9 US soldiers killed by suicide bomber near Baghdad today

Where is Sam Johnson? Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

Quite a day. The latest? Read the rest of this post...

Sickening report on ABC of an American soldier who killed himself

Just watched one of the most sickening, infuriating reports ever on ABC (transcript here). ABC's Bob Woodruff reported on a great American soldier who ended up trying to kill himself while serving in Iraq. His duty in Iraq seriously messed with his head, he tried to seek help, didn't really get it, and then ended up in that fateful building 17 at Walter Reed - the one that the Washington Post reported on a few months ago. Well, the military then ignored the guy at Walter Reed until he hung himself - and even then, they didn't find him until two days later, and only after his parents BEGGED someone to go to his room and check on him.

Oh, and by the way, I did a Google search on the soldier's name, James Coons, and Republican Congressman Sam Johnson (the guy who thinks we would have won in Vietnam had we'd only stayed longer and sent more troops). The results? Zero. It seems Mr. Johnson hasn't had anything to say about this abandoned American soldier either. Read the rest of this post...

Rush Limbaugh says Virginia Tech mass murderer "had to be a liberal"

Nice. The victims have only just been buried and Limbaugh is already using them for his own sick entertainment. Why does this man have a radio show, let alone a single advertiser? More from ABC's Jake Tapper. Read the rest of this post...

It's been six months since Al-Sadr kidnapped an American soldier and George Bush left that soldier to die. Where is he?

It's been six months since George Bush called off the search for a kidnapped American soldier in Iraq. You remember the story. Bush didn't want to offend our Iraqi "friends," so Bush and the generals called off the search and left an American service member for dead, even though they had a decent idea where he was.

CNN's Jack Cafferty summed up the story last November, right after our soldier was kidnapped by them and abandoned by us:

Iraqi Shiites celebrated in the streets yesterday when American soldiers lifted those checkpoints around Sadr City in Baghdad.

That area had been blockaded, while U.S. and Iraqi troops looked for a kidnapped American soldier. But Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al- Maliki demanded the American checkpoints come down. And they did.

And who controls Sadr City? Muqtada al-Sadr, the commander of Iraq's most feared militia. Al-Sadr made it clear this week, if those checkpoints were not removed, his forces might retaliate. And the prime minister knows that he needs the support of al-Sadr and his militia, if he wants to successfully govern Iraq.

The American Embassy in Baghdad insists the decision to remove those checkpoints was made after a meeting between al-Maliki and top U.S. officials. And a military spokesman was adamant that U.S. soldiers removed the checkpoints on their commanders' orders.

But it doesn't really matter, does it? By removing the checkpoints, the United States is, in effect, handing over the fate of the kidnapped American soldier to the Shiite militia. This country has a long and proud tradition of never abandoning its soldiers on the battlefield. And we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for this little stunt they pulled.

The question is this. Who's calling the shots in Iraq, the United States, the Iraqi government, or the militias? It's a disgrace.

You don't hear about that American soldier at all anymore, because he's an example of everything that is wrong with this war and its leadership in the Pentagon, the White House, and the then-Republican Congress. George Bush and the Republicans, and their generals at the Pentagon, don't care about the troops unless they're props at a White House photo opp. If they're real American soldiers in the war zone, wounded American troops back in the states, or American heroes slain in battle, George Bush and the Republicans in Congress don't care about them much at all.

Take the much vaunted Republican Rep. Sam Johnson. You remember him. He's the guy who got a standing ovation from Republicans a while back when he gave a speech in the US House excoriating Democrats while saying that the only reason we lost in Vietnam is that the Congress didn't spend more money and send more troops. Yes. We would have won in Vietnam had we just stayed longer and sent even more troops. This kind of crazy talk gets a standing ovation in today's Republican party and you wonder why we're losing in Iraq? Well, I was reading a short clip about Johnson in today's Washington Post. Here's what it said is motivating him:

[F]or [Johnson], the Iraq debate is like a flashback. By the time Congress cut off funds for Vietnam, the war was largely over, but Johnson still languished in prison, fearing that his nation had abandoned him.

"I know what it's like to be on front lines for country when fellow countrymen don't support you," he said, vowing it will never happen again.

He's afraid that Democrats want to leave our troops behind. Okay. Well, I just did a Google on Sam Johnson and the kidnapped US soldier, Ahmed Qusai al-Taei, and here are the results: A bit fat zero (well, a link to an old story that's now gone). Yes, how many times do we find our American patriot Sam Johnson speaking out in an effort to help this poor US soldier kidnapped and left for dead in Iraq? Zero.

