"Mr. Speaker, We're making great progress in Iraq"

Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX) just said that on the House floor. He summed up the entire debate. This is what they believe. The Republicans really think we are making great progress in Iraq.

Murtha was right when he said the American people are way ahead of the politicians when it comes to this war. The GOP leaders, from Bush down, think things are going just great over there.

We're in the middle of a hurricane and the Republicans think it's sunny. Disagree and you hate America. Read the rest of this post...

Loving our troops to death

Republicans think that the only way to support the troops is to let them die. That's what this debate is about tonight. If you love the troops, you should sit back, shut up, and watch George Bush and the Republican Congress send them to their deaths in a war that's already been lost.

I admit, I'm simply stupified that the Republicans can be so calloused about our service members. It's becoming increasingly clear that the Republicans don't care about our troops. To them, our soldiers are props in one big propaganda war. That's all. So it doesn't matter if our troops are dying. It doesn't matter if the war was a mistake. It doesn't matter if we're losing. They simply don't care. The war was THEIR mistake and politically they can't admit a mistake. And that's what tonight is about.

The Republicans simply don't care about this war. They don't care if we win or lose. They don't want the facts about how things are really going over in Iraq because they simply don't care.

If the Republicans did care about our troops, they would want to know if we had enough troops to fight the war. If they cared, they'd make sure our troops actually had the body armor they needed. And if they cared about the troops, they would end a war once it's concluded we've lost. Only someone who cared more about his ego than our troops or our nation would continue a war once we've realized it's a no-win situation.

But since this is a public relations war and not a real war, at least to the Republicans, they don't want to know if we can win it, and they don't want to know if we're losing. What the Republicans are saying tonight is that America doesn't lose wars, and when America starts a war it doesn't leave until the war is won.

And while that's cute and all warm and fuzzy, like puppy dogs and apple pie, it's downright idiotic as policy. We lost Vietnam. And we didn't lose because we withdrew. We withdrew because we lost. But the Republicans don't think America loses wars. They think you never withdraw because we never lose. So I guess we won Vietnam. Or do Republicans think the American withdrawal from Vietnam was a mistake?

The bottom line is that the Republicans love our troops to death. They're rather see American soldiers die than admit the Republican party screwed up. That's what this debate is about tonight. Just keep killing the troops so long as its saves face.

I saw a young kid riding by the other day here in DC. He was maybe 25. He had no arm below his left elbow. I saw another kid with yet another missing arm a few months back. In my 20 years in DC I can't ever recall seeing any guy in his 20s with a missing arm. You see that now in DC. And I suspect you're seeing this across the nation.

But hey, the Republicans say our troops don't need arms and legs, and life, they simply need our support. And the Republicans think the best way to support our troops is to send them to their deaths and shut up, even though we all know the cause is lost. And oh yeah, when you send them to war, make sure you don't send enough troops, don't give them the body armor they need, and don't give them any plan for victory.

And when you realize that's what's taken place. And when you realize that's why our troops are dying. And when you realize that the entire war is one big fucked up mess and that it's not going to get any better, ever. Make sure you shut the fuck up. Because we love the troops. Read the rest of this post...

Murtha speaks

He's on C-Span now. Blog it!

"Let me tell you what demoralizes the troops, being sent to war without enough troops, with insufficient equipment." (paraphrase)

This is incredibly stupid of the Republicans. They just gave Murtha a half hour of prime time to savage them and, as Rob said, define the debate on our terms on our issue. Read the rest of this post...

Over 90 killed by bombs today in Iraq

Are we winning yet? Read the rest of this post...

Ok, here's what up with the House vote

They approved the resolution, which is basically a procedural vote preceeding the actual vote on the anti-Murtha resolution. Now they're debating the actual resolution regarding the withdrawal. The debate is set to go on for an hour. Joe says he heard Murtha is actually going to be speaking. I hope so. Stay tuned. Read the rest of this post...

John's C-Span open thread - turn it on, now

I have to weigh in. And rather than steal Rob's post, I figured I'd start a second.

