now saying Petraeus sucks and his mamma wears army boots.

Quick! Someone call Hannity for an exclusive!

Posted by: Jen Q | September 20, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"US politics is in the dumpster and it's there, to a large extent, because of those, like you, who pretend to evaluate political impact, rather than provide real info to the public so they can assess the right (and wrong) thing to do."

You must not know who bill kristol is, to make this comment. Ever heard of Bill O'REilly? How about Rush Limbaugh? You know they is this mean lady named ann coulter. He rants and raves agaisnt liberals are so bad I can't even get them on this blog. Fox "News" has hundreds of thousands of deaths on their hands. Which is worse? do something about the latter, I'll stop the former.

Posted by: Centure them all, if your not hypocrites. | September 20, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Your comment on Pres. Bush's condemnation of the MoveOn.org ad is a demonstration of all that is wrong with you and your colleagues in the commentariat.

It's not about a decent person being offended and saying what they think. It's not about a Commander in Chief defending an officer in the Armed Forces from a libel. It's not about a person standing up for a friend. It's not about right and wrong.

It's only about how it all plays politically.

US politics is in the dumpster and it's there, to a large extent, because of those, like you, who pretend to evaluate political impact, rather than provide real info to the public so they can assess the right (and wrong) thing to do.

Posted by: Blaise MacLean | September 20, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"York went on to note, helpfully, that "No Republican voted against condemning the MoveOn ad," but Democrats split 22-25 in favor of the amendment. Congratulations to Dianne Feinstein, Pat Leahy, Jim Webb and 19 other Senate Democrats for finally finding something they can get done with the control of the Congress given to them by the American voter. Nobody can say anymore that they have achieved nothing.

By condemning the largest and most active anti-war organization in the country, at least Bill Kristol won't say anything mean about them. It's too bad they have never found the time or inclination to pass resolutions condemning the endless attacks on the patriotism and integrity of war opponents, including decorated combat veterans within their own party. Is there anything left to say about how barren and worthless these Senate Democrats are? I can't find anything.
"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/30/craig_vitter

Sell-outs. We are no longer represented. You people are right. clinton is going to be the next president. And there's nothing any of us can do to stop it. try as we might.

Posted by: greenwald (Other) | September 20, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic Senators who voted against the censure of MoveOn.org should be ashamed of themselves. However, the lock in step GOP Senators who voted against the Webb Amendment should feel the same way.

Posted by: afam212 | September 20, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

'it is time to move on and vote to end the war' - dodd

clueless Dems as usual. We voted to win the war today., not lose the war or end the war. dodd gets the kucinich/Gravel award for irrelevance today.

Hey dodd, why keep bringing up losing resolutions if you feel that way? what is it about NO you don't understand?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

rufus (Krish)

Posted by: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" | September 20, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)"

that you for standing up agaisnt congress and with reality. That you for aknowledging what the rest of THE WORLD ALready knows. Thank you for standing up agaisnt the gop hypocricy. Fox has coulter and limbaugh on all the time. Why is fox not censure for lying us into this war. Which is more damning? And ad, or hundreds of thousands of deaths?

The gop and much of congress thinks an ad. I'm just glad Harry Reid heard what I told him, for once.

Posted by: One party rule. To the rest of congress SELL-OUTS | September 20, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"People fear what they don't understand. HATE WHAT THEY CAN'T CONQUER. I guess it's just the fury in man."

I AM

Posted by: Nas | September 20, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

JD - Ignorant coward could just paste a link to the Daily Kos and the DNC and his work would be done for the day. he offers no value added and would not be missed.

Except for alerting us to all the zouk sightings of course.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Midday Open Thread
by MissLaura
Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 11:26:16 AM PDT
Street Prophets is two years old. Go on over and wish them a happy birthday.


Remember what a huge sign his campaign was in trouble and how totally embarrassing it was when John McCain only raised $11.2 million in the second quarter? Well, sounds like his third quarter fundraising is going to be embarrassing like walking out of the bathroom with toilet paper trailing from his foot, his fly open, a booger hanging from his nose, and seeing his girlfriend kissing some other guy in front of everyone. Or, as the Right's Field suggests, McCain "might be headed to blood banks to round up some ready cash." If you're wanting to place a bet on how long McCain stays in, you might want to do that soon.
The same Right's Field item notes that James Dobson isn't happy with Fred Thompson's candidacy.


The field continues to clear for Jeanne Shaheen in the New Hampshire Senate race, with Katrina Swett dropping out and endorsing Shaheen.


In its earliest-ever endorsement, the Michigan AFL-CIO threw its weight behind Gary Peters in MI-09, where he's running to unseat Joe Knollenberg.


This week's Firedoglake labor post is by a guest poster, on immigration. They Got Walter takes a broad look at the effects - and some of the causes - of an immigration raid in eastern Massachusetts.


As rumored, IL-11 Republican Jerry Weller will be retiring. Efforts had already been underway to recruit a strong Democrat for the race, and it's sure to be competitive.


Thousands marched in support of the Jena 6 today. Several Democratic presidential candidates have made statements, with Hillary Clinton calling for a Justice Department investigation and Chris Dodd saying he hopes LA Gov. Blanco "grants immediate reprieves should any of the Jena 6 be convicted."


And Dodd again, on the Senate vote to frown at the MoveOn ad. (In, as Markos would say, a newspaper.)
"It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war."

Race tracker wiki: MI-09

Permalink :: Discuss (156 comments)

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

there is really no need to attack Dems, they are perfectly capable of self-destructing all on their own. they always do. they can't help themselves. all they need to do is reveal their ideas and policies for once.

Imagine voting against:

strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces

"We do not support the troops today, ask again next week"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

what a shame that this blog has gone to sh!t thanks to the efforts of some kids with too much time on their hands.

These copy and pastes actually make people annoyed to the point where you hurt your own cause. Just put a link in there for evidence of your arguments.

Posted by: JD | September 20, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Attack dems
Post from the weakly standard
Drool
Laugh hysterically
Drool
Repeat

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I see the intellectual heft of the uber -left is hard at work today.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

But of course the American media doesn't really care about or concern itself with the travails of the Iraqi people; they're unfortunate background extras in the epic struggle/battle/final reckoning that keeps the War Party's goggled eyes fixed on the dust-swirling horizon even as the ground gives beneath their planted feet.

The plight of the Iraqi people in the ongoing catastrophe precipitated by the US invasion and occupation barely flickers in their mental attics, but take Petraeus's name in vain and watch them whip up a steamy batch of ire heavily seasoned with harrumph. Even Fred Thompson, who seems to be running for president of Petticoat Junction, emerged from the pickel barrel to lodge his disapproval of that MoveOn.org "Petraeus/betray us" ad.

TBogg has more on this terrible breach of etiquette against America's favorite daytime infotainment general. As does Balloon Juice's John Cole, for whom the Republican posturing over the ad induces the delicate assessment: "The current GOP is a snivelling, brain-dead, spineless group of sewer trout..."

Posted by: former republican | September 20, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

From the AP: Blackwater has said its employees acted "lawfully and appropriately" in response to an armed attack against a State Department convoy.

From what I've been seeing reported for the past four years, Blackwater, Custer Battles, and all of the other guns for hire contractors have the perfect defense. A variation on Catch-22. They claim that they act legally, but nobody will admit to under what law they operate.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

'You Libs need to find something meaningful in your lives'

From a delusional guy who spends his every waking hour typing nonsense on a blog. Amazing. I would laugh, but it's really too pathetic.

Posted by: Cassnadra | September 20, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Attack zouk
Post from Kos
Repeat

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules or took a few liberties with our female party guests -- we did. But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg ... isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!"

Posted by: Otter | September 20, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

less likely if the US withdrew before civil order is restored. Some 35 per cent say it would be more likely to occur.

There are some other telling statistics showing the differences between the Shia and Sunni communities. Some 30 per cent of Shia Arabs say the security situation in their neighborhood has become better in the last six months and 21 per cent say it is getting worse. But more than half the Sunni -- 56 per cent -- say their security is worse and only 7 per cent say it is better.

These figures confirm the belief that the Sunni are being pushed out of Baghdad or into small enclaves within the city.
Ever since the summer of 2003 the US has never admitted the political and military consequences of the lack of support for the occupation outside Kurdistan. The latest poll shows that 79 per cent of Sunni and 59 per cent of Shia have no confidence at all in the US and UK forces.

This basic lack of support for the occupation undermines the elaborate tactics which Gen David Petraeus is supposedly carrying out in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

At first sight the Petraeus report looks as if it is going to be one of those spurious milestones in the war in Iraq, (like the Iraq Study Group's report last December), heavily publicized at the time, but not affecting the political and military stalemate in the country.

Unfortunately, the propaganda effort by the White House now underway may have a more malign impact than most propaganda exercises. It claims that victory is possible where failure has already occurred. It manipulates figures and facts to produce a picture of Iraq that is not merely distorted but substantively false.
[snip]

Iraqi society is breaking down. It is no longer possible to get medical treatment for many ailments because 75 per cent of doctors, pharmacists have left their jobs in the hospitals, clinics and universities. The majority of these have fled abroad to join the 2.2 million Iraqis outside the country.

The food rationing system on which five million Iraqis rely to stay alive is also breaking down with two million people no longer being fed because food cannot be distributed in dangerous areas. Rice and beans are of poor quality and flour, tea and baby formula are short. Unemployment is 68 per cent of the workforce, so without a state ration and no jobs, more and more Iraqis are living on the edge of starvation.

No wonder then that what Iraqis believe is happening to them and their country is wholly contrary to the myths pumped out by the White House and the Pentagon. The opinion poll commissioned by ABC news, the BBC and Japanese Television NHK and published yesterday shows that 70 per cent of Iraqis say that their security has got worse during the last six months when the US increased the number of its US troops in Baghdad and surrounding provinces. A solid 57 per cent believe that attacks on coalition forces are acceptable. Some 93 per cent of Sunni approve such attacks and 50 per cent of Shia also back them.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I just realized why Bush's claim that an attack on Petraeus is an attack on the military sounded so familiar.

See Otter, "Closing Statement," Animal House (1978).

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 20, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

If General Petraeus is willing to let Brit Hume lead him around by the damp nose, it's proof that what we have here is little more than Joe Lieberman in highly-decorated drag, positively ablaze with flare. It is a measure of Petraeus's obliging pliancy that he would even accede to testifying on the anniversary of September 11th, thus ensuring that his report would function as a tie-in product. As columnist Gideon Rachman wrote in today's Financial Times: "The symbolism of getting General David Petraeus to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the anniversary of 9/11 appealed to the White House. It should not have. It is crass."

Worse than crass. A day of national mourning has been hijacked for a media orgy intended to perpetrate an optical illusion of epic scale, writes Patrick Cockburn at Counterpunch:

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Show some courage Zouk, and tell us what you have ever actually done to serve this country.

Simply voting doesn't count.

Posted by: Red Badge | September 20, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Future President of Petticoat Junction Seeks Florida Fun

Sopping up gravy wherever he goes, Republican hopeful Fred Thompson pays his respects to the good people gathered around the filling station.

"It's good to be back among neighbors," he said. "You know, in Tennessee, every time I had a day or two I always would try and find an excuse to get down to Florida. Well, it looks like I found a pretty doggone good one. I'm going to be down here a whole lot."

One wonders why the former Senator from Tennessee was always itching so bad to get down to Florida. It's not as if Tennessee and Florida are right next door to each other; it's not a brief commute. Given my extensive reading of John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee novels, where rich women with coral toenails hide their inscrutable pasts and bitter sorrows behind tinted sunglasses as their nymphomaniac stepdaughters go missing, I have a fair idea of what might have been enticing the Fredmobile southward on the flimiest of excuses, but it would be imprudent to speculate further.

I do think it's fair to speculate how long someone with Thompson's history as a politician, lobbyist, and film-TV actor can get by with this Goober-Gomer "doggone" shtick. It's true that Reagan had his folksy side, complete with cheeks that blushed like painted roses, but he also delivered fully-rounded speeches with rhetorical bridges and perorations; he didn't just show up as if to shuck corn. I will say this, though: Thompson's somewhat lackadaisacal lope is a smart counterfoil to Mitt Romney's executive-vampire zeal and glinty opportunism--maybe it takes a real fake to show up a fake fake. Thompson at least seems to be composed of organic material; Romney is pure vinyl exterior down to the empty core.

Posted by: walcott | September 20, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

While the battle in Iraq could hardly be described as clean and neat, the public referee just went both arms vertical. The "Surge" as described by the Bi-Partisan Iraq Study Group just sailed through the uprights. Nothing but net.

Turns out all of this anti-war talk about the "Surge" effort was a bunch to do about nothing. Troops did a great job. Al Qaida in Iraq and rogue Iranian backed terror elements are less effective thanks to courageous and personal sacrifices by our military forces. Now it's time to "Surge" the spearhead of the left's vaunted diplomatic capabilities.

We cannot withdraw from this fight short of conditions allowing a stable and secure Iraq which is able to fend off the elements of terrorism which surround it's geography and are indeed part of it's recent history. To abandon the fight in Iraq short of obvious minimal objective would bring about stunning political and security set backs in the Middle East, the possibility of genocide on an unimaginable scale, and a significant reduction in our own long term security, global influence and ability to defend our homeland. The Bipartisan Iraq Study Group Recommendations recognized these possible outcomes and the executive and legislative branches of government are aware of it. If it was easy we would be out already. It's not easy.

While we are all war weary, none can be as weary as those of you who are tasked in life to shoulder the responsibilities of this hardship. Those who whine the loudest are indeed those who do the least in terms of support of the troops and service to their country. Nearly all of us here locally unconditionally support with great respect the mission, personal efforts, and the sacrifice of those in uniform regardless of political affiliation. Your loved ones are performing a great service and we support their mission and efforts 100 percent.

Except for 25 Senate Democrats of course

http://www.dailydemocrat.com/letters/ci_6948585

Posted by: Daily Democrat | September 20, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

rufus = The Fix's MoveOn.

rufus, by posting so much text instead of links to the text, you lose everybody and distract the thread from what should be discussed. Just like MoveOn did.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Where's the "disgust" with Pete King's "too many mosques" comment? Maybe that's acceptable. Maybe he should tase Eli Pariser and Co...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: paul | September 20, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

To our conservative friends who supported this resolution:

Since when did criticizing a single individual General who is offering his opinion to Congress become not supporting the troops?

Do you support all of Gen. Wesley Clark's opinions?

Do you support all of Gen. Anthony Zinni's opinions?

Do you support all of Gen. William Odom's opinions?

Do you support Gen. John Abizaid the other day when he said a nuclear Iran is acceptable and something we can deal with?

No? Well then, nice support for the troops there, folks.

See how ridiculous that argument is? It's just another strawman attack poisoning American political discourse.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday, by a 5-3 vote, the City Council of San Diego passed a resolution supporting marriage equality. Jerry Sanders, the Republican mayor-- who campaigned opposing marriage equality-- announced this morning that he had changed his mind and would sign the resolution instead of vetoing it. A former Chief of Police, Sanders, tearfully also announced that one of his daughters, Lisa, is gay and that he would lead with his heart. "The concept of a separate but equal institution is something that I cannot support," he explained, tearfully, with his wife standing at his time." Please watch the video; it is very powerful.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/09/stunning-about-face-republican-mayor-of.html

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

"It is a sad day in the Senate when we waste hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war." - Chris Dodd

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

zouk (rhymes with kook and puke) is bringing back one of his most venerable and obnoxious sock puppets.

Posted by: I see twatsky is back | September 20, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I have gone from posting under no name to posting under kingofzouk to posting under women's names today. I am so confused. am I closeted or ready for a change? If I post under zouk will anyone talk to me or think I am smart. I am running out of hope.

rufas, you still love me don't you?

the rest of you wouldn't know zouk if he bit you. what would you do without me?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

I served in Viet Nam-3 tours, and have a son in Iraq now. I agree with MoveOn.org's position, but I do have a discomfort with making fun of Petraeus' name. That's the sort of nick-naming mode Bush likes to use-very juvenile.

Posted by: Spectator | September 20, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse


Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was supposed to speak to the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce in Kansas on Dec. 4. But today the Wichita Eagle reports that his appearance was quietly canceled last month after "too many people objected."

Posted by: xx | September 20, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

IIt turns out that Fred Thompson, who was wooed to enter the race by social conservatives unhappy with the other candidates, can't even remotely count on any help from Mr. Social Conservative himself, James Dobson of Focus on the Family.

Dobson wrote in a private e-mail obtained by the Associated Press; "Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?"

"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"

A spokesman for Focus on the Family confirmed that Dobson wrote the e-mail, which was apparently provoked by Thompson's admission that he does not attend church regularly.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

FYI: The cable news networks are reporting a "Non-Binding" Bill condemning the move-on.org add. That is not what the vote was about, from what I had seen earlier. A couple posts have the votes, but what was the actual Bill? I thought it was about "Personal attacks on Gen. P. and the military.", and the specific add was not part of it, although implied. Does anyone have the actual title of the Bill and what was in it??

Posted by: lylepink | September 20, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

America Coming Together (ACT), a pro-Democrat organization whose creation was both conceived and funded by the billionaire financier George Soros, has in essence joined the ranks of those Chinese government agents who illegally sought to influence the outcomes of American presidential elections in the 1990s. We now know that in 2004 Soros and ACT attempted, like those agents of Communist China had done a decade before, to buy the U.S. presidency, plain and simple.

Posted by: clinton chinese cash | September 20, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

'I see rufus is going for the coveted "most obnoxious posts of the day" award. Keep that streak alive!'

naw -- that's saved for kingofzouk every day.

Posted by: Diane | September 20, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Attack zouk
Post from Kos
Repeat

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

demean the personal value of those who serve in our military :

reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.

who in this chamber votes to demean the military and can't agree with the previous statement: all Dems, not surprising.

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)


Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I doubt that there are very many bloggers here that have military experience. Well, I served. Move on disgusts me and most Democratic politicians do also. To them the military is just something you can insult and use. I can remember being at someone's house in Bethesda in the 80s when someone said, "the trouble with Va is there's too much military." That's the attitude of Move On and most Democrats. I knew that during Reagan's time, Clinton's time and it is still true today.

Posted by: Steven7753 | September 20, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I really hate Democrats and America and so I have to stay on here all day, obssessively posting lies about them. I have no other life.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 20, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, MoveOn lowered themselves to your's and Coulter's level. For that they should be catsigated.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

More Petraeus-Style Progress in Iraq
by BarbinMD
Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 01:58:38 AM PDT
During yesterday's Senate debate on Jim Webb's dwell time amendment, Republicans spent the day crowing about all of the success in Iraq. Said John McCain:

We are succeeding and we are winning. With this amendment, we will choose to lose. This is a formula for defeat, not for victory.

Yes, victory is breaking out all over:

In another sign of U.S. struggles in Iraq, the target date for putting Iraqi authorities in charge of security in all 18 provinces has slipped yet again, to at least July.

It is the second time this year the target date for completing what is known as "Provincial Iraqi Control" has been pushed back. The Pentagon report submitted to Congress on Monday hinted at the possibility of further delays. [...]

It said the main reason for the delays so far is a "lack of capability in the Iraqi police services."

The Pentagon report cited a litany of problems with the police. For example, it said as few as 40 percent of those trained by coalition troops in recent years are still on the job. Also, due to combat loss, theft, attrition and poor maintenance, a "significant portion" of U.S.-issued equipment is now unusable

But not to worry. We're perfectly willing to send our men and women on repeated, extended deployments, so this latest failure won't really matter. After all, we've got an amendment to condemn MoveOn to vote on. We don't need to waste any more time arguing about troop rest or readiness.

