Another neutered Democrat for Bush

Digby is right.

Clift wrote:

"there is a vacuum in the heart of the party's base that Feingold fills, but at what cost?"

Cost?

If the Democrats lose in November, I'm sure she'll find plenty of reasons to blame Democrats, but it won't occur to her that the reason people didn't vote for the D's was because the party listened to people like her and campaigned like a herd of neutered animals instead of listening to their hearts, their minds, their constituents and their leaders who were prepared to take a stand for what we believe in. No, they'll blame the "extremists" who want a safety net and a sane terrorism policy --- and leaders who defend the constitution. It couldn't possibly be that their tired, stale reflexive passivity is to blame when half the base fails to turn out because they just. have. no. hope.

I'll go beyond Digby. When half the country fails to vote because they realize they're not represented by an political party. Almost half the country supports censuring the president. That's not half the Democratic party, that's half the country.

We ARE the majority of the country. The Republicans represent a 30-percent-or-so minority, that's it. They've only got the Terri Schiavo voters - the rest they get by default because we suck. They don't get 51% by choice. The majority of the country supports Democratic policies. We simply need some Democrats who have the nerve to stand up and say it, and fight for it. Read the rest of this post...

NYT: Even more prisoner abuses in Iraq

I'm sure the Washington Post will find some way to blame this on Iran.

From the NYT

As the Iraqi insurgency intensified in early 2004, an elite Special Operations forces unit converted one of Saddam Hussein's former military bases near Baghdad into a top-secret detention center. There, American soldiers made one of the former Iraqi government's torture chambers into their own interrogation cell. They named it the Black Room.

And how cute is that? We took one of Saddam's torture chambers and made it our own. That's because we're better than Saddam. We take his torture, and we make it freedom's torture, like freedom fries. Totally different thing. Just change the name.

God I'm proud of our 3 years in Iraq. Makes fighting the Soviet Union for 70 years almost irrelevant, considering how quickly we're becoming them, and under a Republican president no less. Read the rest of this post...

A second open thread

Let's face it, it's Saturday night. To hell with the substance. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

What's up folks? Read the rest of this post...

AP slaps down Bush on his use of dubious facts and strawmen

AP

"It's such a phenomenal hole in the national debate that you can have arguments with nonexistent people," Fields said. "All politicians try to get away with this to a certain extent. What's striking here is how much this administration rests on a foundation of this kind of stuff."

Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Yes, I'm still sick and still taking 4 hour naps. Like I said, if you get this, sleep and sleep and sleep... Read the rest of this post...

Wow, 50% of the American people are part of the liberal base of the Democratic party

Per the Washington Post's logic, this Newsweek poll shows that 50% of the American people are unhappy with Republicans leading Congress, and the Post teaches us that only the liberal base of the Democratic party is unhappy with Republicans, so 50% of the American people must be the liberal base of the Democratic party.

Oh, what a sad marginalized lot we are:

Both houses of Congress are now controlled by the Republicans, but public opinion now favors a Democratic takeover this November by a margin of 50 percent to 34 percent. Among Independents, the Democrats are preferred by more than a two-to-one margin: 51 percent to 22 percent.

And on censure, we find the same thing - nearly half the American people are part of the liberal base of the Democratic party:

Four in 10 (42 percent) of the adults in the general public say they would support Congressional censure of the president, while half (50 percent) say they would not. Censure

And even just amongst Democrats, the "liberal base of the party" seems to be actually half the entire party:

Among Democrats, almost half (49 percent) support impeachment

Is that possible that the "base" of the party can be actually "half" the party? That would be the majority of the party, not the base, no?

And finally, we find out that actually 65% of the American people are the liberal base of the Democratic party.

only 29 percent of the people questioned approved Bush?s handling of the situation in Iraq. Fully 65 percent disapprove.

I bring all of this up to make a simple point. The Washington Post and the New York Times are lazy, and the Post in particular will do anything to shill for the Bush administration. Because the traditional media can't quite internalize the fact that their favorite president is an abysmal failure, and roundly deplored by 65% of the American people, they need to keep marginalizing Bush's critics as a somewhat kooky hysterical fringe minority. It's the only way the traditional media can avoid having to come to terms with the fact that they are still whoring for a failed presidency while the rest of the country has finally woken up.

So, the next time the Washington Post and the New York Times calls liberal blogs the "liberal base of the Democratic party," they need to start explaining how our views, AMERICAblog's in particular, differ so drastically the mainstream views of the nation at large, let alone the mainstream views of the Democratic party.

Then again, the Washington Post still thinks Iran is behind the IEDs in Iraq, so don't hold your breath for them to catch on any time soon about the fact that most of the country has turned against Bush. Read the rest of this post...

21 US airports fail to catch bomb-making materials in luggage

Enough to blow up a plane. And all 21 airports failed.

Hey, but at least, after your plane blows up and you're falling alone in the sub-freezing darkness to your impending death 40,000 feet below, you can be secure in the knowledge that at least Saddam Hussein is no longer in charge in Iraq. I know that's the last thing that would go through my mind after my plane blows up because of Bush's incompetence. Read the rest of this post...

Leading Iraq cleric calls for gays to be put to death

Bush was right, we do have a lot of common ground with Iraq's nascent democracy.

...he was asked about the judgment on sodomy and lesbianism. “Forbidden,” Sistani answered, according to OutRage, “Punished, in fact, killed. The people involved should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing.”

Read the rest of this post...

Washington Post editorial repeats, AS FACT, debunked Bush talking point about Iran supplying IEDs in Iraq

(Hat tip to a Daily Kos diary.)

At this point, the errors are so massive and so ongoing that this is no longer just sloppy journalism.

