Giuliani, in effort to appease far-right of GOP, is now reversing himself on gay issues

He's now against civil unions. You've gotta be kidding me. This man is the closest thing to a gay Republican short of being a gay Republican, and now he's trying to promote his anti-gay bona fides? Uh, Rudy, Mitt Romney already tried the "I was pro-gay before I was anti-gay" card and no one is buying it. You did drag, Rudy, repeatedly. You lived with a gay couple after your divorce, though I'm not sure which divorce. You're about as pro-gay as they come, in either party, Rudy. So spare us the 9th inning conversion to God-fearing homophobe. You're a liar and a hypocrite. More from the NY Sun, and from Pam.

Now watch one of Giuliani's many drag appearances.

Read the rest of this post...

Tenet: "There was never a serious debate" over Iraq threat

Interesting timing. Tenet's book comes out just when Bush is going to veto the Iraq spending bill. It's further proof that the Iraq war was a scam, a deadly scam, pulled on the American people by Bush, Cheney, especially Cheney -- and Tenet himself -- among others:

George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.

The 549-page book, “At the Center of the Storm,” is to be published by HarperCollins on Monday. By turns accusatory, defensive, and modestly self-critical, it is the first detailed account by a member of the president’s inner circle of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the decision to invade Iraq and the failure to find the unconventional weapons that were a major justification for the war.

“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

Bush won't even allow a debate now. But, he expects the American people to trust him now. That's not going to happen. Read the rest of this post...

You don't support the troops when you send them to die for a cause that's lost

I'm sorry, you have zero respect for the troops when you send them to die simply because you're too embarrassed to admit that you screwed up. George Bush botched this war from day one. Even John McCain, who now is Bush's biggest defender of how "great" the war is supposedly going, admits that we should have sent far more troops initially - but we didn't. It has been a downward spiral in Iraq from the day we captured Baghdad. We should have kept our eye on the ball, our eye on catching Osama - but we didn't. Imagine had we sent 150,000 American troops to Afghanistan instead of Iraq. Would Osama could have gotten away if we'd sent our service members to Afghanistan instead of Iraq?

This war is lost. It's been a disaster for years, and the Republicans, led by George Bush, are afraid to admit that they've made a mistake. This war is lost. And anyone who sends even one US soldier into harm's way simply because he doesn't have the courage to admit he's made a terrible mistake - that person is a coward. That person is not someone who gives a dammn about our troops.

You don't send our troops to risk their lives for a lie. You don't send our troops to their deaths for a war that is already lost. Sometimes, when you're commander in chief is an idiot, you lose. This is one of those times. Read the rest of this post...

Post-debate

God that was boring. Your thoughts? Read the rest of this post...

Democratic Debate Open Thread

NOTE FROM JOHN: My take so far:

- Gravel, loony, but fun as hell. He's the new General what's-his-name (Who am I, why am I here?!)
- Hillary. Okay. Still doing a public speech rather than speaking to the public.
- Obama. Looks young, too young. Doesn't sound very comfortable.
- Dodd. Damn impressive. The only one who hits me as presidential this evening. Speaks well. Knows his stuff. Sincere.
- Richardson. Keeps looking around oddly every time the camera focuses on him. Didn't go a great job on the Gonzales-hispanic question.
- Kucinich. Speaks well. I miss Sharpton - he and Kucinich were a fun tag-team.
- Edwards. He just admitted he's frivolous. What? Doesn't sound terribly comfortable either.
- Biden. Priceless. "Can you reassure voters that you would have the discipline you would need on the world stage, Senator? Yes."

MSNBC's debate from South Carolina starts at 7:00 P.M.

Consider this a debate open thread. We'll be posting video and commentary.

Democratic candidates need to stop saying "this administration" when they are talking about Bush and Cheney. They need to say "George Bush" and "Dick Cheney" every chance they get. Read the rest of this post...

