Dems Defeated in Iraq War Vote. Again. Its Time to Turn Off the Funding Spigot. Now.

Once again, the Dems failed to get to the magic number of 60. That's how many votes are needed to invoke cloture and quash any filibuster attempt.

Lindsay Graham summed up the Reep position thusly:

The idea of winning the war in Iraq is beginning to get a second look,"

That's effin' crazy talk. Winning; did he really say winning? What is winning? Some years back it was the dominoes of democracy throughout the Middle East. These days, its staving off the Al Quaeda lunatics from destroying the rest of the free world. My the goalposts have moved, eh?

Can we afford to trust the buffoons and war pigs who led us in this mess and now are forcing us to wallow in this misery called Iraq? They have been wrong each and every time since they started beating the war drums. Now, they expect us - no, check that; they are daring us - to trust them again this time. Sorry, the kool-aid is packed away, folks.

There is a way for the Dems to finally snatch victory from the vastly unpopular BushCo cretins, and to salvage some small amount of credibility with the American people (the latest poll I saw put congressional approval at 11%).

How? Simply stop funding the damn war. Its really that simple. The threat of de-funding the surge and Blackwater mercs will have BushCo crawling and groveling to the Dems finally promising bipartisanship on the war effort, after all.

Oh sure, the war pigs will fulminate and rage at first. But they will come around - if the Dems grow a spine.

War pigs win another round

Blumkin-gate

Before even mentioning Larry Craig, a quick note on my absence. I really have been extremely busy the past few months. As the weeks moved on and I didn't blog - hell I haven't even been reading other blogs - I found myself not really missing it. Maybe I'm just a little burned out. Maybe I'm just so sick of blogging about Crapmaster Bush and his house of sycophants. Whatever it was, I jsut didn't have an urge to blog.

I'm really not feeling it now. But hat's off to Larry Craig for motivating me to come up with this witty title. (Reader beware: If you don't know what a blumkin is, you may not want to find out what it really means; its not for the faint of heart.)

Sadly, Blumkin-gate has once again served to take the important issues of the day off the top of the news. Iraq? Insurance for kids? Screw it! Give me Senators soliciting blumkins in public restrooms.

My Schadenfreude Meter Is Stuck on Red Line: Thanks David Vitter

Thanks a lot Senator Vitter, you moral blowhard by day, freakazoid by night, I'm going to need a new schadenfreude meter. This one is busted; pushed way beyond the red line.

From the Quote Machine:

Marriage is a core institution of societies throughout the world and throughout history. It's something that has provided permanence and stability for our very social structure.

We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts’s values. I am the only Senate Candidate to coauthor the Federal Marriage Amendment; the only one fighting for its passage. I am the only candidate proposing changes to the senate rules to stop liberal obstructionists from preventing an up or down vote on issues like this, judges, energy, and on and on.

[Bob Livingston's resignation is] obviously a tremendous loss for the state.... I think Livingston's stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess. [Vitter on the Clinton-Lewinsky affair and former House Speaker Bob Livingston]

I don't think David will be sleeping too well at night these days:

Vitter's wife, Wendy, said in 2000 that if her husband cheated on her, she would react like a woman who cut off her sleeping husband's penis. "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary [Clinton]," she said. "If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me. I think fear is a very good motivating factor in a marriage

Pelosi Threatens Bush Administation on Signing Statements

Well, here's some clarity from the dems on signing statements (The Hill):

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.

Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court” if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com.

Also answered is my question on why individual members of congress haven't already sued BushCo on this:

Bruce Fein, who was a Justice Department official under President Reagan, said Democrats seeking to challenge a signing statement would have to try to give themselves standing before filing a lawsuit.

“You’d need an authorizing resolution in the House and Senate … to seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court that the president, by issuing a signing statement, is denying Congress’s obligation to [hold a veto override vote],” Fein said.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced legislation to that end last year, but the idea of a lawsuit has yet to gain traction in Congress.

I really hope that the dem leaders can convince their members to sue BushCo on this. I find the signing statement concept outrageous (and none more outrageous than Dubya's SS on the anti-torture bill) - even if Bubba did issue a few himself. Signing statements are not permitted in the constitution - if I understand this correctly.

