The Cacaphony Of The Clueless

Won't it be tougher for Suder and Hahn to criticize Senator Obama's positions on troops in the Middle East now that McCain and GWB are rushing to embrace those same positions?

Pride Goeth Before A Fool

Fischer has found a group of young people of which he can take real pride.

It's not any group noted for scholarly achievements.

It's not a group that wants to end the debacle in Iraq.

It's not a group of youngsters that want to bring freedom to Tibet.

Nope, none of that. He takes his pride in a gang of thugs who want to make it easier for another Virginia Tech massacre.

Apparently for Fischer, and people like him, there just isn't such a thing as too much bloodshed.

UPDATE: For a more thoughtful and well-written piece on why this group is such a bad idea, please check out the wonderful Emily Mills.

Sykes: Listen to the stars on Iraq

Sykes & his conservative cohort have always been dismissive of Hollywood celebrities or popular musicians who get involved in politics, in large part because most of them are liberal Democrats.

"Shut up and entertain" is the usual response.

Until this week, when Angela Jolie penned a column for the Washington Post urging the US to keep its troops in Iraq. She supports that for humanitarian reasons, but that was good enough for Charlie, who made her column "Saturday's hot read."

'Winning' in Iraq: What would that be, exactly?

This is a little dated, but still pertinent.

Jessica McBride after Monday's Dem debate:

Hillary refused to say she wants us to win when asked the question. She responded that she wants to bring the troops home. Apparently, saying she wants us to win would be a controversial statement on the Left.

Controversial? More like inane, in that it raises the question: 'Winning' in Iraq: What would that be, exactly?

Doublebarreled miss from Ms. McBride

Well, our friend Jessica McBride lets go with both barrels today. She's about as good a shot as Dick Cheney.

First, I make her list of calcified radicals."

I'm honored to be in that distinguished company. My only regret is that someone more qualified did not make the selections for the Wisconsin Radicals Hall of Fame.

Secondly, she claims I have it all wrong on the war in this post, in which I warn that Democrats could be heading down the road to defeat if they soften their stance on the Iraq war.

I will only be happy, she says, if Bush fails.

Wrong.

It is not that I will "only be happy if Bush fails."

I will only be happy when we end this senseless bloodshed and bring our troops home.

That's why I'm working on the Iraq Moratorium, one of the things that makes me a calcified radical.

Had she read what I wrote, instead of just an excerpt, she would know I am equally hard on the Democrats. Unfortunately, she doesn't link to that, so her readers can't find out for themselves.

So it goes.

McBride and the Moratorium

OK, if I want to write about the Iraq Moratorium on Whallah, what's the connection to this blog's inspiration, Jessica McBride?

No problem. Glad you asked.

When I first wrote about the Moratorium, back on Sept. 11, McBride -- the one who says " I don't read liberal blogs" had a snide response , pretty much suggesting I was naive to think it could make any difference, and that it bordered on treasonous to say anything against the war on September 11. (That's apparently a new national holiday, War Day.)

Some of her thoughtful commentary:

On the anniversary of Sept. 11, on the day after our top general in Iraq states that Iraq is considered the central front in the war against Al-Qaida, and shortly after Osama bin Laden releases a video saying the same.... the man known as Xoff pushes an Iraq war "moratorium"....

Xoff's suggested moratorium, borrowed from another group, includes such gems as "closing schools" (whatever that's about... how is Xoff planning to close a school?)...

So ... as I walk down to the vending machine at UWM to get some cheap coffee, am I suddenly supposed to stop in my tracks and rant and rave about the war and the evil neocons who are in cahoots with Halliburton and the Saudis?

Well, Friday's Moratorium Day #3, and McBride will be surprised to learn it's gained a pretty solid foothold and continuing to grow, expand and escalate. There might even be a few schools closed.

What's going on? Well, for starters, from an article I did for BuzzFlash :

On Friday, Nov. 16, antiwar activists will take the "Anti-Torture Train" to San Jose, Calif., where more than 20 groups are sponsoring a march, picket, and news conference in front of a corporation that organizers say profits from illegal kidnappings and torture by handling the logistics for the CIA's so-called "extraordinary rendition" flights -- torture flights.

On the way, they will leaflet Caltrain passengers to educate them about U.S. torture policy, the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" of suspects to other countries for abusive interrogation, and efforts in Congress to end the practice.

