Open thread

Chatty bunch tonight, you are. Read the rest of this post...

George Bush is getting the sh*t kicked out of him on CNN

So we're now 26 minutes into the new Anderson Cooper 360 and it's all kicking Bush all over the place. Negative after negative. They did a three or four minute segment on Bush's claim that everyone saw the same intelligence. Did the White House see more? The answer - the White House saw more, but Congress didn't do a whole lot of independent investigation. On the critical National Intelligence Estimate, only a handful of Senators and Members of Congress went beyond the five page executive summary to actually checking in and reading the whole thing. Nice, huh?

While I'm sure that some will find fault along the way, I really am impressed by the change in tone. Think about this - is anyone really talking about the fact that Bush is overseas? Who's controlling the message? We are. Read the rest of this post...

Cong. Murtha on Cheney

From AP today

Vice President Dick Cheney jumped into the fray Wednesday by assailing Democrats who contend the Bush administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq, calling their criticism "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

Read the rest of this post...

John Kerry undercuts Murtha

You gotta love John Kerry. Just when you think he's totally worthless, he comes back on more time to remind us why he lost.

John Murtha makes an amazing personal sacrifice, putting his reputation on the line, by going public against this growing fiasco of a war. So what does John Kerry do within hours of Murtha's speech? He says Murtha is wrong about needing to set a timetable for withdrawal. Kerry also hinted he might be running for election AGAIN in 2008. Gee, do you think that's why Kerry still can't make up his mind about this war?

Message to Kerry: You lost against a moron. Go away. I know some of you still like Kerry, but I really think he (and you) underestimate the amount of anti-Kerry-ism that exists on the Democratic side of the aisle. He needs to go away. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Chat away Read the rest of this post...

Amb. Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, calls on Wash Post to probe Woodward conflict of interest

Good for Wilson.

Joseph Wilson, the husband of outed CIA operative Valerie Plame, called on Thursday for an inquiry by The Washington Post into the conduct of journalist Bob Woodward, who repeatedly criticized the leak investigation without disclosing his own involvement.

"It certainly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. He was taking an advocacy position when he was a party to it," Wilson said....

Before publicly disclosing his involvement in the leak case on Wednesday, Woodward was a frequent critic of Fitzgerald's investigation in television and radio appearances. Woodward has described the case as laughable and Fitzgerald's behavior as "disgraceful" and has referred to him as "a junkyard dog."

One day before Libby was charged, Woodward said he saw no evidence of criminal intent.

Read the rest of this post...

Bush & GOP congressional leaders say we ARE staying in Iraq no matter how badly we lose

The White House and the Congressional Republican leadership have responded to Rep. Murtha, loud and clear. They say we are STAYING in Iraq. We are going to keep our 160,000 troops there, we are going to keep watching them die every single day, we are going to keep fueling the flames of anti-American hatred, and we are going to keep doing all we can to help Al Qaeda increase its recruitment and training so that they can kill more Americans in the future.

The reponse was clear. The Republicans will NOT pull out of this war, they will keep fighting and fighting and fighting no matter WHAT the facts on the ground.

You like Iraq, you think we're winning, you want to send YOUR children over there? Then vote Republican. Read the rest of this post...

Another big loss for the House GOP

The Democrats stuck together and defeated the GOP in the House on a key spending bill this afternoon. This is another major setback for Bush and the House leaders:

Legislation to fund many of the nation's health, education and social programs went down to a startling defeat in the House Thursday, led by Democrats who said cuts in the bill hurt some of America's neediest people.

The 224-209 vote against the $142.5 billion spending bill disrupted plans by Republican leaders to finish up work on this year's spending bills and cast doubt on whether they would have the votes to pass a major budget-cutting bill also on the day's agenda.

Democrats, unanimous in opposing the legislation, said it included the first cut in education funding in a decade and slashed spending for several health care programs. "It betrays our nation's values and its future," said House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland. "It is neither compassionate, conservative nor wise."

This is getting fun. Read the rest of this post...

Pentagon starts trying to swift boat Cong. Murtha

Well, that didn't take long.

Anonymous sources (read: cowards) at the Pentagon are already telling CNN that Murtha, a 37-year Marine, is being "irresponsible" by alerting folks to the fact that our military is "suffering" from the strain of fighting this many wars for four years now.