But Sam Johnson is an honorable man. So are they all - George Bush, Dick Cheney, the generals at the Pentagon who all too quickly caved when Bush told them to leave one of their own for dead, and the Republicans in Congress who continue to rubber stamp this disaster of a war - all honorable men.

I'll close with a quote from Johnson's standing-ovation floor speech:

“The pain inflicted by your country’s indifference is tenfold that inflicted by your ruthless captors."

You're right, Mr. Johnson. So where is our soldier? And why don't you seem to care? Read the rest of this post...

House and Senate reach deal on Iraq funding bill

Basically, it's the House benchmarks and the Senate timetable for withdrawal.

You'll recall that the Senate bill, as passed, gave a date that the withdrawal needed to begin rather than a date by which the withdrawal needed to be completed. This final bill does the same. Still, the bill does establish benchmarks for measurable progress by the Iraqi government, something the American people will be glad to see. It also requires that our troops be treated with respect - something I'd love to see the Republicans vote against. And finally, it sets the beginning of the withdrawal, without micro-managing the speed of it, which at the moment is probably politically wise. All in all, this legislation is a good step in the right direction - consider how far we've come in just four months that the Democrats have been in power.

The Wash Post has the details:

House and Senate negotiators reached agreement on language to begin bringing U.S. troops home as early as this July. The final legislation:

-- Establishes benchmarks for the government of Iraq, including measurable progress in developing Iraqi security forces, giving U.S. troops more authority to pursue Islamist extremists, establishing a program to disarm militia, pursuing Sunni-Shiite reconciliation initiatives, enacting an oil revenue-sharing law, easing the program to oust all former Baath Party members from the government, reducing sectarian violence and protecting minority rights.

-- If the president fails to determine that the benchmarks are being met, troops shall begin withdrawing by July 1, 2007, with a goal of completing withdrawal 180 days later.

-- If the president determines the benchmarks are being met, troops shall begin withdrawals by Oct. 1, 2007, with a goal of completing the withdrawals 180 days later.

-- U.S. forces may remain in Iraq to protect U.S. personnel and facilities, serve in diplomatic positions, pursue al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations and train and equip Iraqi forces.

Read the rest of this post...

Ask Susan Collins, Norm Coleman and John Sununu just how well the Democratic message on Iraq is selling

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza writes that he thinks Harry Reid's, and the Democrats', opposition to the Iraq war is hurting Democrats. Well, rather, he notes the cases of Democratic Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Tom Harkin (D-IA) who are all, reportedly, facing some heat for the Democrats' anti-Iraq-war strategy.

But here's the rub. You can't judge the strategy based on the effects its having in only three Democratic races. I can cite three Republicans up for re-election who are crapping bricks right now expressly because they don't want to be seen as too close to George Bush on the war or anything else: Susan Collins (R-ME); Norm Coleman (R-MN); and John Sununu (R-NH).

The test of the wisdom of the Democrats' plan and policy isn't how it affects 3 races, it's how it affects all the races next election. The toughest job in Congress right now is being forced to defend George Bush and the war. And over the next year and a half, as the war drags on, worsening and worsening, that job is only going to get more difficult. There's more than enough reason to believe that given the choice between an Iraq-war cheerleader and an Iraq-war detractor, come 18 months the cheerleaders are going to be looking for another job. Read the rest of this post...

Why don't our flags fly at half-staff for our fallen troops?

This US soldier is right. Why do we fly the flag at half-staff for the VA Tech victims, for deceased US Senators and judges, but not for our soldiers fallen in war?

A U.S. Army sergeant complained in a rare opinion article that the U.S. flag flew at half-staff last week at the largest U.S. base in Afghanistan for those killed at Virginia Tech, but the same honor is not given to fallen U.S. troops here and in Iraq.

In the article issued Monday by the public affairs office at Bagram military base north of Kabul, Sgt. Jim Wilt lamented that his comrades' deaths have become a mere blip on the TV screen, lacking the "shock factor" to be honored by the flag as the deaths at Virginia Tech were.

"I find it ironic that the flags were flown at half-staff for the young men and women who were killed at VT, yet it is never lowered for the death of a U.S. service member," Wilt wrote.

We should pass legislation requiring the flags to fly at half-staff for 24 hours each time a US soldier is killed during war time. Is that too much a sacrifice for us to make, considering the ultimate sacrifice we ask of our soldiers? Yes, every day we lose scores of soldiers in Iraq, and thus it means our flags would likely fly at half-staff every day until the war in Iraq is over. But what better way to honor the brave Americans service members who gave their lives for their country? Are we to punish them, refuse to honor them, simply because too many of them have given their lives for us? The magnitude of their numbers is all the more reason to honor them, not shun them.