In New York City, a morning rush hour action at Union Square will feature hand-painted Pietas and black-clad leafleters.

Protesters in a number of cities will bang pots and pans in front of Congressional offices, as part of the Raise Hell for Molly Ivins campaign, inspired by the late progressive columnist and activist.

In Minneapolis and St. Paul, a student walkout is planned at a number of schools and campuses at noon, with an all-day teach-in and workshops, reminiscent of the 1969 Vietnam War Moratorium, at Macalester College.

Students from 15 colleges and universities in the Boston area, dressed in black, will walk in a silent procession to call for an end to the war in Iraq.

In Conway, Ark., boots representing fallen Alabama service members will be displayed during a rally that includes an open microphone for people who want to speak, sing a song, or read a poem.

In hundreds of other communities across the country, groups will hold vigils or rallies, while tens of thousands of individuals take some personal action to call for an end to the war.

Will it stop the war?

The question is, will anything stop the war?

One thing I know: Doing something is infinitely more likely to stop the war than doing nothing.

That's the whole idea behind the Moratorium, which doesn't try to tell anyone what to do on Moratorium Day, the third Friday of every month. It merely asks that they do something to show that they want the war to end.

There are plenty of suggestions on the Moratorium website, as well as a listing of events and actions around the country, including several in Wisconsin.

Please do something, whatever you're comfortable with, on Friday, even if it's only wearing a button or emailing your representatives in Congress.

Of course, if you want to steal McBride's idea and "rant and rave about the war and the evil neocons who are in cahoots with Halliburton ..." that's OK, too.

There Are Mandates, Then There Are Mandates

McBride, along with the rest of the right side of the blogosphere, is celebrating the failed refernda of various school systems. In her post, she cites a quote from the Hartford School Board President saying that they would have to come back at another time with another referendum. McBride responds to the quote with this:

Um, no, Ms. Carroll. The vote's a mandate to try something else - say cuts, efficiencies - not shove another referendum down people's throats.

Unfortunately, McBride's view of a mandate is rather myopic. She apparently forgets that last November, there was another mandate by the entire country. One that told the Bush misadministration that they should try something besides starting and perpetuating unjust wars, and not continuing to try to shove other wars down the people's throats.

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

On Sunday, McBride asked an inane question wondering if it was OK for Pakistan to be put under dictatorial control as opposed to having the opposite, like freedom. No one responded. (Where is John when you need him?)

Now she has a posting in which she offers a rebuttal to an editorial in the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal. Her post is classical McBride, with her unique view of reality through her special Neoconovision glasses, and her usual xenophobic rantings.

The part that particularly stands out is this:

I don't feel good about it, but Pakistan is a nuclear country. I'd rather have the country under the control of a pro-American, anti-terrorist Musharraf dictatorship than have our government pressure him into removing the iron fist that is preventing his government from falling, and see the country fall into the hands of extremist elements that align with terrorists instead.

It makes me recall two other leaders that were befriended by the ultimate Republican icon, Ronald Bonzo Reagan. One would be Osama bin Laden, who was fighting those mean old Russians in Afghanistan. He was doing what America supposedly wanted, and then blew up the Twin Towers. Now we are the ones fighting bin Laden in Afghanistan, when we aren't being distracted by having wars in oil-rich countries.

The other would be Saddam Hussein, who Reagan sold chemical weapons to, because he was making war on Iran. Unfortunately, Hussein was given enough chemicals, the he had enough left over that he could use on the Kurds. Of course, we know the rest of the story to that story.

So, if McBride, a conservative, says that she would rather have Musharraf run a dictatorship and keep the nuclear weapons, rather than allow terrorists, like judges and lawyers and citizens do radical things like have a constitution and free elections, I think we can all tell what the obvious choice would be. Let'em vote!

This Is Progress?

In McBride's world, Bush can do no wrong. That is why, in this post, she considers two American Soldiers and 33 Iraqi civilians being killed, every day, as progress.

If you, like the majority of Americans, don't see this as progress, but as an ongoing atrocity, please click on the "Do Something" link for the Iraq Moratorium, to see how you can help.