Permalink :: Discuss (53 comments)
Surge!
by kos
Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 10:02:36 PM PDT
So the latest craziness from the wingnutosphere goes like this:

Miniter -- who's written from Baghdad before -- claims that even the CIA can't operate in and around Baghdad without the gun-toting Bklackwater guys, which may well be true, as it's been reported that the State Department has halted many of its outside activities, even in the supposedly safe Green Zone. He also suggests that the people killed were not civilians but "civilians", with quotation marks, and that entire anti-Blackwater campaign is some kind of Iranian plot to undermine the highly successful -- according to Miniter, anyway -- surge:

According to exclusive information obtained by Pajamas Media's Washington editor Richard Miniter, the movement of key CIA station personnel in Baghdad has been all but shut down. Are we witnessing Iran's counter-strike to the surge?
Movements of key CIA station personnel in Baghdad--along with most State department diplomats and teams building police stations and schools--have been frozen for the second day in a row, according to a State department source who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Essentially, the CIA, State department and government contractors are stuck inside the International Zone, also known as "the Green Zone," in Central Baghdad. Even travel inside that walled enclave is somewhat restricted.


The "surge" is going so well that not even the CIA can leave the Green Zone without a heavily armed mercenary escort? And it's all Iran's fault? Yeah, of course it doesn't make any sense. Did they ever make sense?

And if you are wondering what the whole "civilians with quotation marks" thing is all about, it's probably from this CYA memo sent out by Blackwater PR (and passed on to me by an unsympathetic recipient):

Subject: Private and Confidential- Blackwater Proprietary

I wanted to get you some facts regarding Sunday's incident in Iraq:

As you have obviously seen in the media Blackwater DSS personnel were involved in an incident in Baghdad that has made International news. These are the facts as we understand them:

Based on cables, incident reports, and witness accounts, Blackwater is confident that its independent contractors acted lawfully and appropriately in response to a hostile threat in Baghdad on Sunday.

Initial press accounts include countless inaccuracies. For instance, the helicopters providing aerial support never fired weapons.

Furthermore, we have received no official word from the Ministry of the Interior regarding plans to revoke licenses. The "civilians" reportedly fired upon by Blackwater professionals were in fact armed enemies.

Blackwater was escorting a US Embassy convoy when a roadside bomb disabled one of the armored vehicles in the convoy. No one was injured.

Bombing occurred 25 yards outside our venue in Monsoor District
The embassy employees were immediately escorted away from the area.
Tactical Support Team (TST) requested
TST receives small arms fire in traffic circle near the initial explosion
TST command vehicle disabled by small arms fire
Blackwater personnel came under small arms fire when they were attempting to tow the disabled vehicle away. They returned fire.
A vehicle approached at high rate of speed during the salvage operation and ignored warnings to stop. The vehicle was fired upon until it stopped moving.
Another vehicle moved behind the stopped vehicle and began to push it toward the salvage operation. That vehicle was also stopped.
We suspect the first vehicle contained explosives and was trying to get within range for detonation.
Blackwater personnel exited the area as soon as possible. In cases like this, we do not stay around to investigate.
The press is reporting "civilian" deaths. The reality is these people were trying to kill Americans. They are insurgents and terrorists.
We did our job. We protected embassy personnel against an attack meant to kill them.
The licensing issue is not a factor. An MoI license is not required for the work we do for DoS .
The DoS continues to appreciate the work we do keeping them safe in a professional and extremely competent manner.
The Department of State greatly discourages us speaking with the press.
Regards,
David

David G. Ray
Blackwater International
Director of Aviation Operations

See? If they killed it, they were terrorists. Even though they didn't stick around to double-check. And they don't need no stinking license anyway.

In any case, here's today's UN Security Briefing on Iraq (PDF). Lots more insurgent attacks which, er, proves that the surge is working because, um, the insurgents are desperate even though Blackwater killed them all while the CIA was hunkered down in the Green Zone afraid to get blown up. And none of it would've been possible without Drudge and the 101st Fighting Keyboardists.

Or something.

Permalink :: Discuss (141 comments)

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

""Thursday September 20, 2007 12:57 EST
The art of neoconservative innuendo
(updated below)

Writing in National Review a couple of days ago, Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute blatantly violated the New Rule in America which prohibits questioning the credibility of a four-star General in a Time of War, when Ledeen (during a Time of War) attacked recently retired Four-Star General John Abizaid for explaining why a nuclear-armed Iran is less dangerous than a U.S. war with Iran. Said Ledeen in attacking the General:

Abizaid Speaks! Oh Dear... [Michael Ledeen]

General Abizaid has unburdened himself on the subject of nuclear Iran. He thinks Iran is kinda like the Soviet Union, it's deterrable, and while he'd rather Iran not have nukes, all in all we could live with it. . . .

I'm grateful for this bit of enlightenment from the former commander of Central Command, whose failed strategy in Iraq led us to fight more effectively, especially against the Iranians' depredations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It was under Abizaid that the copious evidence of Iranian activity was suppressed, and we, let's say, took it easy on the thousands of Revolutionary Guards killers running all over the country. He now wants to extend that policy to Iran itself. He's got plenty of company in Foggy Bottom, Langley, and the White House.

So Gen. Abizaid, who "failed" in his mission, also "suppressed" the "copious evidence" of Iranian involvement in Iraq. That sounds like Ledeen is accusing General Abizaid of being less than honest -- how else can one characterize someone who "suppresses" evidence? -- and that, as we learned this week, is not allowed. The Commander-in-Chief just explained this morning that such attacks are "disgusting" and constitute attacks on The Troops Themselves.

This morning, Ledeen wrote a post reciting the only political argument he knows (other than slandering Four-Star Generals in a Time of War) -- namely, that we are at War with Iran and have been for 3 decades:

But We Are at War with Iran [Michael Ledeen]

The current kerfluffle over Adhmadinejad's proposed pilgrimage to Ground Zero shows once again how bad ideas drag us irresistibly to bad policy. Having refused for nearly thirty years to deal with the reality that Iran declared war on us in 1979 and has been waging it ever since, we are now acting as if Iran were just another country and its president therefore entitled to all the usual courtesies for visiting foreign dignitaries.

As I wrote recently:
Ledeen is plagued by the single most absurd yet fundamental contradiction one can imagine. His central argument, repeated over and over and now a staple in neoconservative mythology, is that Iran has been at war with the U.S. continuously ever since 1979. We just haven't fought back yet.

Yet Ledeen played a central role in brokering the sale by Israel to Iran of highly advanced weapons as part of the Reagan administration's Iran-contra shenanigans in the 1980s. A military confrontation with Iran would likely subject U.S. troops to attack from the very same nasty weapons which Ledeen and his friends provided to Iran during a time when, Ledeen and neoconservatives now insist, Iran was waging war on the U.S. As Scott Lemieux, among many others, has noted, providing arms to a country "waging war against the U.S." -- as Ledeen did with Iran in the 1980s if his central premise is to be believed -- is called treason.

As I've documented previously, one of the most intellectually dishonest attributes of neoconservatives generally -- one of the principal features that makes them such a corrosive presence in our political discourse -- is their fondness for trafficking in innuendo and argument by implication. They love to spew out vague phrases filled with obvious, implied meaning yet they virtually always lack the courage to explicitly state what they are trying to convey. They will say things like "it's time to get our hands dirty in this war" or "we need to stop being so politically correct in how we fight" or "it's time that there be real consequences for those who undermine America in a time of war," but they will be too afraid to specify exactly what they are advocating even when asked to do so.

Examples of this neoconservative intellectual cowardice are too numerous to chronicle. As I noted in that prior post, after AEI's Michael Rubin kept spewing out warmongering slogans regarding Iran, he was pressed by Andrew Stuattaford on what we should do specifically (invade them? bomb them? what?), and Rubin finally wrote: "With regard to much more precise options, such things are better discussed in private, and I would be glad to do so."

That same week, Mark Levin pounded his chest and wrote about a NYT article which he claimed "gives up more of our strategic secrets": "I long for the good old days when Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president, punished such acts of betrayal. And no, I am not joking." But he refused to say what he meant when I emailed and asked specifically what he had in mind -- hanging or imprisoning reporters and editors? In 2005, Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard ominously urged that the White House issue "a clear delineation of what's permissible and what's out of bounds in dissent on Iraq" without bothering to say what that means. And super tough guy Frank Gaffney, after he got caught using a fake Lincoln quote in his column implying that anti-war Senators be hanged for treason, then meekly refused to say what he really thought should be done to such traitors.

One would hope that with the Existential War of Civilizations -- World War IV -- raging, our most courageous Churchillian Warriors wouldn't be so passive about what they believe. But alas, arguing by implicit smears and deniable innuendo -- and lacking the courage of one's convictions to state clearly what one is implying -- is perfectly compatible with a character which calls for endless wars to be fought by others.

Along those lines, I had the following e-mail exchange with Michael Ledeen today, whose views on these matters -- in light of his new book, the various and increasingly absurd Iran controversies", and his status as favorite right-wing Iran "expert" -- I really was hoping to probe in order to write about:

GG to ML

Mr. Ledeen - I'm writing a piece for Salon on your new book. I am curious about one issue in particular -- if, as you frequently say (including this morning), "Iran declared war on us in 1979 and has been waging it ever since," do you consider it to be an act of treason for those in the Reagan administration who helped facilitate the sale of highly sophisticated weapons to Iran during the 1980s, during the time when they were waging war against the U.S.?

Isn't it the ultimate act of treason to help a country at war with the U.S. obtain weapons? Any thoughts you have to be included in the article would be appreciated.

Glenn Greenwald

GG to ML
While I have you - one other question: yesterday, you indicated that Gen. Abizaid had "suppressed" evidence of Iranian acts of war inside Iraq. Do you have any ideas as to what motivated him to do so?

Glenn Greenwald

ML to GG (re: arming Iran)
As I wrote at the time, quoting Talleyrand, "it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder."
ML to GG (re: Abizaid)
it's all in the book, which i'm sure you are memorizing.
GG to ML
But was it treason to work to provide arms to a country at war with the U.S.?
ML to GG
listen, i've answered you twice. you've slandered me from pillar to post, please stop being rude.
GG to ML
It's true that you responded to my emails, but you didn't actually answer the question. I'll include the email exchange and let the reader decide if you did.

Glenn Greenwald

That wasn't very constructive. Ledeen is perfectly content to urge war with Iran based on the moronic slogan -- now a right-wing article of faith -- that they have been "at war with us since 1979," but he is completely unwilling to account for his own behavior or that of the Reagan administration towards Iran during that time. And he's eager to leave all sorts of dark innuendo about Gen. Abizaid ("suppressing evidence" of Iranian acts of war) but refuses to state what he means or why he thinks Abazaid would engage in such treacherous behavior.

This is how neoconservatives function. Ledeen's intellectually dishonest tactic is found in virtually every one of Bill Kirstol's columns and Fox News television sneers. For instance, Kristol -- attacking Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's invitation to New Adolph Hitler President Ahmadinejad to speak -- says today: "A perfect synecdoche for too much of American higher education: they are friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military." So is Bollinger anti-American? A Traitor? As always, Kristol merely leaves the dirty innuendo against anyone who opposes more wars against Israel's enemies, but always lacks the courage explicitly to make the argument.

As noted, the Commander-in-Chief himself has spent the last couple of days wallowing in this tactic. In addition to his adoption of this smear at his Press Conference this morning, the President also -- during one of the little meetings yesterday he is so fond of holding with adoring sycophants calling themselves "journalists" -- announced about the MoveOn ad, with a proud Bill Kristol present: "this attack was not just on General Petraeus, it was on the military up and down the line." Kristol, the True Expert in such innuendo, then added:

For to accuse Petraeus of cooking the books is to accuse a host of his subordinates and staff of colluding with him in lying to Congress and the American public. And to remain silent in the face of this slander. . . is to show a striking lack of concern for the reputation and honor of the American military."
Why do Democrats have such a "striking lack of concern for the reputation and honor of the American military"? Why are war opponents attacking "the military up and down the line"? Do they hate the military? Are they anti-American? Are they rooting for the Terrorists to win? The swaggering Commander-in-Chief and his resolute warrior-followers will never say. They lack the courage to say what they imply. They constantly opt instead to argue by unstated implications and lurking innuendo and smears. Whatever else that might be, courageous and resolute it isn't.

UPDATE: In fairness to the neoconservatives and their cowardly smearing tactics, one could argue that it is rational for them to continue to wield them given how effective they are against Congressional Democrats, who are well on their way to making the Democratic Party the single most pathetic political entity one can recall encountering:
Senate Condemns MoveOn Ad [Byron York]

The Senate has just passed, with 70+ votes, the Cornyn Amendment, which reads:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.
York went on to note, helpfully, that "No Republican voted against condemning the MoveOn ad," but Democrats split 22-25 in favor of the amendment. Congratulations to Dianne Feinstein, Pat Leahy, Jim Webb and 19 other Senate Democrats for finally finding something they can get done with the control of the Congress given to them by the American voter. Nobody can say anymore that they have achieved nothing.

By condemning the largest and most active anti-war organization in the country, at least Bill Kristol won't say anything mean about them. It's too bad they have never found the time or inclination to pass resolutions condemning the endless attacks on the patriotism and integrity of war opponents, including decorated combat veterans within their own party. Is there anything left to say about how barren and worthless these Senate Democrats are? I can't find anything.

-- Glenn Greenwald

Share
Email
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Print Permalink
Post a comment | Read comments (25)
Wednesday September 19, 2007 07:26 EST
Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?
"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/30/craig_vitter

"

Posted by: Akknoledge you hypocricy GOP. | September 20, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Attack zouk
Post from Kos
Repeat

It appears that Ignorant coward and rufas have hijacked the blog again.

they need and 'end if' statement

You Libs need to find some meaning in your pitiful lives.

how about 'end if' no one responds within an hour? then you could quit one hour and one minute after the thread opens every day instead of haunting us all the live long day.

Posted by: trotsky | September 20, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

The WaPO is reporting this as an unprovoked comment rather than what it was, which is a response to a question at a news conference. Don't ask the question if you don't want to hear the answer - or, perhaps it was a deliberately posed question designed to elicit exactly the response it got so that the looney fringe at MoveOn could pretend they'd been slimed to draw attention from the fact that they are the "slimers."

Posted by: tuckershire | September 20, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"Ask a vet how many single (not even three) purple heart recipients are all in one piece with not one scar to show for it."

The answer Zouk is, most.

Arms and legs don't have to be blown off to be wounded. If you ever had a shred of decency and had actually served your country, instead of just taking from it, you would know this.

For the way you demean the personal value of those who serve in our military by degrading them to being just pawns in life, you deserve the moniker you so love to tag onto other people so much, Ignorant Coward.

The Coward (in real life) part of it applies far more to you than anybody else here.

Posted by: Grunt (PH) | September 20, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

"WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate voted Thursday to condemn an advertisement by the liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org that accused the top military commander in Iraq of betrayal.

The 72-25 vote condemned the full-page ad that appeared in The New York Times last week as Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, testified on Capitol Hill.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RPBHO80&show_article=1
"

Posted by: One party run. Both parties are differant sides of the same coin. We are no longer a free country. W | September 20, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

GOP Sticks with Bush And Chooses To Make 2008 About Iraq
by DemFromCT
Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:00:25 AM PDT
The votes were not there. From the NY Times:

The Senate vote was a crucial test of the war plan that Mr. Bush put forward last week, calling for only gradual reductions in troop levels in Iraq from their current high, and leaving intact by next summer a main body of more than 130,000 troops, about the same number as last February.

The outcome showed that the strong opposition to the war plan by Democrats and a few Republicans remained insufficient to overcome a powerful Republican minority in the Senate that has succeeded all year in staving off challenges to the war policy.

For now, the failed Webb proposal is the closest Democrats have come to bipartisan legislation that would force Mr. Bush to change his strategy. And with Republicans solidly behind the plan outlined by Mr. Bush and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, Democrats have retreated to a firm antiwar stance.

And when the votes are not there, you concentrate on core principles and look to 2008 to garner more votes (unless conditions change, attracting more R votes).

They are no longer entertaining the kind of compromise measures that some Democrats had proposed this month as an attempt to woo Republican defectors, and they said they would instead seek opportunities to hold votes that would more starkly contrast Republican support for the president with Democrats' demands for withdrawal.

"The Republican leadership and the White House is getting them all to march in line," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who ranks third in the party leadership. "But it is marching further and further away from where America is. We just keep at it. It's all we can do."..

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, said the majority leader was rebuffed repeatedly in his efforts to find consensus with the Republicans.

"It became evident that Republicans were not willing to break with the president," he said.

But there's another part to this, and that's the toll this will take on the GOP. Don't miss this piece, which was covered here yesterday:

Americans aren't just having a tough time seeing themselves pulling the lever for Republicans these days. Fewer are seeing themselves as Republicans, period...

The development provides another angle from which to view the party's plight in being defined in the public's minds by an unpopular president sticking with an unpopular war and a group of lawmakers on Capitol Hill who continue to serve up easy fodder for late-night talk shows.

The Congressional Republicans are crossing their fingers and hoping things get better. Sure, they'll blame Democrats, that's what they always do (see Iraq Hearts And Minds Are Unwinnable, So Go After The Dissenters from 2004). But the GOP base is not big enough to win elections by itself (hello, pundits), and they are alienating everyone else while tying themselves to one of the most unpopular Presidents in polling history.

If they don't get it, and apparently some don't, they are going to have it explained in November 2008 in terms they can understand. If the pundits don't get it, and here the news is running far ahead of some of the analysis, they'll have a hell of a time explaining the material they are printing now.

Not everyone is falling for it, of course. Robert Novak, with good GOP sources, writes:

The failure of the Petraeus report to significantly alter the political climate on Iraq is bad news for Republicans in the 2008 campaign. The assessment by GOP insiders is that continued casualty lists in the election year will be fatal. President George W. Bush's statement offered little hope for relief.

And Jennifer Duffy, the Senate expert at the Cook Report wrote earlier in the month:

Suddenly, says Ms. Duffy, the Democrats reaching a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority is not impossible. (The ninth state that could become vulnerable for Republicans is Oregon, where Sen. Gordon Smith is not considered safe.)

"The Democrats hate talking about it - they think it sets expectations too high," says Duffy. But now that she can see seven Democratic takeovers, with two others "hanging out there," she won't rule it out.

For the Democrats to reach 60, "it means everything has to go right for them, but everything went right for them last time," she says.

Early as it is, the fundamentals are not going to change any time soon.

Permalink :: Discuss (210 comments)
Cheers and Jeers: Thursday
by Bill in Portland Maine
Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:26:51 AM PDT
From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

The General welcomes the Republicans' new savior

Dear Mr. Keyes,

Until now, I haven't seen a presidential candidate I can fully support. Sure, they're all good on values issues like finding new, more painful ways to torture people, but by God, as far as I know not a single one of them have blamed 911 on abortion or spoken out against the abomination of allowing people to elect their senators. You're the only one.

And by God, no candidate, not even Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee, has stood up for family values by disowning one of their own children for being a homosexual. I thank you for it. A candidate can't get any more family values than that.

It caused me to re-evaluate my relationship with a homosexual in my own family, my dog, Brutus. I followed your example and banished him from my house for his homosexuality. I've also considered banishing his partner in crime, but I am too spiritually weak to ask a doctor to amputate my leg. I'm very ashamed that I can't be stronger. I know you'd do it.

The only other Republican who could come close to topping Alan's musky mangodliness would be Newt Gingrich. But that, of course, would be too good to be...Oh my God, I think he's in! Yes, I now have confirmation from a second source, David "Whatever I Say The Opposite Happens" Broder. You read it here first.

Gingrich/Keyes in '08? Cheers and Jeers reaches for the smelling salts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Poll
Your opinion of the tax code shakeup proposed Tuesday by Barack Obama?

