al-Sadr in Iran? Maybe, maybe not.

I smell convenient misinformation campaign. Here's how the US hopes it plays out:

1. US claims to have intelligence, that they don't show anyone, supposedly "proving" that al-Sadr is in Iran.

2. This makes al-Sadr look like a wimp, I mean, the guy fled in fear from us.

3. This also makes Iran look like they're harboring terrorists or insurgents or whatever the word du jour is for "bad guys," and that helps bolster Bush's case for war against Iran (I mean, they're helping the enemy!). So it's a win-win for us.

4. In order to prove he's not a wimp, al-Sadr is forced to stick his head up and say "I didn't run" - then we get a clue as to where he really is, and maybe our forces can catch him. And if al-Sadr doesn't stick his head up, we still get to tag him with the "wimp" label.

5. In order to not give the US more cause to attack Iran, Iran is spurred to help us find al-Sadr in Iraq, to prove that he's not in Iran, or Iran is spurred to turn him over to us, if he really is in Iran. And if Iran doesn't help prove that al-Sadr is not in Iran, we still get to claim Iran is helping the bad guys and it buildds Bush's case for war with Iran.

Perhaps al-Sadr really is in Iran, and perhaps the Bush administration is telling us the truth. But considering that Bush and the Pentagon anonymous briefers have yet to tell us the truth about much of anything to do with Iraq or Iran, I'm going to wager that we're being lied to, yet again. Read the rest of this post...

Rep. Patrick Murphy: "The President's current course is not resolute, it is reckless"

The House began debating the Iraq War today. The anti-escalation resolution is under discussion now on the floor and will be for the rest of the week.

The Republicans in the House don't want to talk about Iraq. In fact, Think Progress posted a leaked letter from top Republicans advising their colleagues to avoid talking about Iraq:

The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily.

Democrats, like Patrick Murphy who served in Iraq, do want to talk about Iraq and how to stop the escalation. Murphy gave a powerful speech on the House floor today -- and with Murphy on the other side, it's no wonder the GOP wants to avoid the debate:

Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Any news? Read the rest of this post...

DNC responds to gay critics

Last week, I published a letter to the editor of the Washington Blade written by Donald Hitchcock, the former Director of the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council of the Democratic National Committee. Donald expressed a number of concerns about the DNC vis-a-vis the gay community. The DNC's treasurer, Andy Tobias, asked me if he could publish a response, in his personal capacity. Here it is:

Like John, I know Paul and Donald personally -- have even done their laundry when they stayed with me -- and wish them well.

But there's a lot in Donald's letter that's off the mark and, unintentionally, counterproductive.

Donald says "Gov. Dean barely addressed the LGBT caucus with only 5 minutes worth of comments, and no questions from the floor."

The Governor's comments to the DNC LGBT caucus were well received by a packed room. And when questions were invited from the caucus, none of the caucus members chose to ask one. (One audience member did raise his hand but, as it turned out, only wanted to offer thanks rather than ask a question.) If Donald or Paul have questions not answered below, I'd be glad to try to answer them.

Donald says, ". . . my reasons for standing up to Gov. Dean's reluctance to treating our community with dignity and respect, an action for which I was fired. I claim that firing as a badge of honor."

Donald is of course entitled to his view, but having spent a lot of time observing the Governor ever since he signed -- and then spent months stumping his state in a bulletproof vest promoting -- the nation's first civil unions bill, I have seen him consistently demonstrate nothing but a respect for and commitment to our community.

As for his "badge of honor," Donald frequently attacks the DNC, assuming it will not attack him back -- and he's right. But as someone who likes Donald and who shares his commitment to our community, I can nonetheless say that I do not share his sense of outrage over the way he was treated.

Am I sorry it didn't work out? Very.

Do I agree with his view of why it didn't work out? No.

"After Gov. Dean became Chair of the DNC, two LGBT political positions were abolished, and two finance positions were added, for a total now of four positions in Finance and zero in Political."

After Governor Dean became chair, ALL the constituency desks were "abolished" in favor of a different organization the Governor and his staff thought would be more effective. You can argue that the old system was better -- or not -- but you can't argue that our community was singled out. The African-American desk was "abolished," the "Hispanic desk" was abolished -- ALL the desks were "abolished."