Good News For Democrats

Katie Couric was giving a speech at the National Press Club and this was reported about said speech:

Everyone in this room would agree that people in this country were misled in terms of the rationale of this war,” said Couric, adding that it is “pretty
much accepted” that the war in Iraq was a mistake.

This was enough to send McBride in a tizzy. She claims that this is merely another liberal talking point. This is good news for Democrats, as that would mean approximately 70% of the country is now liberal.

But then she does get one partially correct with this:

Out here in fly-over country, many of us believe that the people of this country were misled about the rationale for war. By Saddam.

Unless Saddam is the Iraqi word for Bush. Then she is right on the money.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Story: Its strategies shattered, a desperate Washington is reaching out to the late dictator's henchmen.

Here's a sample:

When Gen. David Pet­raeus, commander of the multinational force in Iraq, appeared before Congress with Ambassador Crocker to testify about the results of President Bush’s “surge” strategy, he talked a lot about these tribal militias and the success of Anbar. It is the only progress the U.S. has made in Iraq for years. It’s unclear whether the additional 30,000 troops that make up the surge have had much effect on the Anbar Awakening. But watching Gen. Petraeus, I was struck by how familiar his words sounded. The general talked like every Sunni I’ve ever met in Iraq—hell, he sounded a bit like Saddam. The old tyrant would have had one of his characteristic chest-heaving guffaws watching Petraeus as he intoned the old Baathist mantra about the dangers to Iraq: Iran, Iran, Iran. Bush took up Gen. Petraeus’s views a few days later in a nationally televised speech about Iraq, in which he talked about the threat Tehran posed. It seems that Petraeus and Bush have come to the same conclusion as Saddam: the main enemy is Iran, and you can’t govern Iraq without the Sunni Arab tribes, even as you encourage anti-Iranian nationalism among the Shia. This is what Saddam did during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and what Washington is trying to do now. One of the main problems with this strategy is that both the Sunni tribes and Shia nationalists are profoundly anti-American and don’t trust each other—a potential recipe for further disaster.

Hat tip: McBride's Media Matters. (She just wanted you to look at the picture, not read the article.)

Standing up for the troops when it counts

McBride's frothing over her coffee again, or maybe just foaming at the mouth:

Feingold voted NO for a resolution that read:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Russ Feingold is a disgrace. Let it be known. He's on record. He doesn't support the troops.

Oh contrary, as McBride would say in French.

Feingold not only supports the troops but did something meaningful to demonstrate it in the last two days. First, he voted for a reasonable bill from Sen. James Webb, a former Navy secretary and Vietnam hero, to give our troops some respite between repeat tours of Iraq. Republicans, who say they're for the troops, killed the bill.

Feingold also introduced an amendment to start bring the troops home soon, but it got only 28 votes. Sen. Herb Kohl voted with him on both of those bills.

McBride's outrage that anyone would question a member of the military rings more than a little hollow. As I suggested in a comment on her blog, which may or may not see the light of day, Republicans should have passed an amendment to "condemn personal attacks on the military except for John Kerry and Max Cleland, two decorated Vietnam heroes, who may be slandered at will." They should be comfortable with that.

For much more on MoveOn and the events of the last few days in the Senate, I've written a longer post on Uppity Wisconsin.

UPDATE: The Senate deadlocked 47-47 Friday on another Democratic proposal, from Sens. Carl Levin and Jack Reed, to begin bringing troops home within 120 days, remove most troops within nine months, and shift those remaining from combat to support roles. Kohl and Feingold both voted yes. Because of the threat of a GOP filibuster, the amendment needed 60 votes.

How soon they forget

Brew City Brawler observes that Jessica McBride's "Never forget" video on Sept. 11 was forgotten by Sept. 13 and replaced with Fred Thompson hitting on Roseanne Barr.

Easy come, easy go.

Iraq Moratorium begins on Sept. 21

Don't just sit there -- do something.

UPDATE: Guess who doesn't like the idea? Now we know it's a good one.

MILWAUKEE ACTION: The Milwaukee Coalition for a Just Peace will hold a vigil on Friday, Sept. 21, at 5 p.m., at Wisconsin Ave. and Water St. in downtown Milwaukee.