One particularly absurd quote, a senior military official (read: Rummy) says that Murtha is wrong when he says that "the United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq." The senior defense official responded:

"I challenge that. If we have done all we can do then why are we still engaging in Operation Steel Curtain [operations near the Syrian border], why are we providing security for the Green Zone, and why are we still looking for Zarqawi?"

Did you catch that? Murtha, one of the most senior and experienced and conservative military voices in Washington, says that we have accomplished everything we're going to accomplish in Iraq, and one of Bush's top officials, anonymously of course, asks 'then why do we continue to fight?'

Damn good question. Why DO we continue to fight? The problem with the Bush administration is that they see our continued fighting, our continued engagement, our continued sending of more and more troops to Iraq as PER SE evidence that such fighting, such engagement, and such deployments will somehow be effective and accomplish something.

You do not PROVE that more can be accomplished by pointing to your failures. It does not prove that more can be accomplished by pointing to the fact that you have NOT sealed the Syrian border in 3 years of fighting. It does not PROVE that more can be accomplished when you point to the fact that the Green Zone, which houses US diplomats and others, is growing increasingly dangerous and thus requiring more and more troops. And finally, it does not prove that more can be accomplished when you point to the fact that you STILL haven't captured Osama or his top deputy.

More NEEDS to be accomplished? Absolutely. But you want us to believe that more CAN be accomplished, and we're to believe this because you point to how much you've failed to date? Forgive me, but how does reminding us what you HAVEN'T accomplished after all this time somehow prove to us that you're competent of accomplishing it if we only give you a little MORE time and a few MORE American lives?

Only the Bush administration would point to their abject failures in order to prove that they are on the road to victory. Read the rest of this post...

Wash Post ombudsman hearing from readers about Woodward, and it's all negative

Very interesting report from E&P.; Read the rest of this post...

Cong. Murtha, top Democratic hawk in House, says Iraq has failed and it's time to leave

This is a big deal coming from Murtha. He's a hawk, and someone folks look up to. He's not some "typical liberal." This is a big blow to the adminsitration, will help galvanize any Dems who are fence-sitting, and will likely sow even more doubt among Republicans.

Some excerpts from his statement at a press conference this morning (you can watch the video here - at the very least, watch the video at 12 minutes 50 seconds, or so, Murtha goes off script and starts talking about all the soldiers he's visited who are being abused by the Bush administration):

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....

"Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths....

"I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won "militarily." I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are untied against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis....

"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.

"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."

A bit more on why Murtha matters:

The top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, Murtha [a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam] has earned bipartisan respect for his grasp of military issues over three decades in Congress. He planned to introduce a resolution Thursday that, if passed by both the House and the Senate, would force the president to withdraw U.S. troops.

Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Has Woodward been indicted yet? Read the rest of this post...

GOP Congress pulls a fast one - tricks Wash Post, other media, into reporting the "Bridge to Nowhere" has been killed, when it hasn't

What is it with the Washington Post, and the rest of the media? Everyone is reporting that Alaska's now-infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" - the $223 million boondoogle bridge connecting Ketchikan Alaska to, well, pretty much nothing - has been killed.

But it hasn't been killed.

First, here's the Washington Post headline:

Funding for Alaskan Bridges Eliminated:
Republicans Make Largely Symbolic Move in Reaction to Criticism of Transportation Spending

And here are the first two paragraphs of the Post article:

The "Bridge to Nowhere," a pork-barrel project that has attracted a lot of unfavorable attention, may not be going anywhere for a while.

The $223 million span linking the small town of Ketchikan to sparsely populated Gravina Island and a second Alaskan bridge project have been stripped of their funding by congressional negotiators as they race to wrap up legislative business.

All good.

Then you get further into the article and you find out the following:

But the maneuver is largely cosmetic and may only slow the bridge projects. As part of the deal, Alaska will get to keep the $454 million that Congress set aside for the two bridges, and technically the state can use the transportation funds for any project it chooses -- including the bridges.

So, all the GOP Congress did was take the name off of the project, they're still giving Alaska the extra money the state wasn't getting, but for this project. Sure, the money is going to the "state" for them to decide how to spend - again, money that wasn't necessary - but the governor is the former Republican Senator, where do YOU think the money is going?