The Thursday Skinny

Who would be so mean and nasty as to suggest that the numbers of deaths in Iraq are being purposely underestimated? Of course, the big bad United Nations just wants to make Dubya look bad.

Speaking of making Dubya look bad, the Senate is voting today on a non-binding resolution to bring the troops home - as part the latest emergency mis-spending bill to fund the surge. We do know Dubya is going to veto the bill. Thankfully, the spinach and sugar subsidies were removed.

Paul Wolfowitz wants more time to avoid being summarily shit-canned from the World Bank. He recently hired noted crisis lawyer Robert Bennett. Bennett previously represented Bill Clinton in his battle against Penthouse Model Paula Jones.

John McCain formerly announced his candidacy today up in New Hampshire. 200 people showed up for the event. Okay, it was raining, but are the odds of him winning the reep nomination? Maybe two percent? 200 people. Thats just sad.

Congressman Rick Renzi, crook, reep, Arizona, is going down. Did I mention he's a crook? I hope its a slow, slow fall for Renzi; like a slow-mo train wreck. Dems always face an uphill battle in Arizona, but I think the dems can win this state in 2008. At the very least, the reeps will have to spend big bucks to defend the state.

The military, accepting some blame for making Pat Tillman and Jessica Leach into Captain America and Wonder Woman, took a shot at the media, too. That's like blaming the pit bull after you sicced him on the mailman. Nice way to deflect attention. I want to know when Rummy knew. Oh he knew. He knew.

Finally, Riverbend finally has a new post up. As always, its a must-read.

John McCain: A soft touch down back to reality

Johnnie "do the stroll" McCain returned late this week from the alternative universe where Iraqis shower Americans with candy and flowers. The New York Times covers the flip-floppery on-line:

After a week of public pummeling, Mr. McCain, one of the Republican candidates for the 2008 nomination, now says he misspoke about the situation on the ground in Baghdad. In an interview to be broadcast on CBS News’ “60 Minutes” on Sunday, Mr. McCain said he wished he had been more measured in his remarks.

“Of course I am going to misspeak and I’ve done it on numerous occasions and I probably will do it in the future,” he told CBS correspondent Scott Pelley. “I regret that when I divert attention to something I said from my message but you know, that’s just life.”

I, along with thousands of bloggers and those Iraqi merchants (who were described as "astonished" when appraised of Johnnie Mac's initial sunny comments) gave McCain the business over the stupidity of those remarks. McCain took the heat especially heavily because he is a top tier presidential candidate, but moreso because he's the self-proclaimed straight talk express.

That sure was some straight talk, eh? Johnnie Mac's initial comments were right out of a Dick Cheney speech - That's just how Looney Tunes he sounded. So, it was a great deal of relief I read McCain's new comments. I may not particularly like McCain, but I do greatly prefer that top tier presidential candidates be of sound minds.

He certainly does now sound grounded. Oh, of course he hasn't budged one inch on his stance to the war. But, at least he has left Limbaughland and returned to the reality-based community (or some far flung burg - somewhere in the galaxy).

Where ever McCain turns these days, things turn into gooey dog turds. Its like the Midas Touch, only reversed. Call it the Dubya Touch. Think of any important issue over the past two and half years. If Dubya is for it, campaigns for, uses his bully pulpit, then public support craters. Now McCain has the Dubya Touch - in spades.

This Dubya Touch effect is purely McCain's own doing. He decided a long time ago that he was going to run between Dubya's butt cheeks. I always thought it was an insane strategy given his history with Dubya, but McCain's pollsters probably told him Dubya was popular within the Republican Party.

The Straight-Talk Express is now the Flip-Flopping Train That Couldn't. Republicans hate McCain. Dems have grown to hate him, and I would be willing to bet that Independents are at best scratching their heads.

Let's see if Johnnie Mac' new Phoenix Rising campaign strategy is going to work. It did for Kerry in 2004, but that was a far different situation. Right now, the McCain campaign is on life support. He doesn't seem like such a top-tier candidate anaymore.

Congressmen rip Bush over Syria

If you recall, BushCo has been ripping on Nancy Pelosi over her trip to Syria. Congress fired back yesterday:

I don't care what the administration says on this. You gotta do what you think is in the best interest of your country.

