We need change! Insert male candidate photo here.

But Frank Rich sees Hillary Rodham Clinton running for president, and pronounces
biz as usual. Only if you have a pale white pe—, well, you know.

Irony alert.

The Republican field of aging white guys, meanwhile, gets flakier by the day. Is Hillary Clinton the New Old Al Gore?

To be clear, I’m a big fan of Rich, going back to his (and my) theater days. But excuse me? Since when is the first viable female candidate running for president not a sign of at long last, it’s about time, can we get someone other than white guys change? If ever a column cried out for rhetorical Viagra® Rich’s column today is it.

Seriously, I’m officially fed up.

In what U.S. fantasy does a woman run for president and have a chance of winning if she isn’t part of some established male hierarchy or establishment? In this case we’re talking about the Democratic party and we’re still hearing banchee cries of despair from macho locker rooms everywhere. So much for liberation and liberalism. Ask yourself one question. Do you think any woman running as an independent for president could win? Could any female candidate running outside the structure set up by a bunch of white guys have a chance of being president? If you’re answer is anything but no you need to up your meds.

Either I.Q.s have dropped significantly since the primary began or people think that what Clinton is doing is easy. I’ve said it before, but in order to break the ultimate glass ceiling it’s going to take one politically connected female to get the job done.

This isn’t an endorsement as much as a reality check, not for me, but for many of you.

I’m sick of the growing pack of white males squealing access outrage. To use a very lame analogy, but one that hits home. Try being a female blogger who writes about foreign policy and military issues. Boys always know best (at least in their own minds). Now put that analogy on steroids and apply it to the presidential election. Hillary Clinton is just way too establishment, to insidery. In what world does the first woman win the U.S. presidency and not play by the boys games?

In America, especially when writing, talking or campaiging about serious issues, it’s still better to have a pe— be Dick than Jane.

Share

I don’t call him Slick Mitt for nothin’. The man has earned the title. Thanks to my good friend Cliff Schecter over at Brave New Films for this one.

And speaking of Iran, Seymour Hersh strikes again.

During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British “were on board.” At that point, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice interjected that there was a need to proceed carefully, because of the ongoing diplomatic track. Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution. At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.” Shifting Targets

John has the video of Hersh on CNN. Don’t miss “Madame Curveball” either.

It’s also been brought to my attention that the book “Islamic Imperialism” has been sent to dozens and dozens of Protestant churches.

In April of 2007, a number of pastors from across the United Church of Christ were calling me asking me why the Institute on Religion and Democracy had sent them a copy of Ephraim Karsh’s book Islamic Imperialism. Within a week, I learned that not only had UCC pastors received a free copy of this book as a gift from the IRD, so also had Lutheran, United Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal clergy. UMNexus is now reporting that the IRD mailed this book to 100,000 clergy across the US, at a reported cost of over $1.5 million. … .. The IRD’s Next Front Line: Gambling on Your Xenophobia

If you didn’t see Fox’s special on Iran as a ticking time bomb this weekend, hosted by former Bushie and Iraq incompetent Dan Senor, then you’re just not getting the full throttle picture on this subject. It makes the Lieberman-Kyl amendment vote by Democrats look even dumber and quite a bit more dangerous.

Share

The Forgotten People of Burma
guest post by Mash

Bangladesh has its own illegal immigration problem. The country plays host to approximately 200,000 refugees from the bordering country of Burma. The refugees belong to the Rohingya minority, a persecuted Muslim population who are being methodically ethnically cleansed by Burma’s ruling military junta. They live in Bangladesh under desperate conditions, battling for scarce jobs and resources in the already desperately poor south eastern region of Bangladesh. It is just one of the silent tragedies of the forgotten people of Burma.

Burma, or Myanmar as the ruling military junta would like to be called, is one of the most brutally repressed countries in the world. It has been under military rule since 1962. An impoverished country of 50 million people, Burma boasts an army of over 400,000 active personnel. It’s yearly military budget stands at an estimated 7 billion dollars and is greater than Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. Burma has the 12th largest standing military in the world and spends an astounding 19% of its annual gross domestic product on the military. While the junta leaders live in luxury the rest of the population lives on less than $1 a day. Burma is the most corrupt nation on Earth.

The Burmese military is at war with its own people. It is so fearful of its own people that it has moved the capital of the country. In 2005 the military junta built a new capital, Naypyidaw, about 320 kilometers north of the former capital, and Burma’s largest city, of Rangoon. Naypyidaw is secretive and under tight seal. Cell phone networks do not work there and the civil servants are housed in military built apartments while the junta live in luxury villas. Pictures of Naypyidaw are hard to come by.

On September 6th the military junta in Burma declared that General Maung Aye, second in command in Burma, was postponing his upcoming visit to Bangladesh where he was expected to expand on the new found common ground with the military rulers of Bangladesh. This was the first signal from the junta that they were anticipating the August protests over high fuel prices to get significantly worse. Ten days later, on September 16, thousands of revered Burmese monks joined the protesters on the streets of Buma’s cities. The monks led the protesters to the doorstep of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi’s home, where she has been held under house arrest and solitary isolation on and off for nearly 2 decades. The legitimate prime minister of Burma, and the embodiment of hope for the Burmese people, came out briefly to pray with the monks and the protesters. It was the first time the Burmese people saw her in four years.

