Open Thread

That was another wild day. Read More......

Bush and Cheney politicized every aspect of the Iraq war, which is why their attack on Democrats has no merit

When Bush says the Democrats are playing politics on Iraq, it's because that's exactly what he's doing. There's a pattern here. Whenever Bush makes an outlandish accusation like that, he's really talking about his own actions.

The juxtaposition of two top stories in the NY Times helps prove that point. First, Bush and Cheney have the audacity to accuse the Democrats of playing politics with the Iraq war:

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney aggressively challenged the motives of Congressional Democrats today as the House and Senate prepared to consider a war spending bill that would order troops to be withdrawn from Iraq beginning later this year.

In separate appearances that served as a prelude to an inevitable veto showdown, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney accused Democrats of political opportunism in forging ahead with a $124 billion measure that sets a timetable for leaving Iraq.

Rational, sane people do not play politics with war. But we're talking about Bush and Cheney. Political opportunism has been the driving force for Bush and the GOP in their Iraq strategy. Because Bush and Cheney know they've used the Iraq war for political reasons, they think that's what everyone is doing. Not true, but that is their reality.

It's a given now that the Bush administration lied and played politics from the start of the Iraq war -- about everything. At the time of Pat Tillman's death and Jessica Lynch's rescue, almost no one would have accused the White House of being so crass and craven that they'd politicize those events. But, that's exactly what they did today as we saw at the hearing on Capitol Hill:

House Democrats burrowed into the histories of Pfc. Jessica D. Lynch and Cpl. Pat Tillman in a hearing today, holding up the episodes as egregious examples of officials’ twisting the truth for public relations in wartime.

They received help in making their case from witnesses who have mostly shied away from the spotlight, Ms. Lynch and Corporal Tillman’s mother, Mary, and brother, Kevin, who enlisted in the Army along with him after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

“I am still confused as to why they chose to lie and tried to make me a legend when the real heroics of my fellow soldiers that day were, in fact, legendary,” said Ms. Lynch, dressed in a brown pantsuit and speaking softly but firmly into the microphone as more than 12 photographers clicked away in front of her.

Accounts from officials of Ms. Lynch’s bravery held the nation in thrall in the early stages of the Iraq invasion in 2003 after her maintenance convoy went astray near Nasiriya and she was taken prisoner. After her rescue, which was made into a television movie, she disputed those who said she fought off Iraqi soldiers until she was captured. She never fired a shot, she reiterated today.

The “story of the little girl Rambo from the hills who went down fighting” was untrue, she said.

This is just plain wrong. Just as it is wrong to impute political motives to those who want to end the quagmire. Nothing was sacred for the Bush team. They viewed everything through their own political prism.

Bush can only think the Democrats are being overtly political because that's been his modus operandi. It's almost too obvious, which is why most of the traditional media reporters will never get it. Instead, they dutifully regurgitate Bush's lies and spin without providing any context. Bush can -- and does say anything. But, just because he says it doesn't make it true. Read More......

David Iglesias filed the complaint that resulted in Rove investigation

Nice work, Mr. Iglesias. Rove really picked a fight with the wrong U.S. Attorney/Navy Reserve Captain. From Think Progress:

Tonight on MSNBC, fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias revealed key new details about the Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) probe into Karl Rove and other White House officials reported today by the Los Angeles Times.

Iglesias said that on April 3, he filed a Hatch Act complaint with the OSC, charging that Karl Rove and others may have violated the law by firing him over his failure to initiate partisan-motivated prosecutions. Iglesias said he subsequently spoke with OSC chief Scott Bloch, who made clear that he was planning to launch an investigation. Despite suggestions that the White House may have initiated the OSC investigation to obstruct parallel congressional probes, Iglesias expressed confidence in Bloch.

For some people -- although not many in the Bush administration, the rule of law actually matters. Read More......

US home sales plunge, foreclosures jump in Massachusetts

It didn't have to be this way but the Republican congress thought that if billions of dollars were thrown out there, somehow, someway, if government looked the other way it would all just work out and everything would be OK. Uh huh, interesting theory. We are now seeing more results that are courtesy of the past GOP, do-nothing Congress. Whether it's the tanking real estate market or the tainted food that is killing Americans, the results of GOP-preferred self regulation are in and they aren't a pretty sight.