Said one congressman. From another:

That's an important message to realize: We have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies.

And finally, from yet another:

[Syrian diplomacy] is an area where we would disagree with the administration. It doesn't mean you're weak in your policy or that there's no problems ... We just wanted to let them know that the lines of communication are open and if we can find some common ground on some issues we need to go forward on that.

Who are these freedom-hating, french fry-eating, surrender monkey, Perrier-sipping Democrats? Was it Pelosi? Barney Frank? Maxine Waters? Who said these treasonous words?

Ummm..... These were Republicans, as quoted in Syria yesterday. In order: Darrell Isa, Frank Wolf and Robert Aderholt.

Funny, I didn't hear the Great Uniter criticize these guys.

Tom Tancredo for President?

So, Tom Tancredo is running for president. Apparently, the winds of anti-immigrant hysteria aren't blowing quite hard enough in the Republican Party.

Here is Tom's own top presser:

U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) today sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking her to clarify whether the U.S. has a legal obligation to extradite bounty hunters like Duane “Dog” Chapman to Mexico based on an agreement that could just amount to “a wink and a nod” between governments.

That probably sums up Tom's base: Dog Chapman. Tancredo is looking to become 2008's Alan Keyes (though Keyes is probably smarter).

Do we want to start on the Tom and the immigration issue first thing this morning? No. I didn't think so. Its there; dude is a nutjob. I'll bet Michael Savage is about to endorse him.

John McCain strolls down Baghad Way!

Johnnie Mac does the stroll just like he promised. However, I was a bit confused because he had body armor on, plus had an armed escort. Oh wait, check that. Johnnie Mac had 100 soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters and two Apache gunships.

Awesome! I realize now there was a little disconnect between my idea of a stroll down, say some inner city, and Johnnie Mac's. For example, I used to enjoy enjoy walking around downtown Newark or the Ironbound District during a weekday in the early 80's. After moving to California, I always enjoyed strolling downtown Oakland on my lunch break, examining new project going up, or even urban decay. I'm an urban planner and am interested in urban design, so this stuff appeals to me.

So, imagine my excitement when Johnnie Mac seemed to take up a similar interest! Now, I'm not complaining about the good senator. I would take a stroll of an inner city with body armor, troops and helicopters any time any day. Hell, I'd do the stroll a 4 A.M. Saturday night.

But, Johnnie Mac, please put down the kool-aid. If Iraq is so damned safe, take a walk by yourself - or with just one or two secret servicemen. Then I'll have a lot more respect for your pronouncements of safety.

Strolling Baghdad with Senator McCain: Update

I thought my post yesterday sufficient with regards to John McCain's take on Baghdad. I was wrong.

I finally watched the video of Wolf Blitzer talking wit Michael Ware about this situation in Baghad. I had read the transcript, but honestly, this is one video that you have to watch; the transcript just doesn't do justice. Ware has been working for CNN in Baghdad for four years, and he says on-air:

[N]one of the American generals here on the ground have anything like Sen. McCain’s confidence. I mean, Sen. McCain’s credibility now on Iraq, which has been so solid to this point, is now being left out hanging to dry. To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Sen. McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll.

And to think that Gen. David Petraeus travels this city in an unarmed humvee? I mean, in the hour since Sen. McCain’s said this, I’ve spoken to military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly the general travels in a humvee. There’s multiple humvees around it, heavily armed. There’s attack helicopters, predator drones, sniper teams, all sorts of layers of protection. So, no, Sen. McCain is way off base on this one.

I'm certainly not the first to ask, and probably not the last, but it still needs to be asked - Is McCain losing it?

For my previous post, go here.

Thursday political potpourri

Glenn Greenwald on why Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater couldn't survive in today's conservative scene. Greenwald's money shot:

[T]he right-wing movement in this country is now -- an authoritarian movement animated by the Orwellian slogan that "security leads to freedom" which embraces and seeks ever-expanding government power based on the claimed need to protect people from all the scary, lurking dangers in the world -- dangers which are constantly stoked and inflammed in order to maximize the craving for "security," derived by vesting more and more power in the hands of our strong, protective Leaders.

