Democrats craft Iraq troop withdrawal deadline

Reuters

Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have tentatively settled on a timetable and conditions for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, which they hope to attach to a $100 billion Iraq war spending bill, senior lawmakers said on Wednesday.

Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

I'm back. Sigh. Read the rest of this post...

Senator Hagel (R-NE) to announce 2008 political plans on Monday

Sounds like somebody is running for president.

UPDATE: Speaking of Nebraska, check out this great blog someone just sent me. It's called Smith Watch, and is devoted to keeping an eye on the new GOP congressman from Nebraska 03, Adrian Smith (he's the guy who beat Scott Kleeb, the cowboy). It's really really really good. Read the rest of this post...

Senator Domenici got himself a lawyer

So, Senator Domenici hired the lawyer who represented convicted felon/former Congressman Randy "Duke Cunningham:

Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) has hired a top defense attorney to handle the pending ethics investigation into allegations that he pressured a federal prosecutor to bring indictments against New Mexico Democrats on the eve of the 2006 elections.

The first job for Domenici's lawyer is to sort through the Senator's evolving statements on the matter. TPM Muckraker documented a couple of them here and here. Read the rest of this post...

Coulter reportedly dropped f-bomb again, and says she can "understand" the murder of doctors who provide abortions

She did this the day AFTER she attacked Edwards. She already knew what she did, and she did it again knowing full well the scandal it was already causing. From Politico.com

On the heels of her well publicized John Edwards quip—that both seem to be taking advantage of, there’s more Ann Coulter shock-and-awe. At a conference in Ft. Lauderdale over the weekend at the Center for Reclaiming America, which is connected to TV preacher James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries, Coulter reiterated her John Edwards description, and, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the following:

Earlier in her remarks, Coulter noted that seven doctors and clinic personnel had been killed, saying, "Those few abortionists were shot, or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure with a rifle performed on them. I'm not justifying it, but I do understand how it happened....The number of deaths attributed to Roe v. Wade - about 40 million aborted babies and seven abortion clinic workers; 40 million to seven is also a pretty good measure of how the political debate is going."

A birdie on the scene told us that after the f-word remark about Johnny Boy, the hundreds of conservatives who filled the church to the brim, gasped in shock. Moments later, she bid her adieu.

More from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State:

Answering an audience question during the Fort Lauderdale event, Coulter said, “I spoke at C-PAC yesterday, and I [took questions] about Obama and Hillary and Gore and global warming, and I said I was going to also have a few remarks about the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but apparently you have to go to rehab if you use the word ‘faggot.’”

Read the rest of this post...

So gay Republicans think Bill Clinton was anti-gay... uh, as compared to who, Barney Frank?

I'm getting tired of hearing gay Republicans repeat the mantra that Bill Clinton was a disaster for gay rights, that this proves how much the Democrats have failed us, and somehow this exonerates how hateful the Republican party is to gays. Yes, Clinton screwed us on DOMA, and his wife is following suit. But putting that aside, and it's a big thing to put aside I admit (and I'll be addressing it shortly), the gay Republicans are lying to us in an effort to assuage their own guilt at still supporting a party that hates them.

The biggest complaint against Clinton, aside from DOMA, is, seemingly, that he didn't pass any great pro-gay legislation like ENDA, hate crimes, marriage, etc. Well, that's all well and good, until you realize that presidents don't make and pass legislation - Congress' do. And from 1994 until 2006, the Congress was Republican (albeit we had a brief Dem stint in the Senate when Jeffords defected). So any gay Republican who has a problem that we haven't had any great gay rights successes at the federal level in 12 years need go only in search of the nearest mirror in order to find who's to blame.