The Republicans are pathetic. They don't understand the concept of failure. They don't understand the concept of incompetence. They don't understand the concept of making a mistake and then correcting your mistake. They want to keep this war going, no matter how disastrous, no matter how many of our soldiers are killed. They think the only way to win this war is to keep fighting. But here's the rub. Sometimes you don't win. Sometimes the war was a bad idea. And continuing to fight a bad war, continuing to fight a war that's was such a bad idea, and run so incompetently, continuing to fight it after it's become clear we've lost - that's just stupid. And it's even more stupid to continue that war simply because you know you're so screwed that you're afraid to stop.

It's simply pathetic that the Republicans controlling the Congress and the Republicans controlling the White House think the war in Iraq is a great success. They think we're winning. They want to send your sons and daughters to die in Iraq - if you're 40 years old and younger, they want to send YOU to die in Iraq - because THEY THINK WE'RE WINNING.

These people have no idea what they're doing. They have no qualms that they are sending Americans to their deaths. All they care about is saving face and never admitting a mistake. So if you start a war based on a lie, and it ends up a disaster, you don't admit your mistake and correct it. No, you just keep the war going, on and on and on, no matter how much it empowers the enemy, and not matter how much it destroys your own country, and the lives of so many young American men and women.

The Republicans are pathetic. Read the rest of this post...

C-SPAN Open Thread

Most times when you watch C-SPAN you see what looks like the cobwebs of a democracy that once was. Tonight, it actually looks like a real democracy.

P.S. The work of the entire operations of the United States House of Representatives is on hold right now while we debate the war in Iraq. Like Reid in the Senate, the Democrats are doing something right. Who's controlling the message? We are. Read the rest of this post...

VIDEO: Crazy GOP congresswoman Jean Schmidt melts down

You have GOT to watch this. The lady is insane.

Read the rest of this post...

ABC just showed a clip of a soldier, obviously pre-approved by the Pentagon, giving the "strongest argument for staying" in Iraq

I can't believe ABC News' World News Tonight just did this. Their "strongest argument for staying" in Iraq came from US Army Colonel James Brown, who must have been pre-approved by the Pentagon to speak to ABC on camera. Just Google Col. Brown and see how many interviews this guy does - there is no way he's freelancing and doing TV stints, in addition to interviews with lots of papers, without the Pentagon knowing and approving him in advance.

So what do you think Col. Brown had to say? Why, shock of shocks, he thinks we should STAY in Iraq!

There is no chance in hell the Pentagon would have let a soldier go on camera and say that Iraq is a quagmire and we should withdraw immediately. The few soldiers who have made such criticism in the past, of Bush and Rummy, were threatened by the Pentagon and the White House. Not only wouldn't the Pentagon permit a dissenting voice, but peer pressure alone would prevent a soldier from speaking his mind on camera to ABC News and 11 million people.

So where does ABC News get off, on World News Tonight, with 11 million or so viewers watching, putting what amounts to a government apparatchik on TV, and then presenting his government-approved position as the "strongest argument for staying in Iraq," when in fact that government apparatchik is giving the party line lest his career be ended, and everybody knows that?

But hey, it was great television, and viewers who aren't familiar with how the Pentagon works and how troops are threatened if they criticize the orders of their commanders, would think this was indeed a hell of a strong argument.

Congrats to World News Tonight.

Maybe they should change their name to Woodward News Tonight. Read the rest of this post...

Ok, I'm breaking my promise...

...never to write about the man-whore again

(Hat tip to Petrelis.) Read the rest of this post...

Turn on C-Span

Apparently the House of Representatives is melting down over the Murtha thing. They're debating the Republican resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, in order to embarrass the Dems into either voting for an immediate withdrawal or voting AGAINST it and thus voting AGAINST Murtha.

That freak Jean Schmidt (R-OH), the woman who beat Paul Hackett, apparently crossed the line and her words were going to be struck down. She's wearing an American flag sweater. Gag me. Read the rest of this post...