Love it
25% 861 votes
Like it
26% 886 votes
Dislike it
7% 232 votes
Hate it
6% 211 votes
Not sure/No opinion
33% 1123 votes

| 3313 votes | Vote | Results

Permalink :: There's more... (493 comments)

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

So successful, we need to sink trillions more into it
by kos
Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 08:58:24 AM PDT
I'd respect the Republicans mishandling this war a tiny bit more if they actually worried about paying for this war rather than blather on about tax cuts.

A new Congressional study finds that President Bush's plans for the U.S. in Iraq over the next several decades will reach the trillions of dollars, on top of the approximately $567 billion the war has already cost. That accounting assumes a significant troop drawdown -- and still tallies a daunting expense for the United States [...]

A prior CBO study estimated that U.S. costs in Iraq from 2009 to 2017 will total approximately $1 trillion. On top of that, under the reduced-force combat scenario envisioned in this CBO estimate, the U.S. will spend another $1 trillion by 2057 -- the lifespan of the U.S.'s Korean presence to date.

All estimates are in 2008 dollars. Both estimates are arguably conservative. In the combat scenario, for instance, Army units serve 12-month tours, whereas they now serve 15-month tours. In the non-combat scenario, the CBO ratcheted down the Defense Department's cost-of-war estimates to reflect "lower costs for such items as equipment maintenance, fuel and consumable materials."

We sink trillions into Iraq while levies and bridges collapse back home. Interesting priorities.

And here's the 9/20 UN Iraq Security Information Report (PDF). It's loaded with extra Success!

Permalink :: Discuss (105 comments)
The Filibuster: now painless and more convenient than ever!
by Kagro X
Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 07:22:43 AM PDT
Senator Jim Webb's "dwell time" amendment failed yesterday by a vote of 56-44.

Yes, it failed by garnering 12 more yes votes than no votes.

By now, though, most of us are used to seeing this sort of thing. "Everyone knows" that it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. Because that's how many votes it takes to invoke cloture, and cloture is how you break a filibuster. Right?

Sure.

But that ain't what's happening.

And it's why you're not seeing headlines today declaring that Senate Republicans cravenly filibustered legislation that would have required that troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan get recovery time at home equal to the time spent in combat.

Such a requirement, by the way, is already a tremendous compromise. The Pentagon brass usually requires twice as much rest as deployment. But Webb's compromise required only half that much rest. Still, Republicans said no. Our troops -- including our "one weekend a month" National Guardsmen -- must be required to spend more time in combat than out. So that the rest of us can all shop, watch TV, cut taxes, or take a "wide stance" if we feel like it.

So why aren't the papers reporting on the Republican intransigence in the Senate? Why aren't they telling everyone how they're ordering troops stressed to the breaking point back into combat while they busy themselves smoothing their pocket squares? Why aren't they publishing screaming headlines about the sheer gall of yesterday's Republican filibuster?

Because there was no Republican filibuster. That's why.

Instead, the reason the Webb amendment failed even though it got 56 votes was that Senators agreed by unanimous consent that the amendment should have to get 60 votes to pass, even without a filibuster.

But why would anyone agree to allow Republicans, who are already on pace to shatter all previous filibuster records, to stop an amendment this important and this sensible without even lifting a finger? And the question here is not just why anyone would allow it, but why everyone did. A single Senator could have put a stop to this simply by saying, "I object" when the unanimous consent request was made. Just one Senator.

Yet none did.

Not Harry Reid. Not Russ Feingold. Not Bernie Sanders.

Nobody.

And so the Webb amendment died quietly yesterday, allowing Republicans to enjoy all the obstructionist benefits of a filibuster, without having to stand up and tell Americans and their fighting men and women in the military exactly what they were doing. And not a moment was "wasted" on the "extended debate" that's supposed to make up a filibuster.

Everyone just politely agreed that 56-44 would be a losing vote for America's sons and daughters wearing the uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they did it on national television. And America yawned, hit the snooze button, and slept in.

In the coming days, the Congress will be dealing with the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008. President Bush has threatened to veto almost every single one of them, which would leave the United States without any spending authority come October 1. That's ten days from now. The president says he's going to veto everything, and we have ten days to see if he's serious, decide what to do in case he is, and then figure out a way to get funding passed.

But hey, since those veto threats are pending, why not just agree to unanimous consent requests in both the House and the Senate that the appropriations bills will require a 2/3 vote to pass? Since they're going to be vetoed, why not just spare poor President Bush the trouble and the wear and tear on his veto crayon, and agree up front that if a bill doesn't pass with a veto-proof majority, it shouldn't be considered passed at all?

Because that's the logical extension of what happened yesterday. And the truth is, it makes no less sense. We don't know that Bush has the will to veto these bills any more than we knew that Republicans had the will to filibuster the Webb amendment. And I mean really filibuster. Not wait out a one-day cloture petition, beat it, and then break for lunch. But really stand on their feet day in and day out, live on C-SPAN2, and tell America they think our troops should spend more time in combat, and their families should just shut up about it.

Until recently, cloture votes were the easy way out of a filibuster. Forty-one Senators had only to make their protest last long enough to make it to the cloture vote, beat it, and then bask in their victory as the majority pulled the "defeated" legislation from the floor and slunk away. But believe it or not, Senate Democrats have found an easier way to do this, and begin slinking even earlier.

Bravo.

Permalink :: Discuss (422 comments)
Open Thread

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate voted Thursday to condemn an advertisement by the liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org that accused the top military commander in Iraq of betrayal.

The 72-25 vote condemned the full-page ad that appeared in The New York Times last week as Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, testified on Capitol Hill.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RPBHO80&show_article=1

Posted by: Bingo | September 20, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"Thursday September 20, 2007 12:57 EST
The art of neoconservative innuendo
(updated below)

Writing in National Review a couple of days ago, Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute blatantly violated the New Rule in America which prohibits questioning the credibility of a four-star General in a Time of War, when Ledeen (during a Time of War) attacked recently retired Four-Star General John Abizaid for explaining why a nuclear-armed Iran is less dangerous than a U.S. war with Iran. Said Ledeen in attacking the General:

Abizaid Speaks! Oh Dear... [Michael Ledeen]

General Abizaid has unburdened himself on the subject of nuclear Iran. He thinks Iran is kinda like the Soviet Union, it's deterrable, and while he'd rather Iran not have nukes, all in all we could live with it. . . .

I'm grateful for this bit of enlightenment from the former commander of Central Command, whose failed strategy in Iraq led us to fight more effectively, especially against the Iranians' depredations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It was under Abizaid that the copious evidence of Iranian activity was suppressed, and we, let's say, took it easy on the thousands of Revolutionary Guards killers running all over the country. He now wants to extend that policy to Iran itself. He's got plenty of company in Foggy Bottom, Langley, and the White House.

So Gen. Abizaid, who "failed" in his mission, also "suppressed" the "copious evidence" of Iranian involvement in Iraq. That sounds like Ledeen is accusing General Abizaid of being less than honest -- how else can one characterize someone who "suppresses" evidence? -- and that, as we learned this week, is not allowed. The Commander-in-Chief just explained this morning that such attacks are "disgusting" and constitute attacks on The Troops Themselves.

This morning, Ledeen wrote a post reciting the only political argument he knows (other than slandering Four-Star Generals in a Time of War) -- namely, that we are at War with Iran and have been for 3 decades:

But We Are at War with Iran [Michael Ledeen]

The current kerfluffle over Adhmadinejad's proposed pilgrimage to Ground Zero shows once again how bad ideas drag us irresistibly to bad policy. Having refused for nearly thirty years to deal with the reality that Iran declared war on us in 1979 and has been waging it ever since, we are now acting as if Iran were just another country and its president therefore entitled to all the usual courtesies for visiting foreign dignitaries.

As I wrote recently:
Ledeen is plagued by the single most absurd yet fundamental contradiction one can imagine. His central argument, repeated over and over and now a staple in neoconservative mythology, is that Iran has been at war with the U.S. continuously ever since 1979. We just haven't fought back yet.

Yet Ledeen played a central role in brokering the sale by Israel to Iran of highly advanced weapons as part of the Reagan administration's Iran-contra shenanigans in the 1980s. A military confrontation with Iran would likely subject U.S. troops to attack from the very same nasty weapons which Ledeen and his friends provided to Iran during a time when, Ledeen and neoconservatives now insist, Iran was waging war on the U.S. As Scott Lemieux, among many others, has noted, providing arms to a country "waging war against the U.S." -- as Ledeen did with Iran in the 1980s if his central premise is to be believed -- is called treason.

As I've documented previously, one of the most intellectually dishonest attributes of neoconservatives generally -- one of the principal features that makes them such a corrosive presence in our political discourse -- is their fondness for trafficking in innuendo and argument by implication. They love to spew out vague phrases filled with obvious, implied meaning yet they virtually always lack the courage to explicitly state what they are trying to convey. They will say things like "it's time to get our hands dirty in this war" or "we need to stop being so politically correct in how we fight" or "it's time that there be real consequences for those who undermine America in a time of war," but they will be too afraid to specify exactly what they are advocating even when asked to do so.

Examples of this neoconservative intellectual cowardice are too numerous to chronicle. As I noted in that prior post, after AEI's Michael Rubin kept spewing out warmongering slogans regarding Iran, he was pressed by Andrew Stuattaford on what we should do specifically (invade them? bomb them? what?), and Rubin finally wrote: "With regard to much more precise options, such things are better discussed in private, and I would be glad to do so."

That same week, Mark Levin pounded his chest and wrote about a NYT article which he claimed "gives up more of our strategic secrets": "I long for the good old days when Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president, punished such acts of betrayal. And no, I am not joking." But he refused to say what he meant when I emailed and asked specifically what he had in mind -- hanging or imprisoning reporters and editors? In 2005, Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard ominously urged that the White House issue "a clear delineation of what's permissible and what's out of bounds in dissent on Iraq" without bothering to say what that means. And super tough guy Frank Gaffney, after he got caught using a fake Lincoln quote in his column implying that anti-war Senators be hanged for treason, then meekly refused to say what he really thought should be done to such traitors.

One would hope that with the Existential War of Civilizations -- World War IV -- raging, our most courageous Churchillian Warriors wouldn't be so passive about what they believe. But alas, arguing by implicit smears and deniable innuendo -- and lacking the courage of one's convictions to state clearly what one is implying -- is perfectly compatible with a character which calls for endless wars to be fought by others.

Along those lines, I had the following e-mail exchange with Michael Ledeen today, whose views on these matters -- in light of his new book, the various and increasingly absurd Iran controversies", and his status as favorite right-wing Iran "expert" -- I really was hoping to probe in order to write about:

GG to ML

Mr. Ledeen - I'm writing a piece for Salon on your new book. I am curious about one issue in particular -- if, as you frequently say (including this morning), "Iran declared war on us in 1979 and has been waging it ever since," do you consider it to be an act of treason for those in the Reagan administration who helped facilitate the sale of highly sophisticated weapons to Iran during the 1980s, during the time when they were waging war against the U.S.?

Isn't it the ultimate act of treason to help a country at war with the U.S. obtain weapons? Any thoughts you have to be included in the article would be appreciated.

Glenn Greenwald

GG to ML
While I have you - one other question: yesterday, you indicated that Gen. Abizaid had "suppressed" evidence of Iranian acts of war inside Iraq. Do you have any ideas as to what motivated him to do so?

Glenn Greenwald

ML to GG (re: arming Iran)
As I wrote at the time, quoting Talleyrand, "it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder."
ML to GG (re: Abizaid)
it's all in the book, which i'm sure you are memorizing.
GG to ML
But was it treason to work to provide arms to a country at war with the U.S.?
ML to GG
listen, i've answered you twice. you've slandered me from pillar to post, please stop being rude.
GG to ML
It's true that you responded to my emails, but you didn't actually answer the question. I'll include the email exchange and let the reader decide if you did.

Glenn Greenwald

That wasn't very constructive. Ledeen is perfectly content to urge war with Iran based on the moronic slogan -- now a right-wing article of faith -- that they have been "at war with us since 1979," but he is completely unwilling to account for his own behavior or that of the Reagan administration towards Iran during that time. And he's eager to leave all sorts of dark innuendo about Gen. Abizaid ("suppressing evidence" of Iranian acts of war) but refuses to state what he means or why he thinks Abazaid would engage in such treacherous behavior.

This is how neoconservatives function. Ledeen's intellectually dishonest tactic is found in virtually every one of Bill Kirstol's columns and Fox News television sneers. For instance, Kristol -- attacking Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's invitation to New Adolph Hitler President Ahmadinejad to speak -- says today: "A perfect synecdoche for too much of American higher education: they are friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military." So is Bollinger anti-American? A Traitor? As always, Kristol merely leaves the dirty innuendo against anyone who opposes more wars against Israel's enemies, but always lacks the courage explicitly to make the argument.

As noted, the Commander-in-Chief himself has spent the last couple of days wallowing in this tactic. In addition to his adoption of this smear at his Press Conference this morning, the President also -- during one of the little meetings yesterday he is so fond of holding with adoring sycophants calling themselves "journalists" -- announced about the MoveOn ad, with a proud Bill Kristol present: "this attack was not just on General Petraeus, it was on the military up and down the line." Kristol, the True Expert in such innuendo, then added:

For to accuse Petraeus of cooking the books is to accuse a host of his subordinates and staff of colluding with him in lying to Congress and the American public. And to remain silent in the face of this slander. . . is to show a striking lack of concern for the reputation and honor of the American military."
Why do Democrats have such a "striking lack of concern for the reputation and honor of the American military"? Why are war opponents attacking "the military up and down the line"? Do they hate the military? Are they anti-American? Are they rooting for the Terrorists to win? The swaggering Commander-in-Chief and his resolute warrior-followers will never say. They lack the courage to say what they imply. They constantly opt instead to argue by unstated implications and lurking innuendo and smears. Whatever else that might be, courageous and resolute it isn't.

UPDATE: In fairness to the neoconservatives and their cowardly smearing tactics, one could argue that it is rational for them to continue to wield them given how effective they are against Congressional Democrats, who are well on their way to making the Democratic Party the single most pathetic political entity one can recall encountering:
Senate Condemns MoveOn Ad [Byron York]

The Senate has just passed, with 70+ votes, the Cornyn Amendment, which reads:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.
York went on to note, helpfully, that "No Republican voted against condemning the MoveOn ad," but Democrats split 22-25 in favor of the amendment. Congratulations to Dianne Feinstein, Pat Leahy, Jim Webb and 19 other Senate Democrats for finally finding something they can get done with the control of the Congress given to them by the American voter. Nobody can say anymore that they have achieved nothing.

By condemning the largest and most active anti-war organization in the country, at least Bill Kristol won't say anything mean about them. It's too bad they have never found the time or inclination to pass resolutions condemning the endless attacks on the patriotism and integrity of war opponents, including decorated combat veterans within their own party. Is there anything left to say about how barren and worthless these Senate Democrats are? I can't find anything.

-- Glenn Greenwald

Share
Email
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Print Permalink
Post a comment | Read comments (25)
Wednesday September 19, 2007 07:26 EST
Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?
"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/30/craig_vitter

Posted by: greenwald | September 20, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

It turns out that Fred Thompson, who was wooed to enter the race by social conservatives unhappy with the other candidates, can't even remotely count on any help from Mr. Social Conservative himself, James Dobson of Focus on the Family.

Dobson wrote in a private e-mail obtained by the Associated Press; "Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?"

"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"

A spokesman for Focus on the Family confirmed that Dobson wrote the e-mail, which was apparently provoked by Thompson's admission that he does not attend church regularly.

Posted by: R's in crisis | September 20, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was supposed to speak to the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce in Kansas on Dec. 4. But today the Wichita Eagle reports that his appearance was quietly canceled last month after "too many people objected."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Oh, don't be stupid Chris. Most American's have no clue who Move On.org is. The Democrats don't need to go around fighting the last campaign (Doing the military equivalent is how the Bushies got us into this mess in the first place). Chris Dodd had it right, American soldiers are dieing everyday in Iraq, and THIS is what the US Senate is VOTING on? At least in 2004, the Republicans were smart enough to never put their official finger prints on any smears. Their political acumen is devolving since the last camapaign.

Posted by: AJ | September 20, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Why has Kerry still not released his promised military record?

answer - 'cause only the wingnuts are consumed by this.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

""MoveOn.org and the media mess
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 12:31PM
On Hardball, Cillizza falsely claimed "most" Dem candidates said "our kids don't go to" public schools
Friday, August 10, 2007 6:32PM
On Hardball, Cillizza asserted Democrats "need to prove" they can keep Americans "as safe as Republicans can"
Friday, August 3, 2007 2:27PM
CNN, NY Times, Wash. Post uncritically repeated Giuliani's claim that anti-Giuliani firefighter unions are partisan
Thursday, July 12, 2007 8:05PM
Wash. Post's Cillizza described Bush's 70-percent approval among South Carolina GOP voters as "sky-high"
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:33PM
In questioning Obama's "policy credentials," Wash. Post's Cillizza cited AP article without noting its false claim
Friday, March 30, 2007 1:58PM
Wash. Post's Cillizza falsely claimed Obama "is battling allegations of ethical misjudgment"
Wednesday, March 7, 2007 ""

Posted by: so after all this. Senate censures the left and the gop continue to go on fox. Hypocrites. | September 20, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Blackwater: Above the law.

Yesterday we reported that not only is Blackwater immunized from liability under any Iraqi law, but the State Department has allowed it to operate under less restrictive rules of engagement than any other private military company. As a result, the State Department bears responsibility for the culture of impunity that resulted. Today The Washington Post adds more detail:


Blackwater "has a client who will support them no matter what they do," said H.C. Lawrence Smith, deputy director of the Private Security Company Association of Iraq, an advocacy organization in Baghdad that is funded by security firms, including Blackwater.
The State Department allowed Blackwater's heavily armed teams to operate without an Interior Ministry license, even after the requirement became standard language in Defense Department security contracts. The company was not subject to the military's restrictions on the use of offensive weapons, its procedures for reporting shooting incidents or a central tracking system that allows commanders to monitor the movements of security companies on the battlefield.

"The Iraqis despise them, because they are untouchable," said Matthew Degn, who recently returned from Baghdad after serving as senior American adviser to the Interior Ministry. "They are above the law." Degn said Blackwater's armed Little Bird helicopters often buzzed the Interior Ministry's roof, "almost like they were saying, 'Look, we can fly anywhere we want.' "

Posted by: murderous mercenaries | September 20, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse


Representative Jerry Weller (R-IL) boasts the largest foreign land holdings of any member of Congress. But Weller, who failed to disclose land transactions in Nicaragua, is now dogged by ethics questions and will probably be resigning as early as Thursday. (Chicago Tribune)

Posted by: nother one bites the dust | September 20, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

A new Congressional study finds that President Bush's plans for the U.S. in Iraq over the next several decades will reach the trillions of dollars, on top of the approximately $567 billion the war has already cost. That accounting assumes a significant troop draw-down -- and still tallies a daunting expense for the United States.

We've added the report to our document collection. You can read it here.

On June 1, during a trip to U.S. Pacific Command in Honolulu, Defense Secretary Robert Gates mused about how to "posture ourselves" in Iraq "for the long term." The U.S. should follow the experiences of post-conflict garrisoning in Korea and Japan, he said: "a mutually agreed arrangement whereby we have a long and enduring presence." President Bush is reportedly intrigued by the so-called Korea model, wherein the U.S. has guaranteed security on the Korean peninsula with at least four U.S. Army combat brigades for half a century. Indeed, in his speech on Thursday, Bush declared himself ready to build an "enduring relationship" between the U.S. and Iraq.

Posted by: iraq 4ever | September 20, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

But I don't remember anywhere in the Constitution where this is listed as part of the confirmation process - power mad

Zouk, your brain needs more excercise than regurgitating RNC talking points and cutting and pasting other people's thoughts. It's Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constituion.