French political humor

Chris in Paris has been sharing some humor flying around the Net about the French presidential elections (the final round in the election takes place in two weeks). The current crop is about Nicolas Sarkozy, the conservative candidate who some think is harping just a wee bit too much on the people's fear of everything (sound familiar?).

First we have a shot of Sarkozy and his campaign slogan, "Together, everything is possible." Sarkozy is standing next to Jean-Marie Le Pen, the far-right racist politician (kind of France's version of a mix between Pat Buchanan, Tancredo and David Duke).



The next one plays off Sarko's campaign slogan again, but includes a few more words.



Translation (more or less):

Together, without the poor, the foreigners, welfare recipients, the left, the extreme left, the communists, the homosexuals, the HIV+s, the disabled, the Ministries of Education and Culture, independent journalists, blacks, Arabs, and the guy who stole my wife, everything is possible.

And finally, Sarkozy is very short and rumored to wear platform shoes. Below is his official portrait that will hang in all government offices should he get elected.

Read the rest of this post...

Richard Clarke gets it right

Clarke knocks it out of the park in a Daily News op-ed on Iraq, just destroying the ridiculous "flypaper strategy" meme. These Bush administration claims are both illogical and politically motivated, deserving of the contempt that Clarke delivers. No summary of mine is going to improve upon his biting deconstruction, so here are a few excerpts:

Does the President think terrorists are puppy dogs? He keeps saying that terrorists will "follow us home" like lost dogs. This will only happen, however, he says, if we "lose" in Iraq.

The puppy dog theory is the corollary to earlier sloganeering that proved the President had never studied logic: "We are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we will not have to face them and fight them in the streets of our own cities." . . .

How is this odd terrorist puppy dog behavior supposed to work? The President must believe that terrorists are playing by some odd rules of chivalry. Would this be the "only one slaughter ground at a time" rule of terrorism?

Of course, nothing about our being "over there" in any way prevents terrorists from coming here. Quite the opposite, the evidence is overwhelming that our presence provides motivation for people throughout the Arab world to become anti-American terrorists.

While we create more terrorists in Iraq, meanwhile, we aren't devoting the requisite resources to actually improving our security.

In the real world, by choosing unnecessarily to go into Iraq, Bush not only diverted efforts from delivering a death blow to Al Qaeda, he gave that movement both a second chance and the best recruiting tool possible.

I'm not sure how many experts need to say this before everyone understands and believes it. Read the rest of this post...

McCain goes to Senate floor and demands that America withdraw its troops now

...from Haiti

McCain 1994
One of the reasons why people are convinced, why many of these experts are convinced, that this situation is one which is increasingly difficult to solve, is because of the fact that we were there once before. The right course of action is to make preparations as quickly as possible to bring our people home. It does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as Democracy is flourishing in Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as we've established a viable nation in Haiti, as soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives. Now there may be different interpretations of this Resolution on the other side but it is my view and I want to make it clear and I think the majority of the American people's view that as soon as possible means as soon as possible. Exactly what those words state. The Haitians were to police themselves but the cooperation that was to prevent mission creep has not materialized and U.S. troops have assumed a greater and greater responsibility for policing Haiti. We all see on CNN what they are doing. Day by day their mission expands. American military personnel have been tasked with preventing looting, stopping Haitian on Haitian violence, protecting private property and arresting attaches.




...from Somalia

McCain 1993
Mr. President, there is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe that the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1st, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible. An evolution, which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks. Mr. President, our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing, or capture of the of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that. Date certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What's the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we don't do that, and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured, because we stayed too long, longer than necessary, then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not excercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home as quickly and safely as possible. But the mission which the American people supported and this Congress supported, in an overwhelming resolution, has been accomplished. The American people did not support the goals of nation-building, peacemaking, law and order and certainly not warlord funding. For us to get into nation-building, law and order, etc, I think is a tragic and terrible mistake. But the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think, is baloney. The fact is, what can hurt our prestige, Mr. President, I'll tell you what can hurt our viability, as the world's superpower, and that is, if we inmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation, which entails the loss of American lives, more debaucles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aidid's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige. Look at the tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President, 240 young Marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia, as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.