CNN: Army recalling 18,000 body armor vests

Incredible. We're in our 3d year of this war and they still haven't gotten the body armor straight. Absolutely pitiful. Maybe if the Republicans spent more time actually worrying about troops rather than simply using them as props... Read the rest of this post...

The Democratic House members should propose a resolution saying "President Bush is doing a great job executing the war in Iraq"

UPDATE: I know the rules of the House make such a resolution impossible to vote on, but that's not the point. Just stand up, try to offer it and get ruled out of order. Get several more Democratic members to do the same thing. Then the big story becomes how the Rs refused to praise Bush for the job he's doing in Iraq. At the very least, this stunt becomes a part of the larger story the press will write about the R's stunt, and it will tick the Rs off to no end that this becomes a part of the story about their ploy.
--------

I'm serious. The Republicans are now pushing a resolution in the House, forcing a vote on whether we should immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq. The Republicans of course don't want to remove the troops, they think the war is going fine, so they're trying to embarrass the Dems into voting against withdrawing the troops, and thus voting against Congressman Murtha, who so bravely yesterday called for the US to withdraw.

But that's fine. Let's join the Republicans at their same game.

The Dems should try to offer a resolution, and have the Repubs block it, proclaiming the sense of the Congress that President Bush is doing a great job - a heck of a job, one might say - executing the war in Iraq. If the Republicans kill the resolution, they look like they're afraid to endorse Bush, and if they vote for the resolution, they'll look like idiots calling this a great job when the majority of the public doesn't agree.

Other possible resolutions to offer:

- We are winning the Iraq war.
- Invading Iraq was a great idea.
- Knowing what they know now they'd vote to invade Iraq again.

You get the picture. Read the rest of this post...

White House now says the majority of Americans who think we should withdraw from Iraq in the next 12 months are "surrendering to terrorists"

Yes, the 52% of Americans who think we should withdraw within the next year and the 60% who now say it was not worth going to war (CNN/USA Today/Gallup, Nov. 11-13, 2005) are all traitors according to George Bush. If you think the Iraq was is a mess, you're a traitor, according to the White House and the far-right conservatives controlling the Republican party.

This is yesterday's statement from the White House, responding to concerns from a former Marine Colonel member of Congress who says the war is a disaster:

"Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled-nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer."

George Bush thinks the war is going great. George Bush thinks the majority of Americans who have figured out the war isn't going great, well, he thinks you're all traitors. You see, George Bush is stubborn, and he's not very bright. When he makes a mistake he can't admit it, and he needs to find someone to blame, so he's blaming you, the American people. Yes, you are to blame for Bush's failure in Iraq.

Unless of course you're one of the dwindling minority of Americans who thinks Iraq is going great. If you do, and want more of the same, please do vote Republican. Read the rest of this post...

Associated Press calls critics of war anti-military

I suspect this is a slip-up, but it's a serious one.

From AP, about Murtha:

"A U.S. field commander in Iraq countered calls by a usually pro-military congressman for withdrawal of Americans fighting there Friday, while Democrats defended Rep. John Murtha as a patriot even as they declined to back his view."

The Associated Press shouldn't be calling war critics anti-military. As Atrios once wrote, if I were anti-military, I'd send our troops into a war based on a lie with no strategy, no exit plan, and no body armor, then just watch them all get killed while I claim everything is going well.

More from Presstitutes.

Also, I love the quote from the article from a colonel countering Murtha: "Here on the ground our job is not done."

No shit, Sherlock. That's the problem, you idiot. I simply LOVE how these guys are countering critics of the war by telling us how LITTLE they've accomplished, as if somehow that makes this a success.

We say: Iraq is a disaster, you've accomplished little and you're making things worse.

They say: But we haven't accomplished our goals yet!

We say: I know, that's the problem, you're NOT accomplishing your goals, things are getting worse, and there's no plan to accomplish your goals, nor is there any indication that you ever will accomplish your goals. And in the meantime, American soldiers are dying.

