Susan Collins was all for using the war for her campaign in '02. Now, she claims she's against it.

Yesterday, during the Senate debate, Susan Collins took to the Senate floor to decry the politics surrounding the war debate -- not the war itself necessarily, but the politics surrounding it. Yes, Susan is tired of the politics of the war in 2008, but as we shall see, she loved the war politics when it worked to her advantage in 2002.

First, let's just say the difference between Collins and her opponent, Tom Allen, could not be more stark. She was pathetic during her floor speech last night. Matt Stoller thought she looked "frightened." Bob Geiger also weighed in:

Unclear on the concept award goes to Susan Collins (R-ME) who said many times in her speech tonight that the Senate needs to "move past politics" in resolving the Iraq quagmire.

Note to Collins: "Politics" is defined by Dictionary.com as "the science or art of political government." In other words, it's not a dirty word -- it's your job description.

Now, having the blood of thousands of U.S. troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians on your hands -- that's dirty stuff.

Compare that to Tom Allen who spoke at the rally on Capitol Hill last night. Chris Achorn has the video. As you watch that video, keep in mind that Tom could defeat Collins and be the next Senator from Maine. So, you'll probably want to contribute to Tom's campaign.

Earlier this week, Collins told the Politico she wasn't sure if Bush would campaign for her this year. She's stood by George Bush on the war for the past five years -- barely wavering in her loyalty to the leader of her party. Things were so different for Collins back in 2002. That's when Republicans could use war-mongering to their political advantage. Back in 2002, Bush campaigned for Susan Collins -- TWICE. Yep, those were the days when GOPers LOVED using the Iraq war for politics. I re-read Bush's speech at the August 3, 2002 fundraiser and at another event in Bangor on October 22, 2002. It was a disturbing look back. Back then, Bush was laying the groundwork for the invasion of Iraq based on faulty intelligence and lies. Back then, Susan had Bush's back. Here's an excerpt from Bush's remarks at the fundraiser for Susan Collins in August 2002:

Our task and our responsibility to history is more than just an Al Qaida network. We owe it to the future of civilization not to allow the world's worst leaders to develop and deploy and therefore blackmail free, loving countries with the world's worst weapons. I'm a patient man. I'm a patient man. I've got a lot of tools at my disposal. But I can assure you, I understand history has called us into action, and this country will defend freedom no matter what the cost.

Two months later, as the election neared, Bush was using more menacing language -- truly politicizing Iraq for Susan's benefit. Here's what Bush said as he stood by Susan's side in October 2002:

I want to remind you that we're dealing with a man who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, on people in his neighborhood. This is a man who has defied the United Nations 16 times over an 11-year period. The world has said, you must do what you said you would do, Saddam Hussein, and that is disarm. And 16 times the United Nations, over and over and over again, has written resolution after resolution, saying, Mr. Saddam Hussein, you must disarm. And he has defied and international body.

So I gave a speech, and I said to the world, for the sake of peace, for the sake of peace at home, for the sake of peace in the Middle East, for the sake of determining whether or not that international body is going to be the League of Nations or the United Nations, Saddam Hussein must disarm, and we expect you, the world, to disarm him. (Applause.) For the sake of peace, for the sake of security for our country. It's his choice to make. You said you would disarm, disarm. The United Nations has asked you to disarm, they need to work together to disarm. But my fellow Americans, if they won't act, and if Saddam Hussein won't act, for the sake of peace, for the sake of our security, we will lead a coalition to disarm that man. (Applause.)

Well, you know the rest. Bush started the war with Susan's full support. Now, we know the costs. And, with Susan in the Senate, there's little hope for change. Her heart and soul belong to George Bush. In 2008, they can retire together. And, again, to make sure Collins loses, contribute to Tom Allen. It matters. It really, really matters. Read the rest of this post...

Headlines America doesn't like to see

More from AP.

And, Reuters got it, too:

Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

By popular demand. Read the rest of this post...

FOX continues its attack on JetBlue while benefiting from JetBlue

So let me get this straight...