Anybody want to transcribe these so I can post the transcripts? They're that good. Read the rest of this post...

McCain misses key Iraq vote

I'm sure McCain had more pressing business than the lives of our troops and a nation at war.



Here's is the list of who voted how. And wow, not only didn't McCain bother to show up, neither did the Republicans' other great defender of the war, Lindsey Graham (R-SC). The only Democrat not to show up, Senator Tim Johnson, had a pretty good excuse - a brain hemorrhage. What was McCain's and Graham's?

Not Voting - 3
Graham (R-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
McCain (R-AZ)

YEAs ---51
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---46
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA) Read the rest of this post...

Senate passes Iraq supplemental, 51-46

Harry Reid speaks.

Click To Play

Read the rest of this post...

David Broder is a loser

Washington Post columnist David Broder used to be "the dean" of Washington journalism. That was before he lost his mind.

To be more precise, Broder hasn't actually gone crazy. He's gone Republican. You know, that shadow world between reason and insanity that George Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain and Joe Lieberman inhabit. It's a world of hyper-partisanship. A world in which Republicans lie, and lose wars, and Democrats get the blame.

I used to like Broder. Long after the blogosphere gave up on him, I still defended him. I've lived in Washington since 1985. Broder, like Cokie Roberts, has always, for me, been a hard-sell moderate. He was rock solid in the middle of American politics. The Peoria of journalism. If you could sell it to Broder, or Cokie, then you could sell it to middle America.

And while I still like Cokie, Broder has become a bit of a partisan jerk. His columns are now peppered with insults and personal attacks against Democrats and people on the left of politics. Union members, according to a recent Broder column, have no "sympathy" for our soldiers in harm's way. That they hate the troops will likely come as a surprise to blue collar Americans toiling away in factories and companies and sweatshops across America. I would imagine you couldn't find a more patriotic crew than a guy in a union bar. But David Broder tells us that union guys hate the troops, so who are we to question?

Much of American journalism has moved jarringly to the right. The Republicans have played the refs for years, and reporters in newsrooms across America are desperate to not be seen as "liberals." So they overplay their hand, over extend their bias, and skew to the right in the hopes that Rush and Michelle won't criticize them for simply doing their job.

But Broder is far worse. He doesn't lean right in an effort to overcompensate. His illness is far more serious, and symptomatic of the Republican party more generally. He's grown bitter, and angry. There has been a marked turn to the nasty among Broder Republicans in the past ten years. Take George Will. I used to love the guy. Made a great read, even if I didn't always agree with him. Now he's just angry. Charles Krauthammer, same thing - the guy was just brilliant. Now he's just mean. Whether they're the cause or the symptom, the rise of FOX News and GOP talk radio have led to a coarsening of Republican culture. Rush Limbaugh isn't the extreme, he's the new Peoria. If it plays on Rush, it'll play in the GOP.

It's no coincidence that the day after a leading Republican Senator calls Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "un-American" and suggest that he be forcibly removed from office, and the week that another former leader of the Republican party, now under indictment, accuses both Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) of "treason" (implying they should be shot), David Broder is more concerned that Senator Reid once called George Bush "a loser." (Of course, Broder himself called General Wesley Clark a "loser" just two months ago. But just like his flip-flopping, hypocritical president before him, it's okay when he does it.) Sure, Broder's own vice president, Dick Cheney, told a sitting Democratic US Senator, on the Senate floor no less, to "go fuck yourself." Sure, George Bush and Dick Cheney both called a New York Times reporter a "major league asshole." Sure, George Bush routinely flips the middle finger to reporters and has been caught on film at least twice so doing. And sure, just this week, again, George Bush and Dick Cheney said that Democrats don't care about the troops (perhaps they thought all Democrats are union members).