They say: But we haven't accomplished our goals yet!

It's a bit like talking to a child, or an insane person. It's one thing for them to try to tell us how well things are going and that we can't stop now with victory in our grasp. It's quite another to tell us that we should continue this war because we've accomplished so little. In the private sector, that kind of answer gets you fired.

The article concludes with this little gem from Senator McCarthy, I mean Republican Speaker Hastert:

Said House Speaker Dennis Hastert: ``They want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world.''

If you agree with the Republicans, that Iraq is going great, and you want more of the same, then please do vote Republican. Read the rest of this post...

Bush/RNC running attack ads against Reid

Here's the latest salvo from the Bush/Rove campaign against the Democrats. They are now running attack ads against Harry Reid over the Iraq War. As you can imagine, unlike some of Bush's opponents, Harry Reid isn't taking that lying down:

"Instead of giving our troops a plan for success or answering the serious questions of the American people, they've decided to start up the Rove/Cheney attack machine," Reid said Thursday on the Senate floor. "We're at war. We need a commander in chief, not a campaigner in chief. We need leadership from the White House, not more white-washing of the very serious issues confronting us in Iraq."

The Bush/Rove would rather run a campaign against Harry Reid and the Democrats then actually figure out how to run a war in Iraq. Smear and attack. It's all they do. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread - Should Bob Woodward be Fired?

I'm off to lunch, but I'd like to have a serious discussion about Bob Woodward. Let's avoid the snarkiness and the gratuitous nastiness, and rather focus on, for real, the gravity of what he did.

How serious was it that Bob Woodward didn't come clean to his editor or the public about his role in PlameGate? How serious is it that he spoke out against the investigation on TV, while not disclosing his conflict? And, should the Washington Post consider firing him?

I'm serious, I want a reasoned analysis this time, rather than just our knee-jerk reaction (mine included). I'm asking this because I'd like to gage, for real, how significant this is, or isn't. Thanks. Read the rest of this post...

Fitzgerald seeking new grand jury, may be considering additional charges

Let's hope Woodward is on the list. Read the rest of this post...

TortureIsNotUs.org

A new site by the Center for American Progress. We like them. Check it out.

Read the rest of this post...

Washington Post exec editor repeats Woodward's lies

So at this point either Leonard Downie, Jr., the executive editor of the Post, is covering for Woodward or he's just not that bright a guy. Today, in an online chat on the Post site, Downie just repeated Woodward's absurd excuse for not coming clean about Valerie Plame:

Sarlat La Caneda, France: One cannot help but think that Bob Woodward in this instance either deliberately held back this information for his own purpose - he does after all need to have access to the President and his cabinet to complete research on his new book.

Leonard Downie, Jr.: His reasons were that he wanted to avoid being subpoenaed in the Fitzgerald investigation and being forced to reveal his source. I understand that, but he nevertheless should have come to me and we would have decided together how to proceed. It is quite possible that if he had come to me, as he should have, we still would not have been able to publish anything if his source had refused to release Woodward from their confidentiality agreement, as indeed the source has so far.

Uh, Len. The Fitzgerald investigation didn't even begin until December 2003. Woodward found out in mid-June 2003. So there was no risk of subpoena and being forced to reveal his source. In fact, the subpoenas didn't start flying until May 2004. So that excuse doesn't fly. And in fact, Woodward had no problem - so he claims - telling Walter Pincus of the Post that he was told Valerie Plame was CIA, but he can't tell you, his top editor? If he was so afraid of revealing the source and of getting subpoenaed if anyone found out, then why did he so cavalierly tell Pincus?

At this point, I'm getting more and more angry about this entire affair. Woodward lies to us for 2 years, while publicly campaigning against the investigation. And now how his editor is out there spreading even more lies in an effort to justify how their top reporter took part in one of the biggest conflicts of interest in journalism history.

I've been losing respect for the Washington Post for a while, due to their neo-con editorials ever since Katherine Graham died, but this is really the last straw.