Now, let's start with DOMA. How conveniently the gay Republicans forget whose idea DOMA was in the first place: the Republican congress. They came up with the legislation to bash Democrats by bashing gays. The Republicans came up with the brilliant move (and I mean brilliant) to put the Dems in the mid-1990s in the position of either supporting gay marriage - something that was politically untenable ten years ago (and is still not super popular with the public today) - or of bashing gays. Most Dems, including Clinton, chose to bash gays rather than fall on their swords. Yeah, it sucks. But I don't hold politicians that responsible for falling victim to "gotcha" votes unless we as a community have done our homework in laying the groundwork to make it possible for those politicians to vote against this kind of legislation (though Clinton bragged in radio ads about supporting DOMA, and that was wrong). As a community we didn't do this on marriage, and still haven't done this on marriage.

The Republican majority gave the Democrats in Congress a Sophie's Choice. Yeah, I'm still pissed at Sophie, but let's not forgot the Nazis who forced the choice on her in the first place.

Next point, supposedly Bill Clinton didn't do anything for gays. We've already established that Bill Clinton couldn't pass ENDA or hate crimes or marriage or anything else pro-gay because the Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years, and Congress is the one that makes laws. What Bill Clinton could do, and did, was make political appointments, write regulations, submit budgets, and use his bully pulpit. And on all of those, he did his job for our community.

Let's look at what Bill Clinton did for gays. First off, keep in mind, we're talking 1992 here. Not 2007. It's easy now to say "George Bush also supports AIDS research." Yeah, but Ronald Reagan, who has president just 4 years before Bill Clinton, refused to even say the word AIDS for most of his presidency. It was huge for the community that Bill Clinton ran as an openly gay-friendly president and went on to be a president who supported massive AIDS funding, and appointing openly-gay staff to ambassadorships and senior government positions. And before anyone poo-poo the importance of gay jobs in the administraiton, remember the battle over Roberta Achtenberg? Appointing lesbians to political jobs was a big deal in the early 90s, even if today it might seem old hat. Clinton took a huge amount of heat for appointing Roberta, Jesse Helms practically shut down the Senate, but Clinton stuck by her, stuck by us, and got her confirmed.

We also got our first openly gay ambassador under Bill Clinton, Jim Hormel. We got job protections for federal employees based on sexual orientation - a HUGE change from the days of Reagan when gay employees were witch-hunted, lost their security clearances and their jobs. I spoke recently to a senior openly-gay State Department official who was the subject of a witch hunt in the 1980s under Reagan. The administration threatened to ruin his career if he didn't out every gay person he knew at the State Department. He said 'no' and hired a lawyer (a rather brave thing to do in the mid-80s). He told me that when Bill Clinton came in EVERYTHING CHANGED. I said to him, yeah, but things weren't still a problem in 1992 when Clinton came in were they? He told me I was wrong, it was, and the witch hunts didn't stop until Bill Clinton made them stop.

Then there's my story. I took and passed the Foreign Service Exam (oral and written) in 1989. It was my dream to join the Foreign Service. And I didn't because I was convinced they'd find out I was gay and that would be the end of my career. Funnily enough, prior drug use wasn't a problem for getting your security clearance, but being gay potentially was. I eventually refused to file the papers to get my first appointment, and that was that. The end of at least one of my dreams.

So spare me the revisionist history crap from self-loathing gay conservatives who need to convince us that the Democrats are as bad as Republicans on gay issues. That the pro-gay achievements of Democrats like Bill Clinton were no big deal at the time. The Republicans, the party of Ann Coulter, hate us. They make no bones about it. They are the folks who authored DOMA. They are the folks who block hate crimes legislation (Trent Lott personally killed it right after Matthew Shepard died). They are the folks who came up with the anti-gay amendment to Constitution to ban gay marriage. They are the folks who empowered the religious right and invited them into the entire administration, handing them the levers of government. Anyone who dares talk about how bad the Democrats are on gay rights, especially as it compares to the Republicans, is either delusional or a liar.

Yes, the Democrats aren't perfect. And as I've said, it's high time for Mr. and Mrs. Clinton to admit that DOMA was forced upon the president by the Republicans, and that it was a mistake he now regrets. But gay Republicans need to stop seeking therapy through historical revisionism. Gay GOPers are still in love with the prison guards, and no amount of lies is going to change that simple fact. Read the rest of this post...