It's okay to show FOX News and not CNN on JetBlue's flights, when FOX News is nothing more than a propaganda arm of the Republican party. And it's okay for JetBlue's CEO to give to conservative Republican Mitt Romney and no Democratic presidential candidates. But when JetBlue finally does something for the political left - donating a handful of tickets to a mere blog conference - FOX News goes ballistic and launches its own jihad against an airline that it is actually paying to air its own TV shows.

Why is FOX News' racist far-right propaganda even on JetBlue? Why is JetBlue's CEO giving any money at all to a gay-bashing waffling nutjob like Romney? If FOX wants to start playing the gotcha game over JetBlue, then let's start by asking why JetBlue has a history of catering to conservatives a hell of a lot more than it does to liberals.

Perhaps it's time that CNN came in and offered JetBlue a better and REAL cable news network for its flights. A network that won't launch boycotts of the hand that feeds it.

Please let JetBlue know that you appreciate their willingness to finally give the political left a shout out after all of the publicity they give FOX News on their flights: corporatecommunications@jetblue.com Read the rest of this post...

More smoke and mirrors on al Qaeda in Iraq

As John mentioned, the U.S. today announced the arrest of a "senior al Qaeda in Iraq leader" in Iraq. It's worth noting the full context of this: The announcement comes just one day after the administration published a National Intelligence Estimate that tried to connect al Qaeda in Iraq -- which is constituted almost exclusively as a jihad effort against an occupying force, a group whose influence is wildly overrated in the general insurgency and U.S. casualties -- with the al Qaeda that attacked us at home, a global group focused against the American homeland. With this short, vague, dubious report circulating, what is the news from Baghdad Bergner? We found *the* guy who coordinates between al Qaeda in Iraq and global al Qaeda!

Regular readers know that I'm not at all inclined towards conspiracy theories. I'll note, however, that this guy was captured on July 4 -- fully two weeks ago -- and we're just today hearing about how important he is, and how he's proof of a connection between the two groups the Bush administration desperately wants to conflate to rally support for the Iraq war. These guys have no decency, no shame, no credibility whatsoever. And there's a real danger of Boy Who Cried Wolf here -- any legitimate news on these issues may be lost among the misdirection and malfeasance of this administration.

The CNN article reports,

The arrest of al-Mashadani was announced amid controversy over President Bush's contention that al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq are one and the same. The evidence has been not been significant about the extent of the relationship.

Um, that's just not accurate. The vast dearth of evidence for a claim is generally taken to be a significant *problem* with identifying the claim as true.

But hey, according to Bergner, as I understand it, anybody Bad is either al Qaeda or Iranian (but certainly not Saudi, heavens no). All prisoners are, by mere measure of having been detained, Bad, and a group with Bad people in it that isn't self-described as al Qaeda is still a "front group" for al Qaeda. And even though we created this new Iraqi Bad guy group with our own presence, we now have to continue doing the things that helped create it and allow it to flourish in order to destroy it.

This administration thinks you are very, very stupid. Read the rest of this post...

JetBlue CEO gave $2,100 to Romney for President

UPDATE: Please let JetBlue know that you appreciate their sponsorship of the YearlyKos conference, and that you realize that they are an equal-opportunity airline, welcoming all customers, liberal and conservative, since they show FOX News in-flight. corporatecommunications@jetblue.com



Jet Blue? Try Jet Red.

FOX News and some of the more fringe elements on the right are attacking Jet Blue for being a sponsor of the YearlyKos annual blogger conference, when in fact we now find out that Jet Blue has done a hell of a lot more for Republicans. Jet Blue's CEO has given money to candidates on the right and the left, but he only gave to one presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, a far-right Republican.

Now, should JetBlue have sponsored the conference? Of course. Companies sponsor conferences on the left and right all the time. Basically, they give some free tickets, or special fares on flights or rooms for conference attendees. It's done all the time and it's good business. It's also good for both the left and right sides of the blogosphere. It means the blogosphere is maturing, it's being taken seriously. Why anyone on the right or left would want to scare corporations away from supporting blogs on the right or left is beyond. I may think Michelle Malkin is a nut for still supporting the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, but I'm certainly not going to challenge her advertisers, lest she challenge mine. There's a certain beauty to mutual assured destruction. And it benefits the blogosphere-at-large for us to all grow up a little and recognize that we may have our differences, but trying to outright destroy each other is not beneficial for anyone.

