October 18th, 2006
That’s Paul Rieckhoff when he was a young lieutenant in the army. He went on to serve in Iraq, and since his return to the States he’s been working to bring his brothers and sisters in arms in Iraq back to their families.
Rieckhoff makes a great point here about our "Frat Boy" commander-in-chief:
Last week’s White House press conference was notable for a number of reasons. First, any time President Bush answers questions from the press is a noteworthy event, given that he has deigned to do so fewer times than almost any other modern President. It was also notable because mere hours earlier, North Korea claimed to have tested a nuclear weapon underground.
The press conference was also noteworthy because of what happened after the President left the podium. Just after he wrapped things up in the Rose Garden, top Pentagon officials held a press conference of their own to announce a new plan to maintain US Army strength in Iraq at current levels, roughly 140,000 Soldiers, through 2010. This was startling news, if only because it stands in such stark contrast to the initial war plans (or lack thereof), which called for reducing troop strength in Iraq to 30,000 by the end of 2003.
[...]
But there’s one more reason yesterday’s White House press conference was notable. In between questions on such topics as nuclear proliferation, an alleged child predator in Congress, and the death of untold thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, our President found time to make wisecracks about the wardrobe of the White House press corps. And the press corps, for their part, indulged him. It’s all right there, in the official press conference transcript.
[...]
The next day, I read about how many US troops were killed and wounded in Iraq. I wonder if any of them died, or lost a limb, or were blinded at the same time our President was cracking jokes on national television.
His attitude at the press conference reminded me of his little performance back in 2004 at the White House Correspondents Dinner, when he cracked jokes about not being able to find WMD in Iraq. Here is the video if you missed it. That wasn’t funny either. Remember that?
As a veteran of this war in Iraq, I am sickened by the consistently flip nature of the President in the face of deadly serious issues. His ridiculous banter reflects poorly upon all Americans.
[...]
[W]ith nukes in North Korea, perverts in Congress and 140,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform bound to serve another four years in Iraq, I’d rather have a statesman than a frat boy.
I agree, it’s about time we get some adults in congress so that they can supervise our "Frat Boy"-in-chief.
If you haven’t done so already, why not help get some adults elected this November… every little bit helps.
October 16th, 2006
Sometimes you just gotta wonder… after reading this I reflexively thought, Hmmm… and not in a good way:
Jane: According to the NYT, things appear pretty good for the Dems.
Billmon: Some Republican strategists are increasingly upset with what they consider the overconfidence of President Bush and his senior advisers about the midterm elections November 7 — a concern aggravated by the president’s news conference this week. “They aren’t even planning for if they lose,” says a GOP insider who informally counsels the West Wing.
Digby: The aircraft carrier Eisenhower, accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio, guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage, guided-missile destroyer USS Mason and the fast-attack submarine USS Newport News, is, as I write, making its way to the Straits of Hormuz off Iran. The ships will be in place to strike Iran by the end of the month. It may be a bluff. It may be a feint. It may be a simple show of American power. But I doubt it.
Hmmm, indeed.
October 12th, 2006
Republicans are so desperate to retain control of congress that the GOP leadership, including those in the Bush administration, forced — yes, forced — Republican Mark Foley to run again for his safe congressional seat. Apparently Rep. Foley was ready to retire, but top Bush adviser, Karl Rove, intervened and ultimately convinced Rep. Foley to run again.
TalkingPointsMemo.com serves this bit of news from TNR.com:
It seems increasingly clear that the GOP congressional leadership, eager for every safe incumbent in the House to run for re-election, looked the other way as evidence accumulated that Mark Foley had a thing for pages. Holding onto his seat became more important than confronting him over his extracurricular activities.
But there’s more to the story of why Foley stood for re-election this year. Yesterday, a source close to Foley explained to THE NEW REPUBLIC that in early 2006 the congressman had all but decided to retire from the House and set up shop on K Street. "Mark’s a friend of mine," says this source. "He told me, ‘I’m thinking about getting out of it and becoming a lobbyist.’"
[...]
According to the source, Foley said he was being pressured by "the White House and Rove gang," who insisted that Foley run. If he didn’t, Foley was told, it might impact his lobbying career.
"He said, ‘The White House made it very clear I have to run,’" explains Foley’s friend, adding that Foley told him that the White House promised that if Foley served for two more years it would "enhance his success" as a lobbyist.