- Bubble state foreclosures up 47%
- National existing home sales drop 8.4%, largest since 1989

Read More......

Cheney, who is leading the U.S. to defeat in Iraq, is on the attack against Democrats

Dick Cheney was apoplectic today. No wonder. He truly was the mastermind behind Iraq. And, Iraq is a complete disaster. He and his President got the U.S. in to an unwinnable war that is making us look weak around the world. Yet, the man who is help leading us to defeat in Iraq is accusing the Democrats of having a "defeatist strategy." Seriously, if the Bush team put as much energy in to attacking our enemies in Iraq as they do in to attacking Democrats, we might actually make some progress in their war.

Cheney was clearly firing shots at Harry Reid today. But, we know he's not a very good shot. When asked about Cheney's tirade, Reid was dismissive:

Reid shrugged off Cheney's remarks but with his own dig at the vice president.

"I'm not going to get into a name calling match with the administration's chief attack dog," he said.

Reid's spokesperson, Jim Manley, responded with a statement. What Cheney said was really unworthy of the Majority Leader's time:

Vice President Cheney should be the last person to lecture anyone on how leaders should make decisions.

Leaders should make decisions based on facts and reality, two words that seem to be foreign to the Vice President.

This is the same guy who said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that we would be greeted as liberators. And it's the same guy who continues to assert that Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda long after our own intelligence agency conclusively refuted this notion. To suggest he lacks credibility would be an understatement.

The Vice President's and others' attacks on those who disagree with their failed policies are signs of desperation. They are lashing out because they know the days are numbered for their failed strategy and that the American people and a bipartisan majority are determined to force this Administration to change course in Iraq.

Nico at Think Progress thoroughly slices and dices Cheney's misleading rant. Read More......

Repeating failures, volume 32,491: building walls in Iraq

Over the past week, we learned that the U.S. was building a wall in Baghdad to separate Sunni Arabs in Adhamiya from Shia to the east. The wall was described by U.S. officials as "one of the centerpieces of a new strategy," and was apparently supposed to provide security.

If this news sounds familiar, it's because we've tried building walls before, in both Tal Afar and Mosul, where we built berms to try to manage the flow in and out of those cities. How did that work out? Latest Tal Afar headline: "Curfew imposed on Iraq's volatile Tal Afar." Latest Mosul news: Gunmen kill 23 in Mosul . . . suicide car bomb kills ten . . . mass abductions.

So the efficacy of this kind of plan is dubious at best. But as an added bonus, the wall is also yet another instance of the U.S. completely failing to understand (let alone act on) the politics of, y'know, Iraq itself. You see, the Arab world can have a fairly specific reaction to "protective" walls. Prime Minister Maliki, in objecting to the plan, said it reminded people of "other walls."

What "other walls"? In the U.S., maybe we'd think of the Berlin Wall, or perhaps even the proposed wall on our southern border. We might not immediately consider the separation barrier in the West Bank being established by Israel, which Israel says is for protection but which infuriates Palestinians and much of the Arab world. Generally speaking, imitating Israeli policies is not going to get you very far in the Arab world. Especially when you're earning enmity for something that's not going to work anyway.

The wall is a recycled bad idea masquerading as a new strategy, and has already been torpedoed by Iraqi leadership. Further, this administration's continued failure to understand -- or even consider -- the Iraqi perspective on our actions continues to cripple our efforts and get our troops (not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis) killed. Read More......

Jessica Lynch: I don't understand why Bush & Pentagon lied about me being a hero

Wow.



And in related news, an American soldier says he was ordered to cover-up the circumstances surrounding Pat Tillman's death - another hero created by the Bush administration out of thin air, and they knew it. From AP:

An Army Ranger who was with Pat Tillman when he died by friendly fire said Tuesday he was told by a higher-up to conceal that information from Tillman's family.

"I was ordered not to tell them," U.S. Army Specialist Bryan O'Neal told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Read More......

Concerned Women for America spokesman promotes white supremacist videomaker on YouTube

Oh, you just can't make this stuff up.

