Sat. Night Open Thread

Step away from the C-SPAN, and turn off that TV. Three nights in a row will make you an addict! Go out and be merry, it's been a fun week!

Open thread away! Read the rest of this post...

"We're making great progress in Iraq"...or not

You decide:

Five U.S. soldiers were killed and another 5 wounded Saturday in improvised bomb attacks, the U.S. military announced.

In a separate incident, a suicide car bomber rammed into a funeral procession and exploded north of Baghdad Saturday, killing at least 24 people and wounding 30, according to Iraqi police.

That whole body count process keeps undermining the Bush/GOP spin. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Happy Saturday night. Read the rest of this post...

Iraq is Terri Schiavo

The Republicans' main argument for the US staying in Iraq is that if we leave Iraq it will become an even bigger disaster. To wit, the following remarks from the conservative Weekly Standard about Murtha:

REP. JACK MURTHA has had a distinguished congressional career. But his outburst last Thursday was breathtakingly irresponsible. Nowhere in his angry and emotional call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq did the Pennsylvania Democrat bother to ask, much less answer, the most serious questions his proposal raises. What would be the likely outcome in Iraq if the United States pulled out? Does Murtha actually believe the Iraqi people could fight the al Qaeda terrorists and Saddam Hussein loyalists by themselves once American forces left? He does not say. In fact, he knows perfectly well that the Iraqi people are not yet capable of defending themselves against the monsters in their midst and that, therefore, a U.S. withdrawal would likely lead to carnage on a scale that would dwarf what is now occurring in Iraq.

And the Weekly Standard is right. If we leave Iraq, all hell will break loose. But we still should leave, and here's why.

1. Iraq is a mess.

2. If the US leaves, all hell (more hell) WILL break loose, as described by the Weekly Standard, above.

3. But if the US stays, all hell will still break loose. We're not winning the war, 80% of the Iraqi public wants us out, 45% of the Iraqi public wants us dead (these are true poll numbers), US military deaths are increasing rather than decreasing, and our continued presence has been a boon for Al Qaeda recruitment and training.

4. The US military occupation of Iraq is simply prolonging the inevitable. Iraq is going to fall apart at the seams, with us or without us - it's only a question of when.

5. Thus, the debate isn't whether we should or shouldn't let Iraq fall apart. The only question we need to settle is whether it's worth the price - in terms of both US military deaths and the benefit our presence bestows on Al Qaeda - for the US to help prolong Iraq's certain death.

Iraq is Terri Schiavo.

Already dead, living on borrowed time, but the Republicans refuse to accept the inevitable. Yes, you can prolong the patient's life for decades. But at what cost, and for what real benefit?

The day a Republican responds to THIS argument, rather than simply saying "but Iraq will fall apart if we leave," that's the day we start having a REAL debate about Iraq in this country. In the meantime, the Republicans will keep scouring the videos for signs of life in a patient who's long-since checked out. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

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

Wash Post defends Woodward's lies

Disgusting.

Woodward lies to the Washington Post and the public, gives them a bunch of explanations as to why he never told his own editors about his involvement in the Plame affair while running around the country opining on it, his explanations hold no water whatsoever (we've repeatedly proven that here), yet the Post is fine with Woodward's lies, and now says let's move on.

Disgusting.

Woodward's excuses for not telling his editor?

1. That he was afraid of Patrick Fitzgerald, when Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't even appointed yet, and wouldn't be appointed for another 6 months.

2. That he was afraid of all the journalists being subpoenaed, when no journalists had yet been subpoenaed, and wouldn't be subpoenaed for another year.

3. That he was afraid of going to jail, when he then offered to go to jail instead of Judith Miller.

4. That he was afraid of telling anyone at the Post, when in fact he now says he told another Post reporter, Walter Pincus, about what he knew, yet still didn't tell his editor. And Pincus says there's no way in hell Woodward ever told him this.

So, basically, Woodward's explanation is a total lie. And the Washington Post is accepting it.

One of their top reporters ran around for 2 years lobbying for the Bush administration, attacking the special prosecutor, when that reporter has a personal stake in the story. A lesser reporter might have been confused about what to do. Bob Woodward knew exactly what he was doing and why it was wrong. It's a bit like Martha Stewart and insider trading. A lesser person might be confused about the rules. A woman who's chairman of a company knows damn well what the rules are.

Woodward knew exactly what he was doing. He did it for 2 years. And the Washington Post has no problem with it whatsoever.

Disgusting.

(Read our debunking of Woodward's lies here. Read the Washington Post's executive editor repeat Woodward's lies here.) Read the rest of this post...