Not only is this classic "business as usual" in the Congress - pretending to do the right thing when they've actually just pulled a fast one on the public - but this time the media bought it, hook, line and sinker.

Why didn't the Washington Post report: Congress refuses to delete money for Bridge to Nowhere? Nope. They put a headline and first couple of paragraphs that make you think the bridge has been killed and Congress did the right thing. When in fact, Congress went out of its way in order to trick the American public. That should be the headline, congressional deceit.

Just like with the Bob Woodward story, and so many stories since the Republicans took over the White House, the mainstream media refuses to go the extra step and report the truth, rather than simply reporting the spin. This story is clearly about how the GOP pulled a fast one to try and hide the bridge funding. Yet the Post and the rest of the media report it as a victory for fiscal responsibility. Pitiful.

Ironically, the only paper to get the story right? The Anchorage Daily News:

Read the rest of this post...

Murtha calls for immediate redeployment of US troops from Iraq

CNN just carried live a speech by Congressman John Murtha, a conservative Democrat from Pennsylvania, who is calling for immediate redeployment of US troops from Iraq. He is widely viewed as the the top Democratic hawk in the House and his word carries enormous weight on these issues. Murtha said that the Iraq war is a failure and "it's time for a change of direction." AP has an article on the Murtha speech now, too.

Murtha thinks Iraq must take over for themselves "but the presence of US troops in Iraq is impeding this progress." His message is that "We have become a catalyst for violence." He also maintained that the Bush team does not want input and will not accept constructive criticism, unlike Bush 41.

Murtha said, "I believe we need to turn Iraq over to Iraqis." He wants the US to tell the Iraqis we will order the immediate redeployment of US troops. And he kept insisting that it had to be immediate.

This speech should mark a turning point for the debate on the Iraq war for the Democratic Party and the Congress. Read the rest of this post...

Iraq Deputy Interior Minister: We abuse all religious sects, so what's the problem?

I kid you not. Our puppets in Iraq announced today that their abuse of hundreds of their fellow countrymen isn't that big a deal because they're equal opportunity torturers.

A top Interior Ministry official said Wednesday the 173 malnourished prisoners found by U.S. forces included all Iraqi sects, playing down allegations of a campaign by Shiite-led security forces to suppress Sunni Arabs ahead of next month's election.

The Shiite-led government sought to dampen Sunni outrage over revelations Tuesday by Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari that the detainees, some showing signs of torture, were found last weekend by U.S. troops at an Interior Ministry lockup in the capital. Most were believed to be Sunni Arabs, the leading group in the insurgency.

But the deputy interior minister, Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal, said the detainees also included Shiites, Kurds and Turkomen. He gave no breakdown.

Yes, they abuse everyone, regardless of religious faith.

The new Iraq. Kind of like the old Iraq, just more car bombs. Read the rest of this post...

Woodward made Plame story front page news again

As Atrios has so deftly documented, Woodward has been dismissive of the Plame story -- that is, before we knew he was actually involved in it. Now, he has singlehandedly guaranteed that the story will stay in the news with a whole new round of guessing of who told him. The White House can't love that:

The disclosure that a current or former Bush administration official told Bob Woodward of The Washington Post more than two years ago that the wife of a prominent administration critic worked for the C.I.A. threatened Wednesday to prolong a politically damaging leak investigation that the White House had hoped would soon be contained.

And what conclusion should we draw, if any, from these neat paragraphs:

A senior administration official said that neither President Bush himself, nor his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., nor his counselor, Dan Bartlett, was Mr. Woodward's source. So did spokesmen for former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell; the former director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet; and his deputy, John E. McLaughlin.

A lawyer for Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff who has acknowledged conversations with reporters about the case and remains under investigation, said Mr. Rove was not Mr. Woodward's source.

Mr. Cheney did not join the parade of denials. A spokeswoman said he would have no comment on a continuing investigation. Several other officials could not be reached for comment.

Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

We have a lot to talk about. Read the rest of this post...

Washington Post conveniently twists the truth to come to the rescue of Scooter and Woodward

In a rather bizarre article in Thursday's Washington Post, the newspaper claims that Woodward's testimony could be a "boon" to Scooter.