Conservative blogger Roger Simon concurs:

But the question is not whether you like the Daily Kos or Pajamas Media. It’s whether you respect JetBlue’s – or any other corporation’s – right to make its own business decisions. JetBlue’s leadership has determined that associating themselves with the Kos Convention will sell tickets for them. You may differ in that analysis, but I would imagine they have done market research.

Those of us who value open discussion on Internet sites – for general reasons of speech and more specific ones of advertising support – should be happy that JetBlue has seen fit to sponsor a site as extreme as the Daily Kos. It’s good for all of us. (O’Reilly, of all people, should be applauding this.) What comes around goes around – as the cliché goes.

Before you start to throw bricks at me, obviously there are limits to this. Advertising on Jihadist or Nazi sites or the like should not be countenanced. But, whatever you feel about it, the Daily Kos does not fit in this category. This is a democracy. They are people with whom you or I may disagree. We should say so and denounce their views as vigorously as possible. But we should not attempt to restrict their speech in any way - or their sponsorship.

Mike Krempasky, a founder of RedState, another huge blog on the right, agrees:

As a rule, if every corporate advertiser who steps into the blogosphere gets rocks thrown at its head...you're going to see a lot fewer large-scale ad campaigns in the medium. And believe me, if you think the blogosphere can survive (thrive?) on political ads, you should put down the crack pipe.

So, FOX News and some others on the right are attacking a major donor to one of their own presidential candidates as being too much a lefty (of course, we attack Romney as being too much a lefty, but that's for another day). That's rich. And it all too clearly proves my point - when you start to play these political "I gotcha" games, you all too often end up hurting yourself.

To some degree, this is a battle between old Washington and new Washington. Old Washington, and I consider myself a member, understands the value of playing politics a lot like chess: You don't just plan your next move, you plan your next 5 moves. If you simply act instinctively and impulsively, if you only think about the moment, you can very much end up shooting yourself in the foot as the game moves on. Demonizing the blogosphere, demonizing our corporate supporters, ends up demonizing us all.

Oh, and one more thing. JetBlue broadcasts FOX News on a TV screen at the back of every seat. They don't broadcast CNN.

PS Hillary weighs in too. Read the rest of this post...

BREAKING: Harry Reid pulls Defense Authorization Bill. If no meaningful legislation on Iraq, no bill.

Playing hard ball. Reid just pulled the Defense Authorization bill off the floor. If the GOP Senators want to continue filibustering meaningful Iraq legislation, Reid won't proceed.

True to form, GOP leader Mitch McConnell gave a floor statement that made it clear the Republicans will filibuster every Iraq bill and amendment.

Harry Reid is doing what the American people want. The Republicans are too committed to Bush and his failed war.

Bob Geiger, who knows the Senate better than almost anyone, has a good analysis.

UPDATE: There was just a great moment on the Senate floor when Harry Reid shut down the pontificating Arlen Specter. That doesn't happen very often. Reid is on a roll.

Here's a photo that sums up the GOP Senate. While their leader, Mitch McConnell, is promising to filibuster every Iraq vote, two of the GOP Senators who claim they want to change the course in Iraq, Pete Domenici (NM) and Norm Coleman (MN), look on passively. Those two, who are both up for re-election in 2008, are doing nothing to stop the war:
Read the rest of this post...

GOP filibuster prevents vote on Levin-Reed. They are staying the course with Bush.

The GOP Senators continue to stick with George Bush's failed Iraq strategy. They just voted to the stay the course on Iraq by preventing an up or down vote on the Levin-Reed amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. So, their filibuster succeeded. And, yes, this was a filibuster.

The vote was 52 - 47. (Harry Reid voted NO, but that was for procedural reasons -- so he could move to recommit.)
Read the rest of this post...

The top al Qaeda leader in Iraq has been captured, again and again and again

Is it just me, or have they announced the capture of the "top" guy every six months or so?