And there you have it folks, we have a Republican party, led by the Bush & Rove gang, so desperate to retain control, that they are willing to sacrifice just about anyone — including the young congressional pages — to remain in power and prevent Democrats from disturbing all those GOP skeletons that have piled up a mile high over the past six years.
October 9th, 2006
Can someone please explain to me what high level Democratic party operatives working with the 2004 Sen. Kerry presidential campaign were doing passing on insider information to the Bush-Cheney ticket?
According to Bob Woodward’s STATE OF DENIAL, James Carville and Mike McCurry passed on information to the Bush-Cheney camp at a sensitive time when Sen. Kerry was deciding whether to challenge the Ohio vote.
I came across this disheartening and eye-opening bit of information via MyDD.com, where Matt Stoller writes:
Like Carville, McCurry owes an explanation to his fellow Democrats.
Here’s what Matt was reacting to:
After 1 a.m., Card called Cahill.
Cahill said the Kerry campaign felt confident.
Card was caught off guard. … –Is there going to be a phone call?"
"We won’t be calling you," Cahill replied. She seemed to be half asking whether Bush would be calling Kerry to concede.
(snip)
Matalin is married to James Carville, a Democrat who had been chief political strategist for Bill Clinton in 1992. … …
"Look, I know this is hard for you," she told him sympathetically.
Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio–perhaps up to 250,000 of them. "I don’t agree with it," Carville said. "I’m just telling you that’s what they’re talking about."
Matalin went to report to Cheney.
What? the vice president asked. …
"You’d better tell the president," Cheney told her. …
"They’re going to contest it," Matalin said.
"What does that mean?" the president asked. He had his note cards with talking points in hand, ready to go over to the Reagan Building to declare victory.
Matalin said somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican secretary of state in Ohio, who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes.
(snip) skip forward to page 347…
"I’m the president of the United States," Bush said fuming, "waiting on a secretary of state who is a nut." … …
Reports came in that the networks wanted to go off the air without calling the race for either candidate.
Rove shouted, "They can’t go off the air!"
At 3:36 a.m., a very sensitive communication from the Kerry camp was relayed to Rove and Bartlett at the White House. Mike McCurry, Clinton’s former White House press secretary and a last-minute addition to the Kerry campaign, had e-mailed Nicole Devenish, the Bush campaign communications director, an off-the-record congratulations, advising that the Bush team should not try to force a resolution now. Don’t pressure Kerry, McCurry said. In the end, he believed Kerry would do the right thing.
Bartlett and others told Bush about the e-mail, summarizing the message as "We’ll do the right thing at the right time." They could trust that McCurry would be in a position to know what the Kerry campaign was thinking, Bartlett said, but they had to be careful not to put too much stock in it. At least we know there are people in the Kerry camp giving rational advice, Bartlett said. … …
Card said they should declare victory. … … …
STATE OF DENIAL, by Bob Woodward (pgs. 344-347)
Taylor Marsh, who first reported on this, reacts to the Woodward revelation:
One important point, however, is that people have started talking about the Carville – Matalin angle, but everyone stops there. If you read a bit further Mike McCurry comes into the picture. It seals the deal.
Here’s a story not in the Woodward book. According to one person I talked to today, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Joe Lockhart, in the middle of a heated presidential campaign, started making new business calls out of the Kerry war room giving out confidential campaign information while he was at it. Obviously trying to hedge his bets, he’d call out, give poll data and other info to people, while trying to drum up business for himself. Class act.
Frankly, it reminds me of what McCurry did on the Net Neutrality stuff.
For DC Democrats it’s all about keeping your candidates close, but your business associates and their interests closer.
As for what’s said in the Woodward book, one Kerry camp insider I talked to today certainly wasn’t surprised by the revelations.
[...]
It’s clear Carville and McCurry had their eyes on something else entirely. With Democrats like Carville and McCurry helping us out on election night we hardly need Karl Rove.
These two gentlemen owe the Democratic party base an explanation. While there were thousands of volunteers all across the nation sweating and canvassing for Sen. Kerry, here were two insiders working against the party’s interests at a crucial time.
And, yet again, we see an example of how establishment operatives have gutted the soul of the Democratic party, and have put their own personal interests and connections before the interests of the men and women that toil for the Democratic candidates that these operatives are supposed to work hard for. After we win these mid-term elections, we need to continue cleaning house and expel the establishment’s high priests from the people’s temple — and make sure that the Democratic party in fact represents our interests, and not the narrow interests of a few well connected operatives and lobbyists.