Religious right leader Stephen Bennett, who, according to his own Web site, "speaks on behalf of Concerned Women for America in Washington, DC" (and who claims that God cured him from being gay), today sent out an email alert urging his readers to watch a video on YouTube about how "homosexuals" recruit children. I took at look at the video, and noticed immediately that the video is in fact 15 minutes of stolen video from the documentary "It's Elementary," wrapped in some homophobic title screens.

Bad enough that they're ripping off a movie, but then I noticed the tags, or keywords, associated with the YouTube video. First tag, "faggots."



That got me wondering just who posted this video, so I clicked on their screen name and checked out their other video postings. They include such cinematic wonders as (click image below to see a larger copy):



- The Black Death (about how Asians nearly killed Europeans by giving them the plague)
- Keep America white
- Hitler
- Blacks are racist
- Homosexuals Brainwashing Children (parts I and II)
- Mexican druglords and human sacrifice
- White Europeans are the first Americans (parts I, II and III)
- Black Crime (another winner)

And my personal favorite:

- Black Intelligence, which purports to be a discussion of how white people are smarter than black people, and which shows a bunch of dark Hollywood-stereotype African natives jumping up and down like monkeys. The video is one of the most racist things you have ever seen. I thought about not even posting it, but the lesson will not be learned until we call the religious right on their bigotry publicly. Here is the videomaker that the self-described spokesman for the Concerned Women for America is promoting:



Yes, just another racist nutjob on YouTube except that this racist nutjob is being promoted by a man who speaks publicly on behalf of the Concerned Women for America, one of the top three or four religious right groups in America. Though, since Concerned Women for America is also promoting known hate groups, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that one of their spokesman is now promoting the works of white supremacists. Read More......

Senate Democrats considering possible "no confidence" vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

This is what democracy looks like. From Roll Call (which hides its stories behind a firewall, so no link possible, sorry Roll Call):

With Attorney General Alberto Gonzales vowing to remain in his job and President Bush standing by him, Senate Democratic leaders are seriously considering bringing a resolution to the floor expressing no confidence in Gonzales, according to a senior leadership source.

“I don’t think [Gonzales] can survive, no matter what the president says,” said the source. The vote would be nonbinding and have no substantive impact, but it would force all Republican Senators into the politically uncomfortable position of saying publicly whether they continue to support Gonzales in the wake of the scandal surrounding the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. Democratic leaders have not yet set an exact time frame for when they would bring such a resolution to the floor.

The idea of a no confidence vote is expected to be discussed at today's Senate Democratic luncheon.

This kind of vote is horribly embarrassing for Republican Senators, especially those who are up for election. The story makes clear that they have yet to decide to do this. Let's hope they do. Read More......

Does it matter that 5 Supreme Court justices are Catholic?

There's a growing brouhaha over the fact that some commentators have noted that 5 of the 9 US Supreme Court justices are Catholic, and all 5 sided against a woman's right to choose in their latest decision released last week.

"All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic," wrote Geoffrey Stone, now a professor at the [University of Chicago] law school, in a faculty blog. "The four justices who either are Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out. But it is too obvious, and too telling to ignore."

Catholic advocacy groups (I suspect conservative ones), and conservative shock jocks like Laura Ingraham, are outraged, though it's not exactly clear about what. They claim that such observations - namely, that one's faith may influence one's decisions in life and on the job, bigoted. They're also upset with Rosie O'Donnell (though this tends to be simply because she's a lesbian and a Democrat - conservatives don't think lesbians, nor Democrats, should be permitted in public life):

You know what concerns me?" O'Donnell asked last week on ABC's "The View." "How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic?"

"Five," said host Barbara Walters.

"Five," O'Donnell said. "How about separation of church and state in America?"

Walters counseled against drawing conclusions, saying, "We cannot assume that they did it because they're Catholic."

But O'Donnell had more to say.

"If men could get pregnant," O'Donnell said, "abortion would be a sacrament."

And here is how shock jock Laura Ingraham responded:

"'The View's' Rosie O'Donnell continues on her tear down the path of the Rich and Unhinged, this time with an anti-Catholic rant against the Supreme Court," Ingraham wrote on her Web site. "Could she ever get away with denigrating the Muslim faith this way?"

Well, first off, conservatives denigrate Islam every single day and still have their jobs - from the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention who called Muhammad a "demon-possessed pedophile," to Franklin Graham who called Islam evil, to conservative CNN hosts who have labeled all Muslim-Americans as terrorists. So Ingraham should spare us the crocodile tears about how Muslims get away with everything. They're attacked left and right by Ingraham's buddies every single day, with impunity.