But Harry Reid called George Bush "a loser." And Harry Reid is a bad, bad man.

David Broder, like much of Washington journalism, and much of the country, fell for the Republicans' lies over the past six-plus years. Broder drank the Kool-Aid, kicked Lucy's football, and came running when George Bush cried "wolf." And now, rather than slinking away with a terminal case of professional humiliation, Broder is still fighting the last war. No, not the war in Iraq. George Bush's other war. The war against the truth. Read the rest of this post...

Surprise! Top US Commander in Iraq says things may get worse in Iraq before they get better

You think? And how many years do we have to hear this? It's been 4 years of things getting worse so that they could get better. They're not getting better. Though it is interesting that our top military commander in Iraq just flat-out contradicted George Bush and John McCain's assertions that things were getting better. Now we hear that they're not getting better, and can't get better until they get worse first. So which one is it, are they getting better or worse?

It's Terri Schiavo all over again. We are having an ongoing debate about saving a patient who is already dead. It's over. George Bush and the Republicans gambled and lost. It's over. Iraq is lost. It ain't pretty. It's a blow to our national ego. But guess what? We have a president who is an idiot, and he just lost us a major war.

We're screwed, folks. And the Democrats are the only politicians willing to tell the American public the truth. You want four more years of war? Keep listening to the Republicans. Read the rest of this post...

Bush and the GOP have emboldened and empowered the terrorists

Throughout the House debate over Iraq, Republicans kept talking about "emboldening the terrorists." We'll hear the same thing during the Senate debate. Given the status of the war, those terrorists seem pretty damn emboldened. But, that term has been a GOP talking point for almost a year according to Source Watch:

The phrase embolden the terrorists—as has taking the fight to the terrorists—has frequently been employed by President George W. Bush, members of the Bush administration, and others in their support of the war in Iraq and use of fear as a political tool.

At the June 19, 2006, President's Dinner, a GOP fundraiser, Bush said that an "early withdrawal would be a defeat for the United States of America. An early withdrawal would embolden the terrorists.

It is ironic that Bush accuses others of emboldening the terrorists when it's exactly what he has done. The Republican strategy on Iraq has been nothing but a series of inaccurate talking points. But just because Bush and the GOPers say something doesn't make it true. The Iraq war has been a gift to Al Qaeda. That war was something Al Qaeda wanted, which Richard Clarke wrote would be the case in his book, Against All Enemies:

It was as if Osama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq.

Josh Marshall explained in plain language what the George Bush's war in Iraq has done for the terrorists:

President Bush decided to let bin Laden get away so he could get ready to attack Saddam Hussein. So pretty much anything bin Laden does from here on out is on President Bush. And how about Iraq? President Bush has screwed things up so badly that he's created a whole new generation of recruits for bin Laden. He's created a whole new army for bin Laden. Not by being tough but by being stupid. And by being too much of a coward to admit his mistakes once it was obvious that the occupation of Iraq was helping bin Laden specifically and the jihadist agenda in general.

After half a decade, the verdict is pretty clear: President Bush has been the biggest ally Osama bin Laden has. He's helped bin Laden at pretty much every turn -- even if only by his own stupidity, incompetence and cowardice. And when the next big terrorist attack comes, we can thank President Bush for helping make it happen.

Unfortunately, the failed policies of George Bush and his GOP lackeys are the best thing that ever happened to the terrorists. The terrorists who hate America are not just emboldened, they're empowered. Read the rest of this post...

Rick Santorum and Susan Collins have so much in common including Supreme Court justices and the Iraq War

Kay in Maine reports that Rick Santorum is visiting Maine today. She also reminds us of the very close relationship between the alleged moderate Susan Collins and the fanatical radical Rick Santorum. They both voted for the Supreme Court justices, Roberts and Alito, who are undermining a woman's right to choose. They are both strong supporters of the Iraq war. Susan claims to be a moderate, but she's in synch with Rick Santorum.