One more thing from Downie:

Chicago, Ill.: If Woodward lied about this issue. What makes you think he has not lied before or will continue to lie? Do you think Woodward was covering up for the Vice President?

Leonard Downie, Jr.: Bob Woodward never lied. He failed to come to me sooner and tell me something he should have told me. Once he did tell me last month, he told me everything about it. I've worked with Bob for 33 years, and he has always been truthful in person and in his work. He is also one of the most careful, accurate and fair journalists I have every worked with.

Really Len? He never lied and he told you everything? That's fascinating. Then I challenge you to read the analysis I did the other day of Woodward's explanation and tell me with a straight face that I didn't blow his entire lie out of the water? It doesn't hold up to any logical scrutiny.

Again, either Downie is covering for Woodward's lie, or he's not a very bright man.

Ok, I just read more of this transcript - Downie has to be lying. Read this:

Leonard Downie, Jr.: Initially, Bob didn't tell me about this brief conversation, which was part of a long interview on other subjects, because it seemed unimportant. It was before the Novak column about Valerie Plame and before anyone knew about her covert CIA status. It was later, after the Fitzgerald investigation was underway, that Bob became concerned about being subpoenaed. In the meantime, however, once the relevance of his conversation became clear because of the controversy over the Novak column, Bob should have told me about his conversation, even if we would have been unable to publish anything about it because of his confidentiality agreement with his source.

Did you get that? Woodward never told Downie because he thought it was "unimportant," and he didn't realize how important the conversation was until Fitzgerald began his investigation in December, and that's when he got afraid of being subpoenaed, so now he had a new excuse for not telling Downie.

Well, Mr. Downie. For those of us who weren't living under a rock for most of 2003, the Valerie Plame story was a big deal BEFORE Fitzgerald was appointed. You might recall that the story really heated up in September 2003 when the Justice Dept had to launch an investigation because the CIA demanded it. It was a big story MONTHS before Fitzgerald was appointed. So instead of just telling us that Woodward SHOULD have told you in late 2003 when the story heated up but before Fitzgerald was appointed, tell us WHY he didn't tell you. Really. Tell us why. Because at this point, it looks fishy as shit that Woodward was covering for the administration in order to protect his access.

Oh but it gets worse for Downie and Woodward.

It was in the first few days of October, 2003 that Scott McLellan told reporters that he had talked to Libby, Rove and Elliot Abrams, and that "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."

So by early October, Plame was a BIG story, McLellan was getting peppered with questions about it, and the White House was openly lying about the story and Woodward KNEW they were lying. But he didn't tell his editor because it wasn't a very important story, or so Downie says.

Again, Leonard Downie needs to come clean. Is he lying to us in order to defend Woodward, or is he just a bit stupid. Because Woodward has now become the next Judith Miller. He is destroying any credibility the Washington Post had left.

More on this from Arianna here. Read the rest of this post...

Stephen Hadley "coy" about being Woodward's source

Think Progress has the transcript of the press briefing where Hadley, unlike everyone else, doesn't deny being the source:

Q Were you the administration official who talked with Bob Woodward about the identity of a CIA operative?

MR. HADLEY: I have seen press reports that — and only press reports — that Bob Woodward has talked about, I guess, three sources from the administration that he had. I’ve also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources.

The AP adds:

Leaving the room, Hadley was asked if his answer amounted to a yes or a no. ‘’It is what it is,'’ he said.

Let's not forget that after Rove leaked Plame's name to Matt Cooper, he immediately sent an email to Hadley:

Mr. Rove told Stephen J. Hadley, then deputy national security adviser, in the July 11, 2003, e-mail that he had spoken with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and tried to caution him away from some assertions that CIA employee Valerie Plame's husband was making about faulty Iraq intelligence.

"I didn't take the bait," Mr. Rove wrote in the message obtained by the Associated Press. In the memo, Mr. Rove recounted how Mr. Cooper tried to question him about whether President Bush had been hurt by the new accusations that Mrs. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, had been making.