Instead, you have now at the DNC the head of the Northeast political desk who happens to be gay, and the head of the DNC training program -- who, pivotally, interacts with hundreds of our field organizers every year -- who happens to be gay (and lets them know it!). And, yes, you have several finance staffers who happen to be gay (raising money IS a big part of what the DNC does), including Brian Bond, who has a sterling resume within our community, and who spends a lot of his time interacting with other LGBT leaders who I think would vouch for his good efforts.

Indeed, from a practical point of view, Brian brings our community clout that Donald -- through no fault of his own -- could not. That's because, as it happens, Brian gave the DNC's chief operating officer his very first job in politics. That is the kind of relationship and level of trust within the DNC that Donald can't be faulted for not having had -- but that is good news for our community.

Donald and Paul have both criticized the level of financial support the DNC put into fighting the anti-marriage amendments.

After eight years as DNC treasurer, I have pretty much given up on getting Paul's or Donald's support, much as I admire their passion and good intentions.

Indeed, Paul has called upon major LGBT donors to *withhold* financial support from the national Democratic Party committees.

He and I obviously disagree that this is the best way to advance the goal of LGBT equality, which we both share.

The DNC has worked hard ever since I've been soliciting funds to elect candidates who in almost every instance were FAR better on LGBT issues than their opponents.

(Of the 107 Senators and Congressfolk with perfect 100% ratings from HRC in this past Congress, 103 were Democrats and only four Republicans. Of the 156 who rated ZERO, 152 were Republicans. The difference could hardly be more stark.)

In 2006, our principal focus was on the effort to win back the House and Senate. That's where the bulk of the LGBT money went. I, for one, am pleased with the results. Not only are our newly-empowered leaders like Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Barney Frank far more fair-minded than their predecessors; our victory in the Senate may also have an impact on judicial appointments that last for decades.

The Senate victory was so close that I think it can be fairly said it might not have happened without support from the DNC that was made possible by LGBT dollars.

Of course, that is true of other communities' money and effort as well. But I think those of us in the LGBT community should feel very proud that we pitched in. And even leaving pride aside, it was simply in our selfish best interest to do so.

Donald is quite right that only a little DNC money was diverted in 2006 specifically to fight the anti-marriage amendments. But one reason for that is simply that the precious "federal" dollars the DNC raises (precious because contributions are limited by law) are not *required* to fund statewide efforts . . . whereas *only* federal dollars can be used to fund federal elections.

So it makes sense for someone like me to give his federal dollars to the DNC, expecting them to be used mainly for federal purposes, while giving non-federal dollars to non-federal groups to fight the anti-marriage initiatives.

On the non-monetary side of fighting the anti-marriage initiatives, we were able to do more in some states than others. But there's no question that GLLC director Brian Bond worked hard to be helpful. I don't think the same can be said of efforts over at the RNC.

As unfortunate as it is that things did not work out with Donald, there are important, historic battles to be joined and won for our equal rights. Widening our margin in Congress and winning the White House in 2008 will only help. That's what the DNC is working hard to do. Onward and upwards, guys.

Read the rest of this post...

Hillary and September 11: Take Two

I wrote last week about how Senator Clinton had reportedly invoked September 11 in order to justify her vote for the Iraq war authorization.

"As a senator from New York, I lived through 9/11 and I am still dealing with the aftereffects," Clinton said. "I may have a slightly different take on this from some of the other people who will be coming through here.... I do think we are engaged in a war against heartless, ruthless enemies," she said. "If they could come after us again tomorrow they would do so."

At the time, I was a bit annoyed that the Senator was invoking 9/11 with regards to Iraq (a Bush/Cheney ploy), and also that Mrs. Clinton has some notion that September 11 affected her differently than it affected the rest of us.

Yes, for those who died that day, it was markedly worse than what the rest of us experienced. But having lived through that day anywhere in America, I think we were all equally freaked out. One can debate whether it was markedly more damaging psychologically for people near the Pentagon and World Trade Center (I'm not convinced), but as Mrs. Clinton wasn't near either location, the point is moot. (And in any case, it does a disservice to those killed and injured in the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, and their families, to suggest that somehow it was worse dying in the Trade Center than dying at the Pentagon or in a field in Pennsylvania).

Well, it's increasingly looking like the 9/11 invocation wasn't just a slip of the tongue, as Democratic strategist James Carville is now using 9/11 as well to defend Hillary's war vote. Arianna has the rest. Read the rest of this post...