As Kay reminds us, Collins campaigned for Santorum last fall. If Rick won, the Republicans would still control the Senate. There would be no Iraq vote today. Rick Santorum is the company Susan Collins keeps. She needs to join Santorum in forced retirement. Read the rest of this post...

Condi to defy Congressional subpoena

Yesterday, House Democrats issued a subpoena to Condi Rice. They want some truthful answers about Iraq.

Condi's already lied repeatedly about the war, so it's probably no surprise that she doesn't want to go under oath to talk about Iraq. Yes, she's going to defy the subpoena:

"This is an issue that has been answered and answered and answered ... but if there are further questions that Congressman Waxman has then I am more than happy to answer them again in a letter because I think that that is the way to continue this dialogue," she told reporters in Oslo, where she is attending a NATO foreign ministers meeting.

"But there is a constitutional principle. This all took place in my role as national security adviser and there is a separation of powers and advisers to the president are -- under that constitutional principle -- not generally required to go and testify in Congress," she added. "So I think we have to observe and uphold constitutional principle."

No one in the Bush administration cares about observing and upholding constitutional principles. What that really means is that Condi has to protect herself from committing perjury. Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

The Senate debate on the Iraq bill starts today. Susan Collins, John Sununu, Norm Coleman and the others running in 2008 will stick with their President. In reality, Bush is sticking it to them. They all deserve each other -- but the troops and the American people deserve better. Way better.

Okay, let's get it started. Read the rest of this post...

Blair very touchy over being called a poodle

Well, if the shoe fits...

He also contested the assertion that Britain wielded no influence over the United States and that it was simply its subservient partner.

"What is crucial in the relationship is that when we take different positions it does not affect overall co-operation ... There has been a subtler process of engagement across a range of issues," [British Ambassador David] Manning said.

Obviously very subtle and so top secret and subtle that most mortals would miss it because Blair and Manning are the only people in the world who can see how Blair was not a lapdog poodle. Woof, woof. Read the rest of this post...

Civil rights cases heavily declined during Bush years

Clearly terrorism has had an impact on resources and focus, but 60%+ declines? It is time to get back to safe guarding American values. Just because Bush and Gonzales are not interested in civil rights doesn't mean Congress has to accept it.

The P-I analysis found a major drop in police-abuse cases handled by the FBI -- down 66 percent from 2000 to 2005 nationwide, although figures for 2006 indicate a rebound in such investigations.

Federal authorities are investigating increasingly fewer hate crimes each year, with cases handled by the FBI plunging by 60 percent, records show.

Read the rest of this post...

Big Food reaches out to friendly FDA to update definition of chocolate

Hmmmm, I just wonder how the Republican-tainted FDA is going to react when Big Food asks to redefine chocolate to include trans-fats and sugar substitutes. With the news of this only slipping out yesterday, surprisingly enough on the day that public comments end, does the FDA really expect to receive many comments from the public? I'm not sure how Hershey's and their fellow factory chocolate producers could make a more tasteless product that is closer to wax than it is chocolate but their new plan sounds like they're going to make every effort possible to do just that.

Ultimately, Big Food can churn out whatever they want and if they can find buyers, more power to them. However, consumers ought to know that cocoa is being replaced with "modern methods" such as trans-fats. There is no reason at all to change the definition of chocolate as it's been bastardized for years. If Big Food wants to sell this rubbish, let them change their own labeling to "chocolate-like product" or whatever strange terminology Kraft uses for Cheez Wiz and Velveeta.

Meanwhile, just sit back and enjoy a tasty Arthur Daniels Midland chocolate bar while it still resembles waxy chocolate and not the new and improved soon to arrive margarine-of-chocolate bar chocolate. Read the rest of this post...