Former DeLay/Abramoff aide indicted, singing

So many scandals swirling around the GOP. The Jack Abramoff affair is the one that keeps on giving. His partner, who is a former aide to DeLay, is going to be ratting out his former pals. That includes at least one GOP Congressman:

Michael Scanlon, a one-time aide to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, will appear in federal court Monday on a single count contained in a criminal information. That typically is a prelude to a guilty plea and cooperation with government investigators.

The eight-page information, released Friday, said Scanlon and a person identified only as "Lobbyist A" provided "a stream of things of value" to a member of Congress, identified only as "Representative No. 1," to aid an effort to pass legislation.

It has been a matter of public record for more than a year that Scanlon and Abramoff had a fee-splitting arrangement and represented several American Indian tribes.

Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, was identified by his lawyer, Mark Tuohey late Friday as Representative No. 1.

Read the rest of this post...

Bush: his sober judgment says stay in Iraq

Interesting choice of words from the Prez:

His war policies under siege at home, President Bush said Saturday there would be no early troop withdrawal because "sober judgment" must prevail over emotional calls to end the military mission before Iraq is stabilized.

Problem is -- well we all know what the problem is -- there is no sober judgment coming from Bush. When his back is against the wall, Bush puffs up his chest and talks tough like he's in some kind of barroom squabble:

"We will fight the terrorists in Iraq. We will stay in the fight until we have achieved the victory that our brave troops have fought for," Bush told thousands of American troops spilling out of a cold hangar at this U.S. military installation 40 miles south of Seoul. "The defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice."

That rings increasingly hollow. And, a lot depends on what the definition "victory" is. Most people, outside the White House and the GOP knuckleheads in Congress don't consider this victory:

Underscoring those worries, unwelcome news poured out of Iraq Friday. Suicide bombers detonated explosives at two Shiite mosques in Khanaqin, near the Iranian border, killing at least 74 worshippers during noon prayers. In Baghdad, a pair of car bombs targeted a hotel housing Western journalists and killed several Iraqis nearby.

Remember what Congressman Sam Johnson (R-TX) said last night,because it is what Bush and the GOP truly believe: "Mr. Speaker, we're making great progress in Iraq." Read the rest of this post...

Saturday Morning Open Thread

Okay, what's the latest? Read the rest of this post...

W's "no new taxes" for Iraq?

After a week of travel in Spain, an insane schedule and internet problems I'm just now getting caught up and it looks like pressure on Dear Leader is quite heavy. With the criticism mounting at home, Bush just can't seem to shake his failed adventure wherever he goes on the road as well. What really jumps out is his bold statement from Korea in reference to discussions of pulling out of Iraq, "This is not going to happen on my watch." Wow. Does this have tones of Bush I repeating "no new taxes" or what? Bush seems to think that his macho posturing still enjoys high approval ratings and has not quite grasped the hostility of Americans towards the Iraq war nor does he understand that staying the course is no longer an option. Looking at how much Bush hates change, things are not going to be much better for him when he makes it back to the US. Read the rest of this post...

The House Unraveled Tonight

From the Washington Post:

But one senior Republican, who spoke on background to avoid irking colleagues, said he was surprised that GOP leaders had allowed matters to reach the point of loud name-calling in the House. "At this point there appears to be little adult supervision over floor proceedings," the lawmaker said.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) noted that GOP leaders did not want to bring up his panel's tax bill yesterday because they feared it would "step on our message of reducing the deficit."

"I was going around telling people, 'So we're not stepping on our message?' " Thomas said after the floor fracas. "I think some of them would take the tax bill right now."

Democrats said the GOP had galvanized their caucus by attacking Murtha. "It's impressive the uncanny way in which the Republicans have the ability to unify the Democrats," said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.). "It just shows they know no boundaries."

After Reid shut down the Senate, John and I discussed how something like this could be pulled off in the House. I told him it was nearly impossible, Gingrich had done it on occasion, but the rules are too easy for the majority to stomp on the minority. Let me say something the President can't seem to say:

I was wrong.

What happened tonight was impressive. Yesterday Murtha first spoke up and tonight, the entire House is shut down. For those that watched it, Republicans looked scared. They were in disarray. There was no adult leadership, and it showed. And all it took was one Democratic voice (a voice with standing being the key public relations lesson to be learned here) to unravel the entire House.

My take-away from tonight was also how the Democrats worked together as a party. Unlike the Republicans whose little egos all needed to be fed, parceled out in 30 second and two minute speaking opportunities, Democrats let one man speak for them. They came together and can go home to their districts proud that they finally spoke up and gave voice to the 60% of this country that sees that the Iraq policy is a failure and who have longed to hear our government recognize that mistakes have been made and they need to be remedied.

Hat tip to FedUp in the comments. Read the rest of this post...