And notice in the article how the US military is trying to convince everyone that al Qaeda in Iraq is really controlled by Osama. News flash: al Qaeda wasn't even a significant presence in Iraq until Bush invaded. So spare us the "Osama is coming" propaganda. We're to believe that you're going to protect us when you're the reason he's there in the first place?

Total, utter, disaster. Read the rest of this post...

While GOP Senators invoke Al Qaeda to stay the course in Iraq, Al Qaeda keeps getting stronger outside Iraq

Throughout the Senate debate, Republicans are invoking the specter of Al Qaeda. That's a vintage Bush/GOP talking point. Only problem is that while the U.S. has been totally distracted by the Iraq war that Bush and the GOP Senators continue to defend, Al Qaeda has been getting stronger. Might do those GOP Senators some good to read the front page article in today's NY Times about the Al Qaeda resurgence in Pakistan. It's another manifestation of Bush's failed policies and you'd think this would be a concern for Republicans:

President Bush’s top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged Tuesday that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden’s leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan had failed, as the White House released a grim new intelligence assessment that has forced the administration to consider more aggressive measures inside Pakistan.

The intelligence report, the most formal assessment since the Sept. 11 attacks about the terrorist threat facing the United States, concludes that the United States is losing ground on a number of fronts in the fight against Al Qaeda, and describes the terrorist organization as having significantly strengthened over the past two years.

The GOP Senators aren't challenging Bush on his failure to vanquish Al Qaeda. No, they're too busy helping Bush stay the course in Iraq, which, in turn, continues to strengthen Al Qaeda. But, hey, they still have the Al Qaeda talking point. Read the rest of this post...

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

The Senate debate continues. On the Today Show this morning, Republican Lindsey Graham, who chuckled that he "slept most of the night" did acknowledge that 'At the end of the day, we did showcase our differences." That's right. Graham and his fellow Republicans are filibustering. They don't want to end the war. The Republicans are sticking with Bush's failed policy. Still. Graham and the GOPers have enabled Bush in this failed war. And, they won't change the course.

And, reminder to the media. The Republicans are conducting another filibuster. That's F-I-L-I-B-U-S-T-E-R.

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

Bush Middle East peace conference crumbling already

Pathetic. It only took one day to show the rudderless, unambitious nothingness that has become a hallmark of the Bush administration.

The White House moved to douse expectations. "I think a lot of people are inclined to try to treat this as a big peace conference. It's not," Tony Snow, the White House's press secretary, told reporters.

The classic lowering of expectations, though faster than usual but when the shoe fits...

Even so, it remains unclear how deeply Mr Bush will commit to peacemaking. He has left the details of preparing for the conference to the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.

Ms Rice will also chair the summit, which state department officials say could be held in the United States.

"It's not a very clear road map for what this conference is supposed to accomplish," said Ed Walker, a former US ambassador to Egypt and Israel.

"There is a deep reluctance to get into the weeds. You have got to have follow-up of a very serious kind, where the presidency is engaged."

This has to be a record for the fastest collapse by Bush. And to think this is the guy the GOP is standing by every chance they can. Read the rest of this post...

Pack your bags and brace yourself for an attack

The Sydney city council is jumping aboard the "oh my god we are all going to die" theme that's gaining favor with Bush's friend John Howard as the election campaign heats up down under. There's nothing wrong with being prepared but aren't these fear tactics just about terrifying the population in an election year? Fear is sooooo 2003. Read the rest of this post...

Some great live-blogging of the Iraq all-nighter on the Hill...

...by our friends at ThinkProgress. Just don't leave us and not come back :-) Read the rest of this post...

Democratic Senators message: Let us vote on Levin-Reed

Update from the Washington Post: Senators Pull All-Nighter For Debate On Iraq War

As we hit midnight, Harry Reid requested a quorum call. Because there wasn't a quorum, the Senate is now conducting a roll call vote on a motion to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the attendance of absent Senators. That means 51 Senators have to show up -- or the Sergeant at Arms can go get them. This forces some of the GOP Senators to be in the chamber. And, they should be. Filibustering the Iraq war votes is their idea.

Most of the Democratic Senators are speaking in front of "Let Us Vote" sign:
Read the rest of this post...