And in spite of what the soldier says in his open letter, let's have none of this "flying the flags at half-staff one sole day to honor all of our fallen troops" - we don't fly the flag just one day a year to collectively honor every senator or judge who died that year. We should fly the flag at half-staff every day a US service member is killed in war. There is simply no excuse for anyone to refuse to honor our war dead who have given much more for their country than a senator or a judge.

Someone on the Hill, and our veterans' organizations, should demand that legislation today. Read the rest of this post...

Harry Reid and Diogenes

We've had six long years of a president who lies. Twelve years of a Congress that thought its only job was to rubber stamp the interests of its party and its base, be they corporations or far-right extremists. That's why Harry Reid is such a welcome change. The man actually speaks his mind, yes - but what makes Reid exceptional is far more than that. Reid is willing to talk about the hard issues. Honestly, frankly, without any sugar coating, and with intelligence. That's a rarity in Washington, from either political party.

And that's why Harry Reid scares the hell out of the Republicans. How many politicians in a position of leadership - the leader of the Senate majority, mind you - would have the courage to admit what everyone knows, but everyone fears to admit: that the war in Iraq is over, Bush has lost. That the war is lost is just not something you say. Yes, it's honest. But far too often politicians fear that the American people don't want honesty, can't handle honesty. From Social Security to Iraq, politicians fear that if they tell the American people how bad the situation really is - i.e., the truth - the American people will respond to the bad news by killing the messenger because they can't handle the truth.

At one time that may have been true. The Bush administration did a bang-up job of silencing critics following September 11. But not now. The American people are tired of lies. They expect lies from politicians of both parties, to be sure, but they're tired of them, and tired of the consequences. That's why Harry Reid's truth is so significant. He didn't just tell the truth about Iraq, he told the truth when the conventional wisdom is that telling the truth is a political death sentence. You don't tell the American people how bad things are in Iraq unless you hate the troops and love Osama, George Bush and Dick Cheney keep telling us. But Harry Reid did it anyway. That's a rather big deal. And it says a lot about Senator Reid.

Senator Reid will take some heat for speaking truth in a town where truth is heresy. Whether you agree or disagree that George Bush has lost Iraq - I happen to agree - it's incredibly significant that we finally have a leader in Washington who isn't going to sugar coat the news, or outright lie to us. Our best hope for success in Iraq, even if success means quickly declaring victory and going home, is a leader who has the guts to tell us the truth.

Watch Senator Reid in action today here:

Click To Play

Read the rest of this post...

Full text of Harry Reid's Iraq speech today

Here. Read the rest of this post...

Hillary says it's time to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell

And she's right. Good for her.

Gay troops should be able to serve in the U.S. military without hiding their sexual identity, Sen. Hillary Clinton said here Sunday.

Clinton said it's time to drop the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which began when her husband, Bill Clinton, was president. The policy says that gays may serve in the military if they keep their homosexuality secret but that they can be tossed out if they don't.

"Right now, we are discharging soldiers - at a time when we don't have enough people to do the missions we need around the world - because they're gay. Not because they've done anything, but just because they're gay," she said.

Read the rest of this post...

Bush: Not gonna compromise on Iraq; Gonzales "increased my confidence"

The smirking Bush was back today. He took some questions from the press this morning -- and he kept smirking. Bush is staying the course on Iraq and Gonzales.
Updated with video:

Click To Play

Bush made it clear there will be no compromise with Congress on Iraq. He won't accept "a artificial timetable." He said "a artificial timetable" a couple times so that must be his new talking point.

And, Bush, unlike anyone else in America, thought Alberto Gonzales did a great job last week. In fact, he said, Gonzales "increased my confidence." Wow.

When times get tough, Bush smirks. Times are tough:

Read the rest of this post...

Karl Rove needs some anger management assistance

And yes Karl, you most certainly do work for the American people and not just a hand full of campaign contributors. (H/T to TPM.)

In his attempt to dismiss us, Mr. Rove turned to head toward his table, but as soon as he did so, Sheryl reached out to touch his arm. Karl swung around and spat, "Don't touch me." How hardened and removed from reality must a person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl Crow? Unphased, Sheryl abruptly responded, "You can't speak to us like that, you work for us." Karl then quipped, "I don't work for you, I work for the American people." To which Sheryl promptly reminded him, "We are the American people."

The exchange made the NY Times today. Read the rest of this post...

Reid blasts Bush. The president is in "the state of denial."