New poll shows majority of Americans against sending more troops

USA Today/Gallup Poll:

Fifty-one percent of those polled said they favor congressional debate of a nonbinding resolution.

Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed said they were irritated by the Senate's failure to act last week on an Iraq resolution, USA Today said.

An overwhelming majority of Americans, 63 percent, support congressional action to withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of next year and 57 percent back a cap on troop levels, according to the poll.

Read the rest of this post...

Religious right hate-speech "expert" who attacked Senator Edwards told "gook joke" on TV

This is the man who just got a blogger "retired" from the Edwards campaign because he claimed the blogger used hate speech. This is the same man who calls gays "queers," and who said a short while back, on TV, that Christian-hating anal-sex-loving Jews control Hollywood. But of course you won't read any of that in the new stories about this man because, well, that would be relevant to a story about the man being an outspoken expert on hate speech. Read the rest of this post...

When art imitates life

UPDATE: I emailed Mike Luckovich, the editorial cartoonist, to ask him about the coincidence, and he says there's no coincidence at all - he heard about the skeletons last week and that's what inspired the cartoon. So now you have a small window into how political cartoons come about. Kind of the same way blog posts come about - read the news :-)

We posted this cartoon yesterday:



Check out the Associated Press today:

Read the rest of this post...

Kansas educators try to re-enter the 20th century

And since it's already the 21st century, they have a ways to go. I can't believe they're still debating evolution. The mullahs in Iran are debating evolution, not America. People who oppose evolution need to actually do some reading on it. It's not just a theory. And with all due respect to religious right Republicans (as a Christian myself), there is more proof for evolution than for the Great Flood. And it strikes me as odd that God wold try to stack the deck against us in terms of evidence for what really happened, because that would be a lie, and I have a hard time believing that God lies. Read the rest of this post...

Action Alert: Tell corporate America to stop sponsoring hate

I wrote late last night about CNN host Glenn Beck's latest flirtation with intolerance. Now I'd like you to contact his sponsors.

After having suggested that Muslim-Americans are working with the terrorists, that the word "faggot" isn't really much of a slur, that women should be referred to by their weight, that he "hates" the families of the victims of September 11, that Hurricane Katrina victims are "scumbags," and oh so much more, Beck is now opining on the "whiteness" of Barack Obama.

You see, according to CNN's host, Senator Obama is so "colorless... he might as well be white."

Now, it's one thing to suggest that Obama is an African-American candidate who white Americans find comfortable, and I think that's true. But considering the source - a guy who has shown his intolerance to Muslim-Americans, gays, and women - these new comments about black people being white are troubling. Glenn Beck is not a guy who has devoted his life, or TV show, to trying to understand the nuances in multi-cultural America in a non-threatening, tolerant way.

Please go to Chris Achorn's blog, read Beck's comments for yourself, then use the information he provides to contact Beck's advertisers. And don't settle for the BS that Best Buy is claiming (and I'm sure others will as well), that they never "chose" to have their ads run on his show. Fine, then direct your ad buyer to tell CNN to never run your ads on his show again. It's quite simple, really.

More on Glenn Beck here. Read the rest of this post...

In diplomacy, intent matters

Sane foreign policy officials and observers often support diplomacy and negotiation even in the face of apparently intractable problems. We negotiate with our allies, our adversaries, and even our enemies because the opportunity to solve problems by a combination of political carrots and sticks is very often better than the alternatives. Whereas diplomacy can benefit multiple sides, or at least allow for saving face, even winning a war frequently involves heavy costs. Finding a middle ground doesn't necessarily make you feel great -- as Calvin once said (the cartoon, of course, not the theologian), "A good compromise leaves everybody mad" -- but again, often better than the alternatives. Politics is the art of the possible.

But successful diplomacy requires good faith. Talking is not enough; a nation must have trust to be effective, and trust (or lack thereof) can be dependent on its leader or governing administration. Right now, other nations are, understandably, worried about ending up like poor Satchel here, in a classic strip of one of the greatest comics ever.

On a related note, I'm very curious to see the result of all this North Korea talk. Read the rest of this post...

MoveOn's ad campaign blasts GOP Senators on Iraq vote

I've been out of town so hadn't seen the latest MoveOn ads. The ad below is running in the DC media market. They hammer the Republican Senators who are preventing a debate on Iraq. If they don't debate, Bush escalates. It's that simple. MoveOn calls them out -- they "don't have the courage to face a vote":
Read the rest of this post...