But getting to Ingraham's larger point, that mentioning the separation of church and state, and the issue as to whether one's Catholic faith influences a judge's decision, is "bigotry," how so? What exactly about that point is bigoted? Clearly standing up for the doctrine of the separation of church and state isn't bigoted. Then Ingraham must mean that it is ludicrous to suggest that a Catholic, or any judge of faith, would let their faith influence their court decisions. I think it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise, and actually rather religion-phobic to boot. Is Ingraham suggesting that Christians somehow check their morality at the door when they get on the job? That we won't murder, covet our neighbor's wife, cheat or steal at home, but on the job we'll do it because, you know, we check our religion-based morality at the door from 9-5? That's absurd. And it also has a deny-me-three-times quality to it. Yet that is exactly what the Catholic activists are now claiming - that their faith would never influence any decisions they'd make in their lives. Huh?

"The Supreme Court did not 'follow marching orders' from the Vatican or the bishops in the United States," [James] Cella [president of the Catholic-based organization Fidelis] said. "Instead, the court deferred to deliberative judgment of the people's elected representatives protected by the Constitution."

Again, that's absurd. And we know it's absurd because the religious right and conservative Catholics have been trying to get their people in positions of power for years. Why? Because of their SAT scores or because of their faith? Uh, duh. Of course conservative Christians want their own people in positions of power. They believe - they KNOW - that their religious beliefs form the basis of their morality, and their morality forms the basis of their daily actions and decisions on the job. Yet now they'd have us believe that it's simply not true.

And to revisit the quote above about no one taking marching orders from the Vatican or the American bishops. Then why do the Vatican and the American bishops GIVE such marching orders to American politicians and the voting public, if no one is expected to follow them, and if such marching orders are somehow bigoted? Catholic leaders have told their followers how to vote based on their religion:

Galvanized by battles against same-sex marriage and stem cell research and alarmed at the prospect of a President Kerry - who is Catholic but supports abortion rights - these bishops and like-minded Catholic groups are blanketing churches with guides identifying abortion, gay marriage and the stem cell debate as among a handful of "non-negotiable issues."

Or this:

In an interview in his residence here, Archbishop Chaput said a vote for a candidate like Mr. Kerry who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion.

"If you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?" he asked. "And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes."

Yes, no marching orders from that Catholic bishop. Then there was the time that the American Catholic bishops said that presidential candidate John Kerry couldn't receive communion:

This spring, a handful of bishops, including Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, proclaimed that Catholic presidential candidate John Kerry should not present himself for Communion because his public votes defy the core teachings of his church. Kerry is an adamantly pro-choice Democrat who says he personally opposes abortion.

Yes, no attempt to influence politics there.

Far-right conservatives can't have it both ways. They can't demand that their elected and appointed officials obey church doctrine on the job, then turn around and call anyone a bigot who notes that those elected and appointed officials are obeying church doctrine on the job. And let's not forget that the entire basis of the religious right in America, and conservatives generally, is a world-view based on the Bible AND a political view that demands that Biblical norms be enacted in legislation. The first thing that comes out of their mouths when debating civil rights legislation for gays and lesbians is God. Yet, if we note that fact, we're the bigots.

So which one is it? Do far-right conservatives agree or disagree with the church, and religious right activists, telling our political and judicial leaders how to act on the job? Read More......

Karl Rove facing investigation that "could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House"

The blogs are buzzing today about a major revelation from the LA Times. Karl Rove's political operation is facing what appears to be a serious internal investigation:

Most of the time, an obscure federal investigative unit known as the Office of Special Counsel confines itself to monitoring the activities of relatively low-level government employees, stepping in with reprimands and other routine administrative actions for such offenses as discriminating against military personnel or engaging in prohibited political activities.

But the Office of Special Counsel is preparing to jump into one of the most sensitive and potentially explosive issues in Washington, launching a broad investigation into key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove.

The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.

First, the inquiry comes from inside the administration, not from Democrats in Congress. Second, unlike the splintered inquiries being pressed on Capitol Hill, it is expected to be a unified investigation covering many facets of the political operation in which Rove played a leading part.