Meanwhile, the Politico reports republicans are fearful of a 2008 meltdown. Hmmm, I couldn't possibly guess why.


Former British ambassador Craig Murray charges the Brits have produced a fake map of the Iran-Iraq border to explain away the hostage crisis.
Murray writes:

A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

Murray goes on to note that none of this excuses the Iranians not giving back the Brits. Barry Lando picks up the story, too.


The New York Times reports a widening income gap between the rich and poor in this country to a level not seen since before the depression. Cue a Bush administration mouthpiece saying with a straight face that everyone has benefited from the tax cuts. Ahh yes, here's Brookly McLaughlin, the chief Treasury Department spokeswoman.

[T]he share of income taxes paid by lower-income taxpayers will be lower than it would have been without the tax relief, while the share of income taxes for higher-income taxpayers will be higher.

The administration can get away with this because they are without shame. Meanwhile, reep POTUS candidates are all vying for more tax cuts (WSJ).

Yesterday was the annual broadcasters dinner with hosts Dubya and Flava Rove. This little affair is quite informative about the incestuous little affair between big media and the political elites. The American public is ever the loser when Karl Rove can rap to the correspondents who give your nightly news.

The Saudi King isn't holding Dubya's hand anymore, at least when it comes to the Iraq war. Street cred at the Arab Summit apparently trumps American interests. Wow. I am so surprised.


On a positive note, the Tuskegee Airmen are finally going to be honored with the richly deserved Congressional Gold Medal. My only complaint - they aren't taking George Tenent's.

Strolling through the streets of Baghdad with John McCain

I really wonder about McCain. The so-called straight-talk express seems to have run off the road and crashed into a ditch. McCain is seemingly wandering around, injury to head, babbling incoherently. On Monday, McCain was a guest on Bill "Doubling Down on Morality" Bennett's radio show where he said:

There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today.

Hmmm. Well, Sadr City would be a good choice - you might get to see a Katusha Rocket attack.

Or, you could go to the Doura (Dora?) District to dodge roadside bombs.

Wait, how about going to the Abu Dsheer neighborhood? Mortar attacks are the thing to see. If you dare.

I wouldn't got to Mustansiriyah University where a policeman was killed and three wounded in a suicide car bomb attack.

I would avoid the Zayouna district of eastern Baghdad. Gunmen killed a police lieutenant working in the Serious Crimes Unit. No, I wouldn't stroll there.

And, I would seriously avoid the al-Maalif district of western Baghdad. Gunmen opened fire on a police patrol, killing one policeman and wounding two others.

Oh. Uh. Do also avoid the Ghazaliya district in eastern Baghdad. An Iraqi soldier was killed and two wounded in a roadside blast.

Do avoid the Bayaa district. A car bomb killed two civilians and wounded ten others at a major intersection.

Unless you can stomach floating bodies, I would suggest avoiding a stroll along the famed Tigris River.

Alright, so you don't want to go strolling around Baghdad. How about the Green Zone. Everyone knows the Greeen Zone is safe. Right?

Uh, not really. Insurgents have been bombarding the Green Zone with mortar attacks. Nine people were wounded and two killed in three mortar or rocket strikes since Monday. On Tuesday a U.S. contractor and a U.S. soldier were killed, and one U.S. state department employee was wounded.

Maybe McCain was talking about some other part of the country. Nah - mortar attacks, car bombs, suicide bombers, chlorine gas attacks, sectarian reprisals, and tortured bodies are everywhere. No, I'm not citing it - read the gosh danged front page of your newspaper.

Senator McCain, I strongly suggest you burn your particular version of Fodor's. We don't want you going and getting kidnapped out on the streets of Baghdad. Do we?

Tom Delay disses Dick Armey in book, then denies he wrote it

Tom DeLay is too much. There are days I really wish he were back on congress - if only to put a face on the insanity of the extreme right these days.

From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire (a site I highly recommend):

Appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews to promote his new book, No Retreat, No Surrender, it's clear former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) didn't write it and perhaps never even read it before it was published.

Matthews asked DeLay about passages in his book where described former Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) as "drunk with ambition." Amazingly, DeLay denied writing that, even after Matthews showed him the underlined passage in his own book.

