2,956 American troops dead in Iraq

3,000 approaches. Merry Christmas from George Bush's home to yours. Read the rest of this post...

How the Condi killed Christmas

Well, well, well. It seems the Bush administration is yet again leading the war on Christmas. Last year you'll recall it was George Bush's White House taking the lead by calling the national Christmas tree a 'holiday tree.' Fox News was close behind with their Happy Holidays ornaments.

Well, according to the Washington Post, Condi's State Department is telling our embassies around the world that they better not send any Christmas cards this year, and especially not in Muslim countries.

This raises an interesting question. Why is it okay, per holier-than-thous like Bush and the religious right, to impose Christmas on non-Christians in America (other than a few snafus like last year's 'Holiday Tree,' Bush and his Christian soldiers have been happy to ram Christianity down the throats of every Jew and Muslim in America) but suddenly they get all weak-kneed at the prospect of sharing the joy of America's proud Judeo-Christian heritage with all those foreign infidels?

Deny me trois fois? Read the rest of this post...

Bush says tax increases are on the table in budget talks with Dems

That's what the Washington Post reported today. Bush not only said he was willing to discuss everything when trying to work out a budget with Democrats in Congress, but he also specifically refused to take tax increases off the table.

Signaling a new flexibility on issues in the wake of the Democrats' wins, Bush said he is willing to discuss Democratic ideas for solving the Social Security problem, including tax increases. "I don't see how you can move forward without people feeling comfortable about putting ideas on the table," Bush said when asked about the prospect of tax increases to keep Social Security solvent. "I have made it clear that I have a way forward that can do it [without raising taxes] and I want to hear other people's opinions."

Sure, Bush said he "has a way" to avoid tax increases, but he didn't say no when asked directly and given the chance. That's news, and telling. It's also the final nail in the coffin of Bush's conservatism. Now everyone hates him.

And Bush is right to leave tax increases on the table. He and the 'credit card' Republicans in Congress turned a historic budget surplus into a massive deficit. We won't be able to afford Bush's Pet War, let alone paying off all of our debt to the Communist Chinese (yeah, the Republicans didn't bother telling you who was buying up all of their debt), unless we do something to get America's piggy bank, and Republican piggy spending, under control. And with Bush and McCain planning on sending even more American troops to die needlessly in Iraq, it's not awfully clear how we can afford any of this for much longer. Read the rest of this post...

MSNBC airs racist slur against Muslim-Americans and Senator Obama

At some point MSNBC and the other networks need to take responsiblity for the trash they invite on their shows. The overt, and rather scary, racism that is being spewed by their guests on a regular basis is beyond inappropriate (CNN also had two recent racist-eruptions, one from a guest and the other from one of their hosts). Guests like this do not deserve to be called back, and hosts who make racist comments (like Glen Beck) should be fired on the spot - nor should the network permit their Nazi-esque statements to be aired at all. What is the point of the delay-button if overt racism is permitted unchallenged by the network itself?

Ironically, CNN last month censored Larry King for pondering the possible sexual orientation of Republican party chair Ken Mehlman. But when CNN host Glen Beck recently suggested that an incoming US congressman might not be a loyal American because he's a Muslim, the bleep button at CNN somehow got misplaced.

This is America, not Nazi Germany. Someone needs to remind MSNBC and the other FOX-wannabe networks of that fact.

More from Media Matters. Read the rest of this post...

Dixie Chicks movie: great . . . and instructive

I finally went to see the Dixie Chicks movie "Shut Up and Sing." I was planning to see it for a while, and I'm very glad I did. I should admit up front that I'm an unironic, unapologetic fan of their music, and have been since long before 2003, so I'm not exactly an unbiased observer. I'm sure it's uncool for someone my age to be listening to music of the kids these days, but what can I say, I'm a sucker for the harmonies.

The movie, which was in production before lead singer Natalie Maines infamously blurted, "Just so you know, we're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas," ends up following the aftermath of that comment, toggling between 2003 and 2006. Crucially, however, the movie is NOT a polemic, nor is it even directly about politics. Like all good documentaries, it paints with a brush rather than a cudgel, and "Shut Up and Sing" is really a story about people who get mixed up in politics rather than the reverse. The movie is that much more powerful for being relatively understated, and for giving the sense of revealing the women rather than portraying them.

Natalie, as well as Martie Maguire and Emily Robison, who are sisters, are shown in various states of preparation and performance, demonstrating an admirably willingness to shed vanity in favor of honesty. In moving sequences, the audience sees how these women, who are turned into caricature as they're villified and pilloried, handle everyday life along with the crushing pressure that falls upon them. Of course they're rich, so the kids issues are assuaged by nannies, more options in the face of fertility problems, and the families they miss can be shuttled back and forth, but these are clearly not the evil figures they were made to seem.