"We will take the evidence where it leads us," Scott J. Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel and a presidential appointee, said in an interview Monday. "We will not leave any stone unturned."

The Washington DC-based media pays enormous deference to Karl Rove. Still. Despite all the lies. Last night on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart interviewed Matt Cooper on this very subject. The video is on the Daily Show's website. Fascinating what the press has let Rove get away with. Karl plays the media for patsies -- and they are. It'll be interesting to see if this latest investigation gets any traction beyond the LA Times and the blogosphere. Read More......

Murtha: I think the surge has failed

When John Murtha speaks, he channels the military -- not the generals and the political appointees, but the people who really know what is going on. Today, on CNN, Murtha made it clear:

I think the surge has failed. I think there was no possibility that it was going to work.

If you have any doubts about Murtha's expertise on the Iraq war, re-read his speech from November 17, 2005. He was prescient. Here's the first paragraph:

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

That was November 17, 2005 and things have only gotten worse. Read More......

Clinton and Obama even in latest national poll

Okay, it's still very, very early in the nominating process, but it's sure not dull. The latest nationwide poll from Rasmussen Reports has the race even between Clinton and Obama:

On the heels of a burst of successful fund-raising, Democratic 2008 presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama has pulled even with frontrunner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a new poll released on Monday found.

Obama, a firs-term senator from Illinois, has steadily gained on Clinton, a veteran on the national political scene, over the last month and each now polled 32 percent among likely Democratic voters, the survey by Rasmussen Reports found. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina was third in the poll with 17 percent.

In late March, New York's Clinton held a 12-point lead over Illinois' Obama in the Rasmussen poll.

Of course, the nomination isn't decided on a national basis. It's a state-by-state process and some states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) are obviously way more important this time. We'll start monitoring the state polls once we get closer. Read More......

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Bush buzzwords on Iraq are "progress" and "a artificial timetable." It's actually artificial progress. He just thinks he's right and that's all that matters. Scary.

Start threading the news. Read More......

FDA refusing to name companies who have provided tainted products

Better to protect business than to protect citizens.

Last week, privately held Wilbur-Ellis said contaminated rice protein was distributed to several pet food makers. Three of them — Natural Balance Pet Foods, the Blue Buffalo Co. and Diamond Pet Foods — have pulled some of their products.

Wilbur-Ellis and the FDA declined to name the other two makers. Durbin and Cantwell called on the agency to make those two companies publicly known.

What does someone have to do to get fired in this administration? Read More......

Cadbury to be prosecuted for salmonella scare

What a radical idea in the UK to have consequences for actions.

Cadbury will be prosecuted over a salmonella scare in which a million chocolate bars were recalled, it was revealed today.

The confectionery giant is accused of placing "unsafe" chocolate products on the market, Birmingham City Council said.

The company will also be prosecuted over an alleged failure to "immediately inform" the authorities about the contamination.

Cadbury Limited will also be prosecuted under a third charge of failing to "identify hazards" from chocolate bars contaminated with salmonella and of failing to identify "corrective actions".

Read More......

British corporate world unites to combat global warming

I understand that businesses are seeking revenue and naturally, some (if not all) are moving to be the greenest of the green so they can round up a few more customers. Regardless of their intentions, the fact remains that they are actively volunteering to participate in educating their clients about global warming. Small steps, perhaps, but steps. I compare this to so many US companies that think because they put a flower in an advert, talk about some obscure program that they've probably under-funded that nobody is really aware of or even made big announcements only to ignore the actions, well, I see a big difference.

Looking at the list of UK corporates that are participating in this new green push, even BskyB which is roughly 40% owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, is on board.

If every household takes up the "We're in this together" campaign initiatives over the next three years, there is a potential saving of 25m tonnes of CO2 - more than the combined emissions of Scotland and Wales. Partners will provide either products, services or advice for consumers to help reduce household emissions.

The campaign was formed as a response to research showing that people feel powerless when faced with the challenge of climate change. It is spearheaded by the Climate Group, an NGO created to act as a catalyst between business, state and civil groups to tackle climate change.

For starters, it might be nice to see a few of the so-called liberal US newspapers include a column on their sites dedicated to the environment. There is obviously enough content and the interest by Americans is there. Read More......