Tom DeLay has absolutely no shame. Here's the You Tube clip.

What to do with Marty Meehan's leftover campaign cash

The following is a story that summarizes one reason why our current political system is so awful - big money.

Marty Meehan is a democratic US Congressman representing the fighting 5th District in Massachusetts. He has represented his district since 1993, and ran unopposed in the 2006 general election.

Yesterday, the Politico reported Mr. Meehan is stepping down as congressman to become the chancellor of the University of Massachusetts-Lowell. Well, good for Mr. Meehan; this sounds like an excellent opportunity for him. And by most accounts, Mr. Meehan is regarded as a pretty darn good politician.

However, this happy little story has a side to it that appalls me to the core. It seems that Mr. Meehan has the tidy little sum of $5.2 million in his campaign finance account. Remember, this is a guy who ran unopposed in the last election.

Now, he can't spend the money on himself. But $5.2 million is a LOT of dosh. Apparently he has three choices. He can:

• Give the money to charity
• Save the money for some future run for political office
• Give the money to the democratic party committee

Okay, I just got done throwing up in my mouth, because I'm about 1,000% sure Mr. Meehan won't be donating the money to charity. The amount of money Mr. Meehan has raised is nothing short of obscene. Its not as if, the reeps put forward some charismatic and talented politician to challenge Meehan from one end of his district to the other. Mr. Meehan ran un-freaking-opposed. Why does Mr. Meehan have so much money?

The answer lies perversely in lap of the Supreme Court, which has ruled fairly consistently that money equals political speech. The perversion is Meehan's donars get to fully exercise their free speech by showering the congressman with carts full of cash, but his political opponents get shut out - big time. Since rich folks and corporation and unions are willing to fork over cash to this guy, Mr. Meehan is in his rights to accept the money. (Although this "right" is a perversion, in my opinion).

The loser in this is the average American. (surprise!) You got an issue with some bigwig who wrote a six figure check to Mr. Meehan? Don't expect Mr. Meehan's staff to be of much assistance on that matter.

Sure, you have free speech rights. You can email or call the congressman. But, you sure do NOT have the bullhorn or the bully pulpit. That's too bad, you can't afford it. Your speech isn't as valuable as Mr. Meehan's campaign donars.

I can't say that I have the comprehensive answer to this problem, but I do know I strongly favor taxpayer funded elections. Arizona's plan seems to work quite well. I will have to research that and post on it in the future. In the meantime, I invite your readers to post your opinions on campaign cash.

A buzz of accountability in the White House

Ever since the 2006 mid-term elections, team BushCo has been falling like, well, Republican Senators in the 2006 mid-terms. There have been recent two scandals - the mistreatment of wounded vets at Walter Reed, and the botched firing of seven US Attorneys. And that Iraq thing continues to fester.

Let's go through the list of the dearly departed:

• Rummy
• Kyle Sampson
• Kevin Kiley
• George Weightman
• Francis Harvey
• Alberto Gonzalez (not technically dead, yet)

It is a sweet smell in the air around the White House these days. It is the smell of accountability in action. As Bill Maher might say, New Rule: You fuck up in the White House, you get your ass canned out of town. Seems fair to me. You work in a presidential adminstration, you get the glory, you get the fame, you get the high GS rank - but you also get bucket fulls of responsibility.

At least you do now. It hasn't always been this way before the Democrats came to town. Consider that Tommy Franks, George Tenet and Paul Bremer all received the Medal of Freedom in 2004. Excuse me, I have to throw up in my mouth.

Thanks, I'm okay, now.

Yes, the Bush Administration may be the worst presidency ever (certainly the worst in the past 75 years, if you want to go all historical on me). Okay, we can debate Jimmy Carter and Tricky Dick, but you get the point dang it!).

It is also useful to see how the balance of power of should work in this country - the Administration screws up, and congress calls it out, heads roll, and we wait until the next scandal, screw up or cover up.

There are a lot of take ways going on, but one thing that jumps out to me is this: Damn, that supine, lap-dog republican congress from 2002 to the end of 2006 sucked major ass. Good riddance to bad trash.