The Washington Post editorial board is intentionally shilling for the Bush administration in an effort to provoke war with Iran. It's what the Post did to help get us into the Iraq war, and now they're doing it again. What other possible excuse is there for the Post editorial board printing informtion they know to be false?

Here's what the Post claimed in today's editorial:

In Iraq -- where American soldiers are dying from Iranian-supplied roadside bombs...

Powerful sentence. Only problem? It's not true.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told us this week that there is no evidence that Tehran is behind the road-side bombs in Iraq. None. Zero. Now sure, Bush and Rumsfeld claimed it was true earlier this week. But anyone who actually follows the news knows that the chairman was asked about this the day after and said he'd seen no proof whatsoever to back up the charge.

But now, a few days later, the Washington Post puts the charge out there as not only alleged by the president (wrongfully), but as absolute unrebuttable fact.

Let's review the facts that the Washington Post just couldn't seem to handle:

1. Monday, Bush claims Tehran is behind the IEDs:

Some of the most powerful IEDs we're seeing in Iraq today includes components that came from Iran. Our Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, told the Congress, "Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability to build improvised explosive devises" in Iraq.

2. Tuesday, General Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs, says there is no proof Tehran is behind any of this:

The top U.S. military officer said on Tuesday the United States does not have proof that Iran's government is responsible for Iranians smuggling weapons and military personnel into Iraq.

President George W. Bush said on Monday components from Iran were being used in powerful roadside bombs used in Iraq, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week that Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel had been inside Iraq.

Asked whether the United States has proof that Iran's government was behind these developments, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon briefing, "I do not, sir."

3. Saturday, the Washington Post publishes already-debunked Bush talking points, but now AS UNREBUTTABLE FACT.

Now, the Post may try to claim that they never said Tehran was behind the IEDs, they just said the devices were "Iranian-supplied" - maybe they came from Iranian, uh, Martians, and not the Irani government - I mean, that's consistent with the Post's wording, isn't it?

Of course, that's not the implication of the editorial - the editorial is based on the Irani government holding a quid pro quo over our head, and thus it implies that the Irani government has charge over the IED supply network, just as Bush and Rumsfeld have claimed, and just as the general has already disproven. Not to mention, we already know Bush and Rumsfeld lied about claiming Tehran was behind the IEDs, so why should the Post take the rest of the Bush's statement, that the parts are coming from Iran at all, as unrebuttable fact?

Seriously, this is beyond a simple error. It is beyond sloppy. This is yellow journalism at its worst. It's worthy of FOX News and the Washington Times. Either the Washington Post is being run by children who don't have a journalistic bone in their bodies, and who watch cartoons all week rather than actually follow the news, or the Washington Post knows what it's doing - it's whoring for the Bush administration in order to get us into another lie of a war.

We are talking about the justification for getting our country into a third war here, and the Washington Post can't seem to get its facts straight - again.

Katherine Graham would be turning over in her grave at what you people have done to her newspaper.

PS As we reported earlier this week, the Brits covered the Iran-IED story last fall and determined it was a hoax. Read the rest of this post...

Scooter's trial could finally expose inside story of the lies behind the Iraq War

Looks like Scooter is threatening to play hard ball with his old colleagues over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW:

New legal documents raise the potential that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's trial could turn into a political embarrassment for the Bush administration by focusing on whether the White House manipulated intelligence to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

First, this mess is already a political embarrassment for the White House. The trial is just going to make it an even bigger political embarrassment.

Since the trial may finally provide some answers watch the White House try everything in their power to quash the it. Read the rest of this post...

Saturday Morning Open Thread

What do you know? Read the rest of this post...

Boehner really likes the private trips and corporate jets

Now wonder lobbying reform is moving so slowly in the House:

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio), who rose to power in the wake of a congressional lobbying scandal, spent the equivalent of nearly six months on privately funded trips over the past six years, according to a new study by a nonpartisan research group.

The Center for Public Integrity said that Boehner accepted 42 privately sponsored trips from January 2000 to December 2005. That put him on the road to other countries and "golfing hotspots," often with his wife, Debbie, for about half a year, "only nine days of which he listed as being 'at personal expense,' " the center said.

Boehner also flew at least 45 times on corporate jets owned by companies "with a financial stake in congressional affairs" from June 2001 through September 2005, the center reported. The corporations on whose planes Boehner flew included tobacco companies such as R.J. Reynolds Tobacco (15 times), UST Inc. (seven times) and Swisher International Inc. (seven times).

Read the rest of this post...

Irish PM pushes Bush on CIA flights -- as if Bush would ever answer questions

The Prime Minister of Ireland wanted some answers from George Bush. Apparently, he is under the misperception that being an ally of George Bush means something. It doesn't. Bush doesn't give answers to the American people and certainly not the US Congress. There is no chance he's going to give info. to the Irish government. To Bush, meeting the Irish PM was a photo op and nothing more:

Ahern said he asked Bush if there was a way to bring more "transparency" to the issue of rendition. The European Union is investigating allegations that CIA agents interrogated al-Qaida suspects at secret prisons in eastern Europe and transported some on secret flights that passed through Europe.

Ahern said that while Ireland facilitates U.S. troop movements, and is "happy to do it," there is public concern over the CIA flights.

"We've asked for the president's understanding and cooperation," Ahern said, adding that it would be easier for him to explain the flights in his country if he knew more about them. "We are going to continue to look at, perhaps, how we might bring more transparency to that process, if that's possible."

Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Off to bed. Watched the first show of Dr. Who. I'm not overwhelmed yet. I haven't even finished the first one, watched most of it. I'm just not sure I like it. Seems a bit silly. Thoughts? Read the rest of this post...