The revelation that The Washington Post's Bob Woodward may have been the first reporter to learn about CIA operative Valerie Plame could provide a boost to the only person indicted in the leak case: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

How? Well, the article doesn't really tell us that. Though it does say in the second paragraph:

Legal experts said Woodward provided two pieces of new information that cast at least a shadow of doubt on the public case against Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, who has been indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

Pretty damning stuff, if the Post article actually said what the first two paragraphs of the article allege. Unfortunately, it does not.

First off, the article doesn't cite legal EXPERTS saying this is a boon to Libby. It cites ONE SINGLE legal expert saying this helps Libby. Then the article cites another legal expert saying the first guy is full of crap. Yes, a tie. But the Post concludes that this means "legal experts" say this is a boon to Libby!

Of course, the Post adds at the end of the paragraph from the pro-Libby guy, "Other legal experts agreed." Other legal experts? Who? What did they say? No idea, because the article doesn't cite them. Well here's a newsflash. Even other legal experts don't agree. So where does the Post get off spinning this as the majority of legal experts think this helps Libby?

Then, check out what the pro-Libby guy tells the Post:

"I think it's a considerable boost to the defendant's case," said John Moustakas, a former federal prosecutor who has no role in the case. "It casts doubt about whether Fitzgerald knew everything as he charged someone with very serious offenses." Other legal experts agreed.

Wow. You mean in the middle of an ongoing investigation where the first guy indicted is charged with obstructing justice, his defense is going to be that the prosecutor doesn't have all the facts of the underlying case? Uh, duh - that's kind of the point of an obstructing justice case. And the Post quotes this as the damning expert they're going to wrap an entire pro-Libby story around? Nice.

Of course, it wouldn't be a Post story if they didn't throw in the gratuitous paragraph about what a great thing Bob Woodward has now done coming forward two years too late. This from the "legal experts" who are really only one guy:

Moustakas said Woodward also has considerable credibility because he has been granted "unprecedented access" to the inner workings of the Bush White House. "When Woodward says this information was disclosed to me in a nonchalant and casual way -- not as if it was classified -- it helps corroborate Libby's account about himself and about the administration," Moustakas said.

Really, Woodward has considerable credibility? In whose opinion? Woodward has had disdain for Fitzgerald from the beginning and has hardly been shy about letting that fact be known publicly on TV. He's a credible objective source here? Not to mention, Woodward doesn't appear to have given us the real story about why he never came clean about his role in the Plame case (see my post below), so that also casts doubt on his veracity. And finally, Woodward's inside access to the White House does not enhance his credibility, it actually diminishes it because it has been increasingly of concern whether Woodward has compromised his integrity to get the "inside" stories from this White House. And one final point - if this was such a non-chalant, casual disclosure, that intended no harm, then why did Woodward treat is as being top secret for the past two years, not even telling his executive editor about it? Pretty serious treatment he gave a non-chalant, insignificant conversation.

But in any case, it was nice of the Post to gratuitously throw that little "Woodie is so darn credible!" paragraph in the day after we find out he lied to them and us.

There's lots more wrong with this story, but let's finish with one of the closing paragraphs:

Rove's defense team also believes he could benefit tangentially from the Woodward disclosure because it shows other officials were discussing Plame in casual ways and that others have foggy recollections of the period as well, according to a Republican close to Rove.

Yeah, right. So now we have a third senior administration official telling very important reporters about Valerie Plame being a CIA agent, all within the same time period in 2003, and we're to believe that this somehow implies they're all innocent? Uh, what this suggests to anyone with half a brain, legal or otherwise, is that now there's increasing evidence of a criminal conspiracy. Three senior White House officials leaking the same classified information at the same time ONLY to reporters working for the major media. Yeah, that's evidence of it all just being one big coincidence.

And tomorrow in the Washington Post: Room full of monkeys types Hamlet. Read the rest of this post...

Bush job approval falls to 34%

Watch out, she's gonna explode!

And look at the approval and disapproval numbers closely. Short of September 11 and then March 2003 (the invasion of Iraq), Bush's numbers have on average been dropping (with a few exceptions) since the day he took office in 2000. The more the public knows about George Bush, the more they dislike him - and that's been a trend for 5 years now. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Is it America yet? Read the rest of this post...