Leahy is advising the President that he will not consent, until the Administration meets its obligations to the elected representatives of the people of this country, not just the Republican wingnuts.

Nice try to make it appear that you know what you're posting about, though.

Posted by: Jimmy Madison | September 20, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

A homeland security adviser to Rudy Giuliani came under fire Thursday for claiming there were "too many mosques" in the United States.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

'Some of the right-wing posters on this board are really quite amusing. '

There all the same guy, who calls himself 'kingofzouk' -- only goes by tons of other names too -- a really angry, unstable,braindamaged individual who apparently has no other life but typing drool for this blog.

Posted by: Nancy | September 20, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Why has Kerry still not released his promised military record?

answer - the swift boaters told the truth.

how can you get three purple hearts and not spend a day in the hospital? Ask a vet how many single (not even three) purple heart recipients are all in one piece with not one scar to show for it.


If you brag about combat (which real heroes don't generally do) you have opened the door to question your account. Kerry still won't release the official military version of his record even though it is customary for all politicians to do so and I don't know one who still has theirs sealed. the reason is he is hiding the truth. Only a clinton supporter thinks that hiding something is truthful.

Posted by: JAG office | September 20, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

moveon.org must have been infiltrated by cheney operatives. how else to explain the maladroit and juvenile "betray us" ad? the republican candidates had been sniping at each other, rendering a performance worth of the keystone cops until moveon gave them a script to get back on a unified message.

Posted by: fred | September 20, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I am glad to see that everyone who is sane on this blog is completely ignoring ignorant coward and Rufas. they have resorted to posting long boring cut and pasted articles, which are easy to skip over, or arguing with each other and battling the evil zouk.

Keep up the good work and we can have a sensible discussion one day soon.

We do not wish to establish a policy of editing or censoring on this blog so it is up to the users to dissuade or encourage the others based on response only.

thanks for your cooperation.

Posted by: the editors | September 20, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

"MoveOn.org and the media mess
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 12:31PM
On Hardball, Cillizza falsely claimed "most" Dem candidates said "our kids don't go to" public schools
Friday, August 10, 2007 6:32PM
On Hardball, Cillizza asserted Democrats "need to prove" they can keep Americans "as safe as Republicans can"
Friday, August 3, 2007 2:27PM
CNN, NY Times, Wash. Post uncritically repeated Giuliani's claim that anti-Giuliani firefighter unions are partisan
Thursday, July 12, 2007 8:05PM
Wash. Post's Cillizza described Bush's 70-percent approval among South Carolina GOP voters as "sky-high"
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:33PM
In questioning Obama's "policy credentials," Wash. Post's Cillizza cited AP article without noting its false claim
Friday, March 30, 2007 1:58PM
Wash. Post's Cillizza falsely claimed Obama "is battling allegations of ethical misjudgment"
Wednesday, March 7, 2007 "

Censure them all. Should I go on?

Posted by: cc | September 20, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"Attacking "crackpot" Media Matters, Morgan now accuses "hypocritical cockroach" Soltz of violating "spirit" of Army rules
Friday, August 17, 2007 5:27PM
Morgan named "Worst Person" for attacks on VoteVets.org's Soltz
Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:51PM
Morgan made up military law, calling Soltz "a hypocrite and a liar"
Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:47PM
On Hardball, Melanie Morgan claimed Bill Clinton "is still dating"
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 11:51AM
A year later, Morgan still defending her comments about NY Times' Keller and treason
Friday, July 20, 2007 8:27PM
Cal Thomas, KSFO's Rodgers and Morgan left out part of Clinton speech that directly refutes their accusation of socialism
Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:10PM
On Fox, Morgan blamed Media Matters for apparent PBS ban
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:46PM
Olbermann named Limbaugh "Worst Person," flagged Lehrer post about Morgan
Friday, May 18, 2007 1:12PM
Olbermann "Worst Person" awards: O'Reilly for French "boycott" misinformation, PBS NewsHour for Melanie Morgan
Friday, May 11, 2007 7:58PM
NewsHour hosted Melanie Morgan on Iraq war despite her history of misinformation and smears
Wednesday, May 9, 2007 8:18PM
KSFO's Morgan: Media Matters like Virginia Tech gunman
Friday, April 20, 2007 7:14PM
KSFO's Rodgers: "Well, thank God you didn't offer [Al Sharpton] watermelon."
Wednesday, April 4, 2007 5:32PM
KSFO's Morgan attacks Obama for church's "commitment to Africa," but Bush admin. also committed
Tuesday, March 6, 2007 4:31PM
In reviving Obama smears, Morgan guest/co-author cited reported anti-Semite with "well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character"
Friday, March 2, 2007 3:09PM
Olbermann named Morgan "winner" of "Worst Person" for claiming Soros helped Nazis "to further his own career" "

f

Posted by: melanie morgan | September 20, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"Fox's Hannity asserted the Paws "only make $49,000 a year"
Friday, August 31, 2007 4:05PM
Hannity is Olbermann's "Worst Person" for defending Nugent's comments
Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:31PM
Hannity refused to disavow Ted Nugent's slurs against Obama and Clinton
Monday, August 27, 2007 4:56PM
Hannity claimed it was "not true" that "our troops are killing civilians, air raiding villages" in Afghanistan
Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:56AM
Hannity previewed attack on Edwards over New Orleans foreclosures, ignored reported Edwards pledge
Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:09PM
Hannity claimed Obama was "bashing America" when he criticized Bush's Afghanistan policy
Monday, August 20, 2007 6:46PM
After suggesting Vince Foster was murdered, Hannity praised caller who accused Clinton of multiple rapes
Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:10PM
Hannity falsely suggested that Obama "attack[ed] our troops as murderers"
Thursday, August 16, 2007 7:33PM
Hannity repeatedly mischaracterized Obama remarks, accused him of "political missteps"
Wednesday, August 15, 2007 7:38PM
Discussing what public wants in health care, Luntz left out top priority
Wednesday, August 8, 2007 5:53PM
Conservatives continue to distort Clyburn's remarks to attack Democrats for being "invested in defeat in Iraq"
Friday, August 3, 2007 8:03PM
Hannity & Colmes previewed debate by suggesting Arabic-language school would be "madrassa"
Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:22PM
Colbert Report ridiculed Hannity's baseless suggestion of "foul play" in Vince Foster's death
Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:26PM
Hannity got "Worst Person" "silver" for using cucumber, condom to misrepresent Obama's stance on sex ed
Wednesday, July 25, 2007 4:47PM
Discussing Foster, Hannity asked: "Did a close friend of Hillary Clinton commit suicide, or was it a massive coverup?" "

"Hannity & Colmes used cucumber, condom to misrepresent Obama's stance on sex ed
Monday, July 23, 2007 3:00PM
On Fox News, Hannity continued to call carbon offsets a "sham" -- still no mention of Murdoch
Monday, July 23, 2007 1:37PM
Hannity gets "Worst Person" runner-up for saying that Whitewater, Vince Foster death are "chapters remaining open"
Friday, July 20, 2007 2:03PM
Hannity teased "Clinton Chapters" segment about "the strange and unanswered questions involving the death of Vince Foster"
Friday, July 20, 2007 12:09PM
Hannity asserted that "Whitewater and the death of Vince Foster" are "chapters remaining open" for Sen. Clinton
Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:01PM
Hannity continued to bash carbon offsets -- no mention of Murdoch's purported plans to use them
Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:42PM
Despite past discussion on his show, Hannity claimed he had "never heard" Coulter call for Clinton assassination
Tuesday, July 10, 2007 2:59PM
Hannity misrepresented Clinton quotes to claim she has "socialist views and intentions"
Monday, July 2, 2007 4:31PM
Fox's Hannity again smeared pastor of Barack Obama's church as "black separatist"
Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:07PM
Hannity again selectively excerpted interview with Obama's pastor to claim church has "black-separatist agenda"
Tuesday, June 26, 2007 6:06PM
Hannity further distorted Inhofe's dubious allegation to claim Clinton, Boxer want to "bring down talk radio"
Friday, June 22, 2007 5:26PM
Olbermann named Hannity "Worst Person" for saying Dem debaters were not questioned on "partial-birth" abortion, NIE
Tuesday, June 19, 2007 1:00PM
Hannity cropped Clinton quote to accuse her of "hypocrisy" on Iraq
Monday, June 18, 2007 7:51PM
Hannity falsely claimed Dem debates didn't include questions about partial-birth abortion, NIE
Friday, June 15, 2007 2:24PM
Olbermann named Hannity "Worst Person," with Bay Buchanan as runner-up "

public enemy #1

Posted by: Sean Hannity fascist | September 20, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I see rufus is going for the coveted "most obnoxious posts of the day" award. Keep that streak alive!

Posted by: Blarg | September 20, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"Coulter: "[I]f you attack the Clintons publicly, make sure all your friends know that you are not planning suicide"
Friday, August 24, 2007 6:19PM f
Coulter logic: Bush appointee's letter a "good sign" of Clinton's likely relationship with Pentagon if elected pres.
Monday, July 23, 2007 6:18PM
Despite past discussion on his show, Hannity claimed he had "never heard" Coulter call for Clinton assassination
Tuesday, July 10, 2007 2:59PM
Coulter defended CPAC comment about Edwards: "I wasn't saying it on TV"
Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:23PM
Coulter falsely claimed Elizabeth Edwards "lied about" her column
Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:10PM
Matthews claimed Coulter forces him to "go to confession" -- but he keeps inviting her on
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:25PM
On Hardball, Coulter ran rampant with falsehoods
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 7:16PM
Olbermann named Coulter "Worst Person" for Obama comments, Robertson runner-up
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 3:37PM
Coulter: "I do think anyone named B. Hussein Obama should avoid using 'hijack' and 'religion' in the same sentence"
Tuesday, June 26, 2007 1:55PM
Coulter to appear on June 26 Hardball -- first time since "brilliant brain" called Gore a "total fag"
Monday, June 25, 2007 3:23PM
Coulter's complaint: Falwell should have blamed Sen. Kennedy and Barry Lynn for 9-11
Friday, May 18, 2007 2:10PM
On Fox, Hannity, North, and Coulter baselessly attacked Pelosi over Syria trip
Friday, April 6, 2007 4:30PM
UPDATE: Several papers explain decision to keep publishing Coulter; two newspapers added to list
Tuesday, April 3, 2007 3:52PM
Fox News obsesses over anonymous "1984" anti-Clinton attack ad, prompting smears from Coulter
Monday, March 19, 2007 8:31PM
UPDATE: Nine newspapers drop Coulter in the wake of CPAC remarks
"

Posted by: censure coulter in the name of fairness and balancness | September 20, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"Savage responds to "fascist, ga website named Media Matters"
Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:51PM
Savage's website: "BULL-DYE FASCIST TASERS STUDENT WHO ASKS KERRY TOO MANY QUESTIONS"
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:24PM
Savage: "You're telling me there's no possibility of a conspiracy by the Democrats" to cause Roberts' seizure?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007 8:03PM
Savage said Imus was "lynched," compared his firing to "what was done in Nazi Germany to Jews"
Monday, July 23, 2007 6:22PM
Savage distorted facts to claim double standard by "this hate group, Media Matters"
Friday, July 20, 2007 12:06PM
Savage: Rep. Ellison, atheists share "hatred of Christianity and hatred of Jews"
Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:08PM
Savage on "hate group" Media Matters: "The noose will wind up around their neck, not mine"
Monday, July 16, 2007 7:54PM
Savage claimed "gay Mafioso" at Media Matters "made up" his attack on Sen. Clinton
Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:52PM
Savage: "[O]f all of the dictators in the past," Al Gore is "closest" to Mussolini
Tuesday, July 10, 2007 4:59PM
Savage on immigrant students' hunger strike: "[L]et them fast until they starve to death. ... Go make a bomb where you came from"
Friday, July 6, 2007 7:40PM
Savage called Media Matters "the homosexual mafia"
Friday, July 6, 2007 1:05PM
Savage said he sees women who wear burqas as "hateful Nazi[s]" who want to "kill your children"
Tuesday, July 3, 2007 2:04PM
Savage repeated debunked falsehood that Obama attended madrassa
Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:28PM
Savage on same-sex marriage vote: "[G]ay mafia bought the votes ... like cheap tricks in a gay bathhouse"
Monday, June 18, 2007 5:22PM
UPDATED: Savage on the "progressive movement": "the brownshirts of today ... the same rabble that brought Hitler to power"
"

"Savage again called gay parenting "child abuse"
Monday, June 11, 2007 11:48AM
Savage continued to label supporters of the Fairness Doctrine "Nazis"

Friday, May 18, 2007 6:09PM
Savage called Latino advocacy group "the Ku Klux Klan of the Hispanic people"
Friday, May 18, 2007 5:41PM
Savage compared Rep. Wexler to Nazis over questioning of Gonzales during hearing
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:56AM
Savage accused Rep. Hinchey of being "in cahoots with Al Qaeda"
Friday, May 11, 2007 5:57PM
Savage accused "Nazi" Rep. Hinchey of seeking a "final solution for conservatives on talk radio"
Monday, May 7, 2007 8:26PM
Savage called Clinton's Rutgers speech "Hitler dialogue," added, "Goebbels would be proud of you"
Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:40PM
Savage called Media Matters' David Brock "a straight-out maniac"
Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:26PM
Savage called Media Matters "a gay smear sheet," CEO David Brock "a psychopath"
Thursday, April 12, 2007 7:56PM
It's not just Imus
Thursday, April 12, 2007 6:55PM
Conservative media ridicule, smear captured British sailors
Wednesday, April 4, 2007 12:54PM
Savage "agree[d] 100 percent" with caller who said that gay rabbis would likely "rap[e] teenage boys"
Monday, April 2, 2007 6:28PM
Citing more sex-change operations, increased lesbian fertility clinics, Savage said of 9-11: "That was God speaking"
Friday, March 30, 2007 4:20PM
Olbermann awarded Savage "silver" in "Worst Person" for blaming Columbine shooting on transgender surgery
Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:39PM
Savage blames sexual reassignment surgery for Columbine massacre
Monday, March 26, 2007 6:18PM
" gd

Posted by: mike savage d censure everybody. not just non-gop | September 20, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

While all the blathering goes on about someone exerting, rightly or wrongly, their right to say anything they want just as the Swiftboat people did. No one pays any attention to the efforts to legalize and expand further denigration of the Constitution through illegal wiretaps and expansion of those, nor the attempt at giving immunity to those who have already done so.

Posted by: RetCombatVet | September 20, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"Beck said he "enjoy[s] watching" Taser videos; O'Reilly rolled out "Don't Taze me, bro!" bumper stickers
Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:10PM
Wash. Post media critic Kurtz said Fox News is "entitled" to be a Bush "cheerleader" and "misinform[] our society"
Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:55PM
Beck falsely claimed William Paw gave Clinton "$200,000 in donations"
Thursday, September 6, 2007 6:55PM
Right-wing media continue to repeat false claim that Castro endorsed Clinton and Obama
Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:58PM
Attacking Obama, Beck's newsletter falsely claimed arugula is not grown in Iowa
Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:32PM
White House soirée, part deux: Beck, Bennett, Ingraham, Medved, and others met with Bush
Thursday, August 2, 2007 8:20PM
How low (in the ratings) can Glenn Beck go?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:10PM
On CNN, Beck provided Taylor with forum to advance global warming misinformation
Monday, July 9, 2007 7:10PM
On Glenn Beck, Shapiro misrepresented NY Times poll's Obama findings
Friday, June 29, 2007 7:43PM
On radio show, Beck read "ad" for refinery that turns Mexicans into fuel; posted it on website
Friday, June 29, 2007 7:18PM
Despite pattern of inflammatory comments, Beck to guest host for CNN's Zahn
Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:05PM
CNN Headline News aired Beck program with Graham's "whack" the Clintons comment four times in two days
Monday, June 25, 2007 2:47PM
Olbermann named Beck, Graham "Worst Persons" for Graham's "whack" the Clintons comment
Friday, June 22, 2007 2:06PM
Beck on suicide bomber graduation: "Maybe Jimmy Carter was booked and that's why he didn't speak"
Friday, June 22, 2007 1:06PM
Beck guest said he wanted to see Clintons killed in Sopranos spoof; Beck previously fantasized about killing Michael Moore "

"Dowd one of many to run with portrayal of Clinton as violent
Thursday, June 21, 2007 5:29PM
Washington Post Radio considers hiring Glenn Beck
Thursday, June 7, 2007 3:35PM
Olbermann named Beck "Worst Person" for speculating that Kucinich's wife under influence of "date rape drug"
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 4:14PM
Beck speculated that Kucinich's wife must be under influence of "date rape drug"
Monday, June 4, 2007 6:53PM
CNN allowed Beck to decry "leftist witch hunt" against shock radio, didn't mention his own hate speech
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:21PM
Beck wouldn't vote for Lieberman for president "because of the way the Middle East would use it"
Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:02PM
Exposed: Glenn Beck's Climate of Distortion
Tuesday, May 8, 2007 3:14PM
CNN's rodeo clown
Tuesday, May 8, 2007 1:20PM
CNN's Beck embellished thinly sourced NY Post article to smear Clinton
Friday, May 4, 2007 2:34PM
Beck's global warming special dominated by industry-funded "experts," serial misinformers
Thursday, May 3, 2007 8:56PM
CNN host channeled Beck on global warming: "[T]he cause and how we can help is something that is up for debate"
Thursday, May 3, 2007 2:03PM
In preview of special, CNN host allowed Beck to repeat comparison of global warming consensus to Hitler eugenics
Wednesday, May 2, 2007 7:53PM
Olbermann named Beck "Worst Person" for comparing Gore to Hitler
Wednesday, May 2, 2007 5:46PM
CNN's Glenn Beck to host hour-long global warming smear-fest
Wednesday, May 2, 2007 1:48PM
Beck said Gore using "same tactic" in fight against global warming as Hitler did against Jews "k

Posted by: silence and censure them all then. | September 20, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"thier heroes slander our troops and then claim to support them."