Doesn't it make you feel safer knowing that the National Security Adviser's office was probably in the business of outing undercover CIA operatives during war time? No wonder things are such a mess in Iraq.

And with more senior White House staffers possibly being implicated, this is looking more like a conspiracy every day. Read the rest of this post...

Krauthammer eviscerates "Intelligent Design"

He rips it apart. He may get get out of the right wing club for today's column:

Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?

In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase " natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," thus unmistakably implying -- by fiat of definition, no less -- that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.

Read the rest of this post...

For Bush, Iraq is only about controlling messages and smearing opponents

The NY Times has an article about how Bush's trip to Asia has been all about Iraq -- much to the surprise and chagrin of his hosts. What has is very clear from that article is that for the Bush team, Iraq is all about the messages, speeches and smears of their opponents. That's their whole strategy, instead of figuring out how to actually succeed on the ground in Iraq. They view success by how they can control the message in America:

Three times so far since Mr. Bush left Washington on Monday, the White House has also issued detailed rebuttals on Iraq issues under the rubric "Setting the Record Straight." One was devoted to answering an editorial in The New York Times on prewar intelligence, and two others responded to Democratic critics, quoting their own words about Iraq back to them, arguing that they, too, had believed Saddam Hussein possessed illicit weapons.

Talking to reporters on Thursday, Dan Bartlett, the counselor to the president who has played a central role in drafting many of the Iraq messages, said that Mr. Bush's decision to fight back - chiefly on the question of how he had used prewar intelligence - arose after he became concerned the debate was now at a tipping point.

We passed the real tipping point in Iraq a long time ago. Bush and Cheney are too concerned with the politics of Iraq to worry about the thousands of dead troops. They actually think they win if the get their message out and if they are smearing opponents of the war.

All they have is a political strategy. And they wonder why the American people don't trust Bush anymore. Read the rest of this post...

By The Way, Afghanistan Is A Disaster and Getting Worse

You already know Afghanistan is basically a narco-state with most of its economy coming from heroin, etc. In fact, it's producing more illegal drugs than ever before. You also know most of the country is controlled by drug lords and the Taliban. (Our puppet government is holed up in a few major cities.)

Now USA Today is reporting that our own troops say the insurgency is stronger than ever and continuing to grow. Sound familiar? More of our troops are dying this year than last, the enemy is getting "fiercer" and they're just waiting for us to leave before wreaking havoc. This is according to US troops on the ground. No wonder Bush has already declared Afghanistan a success. Read the rest of this post...

US Warns Iraq About Torture

Apparently, WE'RE the only ones who get to torture people. Touchy, touchy. Read the rest of this post...

A final open thread

I'm off to bed. I can't believe I stayed up to watch C-Span. Read the rest of this post...

Turn on C-Span

The Republican-controlled US Senate just passed legislation extending Bush's tax cuts because that's the biggest issue facing America right now, we simply must have MORE TAX CUTS.

The overall bill reduces taxes about $60 billion over five years, preserving many tax breaks scheduled to expire unless lawmakers keep them intact.... Senate GOP leaders pledged that when the bill returns to the Senate for final approval, it will also extend the life of reduced tax rates for capital gains and dividends, scheduled to end when the calendar flips to 2009.

The Republican-controlled US House is now debating similar GOP-sponsored legislation, and will vote shortly, on extending Bush's tax cuts.

It's really amazing. In the past week, the GOP tried to cut student loans. They tried to cut school lunches for 40,000 children. All because we just don't have any more money. And at the same time, they want to have EVEN MORE TAX CUTS. And C-Span jsut confirmed that the House bill will cut Student Loans, Medicaid and Food Stamps. Yep, the Republicans say they simply have to cut all the programs for middle America and for the needy because we just don't have any more money. But then they turn around and try to pass ANOTHER TAX CUT.

The far-right cabal that's taken over the Republican party is out of control.

Oh yeah, by the way, that little Iraq fiasco has cost us $300 billion, more than enough to pay for everything. Read the rest of this post...