The House and Senate will be taking up the Iraq spending bill this week. That spending bill could change the course in Iraq, but Bush won't do it. He's going to veto the legislation because it's his war and no one else can tell him how to run it. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is laying down the terms of the debate based on excerpts from a speech he's giving later today. The Democrats have the upper hand here:

Reid's speech blended an attack on Bush, an appeal for patience to the anti-war voters who last fall gave Democrats control, and an attempt to shape the post-veto debate.

"I understand the restlessness that some feel. Many who voted for change in November anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January," he said.

"But like it or not, George W. Bush is still the commander in chief — and this is his war," Reid said.

Reid said Democrats have sought Republican support for their attempts to force Bush to change course. "Only the president is the odd man out, and he is making the task even harder by demanding absolute fidelity from his party."

Looking beyond Bush's expected veto, he said, "If the president disagrees, let him come to us with an alternative. Instead of sending us back to square one with a veto, some tough talk and nothing more, let him come to the table in the spirit of bipartisanship that Americans demand and deserve."

Reid noted disapprovingly that in a speech last week, Bush repeatedly said there were signs of progress in Iraq in the wake of a troop increase he ordered last winter.

"The White House transcript says the president made those remarks in the state of Michigan. I believe he made them in the state of denial," said Reid.

Lies and denial have been the Bush Iraq strategy. It is way past time to change the course. Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

So this should be another interesting week. The House and Senate will come up with the Iraq spending bill for the President. That will be the bill Bush will veto.

Any bets on whether Gonzales will Attorney General at the end of the week? I'm surprised he lasted the weekend. But, as we know, his boss is a stubborn guy.

Get it started. Read the rest of this post...

France 1st Round Notes

After the 2002 debacle, France is back on track with a traditional center-right versus center-left showdown in two weeks. Some Americans on the right seem to think that Sarkozy, the center-right candidate who is much more to the right than Chirac, will somehow be America's best friend. Unless France decides to cede its business interests and become the 51st state, don't count on it. Sarkozy will definitely be friendlier to the US but let's not forget that what is in the interest of the US is not necessarily what is in the best interest of France. Royal would surely be less interested in building any relations with Bush, but depending on who makes it to the White House in 2008, that could change.

Glancing at the polling data, it could be a tough battle for Royal. The left (center-left to far left) brought a little more than 36% of all voters while the right (center-right to far right) counted around 44%. The next two weeks will be about fighting for the Bayrou (18%) voters. Many of the Bayrou supporters were center/center-right voters but who feared Sarkozy and his divisive and aggressive politics. I'm not convinced Sarkozy will win the majority of these voters but he needs to close a much smaller gap to hit 50%. There is also the question of Le Pen voters and whether or not they will abstain or vote for Sarkozy. It should be noted that while Le Pen's percentage collapsed in 20007 (10.5% compared to 18.86% in 2002) the actual number of supporters did not fall dramatically. He failed because of voter turnout. Again, did the top candidates misunderstand 2002 and think they needed to turn hard right or were voters angry and disgusted with lack of results or action by the political powers?

Still missing from the campaign is a serious discussion about rampant racism in the French system. There is an entire segment of society that is still on the outside looking in. They are not to be found in the grandes ecoles nor are they in the board rooms and they barely even have a showing in politics. For starters, how about allowing others to receive quality education and taking normal middle class jobs? It's an embarrassment and counter productive for the future of the country to keep going like this. Isn't it already obvious that letting the same old group rule the country is not working? Also disturbing was a comment by a Sarko supporter (and UMP member) last night about Sarko being there "to protect the French people." Absolutely puzzling in so many ways. Read the rest of this post...

FDA was aware of problems at food facilities

What does it take to bring change in this administration? People died and this team is still giving excuses.

The Food and Drug Administration has known for years about contamination problems at a Georgia peanut butter plant and on California spinach farms that led to disease outbreaks that killed three people, sickened hundreds, and forced one of the biggest product recalls in U.S. history, documents and interviews show.

Overwhelmed by huge growth in the number of food processors and imports, however, the agency took only limited steps to address the problems and relied on producers to police themselves, according to agency documents.

Congressional critics and consumer advocates said both episodes show that the agency is incapable of adequately protecting the safety of the food supply.

If the Republican-styled FDA wasn't so eager to choose business over people they would have made much better decisions but in the rush to keep cheap food moving they fell back on the only program that Republicans know, which is to allow business to self-regulated. Thanks Newt for launching these programs which are literally killing Americans. Read the rest of this post...

NY Governor Spitzer plans to introduce gay marriage bill

Well that puts one New York Senator in a very interesting position. Read the rest of this post...