You mean like Bush slandered Kerry (and all veterans, BTW) by not repudiating the Swift Boat attacks?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Wake up rufus, nobody's going to read something like that!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"Olbermann named Denver radio host "Worst Person" for mischaracterizing Gen. Clark's comment about Tillman
Monday, August 6, 2007 3:09PM
In interview about Daily Kos, O'Reilly called Dodd a "propagandist," declared, "I don't have any respect for you"
Friday, August 3, 2007 5:56PM
O'Reilly named "Worst Person" for claiming Americans don't want Mexicans "clustering in neighborhoods"
Friday, August 3, 2007 2:07PM
O'Reilly criticized Free Republic comments about Clinton despite objectionable comments on his own site
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 7:35PM
UPDATED: O'Reilly: Media Matters, Daily Kos, MoveOn "lead intimidators" of Democratic presidential candidates
Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:22PM
O'Reilly opposes "clustering" of not only gays -- but Mexicans, too
Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:16PM
O'Reilly accuses guest of lying -- but "hateful" Clinton comments he claims he removed are still on website
Friday, July 27, 2007 9:14PM
O'Reilly named "Worst Person" runner-up for equating Daily Kos and David Duke
Friday, July 27, 2007 1:29PM
O'Reilly continued to attack Daily Kos while ignoring objectionable comments on his own site
Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:50PM
Colbert Report ridiculed Hannity's baseless suggestion of "foul play" in Vince Foster's death
Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:26PM
O'Reilly asked: "[W]hat's the difference between David Duke" and Daily Kos?
Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:04PM
O'Reilly compared Daily Kos to Capone, Mussolini
Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:45PM
O'Reilly again asserted that "hate-filled" Daily Kos "rivals the KKK and Nazi websites"
Friday, July 20, 2007 4:29PM
O'Reilly named "Worst Person" for defending comparison of Daily Kos to Nazis, KKK
Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:45PM
O'Reilly: Green cards for gay partners could lead to "people in love with three "

"O'Reilly continued to compare Daily Kos to Nazis and KKK
Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:36PM
O'Reilly defends comparison of Daily Kos to Nazis and KKK
Wednesday, July 18, 2007 4:08PM
O'Reilly: "[T]housands" of gays in one place "can be confusing to children"
Friday, July 13, 2007 1:38PM
Olbermann named O'Reilly "Worst Person" for his attack on gay pride event at baseball game
Friday, July 13, 2007 12:26PM
O'Reilly: To "cluster" gays near children is "insane" and "inappropriate"
Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:09PM
Olbermann named O'Reilly "Worst Person" for attacks on NBC, NY Times; Limbaugh placed second
Wednesday, July 11, 2007 7:15PM
O'Reilly now attacks NY Times, though he previously urged "hand[ing] over everything to the Iraqis" ASAP
Tuesday, July 10, 2007 3:36PM
Olbermann highlighted stories O'Reilly has "decided are more relevant to your life" than Iraq war
Friday, June 22, 2007 11:17AM
O'Reilly: NBC News "jazzed" over "[d]ead Afghan kids killed in an American air strike"
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:06PM
O'Reilly cited Hunt interview to rebut criticism of Fox News' Iraq coverage -- but Hunt agreed with critics
Friday, June 15, 2007 3:54PM
O'Reilly: CNN, MSNBC "delight in showing Iraqi violence" and "are actually helping the terrorists"
Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:49PM
On O'Reilly, Gerth and Van Natta dismiss "irrelevant" Media Matters, again dodging substantive criticism
Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:28AM
Olbermann awarded O'Reilly "Worst Person" honors for "white-bread" comment

Monday, June 11, 2007 11:53AM
Cavuto falsely claimed Edwards "used" Hilton sentence to make "class argument"
Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:44PM
O'Reilly apparently finds it odd that Kansas murder suspect is a "white-bread guy"

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/billoreilly?sort=default&offset=30

Posted by: O'REilly | September 20, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"Beck said he "enjoy[s] watching" Taser videos; O'Reilly rolled out "Don't Taze me, bro!" bumper stickers
Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:10PM
O'Reilly: Tasered UF student "biggest wimp in the United States of America"
Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:08PM
O'Reilly: Middle Easterners just want to eat, smoke, "go to the mosques," and "sit around," but U.S. should stay in Iraq another year
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:49PM
O'Reilly named "Worst Person" over Media Matters "assassins" remarks
Friday, September 7, 2007 2:03PM
O'Reilly on "assassins who work for Media Matters and Move On"
Thursday, September 6, 2007 2:09PM
Olbermann named Limbaugh "Worst Person" for claiming Dems are interested in Darfur for electoral reasons
Monday, August 27, 2007 2:31PM
O'Reilly asserted "most journalists give money to Democrats" -- but study on subject refutes him
Friday, August 24, 2007 4:21PM
Two months after giving Iraqis "two more months" to pass oil bill, O'Reilly silent on their failure to do so
Monday, August 20, 2007 7:48PM
O'Reilly: "I think everybody's got to relax on all this gay stuff"
Friday, August 17, 2007 10:25AM
O'Reilly didn't mention Giuliani's 1994 invite to illegal immigrants who "work hard"
Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:36PM
O'Reilly noted poll on effect of gay rights groups' endorsements, but not that he had been wrong about results
Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:45PM
O'Reilly claimed poll shows most Americans "won't vote" for candidate endorsed by "a gay rights group"
Wednesday, August 15, 2007 6:33PM
O'Reilly claimed Edwards is "actually lying" about Fox News' treatment of Democrats
Friday, August 10, 2007 5:00PM
O'Reilly accused liberal bloggers of being "blackmailers"
Friday, August 10, 2007 12:51PM
O'Reilly named "Worst Person" for attack on Dodd; Ingraham named "runner-up"
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 12:36PM
1-15 of 752 Next » Start a New Search or Refine Existing Search: Bill O'Reilly

Filter for Video

Filter for Audio

Search between specific dates

Start
MM Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec DD 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 YY 2004 2005 2006 2007
End
MM Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec DD 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 YY 2004 2005 2006 2007
Issues/Topics

--Issue-- Civil and Human Rights Courts Crime and Justice Issues Economic Issues Education Government and Elections Immigration Media National Security/Foreign Policy Religion Reproductive Choice Science and Environment

or refine further:

--Subissue-- 2004 Elections 2005 Elections 2006 Elections 2008 Elections Access to Abortion Books Budget Censorship Contraception Corporations and Business Issues Crime Rates Death Penalty Detainees/Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo Bay Domestic spying Economy Electoral Reform End-of-Life Issues Energy Policy Ethics Filibusters/Nuclear Option Gender Discrimination/Equality Global Warming Government Paid Propaganda Gun Control/Second Amendment Health Care Homeland Security Immigration related to National Security Intelligent Design/Evolution Iran Jobs/Wages/Unemployment LGBT Issues Media Ethics Media Responses Natural Disasters Nominations Other Judicial Nominations Past Politicians Polling Poverty/Welfare Prisons Propaganda/Noise Machine Public Broadcasting Race/Affirmative Action Radio Religion in Schools Religious Broadcasting Religious Discrimination Separation of Church and State Sex Ed Social Security State of the Union Addresses Stem Cell Research Supreme Court Nominations Taxes Terrorism Torture United Nations Voter Fraud Vouchers War in Iraq

or refine further:

--Topic-- 2005 State of the Union 2006 State of the Union 2007 State of the Union AIDS/HIV Abramoff Scandal Al Gore Alberto Gonzales American Armed Forces Radio and Television Service American Military Capability Arctic Drilling Armstrong Williams Attacks on ACLU Attacks on Bill Clinton Attacks on Media Matters Attacks on Muslims/Islam Attacks on Progressives Barack Obama Bernstein's "A Woman in Charge" Bill Bennett and Abortion Bill Frist Scandal Bill Richardson Bush Military Service CIA Leak Investigation California Initiative Cheney hunting accident Christopher Dodd Chuck Hagel Cindy Sheehan Protests Clinton's "My Life" Corporate Ethics Dennis Kucinich Downing Street Memo Duncan Hunter Feminism Fred Thompson Freeh's "My FBI" Gas Prices Gerth and Van Natta's "Her Way" Harriet Miers Hillary Clinton Hurricane Katrina Iraq Army Capability Jeff Gannon Joe Biden John Bolton John Edwards John McCain John Roberts Klein's "The Truth About Hillary" Late-term Abortion Mark Foley Scandal Marriage/Civil Unions Mike Huckabee Minimum Wage Misrepresentations of Nixon/Watergate Misrepresentations of Reagan Mitt Romney Newsweek/Koran Controversy Oil-for-Food Program Pat Robertson on Chavez Prewar Intelligence/WMD Ron Paul Rudy Giuliani Sam Brownback Samuel Alito Sinclair Broadcasting Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Terri Schiavo The Path to 9/11 Tom DeLay Scandal Tom Vilsack Tommy Thompson U.S. Attorneys Scandal War on Christmas

Personalities/Shows/Outlets

--Personality-- Dan Abrams Ahmad al-Qloushi Roger Ailes Mary Ann Akers Mark Alexander Peter Alexander Mike Allen Jonathan Alter Jay Ambrose Christopher Andersen Brian C. Anderson Jim Angle Anne Applebaum Kelli Arena Amy Argetsinger Dick Armey David Asman Sharyl Attkisson David Axelrod Jed Babbin Charles Babington Bret Baier Peter Baker Dan Balz Julie Banderas Allison Barber Fred Barnes Mike Barnicle Michael Barone Bob Barr David Barton Dana Bash Gary Bauer William W. Beach Glenn Beck Bill Bennett Bradford Berenson Carl Bernstein Jeff Birnbaum Brad Blakeman Tony Blankley Scott Bleier Wolf Blitzer Neal Boortz Max Boot Gloria Borger David N. Bossie Shmuley Boteach Peter Boyer L. Brent Bozell James Brady Hiawatha Bray Andrew Breitbart John Bresnahan Contessa Brewer David Broder David Brody Tom Brokaw David Brooks Aaron Brown Campbell Brown Patti Ann Browne Ron Brownstein Tammy Bruce Jay Bryant Mika Brzezinski Bay Buchanan Pat Buchanan William F. Buckley Jr. Elisabeth Bumiller Sonny Bunch Luke Burbank B.G. Burkett Jack Burkman Sterling Burnett Eric Burns Chris Bury Brenda Buttner Pat Caddell Jack Cafferty Carl Cameron Pat Campbell William Campenni Steve Capus Gretchen Carlson Margaret Carlson Tucker Carlson Amanda Carpenter Howie Carr James Carville Neil Cavuto Steve Centanni Dan Chapman Mona Charen Linda Chavez Dick Cheney Kiran Chetry Chris Cillizza Jim Clancy Bill Clinton John Cloud Richard Cohen Jamie Colby David D. Cole Flavia Colgan Heidi Collins Alan Colmes Charles W. Colson Ann Compton Barbara Comstock Ceci Connolly Matthew Continetti Kellyanne Conway Charlie Cook Anderson Cooper Kevin Corke Jerome Corsi Bob Costas Carol Costello Ann Coulter Katie Couric Ana Marie Cox Jim Cramer Craig Crawford Candy Crowley Monica Crowley Patty Culhane Bill Cunningham Chris Cuomo Christopher Cuomo Joseph Curl Dinesh D'Souza Michelle Dallacroce Tom DeLay Jay Dedapper Laurie Dhue John Dickerson Bo Dietl Lou Dobbs James Dobson Bob Dole Ben Domenech Frank Donatelli William Donohue John Donvan Steve Doocy Bob Dornan Jill Dougherty Linda Douglass Matthew Dowd Maureen Dowd Matt Drudge Michael Duffy Gregg Easterbrook Nina Easton Thomas B. Edsall Cam Edwards Larry Elder Steve Emerson David Ensor Susan Estrich Thomas J. Euteneuer Frank Fahrenkopf Jerry Falwell Joseph Farah Andrew Ferguson Deborah Feyerick Donna Fiducia Howard Fineman Laura Flanders Tom Foreman Ron Fournier Bob Franken Chip Franklin Bill Frist David Frum Mark Fuhrman John Fund Neal Gabler Frank Gaffney Rich Galen Delia Gallagher Maggie Gallagher Mike Gallagher Trace Gallagher Jeff Gannon Steven Gardner Major Garrett Craig Garthwaite David Gelernter Michael Genovese David Gergen Michael Gerson Stuart M. Gerson Jeff Gerth Bill Gertz Charlie Gibson John Gibson Paul Gigot Doug Giles Ed Gillespie Newt Gingrich Ben Ginsberg Jennifer Giroux Bernard Goldberg Jonah Goldberg Lucianne Goldberg Wendell Goler Michael Gordon Michael Graham C. Boyden Gray Jeff Greenfield David Gregory Jennifer Griffin Barbara Bradley Hagerty Alexander Haig Tamron Hall Mark Halperin Mary Katharine Ham Don Hammond Sean Hannity Karen Hanretty Victor Davis Hanson Dan Harris John F. Harris John Harris Tony Harris Paul Harvey John Harwood Elisabeth Hasselbeck Stephen F. Hayes Kathleen Hays J.D. Hayworth Bernadine Healy Patrick Healy Roger Hedgecock Bud Hedinger Jacob Heilbrunn Bill Hemmer Molly Henneberg Daniel Henninger Ed Henry Catherine Herridge Hugh Hewitt E.D. Hill Christopher Hitchens Jonathan Hoenig Roy Hoffmann T.J. Holmes Lester Holt Janet Hook Chris Horner David Horowitz Deborah Howell Audrey Hudson Brit Hume David Hunt Jonathan Hunt Ken Hutcherson Mark Hyman Gwen Ifill David Ignatius Mansoor Ijaz Don Imus Laura Ingraham Carol Iovanna Michael Isikoff Brooks Jackson Chris Jansing Greg Jarrett Charles Jarvis Terence P. Jeffrey Terry P. Jeffrey Griff Jenkins Peter Jennings Mike Jerrick William La Jeunesse David John Scott Johnson Daryn Kagan Robert Kagan Michiko Kakutani Marvin Kalb Howard Kaloogian Jonathan Kaplan Tony Karon John Kasich Katherine Mangu-Ward Katty Kay Phil Keating Terry Keenan Brianna Keilar Michele Kelemen Greg Kelly Jack Kelly Megyn Kelly Jack Kemp Megyn Kendall Ronald Kessler Brian Kilmeade Mark Kilmer Cliff Kincaid Don King John King Larry King Michael Kinsley Joe Klein Rick Klein Douglas W. Kmiec Ed Koch Kathleen Koch Bob Kohn Mort Kondracke Andrea Koppel Ted Koppel Anne Kornblut Charles Krauthammer Nicholas D. Kristof William Kristol Lawrence Kudlow Jeffrey T. Kuhner Tom Kuiper Howard Kurtz Andrea Lafferty Jacob Laksin Pat Lalama Donald Lambro Richard Land Rabbi Lapin Jonathan V. Last Matt Lauer Dr. Laura Christopher Lawrence John Leboutillier Jim Lehrer Don Lemon Jay Leno Mark Levin Mark R. Levin Mara Liasson G. Gordon Liddy David Limbaugh Rush Limbaugh Carol Lin Hal Lindsey Wendy E. Long Rafael Lorente Dan Lothian John Lott Rich Lowry Frank Luntz Donald Luskin Martha MacCallum Elizabeth MacDonald Michelle Malkin Sebastian Mallaby Suzanne Malveaux Mancow Todd Manzi Ruth Marcus Laura Marquez Andy Martin Jonathan Martin Kevin Martin Jackie Mason Mychal Massie Mary Matalin Jason Mattera Chris Matthews Clifford May Andrew C. McCarthy John McCaslin Scott McClellan Dale McFeatters Eileen McGann Paul McGuire Jamie McIntyre Doyle McManus Michael McManus Colin McNickle Thomas M. McNish John McWhorter Jon Meacham Michael Medved James Gordon Meek John Mercurio Al Michaels Patrick J. Michaels Dana Milbank Dennis Miller Emily J. Miller Henry I. Miller Keith Miller Brendan Miniter Richard Miniter Manuel Miranda Andrea Mitchell Russ Mitchell Albert Mohler Susan Molinari John Moody Les Moonves Michael Moore Stephen Moore Jeanne Moos Natalie Morales Terry Moran Melanie Morgan Geoff Morrell Dick Morris Bruce Morton Paul Morton Joel Mowbray Catherine Moy Rupert Murdoch Deroy Murdock Wendy Murphy Shailagh Murray Lisa Myers Adam Nagourney Penny Nance Andrew Napolitano Don Van Natta Jr. Terry Neal George Neumayr Betty Nguyen Jim Nicholson Tim Noah Peggy Noonan Grover Norquist Michele Norris Oliver North Robert Novak Kate O'Beirne Miles O'Brien Soledad O'Brien Tim O'Brien Patrick O'Connor Kelly O'Donnell Lawrence O'Donnell Norah O'Donnell Ed O'Keefe John O'Neill Bill O'Reilly Jeannie Ohm Daniel Okrent Keith Olbermann Theodore Olson Deborah Orin Bob Orr Charles Osgood Susan Page Kathleen Parker Janet Parshall Robert Patterson Scott Pelley Uma Pemmaraju Martin Peretz Tony Perkins Ralph Peters Jesse Lee Peterson Peter G. Peterson Eric Pfeiffer Kyra Phillips Nedra Pickler Greg Pierce Kitty Pilgrim Jim Pinkerton Bill Plante John Podhoretz Richard Poe Robert Pollock Dick Polman Pete du Pont John Popp Richard Posner Colin Powell Kirsten Powers Dennis Prager Dana Priest Wesley Pruden Dan Quayle Elaine Quijano Brigitte Quinn Martha Raddatz Dan Rather Michael Reagan Ron Reagan Julia Reed Ralph Reed Trish Regan Diane Rehm Chip Reid Daniel W. Reilly Dean Reynolds Frank Rich John Ridley Geraldo Rivera Amy Robach Cokie Roberts John Roberts Robin Roberts Nic Robertson Pat Robertson Tony Robinson Carl Rochelle Lee Rodgers Ed Rogers Edwina Rogers Lois Romano Christine Romans James Rosen Jeffrey Rosen Brian Ross Stuart Rothenberg Ken Rudin Donald Rumsfeld Erik Rush Tim Russert Larry Sabato Brent Sadler William Safire Steve Sailer Bill Sammon Leslie Sanchez Rick Sanchez Peter Van Sant Debra J. Saunders Michael Savage Diane Sawyer Joe Scarborough Denny Schaeffer Rob Schenck Bob Schieffer Debbie Schlussel Susan Schmidt Bill Schneider Laura Schwartz Jon Scott Kit Seelye Jay Sekulow Bob Sellers Andy Serwer Frank Sesno Jay Severin Ben Shapiro Eric Shawn Lou Sheldon Carlton Sherwood Claire Shipman David Shuster John C. Sigler Deborah Simmons Wayne Simmons Roger Simon Mark Simone Jane Skinner Alan Skorski Michael Smerconish Tavis Smiley Ben Smith Gary B. Smith Glenn W. Smith Shepard Smith Mary Snow Tony Snow Michael Sokolove John Solomon Thomas Sowell Merrie Spaeth Stephen Spruiell Betsy Stark Barbara Starr Ken Starr Mat Staver Ben Stein Richard Stengel George Stephanopoulos Bret Stephens Mark Steyn A.B. Stoddard Hannah Storm John Stossel Lisa Stouffer Kimberley A. Strassel Andrew Sullivan Brian Sussman Lisa Sylvester Michael Tanner Jake Tapper James Taranto Randy Tate Stuart Taylor Jr. Cal Thomas Evan Thomas Brad Thor Glenn Thrush Larry Thurlow John Tierney Kenneth Timmerman Brian Todd Chuck Todd Victoria Toensing Kenneth Y. Tomlinson Jeffrey Toobin Liz Trotta Cynthia Tucker Karen Tumulty Jonathan Turley R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. Jack Valenti Greg Valliere Jim VandeHei Elizabeth Vargas Stuart Varney Ali Velshi Zain Verjee Linda Vester Meredith Vieira Mike Viqueira Anita Vogel Chris Wallace Kelly Wallace Mike Wallace Nicolle Wallace Jim Warren Joe Watkins J.C. Watts Jacob Weisberg Jack Welch Linda Wertheimer David Wessel Diana West Paul M. Weyrich Bill Whalen Jack Wheeler Meredith Whitney Casey Wian Lis Wiehl Don Wildmon Tim Wildmon George F. Will Armstrong Williams Bob Williams Brian Williams Juan Williams Mark Williams Pete Williams Walter Williams Brian Wilson Gabriel Wisdom Alex Witt Richard Wolffe Judy Woodruff Bob Woodward Kelly Wright John Ydstie Jessica Yellin Charmaine Yoest Byron York Mark Yost Charles D. Youree Jr. Steve Yuhas Paula Zahn Mortimer Zuckerman --Show-- 20/20 48 Hours 60 Minutes The 700 Club ABC World News Tonight The Abrams Report After Hours The Al Franken Show All Things Considered America's Newsroom American Morning Anderson Cooper 360 At Large With Geraldo Rivera The Beltway Boys The Big Story Primetime The Big Story with John Gibson Bill Bennett's Morning in America BreakPoint CBS Evening News CBS News Sunday Morning CNN Daybreak CNN Live CNN Live Sunday CNN Newsroom CNN Sunday Night Cam & Company The Capital Gang Cavuto on Business The Chris Matthews Show Connected Coast to Coast Countdown with Keith Olbermann Crossfire DaySide Deborah Norville Tonight The Diane Rehm Show The Early Show Eye on Washington FOX & Friends FOX & Friends First FOX News Live FOX News Sunday FOX News Watch FOX Report Face the Nation Focus on the Family Frontline Glenn Beck Program Glenn Beck show Good Morning America Hannity & Colmes Hannity's America Hardball Imus in the Morning Inside Politics Inside Washington Janet Parshall's America The John Gibson Show Journal Editorial Report Brian & The Judge Kudlow & Company Larry King Live Late Edition The Laura Ingraham Show The Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Program Left, Right & Center Lester Holt Live The Live Desk Live From... Lou Dobbs Tonight MSNBC Live MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams The Mark Levin Show Marketplace The McLaughlin Group Meet the Press Michael Medved Show Mike Rosen Show In The Money Morning Edition Morning Joe The Most NBC Nightly News Nancy Grace The Neal Boortz Show News Central News from CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown The Newshour Nightline The Note The O'Reilly Factor On the Story The Oprah Winfrey Show Paula Zahn Now The Radio Factor On The Record with Greta Van Susteren Reliable Sources Robin & Company The Rush Limbaugh Show The Savage Nation Scarborough Country The Sean Hannity Show The Situation Room The Situation with Tucker Carlson Special Report with Brit Hume Studio B Sussman, Morgan & Vic The Tavis Smiley Show This Week This Week At War Today Show Today's Issues The Tonight Show with Jay Leno Tucker Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered Washington Journal Washington Week Weekend All Things Considered Wolf Blitzer Reports Your World Today Your World w/ Neil Cavuto --Outlet-- ABC ABC Entertainment ABC Family ABC Radio Networks ABCNews.com Agape Press Christian News Service Air America Radio Albany Times Union American Conservative The American Enterprise American Family Association American Family Association Journal American Family Radio American Spectator Arizona Republic Associated Press Atlanta Journal-Constitution Baltimore Sun Bloomberg Books Boston Globe Boston Herald BusinessWeek C-SPAN CBS CBS Radio CJR Daily CNBC CNN CNN Headline News CNNfn CNSNews.com Charleston Post and Courier The Chattanooga Times Free Press Chicago Sun-Times Chicago Tribune Christian Broadcasting Network Christian Science Monitor Columbus Dispatch The Commercial Appeal Cox Radio Syndication Creators Syndicate Crown Publishing Group Cybercast News Service Dallas Morning News Des Moines Register Detroit News The Drudge Report Drudge Report Radio The Economist Editor & Publisher FCC FOX Broadcasting Company Factcheck.org FamilyNet FamilyNet Financial Times The Florida Times-Union Fox News Channel Fox News Radio FrontPage Magazine Gallup Consulting The Hill The Hotline Houston Chronicle Human Events Insight International Herald Tribune Investor's Business Daily JustHillary.com KCRW KSFO Knight Ridder Los Angeles Times Lucianne.com MSNBC McClatchy Newspapers Media Research Center Miami Herald NBC NPR NRANews.com National Journal Group National Review New Hampshire Union Leader The New Republic New York Daily News New York Post The New York Sun The New York Times The New Yorker NewsMax.com Newsday Newsweek PBS PBS Action Alert Pappas Telecasting Penguin Group (USA) Inc. Philadelphia Daily News The Philadelphia Inquirer Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Pittsburgh Tribune-Review The Politico Premiere Radio Networks The Providence Journal Radio America Random House RedState.org Reuters Richmond Times-Dispatch Roll Call The Rothenberg Political Report Sacramento Bee Salem Radio Network San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury News Scholastic Scripps Howard News Service Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. Slate Magazine South Florida Sun-Sentinel TV One Talk Radio Network Talon News Time Magazine Toledo Blade Townhall.com Tribune Media Services Trinity Broadcasting Network Trinity Broadcasting Network U.S. News & World Report UPI USA Today Universal Press Syndicate Vanity Fair WABC WCBS Wall Street Journal Washington Examiner The Washington Post Washington Post Radio The Washington Times The Weekly Standard Westwood One World Ahead Publishing WorldNetDaily WorldTribune.com