"Skepticism" defines the reaction to the Bush Administration's intel on Iran

The White House put extra time in to developing the strategy for rolling out the "evidence" against Iran. From today's NY Times report, it's pretty clear that they worked extra hard trying to figure out who would say what, when and where. But, doesn't matter. At the core, it's a Bush team production -- and that automatically raises doubts:

Three weeks after promising it would show proof of Iranian meddling in Iraq, the Bush administration has laid out its evidence — and received in return a healthy dose of skepticism.

The response from Congressional and other critics speaks volumes about the current state of American credibility, four years after the intelligence controversy leading up to the Iraq war. To pre-empt accusations that the charges against Iran were politically motivated, the administration rejected the idea of a high-level presentation, relying instead on military and intelligence officers to make its case in a background briefing in Baghdad.

Even so, critics have been quick to voice doubts. Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the White House was more interested in sending a message to Tehran than in backing up serious allegations with proof. And David Kay, who once led the hunt for illicit weapons in Iraq, said the grave situation in Iraq should have taught the Bush administration to put more of a premium on transparency when it comes to intelligence.

“If you want to avoid the perception that you’ve cooked the books, you come out and make the charges publicly,” Mr. Kay said.

The Bush Administration has no credibility. None. No one believes them.

Bush can mock those who say he wants war with Iran, which, in fact, he literally did yesterday on CNN. See it for yourself at Think Progress. He can mock his critics, but they're on to him. No one trusts Bush anymore. Read the rest of this post...

Two Maryland hospitals lose personal data - 265,000 impacted

Johns Hopkins announced the loss of 135,000 records last week and today another Maryland hospital has announced the loss of 130,000 records that includes personal information dating back to at least the late 1980's. The most recent data loss was connected to a missing laptop and the Hopkins loss was connected to missing backup tapes.

What jumps out in this story is that the hospital was under no legal obligation to announce the loss. Something has to give and consumers deserve privacy protections. Instead of dumping this onto the consumers after the fact, the ownership of this constant problem should rest with those holding the data. Consumers have no ability to oversee how organizations handle this data and should not be constantly held at the mercy of incompetent organizations who show no interest or capabilities in protecting personal data. Read the rest of this post...

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

So the House will debate Iraq this week. The resolution, H CON RES 63, is simple and to the point: Support the troops and oppose Bush's escalation. While the resolution itself is simple, its import can't be underestimated. This is the first time Congress has stood up to Bush. The GOP never did. It'll be interesting to see how many Republicans end up voting against Bush's war.

Start threading. Read the rest of this post...

1.8 million records lost by the VA, again

Quite clearly the administration has zero interest in protecting the privacy of its citizens because it seemed like only yesterday that the Veterans Administration was in turmoil after losing 26.5 million records. The VA told everyone that there was nothing to worry about and that the data wasn't accessed. Most organizations might have learned a lesson from that experience and at least started with what many would consider being the first step in security, which is physical security, as in locking down the computer hardware so it is unable to walk away. Nope, not with this team. Jim Nicholson is probably about due for a medal by Bush since he knows how to ignore a problem as well as anyone.

The Department of Veterans Affairs began notifying 1.8 million veterans and doctors Monday that their personal and business information could be on a portable hard drive that has been missing from an Alabama hospital for nearly three weeks.

The hard drive may have contained numbers and other personal information from about 535,000 individuals and billing information on 1.3 million doctors nationwide, the VA said. That's more than 37 times more people than authorities initially believed were affected.

Note the words "may have contained." All too often, statements like that mean "most certainly contained personal information but we are hoping this will blow over and people will ignore the follow up story which will confirm the data loss." Read the rest of this post...

CNN host, sponsored by Best Buy, says Obama is "colorless ... he might as well be white"

This is the same CNN host who said that Muslim-Americans need to prove they're not working with the terrorists, who used the word "faggot" on the air and suggested it wasn't much of a slur, and who earlier today referred to one of the female singers of the Dixie Chicks as "the fat one." What a surprise that in addition to his problems with Muslims, gays, and women, he's also insensitive to African-Americans. And CNN and ABC (where he also is a commenter) have no problem with that.

And to top it off, Best Buy sponsors this pig. As do Ford, Office Depot and Welchs. We are so posting phone numbers come Tuesday morning. More from Media Matters.
Hat tip to Chris Achorn. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

No snow yet in DC. Sigh. Read the rest of this post...