GOP congressman who was responsible for Walter Reed oversight now says the uproar is just politics

Yeah, if I were Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., the former GOP House Veterans Affairs Committee chair in charge of making sure that Walter Reed and the rest of our military hospitals didn't abuse our soldiers - and they DID abuse our wounded troops under Buyer's non-watch - I too would be making light of the scandal at the expense of our troops. Especially if I were the guy who replaced the previous committee chair in a coup, all because the previous guy was too much of an advocate for the troops.

This GOP America-hater should be be forced to spend a month at Walter Reed, in a wheelchair, with the mold, the cockroaches, the asbestos, the 3rd degree burn showers, sleeping in his own urine - then see how political he thinks our maimed soldiers are being complaining about what the Republicans have done to them. Buyer knew that Walter Reed and our military hospitals didn't have enough money, but he covered for George Bush and screwed our soldiers, all for politics. The thought that he is still to this day playing politics with our soldiers' lives is sickening. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Look who my friend Kevin and I ran into at the local diner in Hell's Kitchen. It's one of the Daily Show correspondents, Dan Bakkedahl. He was filming a piece about the new daylight savings time fiasco (or as Kevin called it, mini Y2K). I got a nice picture with Dan, but you won't be seeing it as I look like I'm crying (nice job, Kev). Still, kind of fun being in NY. Read the rest of this post...

Washington Post editorial: Outing a CIA agent, endangering her life and the lives of countless other agents and all Americans is no big deal

I've had a security clearance above Top Secret. I've worked on Arms Control issues. I've had, and have, friends working undercover in the CIA. It is one of the most egregious, outrageous, unconscionable crimes ever in this town to out a CIA agent, and everyone knows it. The fact that the Washington Post editorial board doesn't appear to know this is all the more evidence of how slanted, yellow, and/or uninformed the editors of the Washington Post have become since the death of Katherine Graham. Read the rest of this post...

Two more newspapers drop Ann Coulter

From E&P;:

At least two more daily newspapers -- The Oakland Press of Michigan and The Mountain Press of Sevierville, Tenn. -- have dropped Ann Coulter's column. A daily in Pennsylvania had dropped the column two days ago.

Read the rest of this post...

Religious right upset with thrice-married Giuliani

From CNN:

Richard Land, head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention, told The Associated Press that evangelicals believe the former New York City mayor showed a lack of character during his divorce from his second wife, television personality Donna Hanover.

"I mean, this is divorce on steroids," Land said. "To publicly humiliate your wife in that way, and your children. That's rough. I think that's going to be an awfully hard sell, even if he weren't pro-choice and pro-gun control."

Giuliani married his longtime companion, Judith Nathan, in 2003. They had dated publicly while Giuliani was married to Hanover. His first marriage ended in an annulment.

I also love how in the article the religious right leaders says that John McCain is a war hero, so his multiple marriages (and flip-flopping on gay marriage and other social issues) is okay. Funny, I don't remember a "get out of the Ten Commandments" free card provided you kill somebody. Read the rest of this post...

Conservative bloggers send letter to CPAC/ACU: The Age of Ann is Over

TAKE ACTION: HRC is asking you to tell Universal Press to drop Ann Coulter's column.

A number of the conservative bloggers who attended the CPAC conference, where Ann Coulter spoke, have issued a public letter to the conference organizers. The letter calls on the conference, organized by the very important conservative group American Conservative Union, never to invite Coulter again, and more importantly, the bloggers essentially disinvite Coulter from the conservative movement.

The list of those bloggers who signed the letter is at the bottom of this post. But more interesting than those who signed is those who attended the conference but did not sign on to the letter, starting with the number one conservative blogger, Michelle Malkin.

Here's a portion of the letter:

Conservatism treats humans as they are, as moral creatures possessing rational minds and capable of discerning right from wrong. There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the conservative movement, and make a stand for political civility. This is one of those times.

Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter's fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2006, Coulter referred to Iranians as "ragheads." She is one of the most prominent women in the conservative movement; for her to employ such reckless language reinforces the stereotype that conservatives are racists.

At CPAC 2007 Coulter decided to turn up the volume by referring to John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate, as a "faggot." Such offensive language--and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it--is intolerable to us. It may be tolerated on liberal websites but not at the nation's premier conservative gathering....

Coulter's vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas....

Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her "raghead" remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year, will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?

....CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage.

Credentialed CPAC 2007 Bloggers

Sean Hackbarth, The American Mind
James Joyner, Outside the Beltway
Scott Schmidt, Boi From Troy
Joy McCann, Little Miss Attila
Kevin McCullough, Musclehead Revolution
Fausta Werz, Fausta's blog
Patrick Hynes, Ankle Biting Pundits
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters

Other Conservative Bloggers
Owen Robinson, Boots and Sabres
N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Michael Demmons, Gay Orbit

Read the rest of this post...

"Fundamental responsibility" for Walter Reed lies with Bush and Rumsfeld

Today's NY Times editorial on Walter Reed eviscerates George Bush for his overall role in that scandal, the lies about supporting the troops and the disaster that is the Iraq war. Says so much in just a few succinct paragraphs:

There is plenty of blame to go around. Officials at Walter Reed were egregiously negligent. The Army’s high command, and the Joint Chiefs above them, were too weak-kneed or obtuse to demand adequate resources for medical care — just as they were too fearful for their own careers to demand adequate troops to fight the Iraq war to begin with.

But the fundamental responsibility rests with the president and his former defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who stubbornly insisted on going to war without sufficient resources — and then sought to hide the costs of their disastrous mistakes from the American public.

Is it any surprise that the war’s wounded have been hidden away in the shadows of moldy buildings by an administration that refused to let photographers take pictures of returning coffins? Or a White House that keeps claiming that victory in this failed and ever more costly war is always just a few more months away?

The Walter Reed revelations once again put the lie to the president’s claim that everything is being done to support America’s troops. Just as the administration has been shockingly slow to provide the necessary body armor for troops in Iraq and notably complacent about rotating exhausted troops back into the war, so, too, has it been reluctant to confront the large casualty toll from Iraq and Afghanistan. Military doctors have been amazingly proficient about saving lives that would have been lost in earlier wars. But as we now know, the injured survivors too often fall through the cracks.

Read the rest of this post...

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Remember this?:

Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of... I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.

It was said by your President on September 30, 2003.

Well, we now know the truth. Bush's staff leaked classified information -- during war -- for partisan political reasons. Scooter Libby is going to jail. Karl Rove still goes to the White House every day with his security clearance intact.

Start threading the news. Read the rest of this post...

Bush to send up to 7000 more troops to Iraq

It is all going so well or "encouraging" as Dear Leader said yesterday.

In testimony to the House of Representatives Budget Committee, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England said U.S. military commanders in Iraq were requesting varying numbers of support troops to augment the additional 21,500 soldiers Bush has ordered into combat.

"At this point, our expectation is the number of ... troops could go above 21,500 by about 4,000, maybe as many as 7,000," England said.

So now the escalation is escalating. Read the rest of this post...

Now that the real estate bubble is bursting, regulation is discussed

Getting serious about flimsy housing loans was completely uninteresting during Republican rule because heaven forbid dubious loans were not handed out to everyone. How would the market react to only traditional loans when an entire predatory market existed out there with higher interest rates and even higher potential for defaults? Ah, those were the days when there wasn't a care in the world and customers were lining up to be fleeced. Times have changed and those nasty Democrats actually want to regulate and find a proper balance. Let's hope that they are ready for the cries from the finance industry as loans default and they get stuck holding the bill.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged Congress on Tuesday to bolster regulation of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and suggested limiting their massive holdings to guard against any danger their debt poses to the overall economy.

This is good to see, but isn't this a few years too late? Read the rest of this post...