It's Time for MSNBC to Address Carlson's Comments


"

Posted by: bill o | September 20, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"socialized health care relies on rationing care. It can't pay the whole bill otherwise. the line for surgery in england and Canada is about 9 months long in most cases. this is called rationing. It happens whenever the price is set too low for a product. Ever stand in a really long line for some "free" item. how much is your time worth?"

Mr Zouk, we weren't talking about socialized health care, we were talking about HillaryCare 2.0. They are different things. Her plan mandates coverage for all americans, through either their employer or self-funded, though self-funding is offset by tax cuts.

Its a terrible plan that doesn't address any of the problems inherent in our existing system of delivering health care. But it is not socialized medicine, despite what your 'news' sources might have told you. As I said to jay, if you're going to rip on the plan, rip on it for its actual faults, instead criticizing imaginary faults.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: bsimon | September 20, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"Controversies and criticism
While she is in constant demand on the US lecture circuit,[69] Coulter's polemics - she has described herself as a "polemicist" who likes to "stir up the pot" and doesn't claim to be "impartial or balanced".[70] - sometimes start firestorms of controversy, ranging from rowdy uprisings at many of the colleges where she speaks to protracted discussions in the media.


The 9/11 "Jersey Girls"
In her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Coulter criticizes the four 9/11 widows known as the "Jersey Girls;" in it Coulter wrote:

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. ... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deths so much ... the Democrat ratpack gals endorsed John Kerry for president ... cutting campaign commercials... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."[71]

These statements received national attention after an interview on The Today Show, and were widely criticized.[72][73][74][75][76][77] Coulter has repeated her criticism of the Jersey Girls in subsequent columns.[78][79][73]


Comments about the New York Times
Coulter has had a long-running animosity toward the New York Times. Her book Slander is a criticism of liberals for supposedly disparaging conservatives unfairly, giving particular attention to the news media for their supposed role in this, and the Times especially.[80]

In an interview with George Gurley of the New York Observer shortly after the publication of Slander, it was mentioned that Coulter actually had friends and acquaintances who worked for the Times, namely Frank Bruni and David E. Sanger. Later in the interview, she exclaimed amusement at her recollections of the Times publishing two photos of George H. W. Bush throwing up at a diplomatic meeting in Japan, then said:

"Is your tape recorder running? Turn it on! I got something to say."
Then she said: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
I told her to be careful.
"You're right, after 9/11 I shouldn't say that", she said, spotting a cab and grabbing it.[14]

By way of context, during an interview earlier in June 2002 with Katie Couric to promote the same book, Coulter expressed frustration about "constant mischaracterization" through being misquoted. "The idea that someone can go out and find one quote that will suddenly, you know, portray me -- just dismiss her ideas, read no more, read no further, this person is crazy...is precisely what liberals do all the time".[81]

When asked by John Hawkins, the web manager of a right-wing blog, through a pre-written set of interview questions if she regretted the statement, Coulter replied by saying: "Of course I regret it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters.'"[82][83] Lee Salem, the president of Universal Press Syndicate, which distributes Coulter's column, later defended Coulter by characterizing her comments as satire.[84]

The subject came up again when she appeared on the Fox News program Hannity & Colmes. Alan Colmes mentioned Salem's claim, and said to her that remarks like saying "Timothy McVeigh should have bobed The New York Times building" were "laughable happy satires, right?" then said that Coulter was "actually a liberal who is doing this to mock and parody the way conservatives think." She replied, "Well, it's not working very well if that were my goal. No, I think the Timothy McVeigh line was merely prescient after The New York Times has leaped beyond -- beyond nonsense straight into treason, last week". She was referring to a Times report that revealed classified information about an anti-terrorism program of the U.S. government involving surveillance of international financial transactions of persons suspected of having Al-Qaida links. Colmes continued in this sarcastic vein when he responded, calling her remarks "great humor", and that it "belongs on Saturday Night Live. It belongs on The Daily Show."[85][86]


Comments on Islam, Arabs, and terrorism
Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, Coulter has advocated a more warlike response to terrorism. On September 12, 2001, the day after the attacks, she wrote in her column:

Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homcidal maniac. We know who the homcidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kil their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bobed German cities; we kied civilians. That's war. And this is war.[87]

Responding to this comment, Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations remarked in the Chicago Sun Times that before Sept 11, Coulter "would have faced swift repudiation from her colleagues", but "now it's accepted as legitimate commentary."[88]

A few weeks after the attacks, Coulter asserted that only Muslims could have been behind the attacks:

Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims -- at least all terrorists capable of assembling a muderous plot against America that leaves 7,000 people dead in under two hours.[89]

Coulter has been highly critical of the U.S. Department of Transportation and especially its then-secretary Norman Mineta. Her many criticisms include their refusal to use racial profiling as a component of airport screening.[90] However, one such apparently ethnicity-driven screening attempt by US Airways sparked a call for Muslims to boycott the airline because of the ejection from a flight of six imams who had been observed praying in the terminal. Commenting on this incident, Coulter observed:

If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.[91]

Coulter also called for increasing the power of U.S. law enforcement agencies to search Muslims, describing the testimony of Coleen Rowley, an FBI whistleblower who argued before the Senate in 2002 that in cases where Muslims suspected of a crime are known to be affiliated with radical fundamental Islamic groups or even simply had lived in England, authorities should be granted a search warrant based on probable cause. Coulter cited a poll by The Daily Telegraph which found that 98 percent of Muslims between the ages of 20 to 45 said they would not fight for Britain in the war in Afghanistan, and that 48 percent said they would fight for Osama bin Laden. She said she agreed with Rowley, "certainly after Sept 11", and concluded: "The FBI allowed thousands of Americans to be slaugtered on the altar of political correctness. What more do liberals want?"[92]

She wrote in another column that she had reviewed the civil rights lawsuits against certain airlines to determine which airlines had subjected Arabs to the most "egregious discrimination" so that she could fly only that airline. She also said that the airline should be bragging instead of denying any of the charges of discrimination brought against them.[93] In an interview with the The Guardian she quipped, "I think airlines ought to start advertising: 'We have the most civil rights lawsuits brought against us by Arabs.'" When the interviewer replied by asking what Muslims would do for travel, she responded, "They could use flying carpets."[3]

One comment that drew criticism from the blogosphere as well as fellow conservatives[94] was made during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February 2006, where she said, referring to the prospect of a nuclear-equipped Iran, "What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with nuclear weapons? I think our motto should be, post-9-11: rahead talks tough, rahead faces consequences."[95] Coulter had previously written a nearly identical passage in her syndicated column: "...I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about 'cael jockey'? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?"[96]

In an article looking back at the life of the recently deceased evangelical Reverend Jerry Falwell, Coulter commented on Falwell's statement after the 9/11 attacks that "pagans", abortionists, feminists, and gas and lebians, among others, helped make the attacks happen. In her article, Coulter stated that she disagreed with Falwell's statement, "because Falwell neglected to specifically include Teddy Kennedy and "the Reverend" Barry Lynn."[97]


2007 John Edwards controversy
Coulter drew criticism for statements she made at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference, where she used the term "faot" in reference to presidential candidate John Edwards in an allusion to Grey's Anatomy star Isaiah Washington's use of the word and his subsequent counseling:[98][99]

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions."[100]

The audience responded in laughter, but Edwards responded on his website by characterizing Coulter's words as "un-American and indefensible" and asking readers to help him "raise $100,000 in 'Coulter Cash' this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry."[101] Coulter's words also drew the condemnation from many prominent Republicans and Democrats alike, as well as groups such as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).[101][102][103] Coulter responded in an e-mail to the New York Times: "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean."[102] She also posted a response on her website: "I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing!"[104]

On March 5, 2007, Coulter appeared on Hannity and Colmes and said that her use of the word "faot" was a "taunt" and further expounded that [the word] "faot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays." In regards to the criticisms from her own party, Coulter responded with "Apparently our top three Republican nominees aren't that smart. And by the way, if they're going to start apologizing for everything I say, they better keep that statement handy cause there's going to be a lot more in the next year."[105]

In response to this issue, three advertisers (Verizon, Sallie Mae, and Netbank) pulled their advertisements from Coulter's website,[106] and eight newspapers dropped Coulter's column, including The Times in Louisiana, The Oakland Press in Michigan, The Mountain Press of Sevierville, Tennessee, and the New Era in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.[107][108][109]

Responding to the controversy, Coulter has said:

Just for the record, I've never attempted to revise, or extend, nor have I apologized and the attempts to silence me have made me even more money...Those newspapers pay me about 25 cents per month, but I picked up a LOT of speeches...Attempts to censor me have really backfired. [110]

In a June 25, 2007 appearance on Good Morning America, in reference to the slur Coulter said that she had "learned my lesson" and that "If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot,"[2] an apparent reference to a statement made by Bill Maher about Vice President Cheney.

In a next-day appearance on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Coulter received a phone call from Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards' wife, asking her to stop the personal attacks and to stick to discussing the issues. Coulter responded by claiming that the Edwards campaign was "raising money off it" and denying the previous day's slur. Mrs. Edwards also confronted Coulter for writing that they had a bumper sticker on their car saying "Ask me about my dead son" in reference to the death of their son Wade. Coulter responded by characterizing Edwards' call as an attempt to silence her, by attacking Edwards for being a trial lawyer, and by refusing to desist from further personal attacks.[3]


Investigation of possible voting fraud
In 2006, Coulter was investigated for but not charged with voting fraud for voting in the wrong precinct and registering with an address that did not belong to her, a third-degree felony in Florida.[111] Coulter's local Palm Beach County authorities declined to prosecute citing 'insubstantial evidence' of deliberate wrongdoing, and following a phone call to the investigating detective by Jim Fitzgerald, an FBI counterintelligence-agent, who claimed she was fearful of a stalker.[112][113] In August 2007, the Palm Beach Post reported that the Florida Elections Commission had assigned an investigator to pursue the question.[114]

"

Had to do serious editing just to get this post throug the gop thought police

Posted by: ann coulter. If you don't support let's censure her and rush and hannity and oreilly and malkin and | September 20, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, socialized health care relies on rationing care. It can't pay the whole bill otherwise. the line for surgery in england and Canada is about 9 months long in most cases. this is called rationing. It happens whenever the price is set too low for a product. Ever stand in a really long line for some "free" item. how much is your time worth?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 20, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

JD - cassandra is a true beleiver. the NYT is far right in her view and moveon, Kos and the Nation are mainstream. that is pretty typical of the other denizens of this blog.

their world relies on "willing suspension of disbelief".
Isn't that a double negative?

thier heroes slander our troops and then claim to support them. clinton voters. depends on what "is" is. depends on what sex is. depends on what corruption is.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 20, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Any one in this group old enough to remember General "Light at the End of the Tunnel" Westmoreland? Turns out he was lying about the progress in Vietnam, just as is the case today. But, as Bush's press conference today revealed once again, he has the Vietnam analogy all wrong. As an Army veteran of that era I feel a huge sense of sadness for our troops today. And, by the way, I'm proud to be a liberal Democrat and supporter of MoveOn.org. They can count on my money!

Posted by: Worth Weller | September 20, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

It seems like the Republicans want to sell us on the idea that General Petraeus is Mother Teresa. Not sure that is doable, they should try first on the notion of selling him as the Pope. They may succeed, since we're buying anything the W.H. sells.

How do you feel about Moveon.org's ad characterizing General Petraeus as General Betray Us? ---> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=520

Posted by: PollM | September 20, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

jay writes
"Reading about Hillary's new health-care plan... she's doling it out in dribs and drabs. You might even say she's "rationing" her plan. And that's what the plan entails: rationing."

Jay, have you read the plan? She mandates coverage. Coverage being health insurance, just like the kind that most americans have now. Frankly its a terrible plan. But its not 'rationing'.

If you're going to criticize her plan, please try to attack it on its actual detractions, rather than imaginary ones. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: bsimon | September 20, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

forced the military to give soldiers sufficient time off

not a decision appropriate for the Senate to make - that is for the military to decide. Another attempt by the surrendercrats to inflict razor cuts. Defeated by the adults.

Posted by: whiners | September 20, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Cassandra, if you don't think WaPo and Cohen are liberal, you're crazy. Keep in mind lib vs con is more about just Iraq. I could go down the list on where the WaPo editorial board sits on each of the main issues, but I won't take up the space unless asked.

Does Iraq dominate everything, it's the litmus test in your mind?

Posted by: JD | September 20, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Here is the simnple list of what's wrong with America:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

round up the usual suspects. I noticed a high correlation with the list of corrupt politicians. Let's all agreee to dump them and moveon.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 20, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder (2005),"

Posted by: mike savage | September 20, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

more power to move on, I hope they raise millions more and pressure dems into a leftist agenda. The repubs have no real hope in the next election, there only chance, bright spot, is for groups like move on to take center stage. Move on has a good chance to derail democratic victory, we only need to give move on more money, more spotlight and an even more self righteous attitude. If only Woopie or Rosie/Hollywood could speak out more. Americans in general are tired of the bush strategy but there is only one thing that turns people off more then bush...that is groups like move on. Move on has no clue what mainstream america is and I hoope they dont figure it out , at least until after the next election.

Posted by: alex | September 20, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

In Bush's world it's perfectly OK to wave the flag, pay lip service to the military and use fuzzy math to promote his position. However, if anyone disagrees with him then they are un-American for using the same tactics he's been using for almost 7 years. It gets real old.

While MoveOn.Org may have also engaged in fuzzy math and facts they are no more guilty of skewing the position then Bush.

Posted by: BobL-VA | September 20, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

The current kerfluffle over Adhmadinejad's proposed pilgrimage to Ground Zero shows once again how bad ideas drag us irresistibly to bad policy. Having refused for nearly thirty years to deal with the reality that Iran declared war on us in 1979 and has been waging it ever since, we are now acting as if Iran were just another country and its president therefore entitled to all the usual courtesies for visiting foreign dignitaries. Ergo, Secret Service protection, normal protocol, the niceties of "international law," blah blah.

So long as we continue to delude ourselves about the nature of the Iranian regime, we will continue to tie ourselves in strategic and diplomatic knots, and eventually to the terrible policy options (appease them or bomb them) about which we've heard so often in recent months, most recently from the French foreign minister.

As for Columbia University, one can only propose the Chamberlain Award for Exceptional Appeasement.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The Dems are vile? Republicans just filibustered a bill that would have forced the military to give soldiers sufficient time off. Which party supports the troops again?

Posted by: Blarg | September 20, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

The final vote was 72-25, with three not voting. Hillary Clinton voted against condemning MoveOn (feed the beast), while Barack Obama and Joseph Biden did not vote (Dem leadership). Here are the nays:


Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)


this list constitutes the scum of the earth.

Posted by: profiles in courage | September 20, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"Geoffrey Wawro, a professor of military history at the University of North Texas in Denton, says he has seen no waning of support for Bush, or the war, at least in the Dallas area. "You see Bush stickers all over here," says Wawro. "This is a very Republican place, and people support the war because they support their president, and vice versa."

But Perry Jeffries, 46, a former first sergeant who served with the 1-10 Cavalry Regiment of the 4th Infantry Division during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, says he sees a growing divide around Fort Hood between support for the war and support for Bush. "Many, many people here are connected in some way to deployed soldiers, and no matter what they may feel they want to support the troops," says Jeffries, a native of Waco who retired from the Army in 2004 and is also a member of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "But if you feel people out about what they think individually, it's far from a consensus," he says.

As a member of a Fort Hood honor guard, Jeffries has attended the funerals of 20 service members from Texas killed in the war. "Most of the women I work with, who all have husbands who have been deployed, are done with this war -- they don't think their husbands should have to go back again for something that to them looks dumb now. The soldiers signed up to do a job, and they're going to do what they're ordered, but you'll see guys now who come back on leave or on rotation and you know they don't want to go back."