What the movie demonstrates most clearly, though, and why I think it's actually an important cultural marker, is how toxic, how unbelievably poisonous, the American political atmosphere was. For a long time, perhaps roughly 2003 to 2005, there was a disturbing edge to discourse in this country, and I think our society will eventually look back upon this time not unlike we now do the McCarthyist years: as a shameful period in our nation's history, one in which the prevailing powers made the inappropriate common and the opposition was eventually proven both right and righteous.

It made me cringe to watch scene after scene of "man on the street" clips where people claimed patriotism by viciously criticizing free speech and its practitioners. There is really quite a disconnect who claim to love America but can't stand what it actually stands for. Now, I criticize people for what they say all the time -- for a decent analogy, I don't like Toby Keith, and I think his brand of "patriotism" is repellent. But I would never question his right to personal idiocy, nor would I burn his albums, picket his concerts, or, as happened to the Dixie Chicks, threaten his life.

Democracy is largely founded upon the ideal of a marketplace of ideas. The conception that all ideas should be considered, and some combination of best and most popular should win out, is actually quite radical, historically, and American has long led the way in supporting a free exchange of ideas and the pursuit of those that seem best. Why is it, then, that conservatives, the ones who unfailingly claim the shield (and sometimes sword) of patriotism, are so often the ones who believe that freedom of ideas is anathema? In 2003, Bill O'Reilly said, with no apparent trace of humor or irony, that the Dixie Chicks needed to be "slapped around," and that was one of the nicer things said about them on the right. Because there were apparently no substantive issues to address in 2003, the Free Republic website made the Dixie Chicks a crusade.

Three years later, every single person who engaged in this kind of action and rhetoric should be doubly embarrassed: first because they intimidated people, responding grossly out of proportion, simply for speaking honestly; second, in the harsh light of perspective and history, because the Dixie Chicks . . . were right! They were right to be ashamed of the President, who now, I imagine, counts far more Americans who are ashamed of him than those who are proud, and they were doubly right to oppose the war in Iraq.

And again, the movie reveals these points without being over the top and without hammering the points home. I highly recommend the movie -- for those who were with the Chicks from the beginning, it's cathartic to see bravery in the face of insanity and encouraging to see how well the band is doing today; for those who criticized the band, to see how stupid you were then how really, really stupid you look in retrospect. Read the rest of this post...

Bush: I'll do Iraq my way. No matter what; Dems: Prez is "trapped" and "stubborn and isolated"

An analysis of the Washington Post's interview with Bush yesterday reveals a President who is ignoring reality. His interpretation of the elections is way off. The hope is fading that Bush has grasped the fact that he's gotten the U.S. in to an un-winnable quagmire. Bush is ignoring the elections results -- and he's adamant that he'll do the war in Iraq his way:

The comments were another strong indication of the president's determination to chart his own way forward on Iraq, no matter the election results nor any amount of free advice from senior statesmen of past administrations. Bush may well announce a major drawdown of the U.S. presence in Iraq when he appears before the nation after the turn of the year, but that possibility seems remote after statements from him and his aides that suggest an intention to keep the basic contours of the Iraq policy in place -- and possibly even raise the ante by sending more troops.

The President is delusional. The response from top Democrats has been right on target. They're seeing a President who is not based in reality:

"There hasn't been a change from the president," observed Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), the incoming House majority leader. "The president may be trapped in his own policy, sensing, 'If I don't succeed, it will be a huge blot on my record, and so therefore I have no choice but to try to succeed.' "

Hoyer pointedly added: "I don't think the Democratic Congress is going to say, 'Well, that's okay.' "

And the Democratic Congress shouldn't say it's okay. It's not:

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said he could not think of anyone more "stubborn and isolated" than the president. "The American people have spoken, and voices inside and outside the national security apparatus . . . have all come to the conclusion: Doing more of the same and hoping for a different result is not going to be successful," Emanuel said.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity. Read the rest of this post...

Giuliani is such a family values kind of guy

If you loved Reagan and his family values talk without ever really seeing the family around, you'll love the all new Rudy. What a loving father and all around great guy. Read the rest of this post...

Virginia is for Macacas

That state needs to do some serious soul-searching. From Loving v. Virginia to its current non-stop gay-bashing, Virginia has a long proud history as one of the more bigoted states in our country. It's no accident that macaca occurred in Virginia. And it's also no accident that George Allen still almost won. Northern Virginia is a lovely place with civilized people. But the rest of the state - from macaca to stealing lesbians' babies - is a civil rights cess pool. And now, we have Virginia churches taking a stand against - what else? - civil rights.

Merry Christmas to you too.

Update from AJ in DC: As if this all weren't enough, Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode says, "if American citizens don’t wake up . . . there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office." The horror! But it doesn't stop there: "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States." Proud bigotry. Hooray. Read the rest of this post...

Bush botches Anthrax protection program

Anyone surprised? Read the rest of this post...

Bush Press Conf. Open Thread

It's bad enough having to watch the guy anyway. But, if you're just waking up on the West Coast, Bush is the first thing you'll on your t.v. see today.