If Osama says it, it must be true

Ben Brothers of Badger Blues on McBride's equating Bin Laden's positions with the Democrats:

Only someone who’s not very bright would be inclined to take bin Laden’s pronouncements at face value. They’re transparently ridiculous propaganda. Can’t you imagine these same people 65 years ago, listening intently to radio broadcasts from Tokyo Rose, cheering gleefully if Franklin Roosevelt was praised as a Communist, as if that settled the matter (”Stalin has pretty much adopted the Democratic Party’s rhetoric and platform”)? They would rightly be dismissed as lunatics.

The unasked question

Jessica McBride thinks this should be the dominant media theme on Iraq:

Brit Hume tonight to General David Petraeus:

Would you say that we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today in terms of sectarian violence in Iraq generally had not Al-Qaida been present and active there?

Petraeus: That's correct. That is correct.

Hume: Has this in an ultimate sense turned out to be more than anything else, a war with Al-Qaida?

Petraeus: Well, it is Al-Qaida and associated uh movements I think or affiliates if you will because again the insurgents, until they started flipping more and more certainly throughout the Euphrates river valley and now other areas, certainly were associated with Al-Qaida, at the very least turning a blind eye to them, and at the most in many cases aiding and abetting them.

The unasked question:

General, would Al-Qaida even be in Iraq if US troops had not invaded and occupied the country?

UPDATE: Russ Feingold asks some tough questions about US priorities in fighting terrorism, and gets no answers. Video link here.

Osama bin Laden, Republican?

Have you read the transcript of Osama's latest video?

We're guessing no, because you have a life.

Not to worry. Jessica McBride has read it for you, and reached the inescapable conclusion that Osama is a Democrat. Or maybe it's that Democrats are terrorists. Something like that.

Or perhaps it was a typo, and she meant to write that Obama is a Democrat.

We've just scanned the transcript, but a couple of things jumped out at us:

"There are no taxes in Islam."

And Osama hates Hollywood.

Mr. Bin Laden sounds like a Republican.

As we learned in "Farenheit 911," he and his family have certainly been chummy with the GOP and the Bushes.

We don't recall them hanging out with Dave Obey.

UPDATE: Mike Plaisted says McBride has resorted to bomb-throwing to try to attract some attention because she still misses the high profile she had as a radio host before her career went into eclipse -- and points out that what she wrote has little or nothing to do with what Bin Laden actually said.

AND ANOTHER:Jay Bullock says that calling Osama a Dem is like calling an earthquake a terrorist.

These foreign policy views are a riot

Jessica McBride doesn't like it when Democrats talk about foreign policy. That's why she is willing to rewrite the Constitution to say, for example, that Senators like Russ Feingold can't complain about the conduct of the Iraq war. And, presumably, why she would blame Democrats for "inflaming the Muslim world" when introducing and article mostly about a Republican. And, I guess, why she is willing to risk Godwin's Law just to diss Barack Obama.

That's from Jay Bullock at folkbum, and he's just getting warmed up.

So much for diplomacy; Let's kill 'em!

McBride on the warpath, as usual:

You know how the big Democratic criticism of President Bush has been that his administration won't talk to Iran?

Guess we're already trying that. It's not going too well. Since that was the big Democratic plan for what we should do about Iran - talk to them - what's their big plan going to be now?

The story she links says there have been two meetings since May, and describes the two countries as "arch enemies." It might be just a little early to give up.

But McBride's true sentiments come out in the comments section, as she responds to a critic:

If Iran is responsible for the killing of American soldiers in Iraq, I want to do more than talk to them.

It's a big IF she offers. There have been a lot of claims and little evidence that the Iranian government has been involved in Iraq warfare.

What does she want to do besides talking to them? Scream at them? Bomb them?

If the Iranians are responsible for some American deaths, as she believes, when the Iranian delegation shows up for the meeting, does she think the US should slaughter them? Capture them? Torture them?

Or kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out?

Oh, THAT Constitution!

McBride writes:

Assaulting the Constitution

Russ Feingold wants to censure the president:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold said Sunday he wants Congress to censure President Bush for his management of the Iraq war and his "assault" against the Constitution.

Maybe he should just censure Congress for its "assault" against the Constitution by meddling in the commander in chief's executive powers to manage the Iraq war. I don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned this many generals controlling the battlefield.

Actually, the Founding Fathers envisoned Congress making the decisions about taking this country to war.

Adam Cohen explains in today's New York Times:

...The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress’s side...

When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress...

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly...

Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king.