Jeffries now manages volunteer recruitment for a private contractor that operates a blood donor program in Fort Hood that supplies military hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan. When he began his civilian job, Jeffries began driving his pickup truck on post with a bumper sticker reading "George Bush: American Errorist." He says he was surprised by the response he got. "I only had one person to tell me that I should take it off, but dozens of people asked me, 'You haven't gotten in trouble for that?'" People were concerned his truck might be vandalized, Jeffries says, but "they didn't have a problem with the message."
"

Posted by: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/20/texas_iraq/index1.html | September 20, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Senate Condemns MoveOn Ad, Still More [Byron York]


No Republican voted against condemning the MoveOn ad. All 25 votes against the amendment were Democrats. Democrats who voted with Republicans to condemn the MoveOn ad were:


Baucus
Bayh
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dorgan
Feinstein
Johnson
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Mikulski
Nelson, Ben
Nelson, Bill
Salazar
Tester
Webb

One interesting note: Some of the senators who won the greatest support from the netroots in the last election, like McCaskill, Tester, Klobuchar, and Webb, voted to condemn the ad.

Posted by: yourt party of traitors | September 20, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

support the tropps, yeah right

Boxer Amendment, which was a move to:


reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.

That measure was rejected, 51 to 46.

Posted by: Dems are vile | September 20, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Hang on, I want to go back to the taze guy (with whom I started). Aren't we lucky that this episode occurred at a John Kerry event, rather than at an event featuring a conservative Republican? Say, Mitt Romney? Can you imagine how the press would have reacted -- and the Left at large? Before they were through, they would have had Romney himself wielding the taser gun (or whatever we call it). Would have heard a lot of references to Abu Ghraib.

Yes, we were lucky this was a Kerry event.

Posted by: one sided Libs | September 20, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

""Iraq Violence Lowest Since 2006 Attack Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since before a 2006 mosque attack which unleashed reprisal sectarian killings"

This is nothing but a variation on breathless headlines trumpeting economic indicators reaching levels not seen since, uh, earlier in the Bush presidency.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Pigs on the Left (a redundancy) will soon learn what an albatross Moveon.org is. Truth is, that moronic organization IS the Dem party, which is why Dems can't win the WH with consistency. Only 2 Dems have won in almost 40 years, both under exceptional circumstances: Carter in the wake of watergate (got the boot 4 years later), and Clinton with the help of a strong 3d party candidate in Perot (in fact, Clinton never got a majority of the votes). Keep it up Moveon.org -- it's because of imbeciles like you that this country has avoided putting more idiots in the WH. God knows that 2 is more than enough.

Posted by: John | September 20, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Reading about Hillary's new health-care plan, I had a thought: She's not giving it all at once; she's doling it out in dribs and drabs. You might even say she's "rationing" her plan. And that's what the plan entails: rationing.

Posted by: jay | September 20, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

katie shouldn't have let rush on the show her first week or two. she and the nitwork has been cursed every since. and now dan is asking for some props....i love it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

a brave president could face Iran daily but not ONE interview on FOX?"

Fox and iran are the same. they serve the same master, they have the same goals for their countries

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

top Khmer Rouge leader was arrested and will be put on trial for genocide. My question: What's the big rush?

A further question: Will Ramsey Clark and Noam Chomsky stand by his side, and speak in his behalf? How about Michael Moore?

Posted by: the Dems Iraq | September 20, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

The once-great McCain is today proposing that the Senate censure MoveOn for their ad about Petraeus.

The attempt to turn this ad into a cause to get the country to turn its gaze from the truely nation-shattering events not being addressed by this once-august body is in itself a betray of our trust.... in McCain and the Senators who vote for this censure and are as guilty of excess as those they censure.

Petraus is in a most uncomfortable position, knowing full well, that if HE did't "betray" us, the administration who uses him as its primo Iraq war spinner certainly DID.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | September 20, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Iraq violence is at its lowest level since 2006. We're winning! The insurgency is in its last throes!

By the way, how does that violence level compare to 2005? 2004? How about the violence level before the invasion?

Posted by: Blarg | September 20, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

a brave president could face Iran daily but not ONE interview on FOX?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

For every military man and veteran that the Bush Crime Family intimidated, slimed, falsely attacked I say, What unmitigated hypocritical gall! Who can even bear to listen to that moron!

Posted by: thebob.bob | September 20, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"Iraq Violence Lowest Since 2006 Attack Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since before a 2006 mosque attack which unleashed reprisal sectarian killings"

That's great news! This means the troop can come home now, right?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"Iran Not Yet A Threat To Israel Former President Jimmy Carter said that he does not think Iran poses an immediate threat to Israel, despite claims by Iranian officials that they have drawn up bombing plans if the Jewish state should attack"

If the Jewish state attacks Iran, Iran has plans to retaliate. This makes Iran a threat to Israel? What country doesn't have plans to retaliate, when attacked? Ok, the French, maybe. I know Israel is accustomed to being able to attack her neighbors with impunity, but that doesn't mean its a reasonable expectation that they'll always be able to do so.

Posted by: bsimon | September 20, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

The former anchorman alleges CBS shut him up to protect George W. Bush.

Posted by: another deranged lefty kook | September 20, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"Our friends ignorant coward and Rufas were happy to participate in the damaged category."

KOZ couldn't because measurable brain activity was necessary.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Iraq Violence Lowest Since 2006 Attack Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since before a 2006 mosque attack which unleashed reprisal sectarian killings

good prediction Harry. Ever get tired of being wrong about everything?

Posted by: dingbat Harry | September 20, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm always surprised at the way the president seems to ignore the viciousness of his supporters when they use lies and smears to attack his opponents but feels such great indignation when someone necessary to his agenda is subjected to the same treatment. The Hypocrite In Chief is the last person to complain about the assault on someones integrity.

It seems he's forgotten how his minions attacked John McCain, Jack Murtha, Max Cleland and others. The abject cowardice of this President and the sleaze spouted by both parties always re-enforces the wisdom of my decision to not affiliate myself with either group.

Posted by: pax412 | September 20, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Students Know Less After 4 College Years Students at many of the country's most prestigious colleges and universities are graduating with less knowledge of American history, government, and economics than they had as incoming freshmen

Posted by: the success of liberalism and PC ed | September 20, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Army Begins Testing Soldiers' Brains A fledgling Army program records how soldiers' brains work when healthy, giving doctors baseline data to help diagnose and treat them if they come back with a traumatic brain injury

Our friends ignorant coward and Rufas were happy to participate in the damaged category.

Posted by: ignorant coward got a job | September 20, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Introducing Wal-Mart Care Wal-Mart unveiled a broad plan yesterday that is intended to cut employee costs, expand coverage and offer workers thousands of cheap prescription drugs

Posted by: anti Hillary care | September 20, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Dry Cleaners In $54M 'Missing Pants' Suit Forced To Close The owners of a dry cleaner who were sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants have closed and sold the shop involved in the dispute

Posted by: John Edwards approach | September 20, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Carter: Iran Not Yet A Threat To Israel Former President Jimmy Carter said that he does not think Iran poses an immediate threat to Israel, despite claims by Iranian officials that they have drawn up bombing plans if the Jewish state should attack

Posted by: clueless Dem presidents | September 20, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Bush is the new Herbert Hoover.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 20, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Did Jeff Gannon toss Bush that softball? And if so what did he do to get his press credentials back?

Posted by: singe | September 20, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

a brave soldier could face bullets daily but not ONE ad in ONE newspaper? Free speech is death. The GOP killed it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I notice that President Bush attacks MoveOn . . . . but did not attack Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Apparently you only attack these sorts of groups when they're arguing against your positions.

Posted by: aelfric | September 20, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Lambert - Limbaugh, coulter and Malkin are not in the military and doing the people's work of protecting the nation. this is why you Libs will lose so badly next year. you just don't get it. I thought you were all so smart and nuanced. Evidently not.

the votes in the Senate make it clear, the tide has turned and your surrender proposals are through.

go back to your specialty of investigating, regulating and pontificating. Legislating is clearly not your strong point. Leave it to the adults.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 20, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"The ultimate Democrat constituent would be a public schoolteacher on welfare who needed an abortion and was suing her doctor."

Nuke the baby whales for Jesus.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"Texans turn against Bush's war
Disillusionment with Iraq is smoldering even in the heart of Bush country, where military families have paid a heavy price.

By Bill Sasser

Pages 1 2 Share
Email
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
My Yahoo
Print RSS Font: S / S+ / S++

Sept. 20, 2007 | LUCKENBACH, Texas -- As George W. Bush approaches his final year in office saddled with an unpopular war, the shifting winds of public opinion have reached even the wide open spaces of Bush country. More and more Texans appear disillusioned with the war in Iraq and with the man who was once their widely popular governor, though some can still seem reluctant to talk about it.

"The truth is, folks in Texas are hurting," says Big Bo Kern, standing behind the counter at the Luckenbach General Store, a fixture of this small but well-known Texas crossroads. "They probably won't tell you that, because we supported Bush and stood up for him. Back in the day you couldn't swing a dead cat around here without hitting one of those 'W' stickers. But feelings around here started to change about a year ago, when guys started going back to Iraq for their third deployment."

The town of Luckenbach, founded in 1849 and made famous a generation ago by the hit song from "Waylon and Willie," still hosts live cowboy bands on weekends and can seem timeless. But over the past couple of years, autographed photos of Willie Nelson and Jerry Jeff Walker tacked to the walls of the general store have been joined by snapshots of young servicemen in Iraq, holding up their Luckenbach T-shirts. "We get young guys coming through here, on leave or on their way back to Fort Hood for their next deployment, so I give them a hat or a T-shirt and ask them to send me a photo back," says Kern, 45, an Army veteran originally from the nearby town of Sisterdale. "We also get soldiers from Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio. The hospital takes them out on trips sometimes. They come in and most of them are horribly burned, some missing arms or legs. I give them a T-shirt or a hat," Kern says. "It breaks your heart to see them."



Texas has paid a price for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More Texans than people from any other state have served in those wars. From September 2001 through July 2007, 171,335 active-duty service members and 23,906 National Guard troops and reservists from Texas have been deployed with Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, according to data provided to Salon by the Department of Defense. (The numbers account for every tour of duty served by every soldier.) As of July 31, Texans represented 35,015 active-duty service members and 2,649 Reserve troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, accounting for more than 14 percent of total forces stationed in those countries. (Approximately 264,000 Americans were stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan as of July 31, according to the Defense Department figures.) As of Sept. 17, 378 Texans have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and more than 2,200 wounded. Only California has seen a greater total number of deaths, with 447 service members killed.

Many Texans have deployed from Fort Hood, the Army's largest base with more than 44,000 personnel. Sprawling across hundreds of square miles of Texas Hill Country between Austin and Waco, Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division and the 4th Infantry Division, which have been in constant rotation to Iraq since the 2003 invasion. At a benefit concert in nearby Killeen on a recent Thursday night, Marissa Sousa, a 29-year-old Iraq war veteran, staffed a table for the advocacy group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, offering brochures on veterans' health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder.

"I see some of these guys and I know they're back from Iraq," says Sousa, who retired as a staff sergeant from a unit based at Fort Hood, and whose fiancé is currently stationed with the 1st Cavalry Division in Baghdad. "They start circling my table and I can see they want to talk to someone, but it's difficult to do. Morale is down. A lot of them are only going back again for their buddies, not for patriotism or their president. They're doing it because they have to, and because they would feel guilty about staying behind."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/20/texas_iraq/

Posted by: who cares what bush says at this poin | September 20, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

NEW YORK - Federal prosecutors plan to unseal a criminal complaint Thursday charging Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu with breaking campaign finance law and creating a $60 million Ponzi scheme, according to a law enforcement official

Posted by: just another clinton fundraiser | September 20, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Last I checked, politics wasn't beanbag.

If Betray Us didn't want this to happen, then he shouldn't helped Bush play his political games. (Say, is Giuliana still using Petraeus in a campaign ad? Thought so.)

But we can compromise: The Senate Resolution can also denounce Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter and the rest of 'em for calling Democrats and liberals traitors and calling for them to be executed.

Fair's fair, after all.

Posted by: lambert strether | September 20, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Memo to Chris.......Nobody cares outside the Beltway. Nobody believes Bush or Petraeus. Check the latest CBS poll to discover how much impact this has had. P.S. Moveon was right.

Posted by: C. Feher | September 20, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

As long as we're studying the health care systems of various socialist countries, are we allowed to notice that doctors in these other countries aren't constantly being sued by bottom-feeding trial lawyers stealing one-third of the income of people performing useful work like saving lives?

But the Democrats (and Fred Thompson) refuse to enact tort reform legislation to rein in these charlatans. After teachers and welfare recipients, the Democrats' most prized constituency is trial lawyers. The ultimate Democrat constituent would be a public schoolteacher on welfare who needed an abortion and was suing her doctor.

How much does Pinch Sulzberger make for driving The New York Times stock to an all-time low? Probably a lot more than your podiatrist.


Posted by: Ann C. | September 20, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Some of the right-wing posters on this board are really quite amusing. One wrote: "I applaud your pledge to cease and desist mentioning william jefferson, william jefferson clinton, monica lewinsky, cattle futures or who invented the internet."

May I speak for every sane human and say - huh?

Somehow the 2008 presidential race should revolve around an obscure Louisiana congressman, or a ginned up 10-year old sex scandal that led to a huge backlash against the GOP when they impeached the (still) incredibly popular Bill Clinton, or "cattle futures" - what they hell does that one even mean, or some lazy press lies about Al Gore, who, by the way, isn't running for anything?

This is all the GOP has, which shows you they know are in a HEAP of trouble in 2008.

But, hey, thanks for pointing it out, wacky poster.

Posted by: jbk | September 20, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Heck, this is low-hanging fruit.

" "I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Republican Party spoke out strongly against the Swift Boat ad," Bush added. "That leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Republicans are afraid of irritating a right-wing group like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- are more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military." "

The fact that Bush never said the above certainly makes him a big, fat liar now.

Kerry served under fire many times and was slandered for his bravery. Petraeus was brass before he ever entered a theatre of war (in 2003) and probably never even heard a shot fired by an enemy. Oooh, calling someone "Betray-us" for spouting a bunch of half-truths (oh, the horror!) is so MUCH worse than calling into open question the bravery of all the men and women who have served in combat and gotten medals for it.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 20, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Remember that Sen. Leahy, as committee chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has a lot to do with the ongoing obstruction of Judge Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Again, an exceptional nominee that every senator in Washington knows is highly qualified to be a judge, and again, the same obstructionist tactics used to gain a partisan political advantage.

So the positions change, and the nominees change, but Sen. Leahy's tactics don't. Same old, same old: complain, delay, obstruct. "We the people" don't really matter.

Posted by: Leaky Leahy | September 20, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Can we talk about whether our brave General will be able to pick up the broken pieces of his shattered life after an advertisement in the New York Times was rude to him? Maybe even defamed him?

I would suspect he'll probably need years of therapy to get over the trauma of it all.

And can we make sure from now on that all political candidates and parties are responsible for the content of every ad that's taken out by any group on any subject, whether or not they had anything to do with the ad or not?

Or, could we please talk about something important?

Posted by: Greg VA | September 20, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Mukasey seems to be a very solid candidate.

But being a solid candidate has never deterred liberal senators from politicizing the process. Once again, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) is showing his true colors by implying that the nominee will move along only if he, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, gets something in return. In a statement on the Senate floor yesterday Leahy said "I have been in discussions with White House officials about some of the Committee's outstanding requests and let them know that cooperation from the White House will be essential in determining that schedule." Of course, Sen. Leahy is referring to internal White House memos and other confidential documents relating to Alberto Gonzales to which he is not entitled. He has also said, "Our focus now will be on securing the relevant information we need so we can proceed to schedule fair and thorough hearings."

But I don't remember anywhere in the Constitution where this is listed as part of the confirmation process. Fair and thorough hearings should not depend on Sen. Leahy securing the "relevant" information he thinks he needs.

In a time of war, it is almost incomprehensible that a senator would try to play games with such an important nominee. If Sen. Leahy has a problem with the candidate he should debate that. But to use this man, and to use our need for an attorney general, as bait on his political fishing rod is shameful. We need the attorney general in place as soon as possible for the protection of the American people.

But that doesn't seem to be important to Sen. Leahy. He prefers to perform the same tired old tricks to obstruct a nominee that even some of his liberal compatriots have praised.

Posted by: power mad | September 20, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Keep the Progressives movingon.org shot the best arrow in their arsenal. Too bad for them that when it returns to Earth it will land on the Democrats candidate for President.

In an election that the Dems should win, they will lose because of fringe fanatics with an internet connection.

Didn't the WaPo's Fact checker grade the Moveon ad as mostly fabricated lies?

Posted by: WhyhateUSA? | September 20, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

regardibng Stossels 20/20 program:

One who watched this program would recognize that Senator Clinton's plan moves the country in the wrong direction. She proposes requiring that all individuals obtain insurance, and offers government subsidies to encourage them to do so. She would forbid insurance companies from denying coverage or "unfairly" pricing them out of the market. She would mandate that companies have to offer health insurance to employees or pay a penalty. In other words, she would further loosen the relationship between what we pay and what healthcare we consume. This would encourage over-consumption, higher prices, and greater inefficiency.

Of course, the plan would also come with a hefty price tag for taxpayers. Initial estimates are that the plan's annual cost would be $110 billion per year. But if we have learned anything from the past about government healthcare programs, it's that such estimates are often wrong and costs tend to increase much faster than expected.

Almost 15 years ago, voters soundly rejected First Lady Hillary Clinton's vision of a nationalized healthcare system. Clinton's current proposal may be less ambitious, but it is still a move toward greater government mandates and government control. Instead of just defeating this initiative, opponents should consider the lesson of this latest 20/20 report and offer an alternative vision: a true marketplace with individuals in control of their resources and their decisions.

Posted by: a non starter | September 20, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

now i'm 'cliff'

I HAVE NO BRAIN! I HAVE NO BRAIN!

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 20, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

What went wrong for the anti-war left? How did they end up further from their goal then when they began? Why is Congress now less likely than it was before Iraq Summer began to cut off funding for the war or legislate timetables for withdrawal? Why are the polls showing fewer Americans convinced that defeat in Iraq is inevitable, and more saying that the new strategy being implemented by Gen. David Petreaus deserves support?

The primary reason is that Petraeus and his troops have made real gains on the ground in Iraq. Working hand-in-glove with Iraqis, they have smashed al-Qaeda's Iraqi infrastructure and begun to confront the Iranian-backed death squads.

One more thing: The anti-war movement made a strategic error by aiming not to persuade but to punish; not to debate but to coerce and bully. This approach reached its peak - or rather its nadir - with MoveOn.org's full-page ad accusing General Petraeus of "betraying" his country for daring to say that continuing to fight al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias is preferable to ceding Iraq to these enemies of America.

In the end, the ad has damaged MoveOn.org much more than Petraeus. And it forced the group's Democratic allies in Congress to be the ones who had to "Take a Stand" -- to either denounce MoveOn.org's slander, or tacitly endorse left-wing McCarthyism. As you doubtless know by now, profiles in courage were few and far between.

Posted by: cliff | September 20, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I HAVE NO LIFE! I HAVE NO LIFE!

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 20, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

"Why do you think we keep electing R presidents for so many years? It "

The arugmetn used to be about who controlled congress, then that changed and they had tot alk the white house. look for that argument to change in 13 1/2 months.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I will keep posting garbage every two minutes all day today, now I'm 'Jeff' -- I have a million names, but the posts are all the same because I have no brain!

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 20, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nevada) charged that Gen. Petraeus had a long record of making erroneous statements. Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (New York) told him to his face that his views required "a willing suspension of disbelief" -- or, in other words, that he was a liar. The "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad was right in step.