The White House is in full spin mode. They have no clue about Iraq, just campaign slogans. The President claims he is working on "the new way forward" for Iraq. Note to the Prez: There is no new way forward, only a way out. Should be fun to watch him squirm about his comment to the Wash. Post that we're not winning in Iraq.

As soon as you hear Bush say he wants to work in a bi-partisan manner, you'll know nothing else he says is true.

If you're watching -- and even if you're not -- comment away.

Okay, his best advice: Shop more. Wasn't that his advice after 9/11, too? He's pathetic. Beyond pathetic.

Bush is throwing everything in to this speech. He's flailing.

First question is about why did you drop your confident assertion about winning in Iraq? From the answer to this question...which is going on and on and on....He really has no clue about what to do in Iraq. The enemy "can't run us out of the Middle East." Wow. He's pathetic.

Ha...he won't answer whether he'll overrule the military about the "surge." Told the reporter that's a "dangerous hypothetical." Only problem is it's not a hypothetical.

Bush just spins and spins and spins. He appears blissfully unaware that everyone knows how bad the situation he's created is. He knows he's made the right decisions. How many times can he say "extremists" today? If he keeps saying it, maybe, just maybe, we'll all think he is working hard to get them.

Mary's going to be a "fine, loving mother."

He has "angst" about leaks...except that Valerie Plame leak. No angst there.

Bush was asked if he's reflective about how he got us in to this war. So, he's giving a little history lesson about all the existing problems in the country now. Only thing is that this was all known before the war started and Bush ignored it. The sectarian violence was not unknown. It was predicted.

Bush keeps saying he's had accomplishments. He hasn't. He also thinks it is going to take awhile for history to judge him. Wrong again. It won't take long to figure out he's the worst president EVER. Read the rest of this post...

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

For a "slow" news week, this one seems pretty busy. Bush admits we're not winning. Gates is in Iraq. Kerry is in Damascus. Of course, the media is obsessed with a 20-year old Miss USA partying her brains out in NYC instead of 20 year olds getting their brains blown out in Iraq. Pathetic. We're at war, remember?

Apparently, the Prez is doing a press conference at 10 am this morning? Got any questions you'd like to see asked? Read the rest of this post...

Bush admits U.S. is not winning in Iraq

A major admission from the man who brought us in to this war. Four years after starting the war in Iraq, Bush decided he needed to do some learning about the quagmire. Apparently, he's figured out it's not all good -- and that we are not winning his war according to an interview with the Washington Post. Throughout the interview, Bush, of course, is still spinning as much as can:

Bush, who has always said that the United States is headed for victory in Iraq, conceded yesterday what Gates, Powell and most Americans in polls have already concluded. "An interesting construct that General Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing,' " Bush said, referring to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, who was spotted near the Oval Office before the interview. "There's been some very positive developments. . . . [But] obviously the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with."

Asked yesterday about his "absolutely, we're winning" comment at an Oct. 25 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. "Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win," he said.

Bush said he has not yet made a decision about a new strategy for Iraq and would wait for Gates to return from a trip there to assess the situation. "I need to talk to him when he gets back," Bush said. "I've got more consultations to do with the national security team, which will be consulting with other folks. And I'm going to take my time to make sure that the policy, when it comes out, the American people will see that we . . . have got a new way forward."

Consultations, consulting, listening, thinking...whatever. The President has led us in to a war that we're losing. He can't bring himself to say it, but he's coming closer. There is only one way forward -- the way out. Read the rest of this post...

Gates visiting Iraq

Just two days after taking the reins, he's in Iraq. Who thinks Bush will do a fly by over the holidays? Read the rest of this post...

Can we finally scrap the abstinence only programs now?

There should be nothing left to debate on the issue of premarital sex because almost all Americans have sex before marriage. This is nothing new and if anything, the numbers are increasing, as much as they can increase when almost the entire population is doing it. From the sound of this study, even the extremist religious right population is having premarital sex, making these expensive projects even more ridiculous. Let's get back to promoting safe sex. If the religious right wants to continue, fine, but on their dollar.

The study, examining how sexual behavior before marriage has changed over time, was based on interviews conducted with more than 38,000 people - about 33,000 of them women - in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey of Family Growth. According to Finer's analysis, 99 percent of the respondents had had sex by age 44, and 95 percent had done so before marriage.

Even among a subgroup of those who abstained from sex until at least age 20, four-fifths had had premarital sex by age 44, the study found.

Finer said the likelihood of Americans having sex before marriage has remained stable since the 1950s, though people now wait longer to get married and thus are sexually active as singles for extensive periods.

The study found women virtually as likely as men to engage in premarital sex, even those born decades ago. Among women born between 1950 and 1978, at least 91 percent had had premarital sex by age 30, he said, while among those born in the 1940s, 88 percent had done so by age 44.

Read the rest of this post...