The Democrats' response was a necessary consequence of a mistaken conclusion they reached several months ago. Early this year, they decided that the war in Iraq was hopelessly lost. Not unreasonably, they felt entitled to wrap the defeat around President Bush's neck and benefit by the political consequences. Sen. Reid ratified this conclusion by stating, in just so many words, that "the war is lost."

That was all very well as long as reports from the battlefield remained uniformly negative. But, beginning with the "surge," the military outlook unexpectedly (at least to the Democrats) began to improve. It was plain that Gen. Petraeus would say exactly that when he reported to Congress, and that put the Democrats in a very tight spot indeed. They resolved it in the only way they could: by blackguarding Gen. Petraeus. Their position, therefore, remains today what it was before, and has at least the merit of consistency: The war in Iraq is irretrievably lost, and any evidence to the contrary, let alone any inconvenient statements by military experts, will simply be denounced as false. Most Congressional Democrats haven't even been willing to condemn MoveOn.org for its filthy ad. The best Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois could do was concede that it had been "a poor choice of words." What an exquisite sense of taste he has!

Posted by: claseless losers | September 20, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

$166.7 Billion in new plans from Hillary for the American People. We spend that much a year on this mess in Iraq. Remember that the number they tell us they spend is probably only half of the true cost. Proven liars, the white house doesnt care what they do, as long as they keep filling all the barons pockets with cash!!

Posted by: Jeff | September 20, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I serve as the village idiot. most call me ignorant coward.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 20, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

"for holding up votes on key issues"

I guess you Libs just don't know how to take NO for an answer.

NO - we do not want to lose the war.
NO - we do not want to raise taxes
NO - we do not want the Senate running the military
NO - we do not want the Liberal agenda passed into law.
NO - we do not want socialized medicine.

Why do you think we keep electing R presidents for so many years? It is to keep the Dems hands off our laws. Once in a while we allow a few DINOs to slip through, like the 6th year of a president. do not read the message incorrectly, it doesn't mean we have gone soft in the spine or head, that is the role of Harry Reid and he is doing it just fine.

Hey Harry, good prediction there - "the surge is a failure". I have a prediction - Harry Reid is a failure. Look it already came true.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 20, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: and here's the video... | September 20, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

When questioned by Senators Durbin and Boxer why there wasn't the same defense of Senators Kerry and Cleland when they were being attacked for their service, Cornyn hemmed and hawed, and then he said this:

I am not willing to amend my resolution ... He [Durbin] keeps emphasizing that this [Swift Boat Liars] is a Texas based group... I have no idea whether it is or it is not ..."
OK, I'm not saying Cornyn is either a liar or stupid or both. Maybe he doesn't read. Or watch TV. Or know who donated to his campaign. Or live on this planet.

According to information released by the IRS on February 22, 2005, more than half of the group's reported contributions came from just three sources, all prominent Texas Republican donors: Houston builder Bob J. Perry, a longtime supporter of George W. Bush, donated $4.45 million, Harold Simmons' Contrans donated $3 million, and T. Boone Pickens, Jr. donated $2 million.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

MR. DURBIN: ... I don't think the fact that it happens during a campaign absolves anybody from the responsibility of telling the truth and honoring those who served. In this case, two Democrats, Senator Max Cleland and Senator JOHN KERRY, were attacked, and there wasn't a long line of people on the floor to condemn the attackers. Now that the Senator from Texas has decided we should bring this up as part of the Defense authorization bill, I hope he will be consistent, and I hope he will consistently stand up for the reputations of the men and women in uniform, starting with General Petraeus but including those who served in this war and other wars in the past.

Each of them deserves our respect. I might add, parenthetically--it is worth saying--even if we disagree with their political views, they still deserve our respect. To attack their honor and integrity is wrong.

Posted by: BACK TO YOU, MR. DURBIN | September 20, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

MRS. BOXER: ... The fact of the matter is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth went after a war hero and told stories to the American people that were not true and tried to sully a hero's reputation.

But he is not the only Senator who was attacked, as my friend remembers what happened to our colleague, Max Cleland. I know he does. Here is a veteran who gave three limbs for his country--three limbs. It is harder for him, for the first 2 hours of every day, to get ready for the day than it is for the Senator from Texas or myself or the Senator from Illinois to do our work for a month. Yet this man was viciously attacked and his patriotism called into question. Oh, yes, my friend might say, it was during a political campaign. It was disgusting. So we raise these issues.

What I wish to ask my friend is this: I was thinking--as the Senator from Texas, my friend and colleague, was speaking--I was thinking about some retired generals who spoke out against this war and said they were called traitors and worse. So I am looking at ways to incorporate into this a condemnation of anyone who would attack a retired general for speaking out against a war because I think that was low and it was horrible. It was frightening because, in a way, it was saying to these retired generals that they had no voice, no independent voice.

So I wish to thank my colleague, and I wonder if he recalls these generals. I will have more details as I put together my second-degree amendment as well.

Posted by: THANK YOU BARBARA BOXER! | September 20, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

MR. DURBIN ... I am troubled by the conclusion of my colleague from Texas that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth could attack Senator JOHN KERRY for his valor and courage fighting for America in Vietnam and that for some reason we shouldn't repudiate that attack; that it is OK because it happened, as my colleague said, during a political campaign. If this is about the honor and integrity of our Armed Forces, past and present, whether it takes place during a political campaign or at half time at a football game should make no difference. If the Senator from Texas believes we should stand on a regular basis and condemn those who would attack the honor and integrity of warriors who have served this country with valor in past wars and present wars, then he should be consistent. It is totally inconsistent for him to pick one organization and to ignore the obvious: There are others who have done the same thing.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a classic example of an organization that distorted the truth about Senator JOHN KERRY and others who served our country during the Vietnam war. The fact that they did it during a Presidential campaign should have absolutely nothing to do with it, if this is a matter of principle. However, if it is not a matter of principle and something else, then you would pick and choose those organizations you want to condemn or repudiate. Unfortunately, the Senator from Texas has picked one organization. He doesn't want to talk about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He certainly doesn't want to repudiate them. I think they should be repudiated. What they did cast a shadow on the combat decorations given to others during the course of that war.

What Senator JOHN KERRY did was to volunteer to serve our country, put his life on the line, face combat, stand up and fight for his fellow sailors on that swift boat, and then come back to the criticism, the chief criticism of a group known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Posted by: CALL MR. DURBIN AND THANK HIM | September 20, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse


And so, it seemed another pointless, fake diatribe had been completed by another right wing Republican on the Senate floor. But then, it happened -- Dick Durbin strolled onto the Senate floor, and the chamber got a bit livelier:

Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. I yield for a question.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in the 2004 Presidential campaign, I might ask the Senator from Texas, there was a group from Texas that attacked Senator John Kerry and said he was undeserving of the commendations and decorations he received for his courage in fighting in Vietnam and raised questions about others who served in the military who were part of his swift boat operation. One would have to say, by any stretch, that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were attacking the honor and integrity of one of our colleagues who served with honor in the Vietnam war.

I would like to ask the Senator from Texas if he is prepared to remain consistent and if he is also prepared to amend his amendment to repudiate the activities, actions, and statements of the Texas-based Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization with their unwarranted attacks on our colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, during the 2004 campaign.

Posted by: THANK YOU DICK DURBIN! | September 20, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

It was either him or General Killsyourkids. They chose the more tastefully named general for this job.

Posted by: Heinz Guderian | September 20, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

One could argue that the first day a few people might have been genuinely mad, but now we are in Day 10, and this is just getting to the point of becoming beyond ridiculous and a parody of itself:

Once upon a time, everything was going great in our country -- its finances, its wars, its economy, everything! -- then some organization placed an ad in a newspaper and it was the most horrible thing ever.

It was real bad -- there was an ad. In a newspaper.

And then everything went to sh*t and that ad was the only thing the pundits could talk about.

The end.

Posted by: markos | September 20, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

"why doesn't harry reid have the votes?

Because he is a spineless, ineffective weasal. he is not fit to lead a girl scout troop to the mall."

Reid doesn't have the votes because he hasn't learned how to effectively demonize the opposition party for holding up votes on key issues. Give him a couple months and he'll figure out how to publicize the problems created by 'the party of NO'.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I serve as the village idiot. most call me ignorant coward but I am still contemplating a name. I hope to find one on the daily Kos so I don't have to think too hard.

mostly I serve as comic relief to the more serious posters here. you can always count on me to cut and paste long, boring, unrelated articles which I think reflect badly on George Bush. I also post one line insults.

My greatest accomplishment is to patrol the outskirts of the blog, on the lookout for the evil Zouk, who dares to come in here and post truth, justice and the american way. as you know, this is anathema to us moonbats and can't be tolerated.

I spend most of my day monitoring this blog for Zouk postings and point them out when I see them. this service is free of charge. you can pay me back by talking to me occasionally. no one else will so I often get quite lonely. If the tone of the conversation gets too factual, I must depart but you can then find me over at Kos, huff or the Nation, where I spend the rest of my waking hours.

your friend,


Undecided

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I'll be your slime server for the rest of the afternoon.

Today's specials are garbage, crap, drivel, and gibberish.

Posted by: Hi my name is kingofzouk! | September 20, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Chris
You are exactly right. The Dems need to do a "Rove" on Bush and his senate supporters. Their perceived strength is "supporting the troops" , but they are very vulnerable on that point. Yesterday's vote being only one example. The Dems need to attck Bush et al on how they are NOT supporting the troops. Point out the inadequate equipment, the extended tours, the mess at Walter Reed and the VA,the incompetence in planning an managing the war , the futility and increased deaths caused by the "surge" . Attack their strength. And glue every Republican to Bush who votes to cut off debate on these issues, not just the "venerable" John Warner, but especially those who are up for re-election. Warner caving to white House pressure is beneath contempt. Any of his previous "signals" or "statesmanship" in trying to find a new course is pure crap after what he pulled on Webb yesterday. He should quit now. How do you think all his Military family constituents in Virginia feel about him now.

Posted by: jmsbh | September 20, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Smart move by the President. MoverOn mess now into week two, with the focus again being diverted from where it should be: the War and candidate's proposals.

Bush/GOP: Two

MoveOn/Democrats: Zero

p.s., for all of the MoveOn defenders: the Democrats will continue to be tagged with this as long as Joe Biden is the only major leader or candidate to say it was an innappropriate ad. MoveOn doesn't have to be sent to bed without supper, but they have to be told that childish actions are not acceptable.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Typical WAR CRIMINAL bush.....hates hearing the truth. Burn in hell w.

Posted by: pj4521 | September 20, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

why doesn't harry reid have the votes?

Because he is a spineless, ineffective weasal. he is not fit to lead a girl scout troop to the mall.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Bush will be an anchor on GOP candidates in 2008 like an aircraft carrier's anchor would be to a dinghy.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 20, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

just so you know -- i'll be on here all day, sliming Democrats and signing it with witless slogans like

politics of hypocrasy | we are big spenders in case you forgot |

it's all i do. i'm too cowardly to fight in Iraq, and too stupid to get a job, so this is what i do, all day in my mom's basement. she brings me cheetos and PBJ sandwiches.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 20, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Nice writeup, Chris.

I land with the Dems (and Afam212) on this one, and not with MoveOn - even though Ari is a short from being a family friend - his grandparents were, years ago in Belmont.

But I am not happy with the Congressional Dem's approach - as if they had one - to Iraq either. And at this point the Iraq withdrawal vs surge controversy seems to me a major distraction - the military equivalent of a Paris Hilton uproar - compared to our headlong rush into creating another new holocaust in Iran.

Yes, I think that things have come to that tragic state - that we are at just this point. Bush is hiding behind Petraus' skirts, and using the uproar over the ad, the surge, and Iraq to distract Democrats, and MoveOn and the rest of us from planning to "Bomb Iran into the stone age."

Posted by: pivonka571 (Jim) | September 20, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Hey Murtha, now that the Marines have been cleared will you issue an apology for your baseless and vile accusation that they were cold blooded killers?

you are a pathetic old crook and deserve to rot in prison for your absacam deals, your lining of your earmark pockets and your political lies against our brave Marines. If anyone was ever an ExMarine, it is you scumbag.

Posted by: typical Dem | September 20, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

'While that ad and Bush's mention may raise money for MoveOn, it will be an anchor around the necks of Dems in 08, should Republicans choose to use that weapon. ''

Did you think the Swift Boat ads were an 'anchor' around the necks of republicans in 2004, JD. If not, why? They were far nastier than the MoveOn ad, and completely baseless.

And Cohen is no liberal--he was completely pro-war until about 5 minutes ago. Calling the WaPo edit board 'liberal' is a complete joke --they also were major cheerleaders and enablers for this adminstrations lies leading up to the war.

Posted by: Cassandra | September 20, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

'the reality' -- it's noon, zoukie's out of bed, punched in and ready to smear democrats all day. why doesn't harry reid have the votes? why becuase the republicans are filibustering every bill. when republicans do it, it's no longer 'obstructionism', you see.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

politics of destruction
"We don't discuss actual issues, the voters would not be pleased and we would lose."

I applaud your pledge to cease and desist mentioning william jefferson, william jefferson clinton, monica lewinsky, cattle futures or who invented the internet.

Posted by: politics of hypocrasy | September 20, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

At a recent cancer forum, Mrs. Clinton said she would "double" the National Institute of Health's $28 billion budget and the National Cancer Institute's nearly $5 billion budget over 10 years. After the Minnesota bridge collapse last month, she proposed spending $1.5 billion per year for public transit and $10 billion over 10 years to redesign and reconstruct ailing bridges.

Her universal pre-kindergarten plan would cost $5 billion the first year and $10 billion after five years. She has proposed $1 billion to help at-risk mortgage borrowers avoid foreclosure. Smaller-ticket items range from $25 million for cancer-survivor groups to $36 million for school physical-education programs.

Mrs. Clinton has proposed at least $166.7 billion in new plans, ranging from providing health care to fixing the mortgage market, a quick totaling of proposals on her campaign Web site reveals.

Posted by: we are big spenders in case you forgot | September 20, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

'The Moveon commercial was over the top'

So what? It's just an ad. It's free speech--and the Democratic party had nothing to do with it.

I never saw a single Republican, not even one -- disavow the ad that smeared the veteran and multiple amputee Max Cleland -- which was a startlingly brutal, and baseless, attack, comparing him to Saddam Hussein

Where were you then, CC, telling the Repugs they should apologize? I didn't hear a peep criticising it in the press.

Posted by: Samanatha | September 20, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"While that ad and Bush's mention may raise money for MoveOn, it will be an anchor around the necks of Dems in 08, should Republicans choose to use that weapon."

The Moveon ad will be far less an anchor on Dem candidates than the Bush legacy will be on Repub candidates. The ones that have read the writing on the wall are retiring. The rest are in for a shock.

Posted by: bsimon | September 20, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack went off on Rudy Giuliani's family foibles in a televised interview, saying Giuliani has "lots of issues" voters may not know about - yet.

"I can't even get into the number of marriages, [and] the relationship he has with his children," Vilsack said on New York 1, describing the ex-mayor's past as "interesting."

We don't discuss actual issues, the voters would not be pleased and we would lose.

Posted by: politics of destruction | September 20, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

While that ad and Bush's mention may raise money for MoveOn, it will be an anchor around the necks of Dems in 08, should Republicans choose to use that weapon. I think it's disgusting that HRC et al didn't condemn it (like I said in the previous thread - she'll do anything to win). Read Cohen's piece from WaPo 2 days ago discussing HRC's missed opp.

And remember, Cohen is a liberal Democrat, writing for a liberal op ed board.

Posted by: JD | September 20, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

A Republican filibuster in the Senate yesterday shot down a bipartisan effort to restore the right of terrorism suspects to contest in federal courts their detention and treatment, underscoring the Democratic-led Congress's difficulty with terrorism issues. The 56 to 43 vote fell short of the 60 needed to cut off debate and move to a final vote on the amendment to the Senate's annual defense policy bill.

you don't have the votes. good job Dirty Harry, more failure attributed to your Senate. do nothing, it is much better then what you are attempting.

Posted by: the reality | September 20, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Senate Republicans yesterday rejected a bipartisan proposal to lengthen the home leaves of U.S. troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, derailing a measure that war opponents viewed as one of the best chances to force President Bush to accelerate a redeployment of forces. The proposal, sponsored by Sens. James Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), failed on a 56 to 44 vote, with 60 votes needed for passage.

you don't have the votes. good job Dirty Harry, more failure attributed to your Senate. do nothing, it is much better then what you are attempting.

Posted by: the reality | September 20, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

If it's all about the oil, take everyone's car away and bring our soldiers home.

as it is, the rich guys are letting the poor guys fight in a civil war to help rich guys get richer. how's that for democracy?

the US got started by invading this country and killing all the indians, and now our country is doing it in iraq. totally us, totally sad but bush has no soul, so eventually, we are all toast.

Posted by: preAmerikkkan | September 20, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

The Moveon commercial was over the top. Petraeus is trying to do the best job that he can. Does anyone think that he wants to fail? The President is right to say that the General should not be a target.

Posted by: afam212 | September 20, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Pathetic. Why didn't Bush condemn the attacks on military men like the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry or the ads attacking Max Cleland?

Posted by: Mjames2 | September 20, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

A new Congressional study finds that President Bush's plans for the U.S. in Iraq over the next several decades will reach the trillions of dollars, on top of the approximately $567 billion the war has already cost. That accounting assumes a significant troop drawdown -- and still tallies a daunting expense for the United States [...]

A prior CBO study estimated that U.S. costs in Iraq from 2009 to 2017 will total approximately $1 trillion. On top of that, under the reduced-force combat scenario envisioned in this CBO estimate, the U.S. will spend another $1 trillion by 2057 -- the lifespan of the U.S.'s Korean presence to date.

All estimates are in 2008 dollars. Both estimates are arguably conservative. In the combat scenario, for instance, Army units serve 12-month tours, whereas they now serve 15-month tours. In the non-combat scenario, the CBO ratcheted down the Defense Department's cost-of-war estimates to reflect "lower costs for such items as equipment maintenance, fuel and consumable materials."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Bush is sinking fast and flailing at every straw man he can find...

'On Wednesday, Bush hosted a group of columnists at the White House for a 90-minute interview session. Roll Call editor Mort Kondracke, who attended the meeting, said that Bush now "may be a lame duck" and appears to know that "his credibility is low." At the meeting, Bush acknowledged:

People listen to Petraeus, not to me.

But Petraeus' close ties to Bush have damaged his own credibility. A recent CBS poll found that, after Petraeus' testimony, the percentage of Americans who believe escalation is working fell from 35 to 30.'

This is all an attempt to change the subject.

Posted by: Frank | September 20, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Chris writes
"Democrats need to push back -- hard and quickly -- against this sort of rhetoric before it has a chance to harden into political reality."

Perhaps. But that's only half the story.

Republicans should also push back. If they want to retain any relevance after the next election they have to start distancing themselves from a White House that will shamelessly politicize any issue.

Posted by: bsimon | September 20, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

'But, Bush -- like many of his Republican counterparts -- is seeking to equate MoveOn and the Democratic Party as a single entity aligned against the military. '

Because the Demcratic party and MoveOn want to bring the troops home, rather than forcing them to die for nothing? Right.....

Posted by: Cynthia | September 20, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

In 2006, President Bush appeared alongside then-House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY) and heaped praise on the Congressman, calling him a "strong, strong chairman" who was "doing a fine job to help us protect this country."

The Politico reports today that King, now ranking member on the Committee, is continuing his "strong, strong" measures to "protect" the United States by directly attacking Muslims. In a recent interview, King said:

Unfortunately, we have too many mosques in this country. There are too many people who are sympathetic to Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully. We should be finding out how we can infiltrate. [...]

Posted by: republican loons | September 20, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company