However, as always hope was short-lived for the brave people of Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi was whisked away to a notorious prison in the Burmese interior and the Burmese military began the slaughter. In 1988, after similar protests, the military slaughtered 3000 citizens. This time the military claims to have only killed 10 people. The actual numbers are likely to be much higher. In 1988 the military junta claimed that only a handful of protesters were killed.

Today the Burmese people are cut off from the rest of the world. The internet, the lifeline connecting the Burmese people to the world, has been severed by the junta. The streets of Rangoon have been cleared of protesters and the blood has been cleaned from the pavements – protesters have been “disappeared” and the monks have been locked away in their monasteries. Into this surreal quiet arrived Ibrahim Gambari, the UN special envoy for Burma. In a “surprise” move the junta allowed Mr. Gambari to visit with Aung San Suu Kyi for about an hour.

This is familiar ground for Mr. Gambari. Last year he visited Burma twice and was similarly allowed to meet the Nobel laureate. On his return from his first trip in May 2006 Mr. Gambari penned an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune entitled “A crack in the Burmese door”:

For a number of years now, the military leaders of Myanmar, formerly called Burma, have seemed impervious to international calls for democratic reform. A special UN envoy for Myanmar, Rezali Ismail, was prohibited for more than two years from even stepping foot in the country. Last month, something seemed to change. Myanmar’s locked door popped open a small crack. … It is premature after one brief mission to come to any conclusions about the extent and depth of Myanmar’s current opening. Sustained engagement may be the only way to arrive at a fuller assessment of the prospects for democratization, development and reconciliation. It will, of course, be up to the Security Council to decide on a course of action. Myanmar is hardly alone as a country for which the international community, in trying to influence the course of events, finds itself debating the relative merits of diplomacy versus pressure,or a combination of both. Though some may be tempted to lose patience with the diplomatic track, I believe we have no option but to persist.

Nothing changed. The world moved on and the Burmese people were left to contend with their oppressors on their own.

Unlike previous visits this time Mr. Gambari has been unable to meet with the leaders of the military junta, including Senior General Than Shwe. This may be significant. There are already unconfirmed but credible reports that some generals, including Than Shwe, have sent their families abroad. It may signal a coup within the junta or fear within the junta that the protests may lead to the regime’s collapse. However, in a country where the military controls everything the prospects of freedom for the Burmese people are dim. If freedom comes it is likely to come at the cost of significant Burmese blood.

Burma’s two main backers, India and China, continue to feed its oversized military in order to squeeze a few extra dollars from the already impoverished Burmese people. While China and India continue to back the junta, there is little hope of a bright future for the Burmese people. While the sight of saffron-clad monks has captivated the world’s attention for this week, if the junta’s crackdown is successful the world will forget and move on once again.

Mr. Gambari will likely go home empty handed, save a token visit with Aung San Suu Kyi. The endless UN visits will continue as the junta appeases the foreigners by returning to the status quo. Mr. Bush will cynically thump his chest about military oppression in Burma while he offers full support to the military regime next door. China and India will continue to profit from the subjugation of the Burmese people.

Nonetheless, we who care about the brave Burmese people will not forget their plight. Even as the world moves on.

 [Sign the MoveOn.org petition to add your name to supporters of the brave Burmese people.]

 

Share

What’s Happening in Iowa?
guest post by Chase Martyn
Managing editor of the Iowa Independent

Greetings! My name is Chase Martyn, and if you listened to Taylor’s show on Wednesday,
you already know that I’ve been asked to blog a weekly roundup of presidential
campaign news from the ground in Iowa. I’ll be on Taylor’s show each Wednesday,
and my roundups will go up here each Sunday.

With the fund raising quarter drawing to a close, candidates did not spend
much time in Iowa this week, but surrogates were in town. Two surrogates, Sen.
Barack Obama’s wife Michelle and former Sen. John Edwards’s campaign manager
David Bonior spent time in the state courting voters and playing
up the importance of a victory here for their campaigns.

A review
of where the most presidential candidate appearances have taken place seems
to confirm the notion that Iowa will be a key battleground for both Republicans
and Democrats in 2008. Iowa has had over 1,200 candidate appearances since January,
more than double the number of the next-most-traveled state, New Hampshire.

Despite all of the attention, an overwhelming number of Iowans have not settled
on a candidate to support. Although many are leaning for one candidate or another,
private campaign polls show that up to 80% of caucus goers predict that they
could change their minds about the race between now and January. Polls have
tended to show either a Clinton or an Edwards lead in recent weeks, but generally
no leads are outside the margin for error. And a Newsweek
poll released
today shows a narrow lead for Obama among likely caucus goers, so it isn’t time
to write any of the top three off.

Among the so-called “second tier,” Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens.
Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have all built momentum in Iowa of late. Richardson
has kept himself in double digits in Iowa polls, Biden has racked up an
impressive number of state legislative endorsements, and Dodd has transfered
more resources here, claiming to have nearly 60 staffers on the ground.

The biggest surprise of the week came from Edwards, who announced that he
would accept matching funds from the FEC for his campaign. FEC rules will
prevent him from spending as much money on media in Iowa as he might have otherwise,
although campaign manager David Bonior told me that he expected that the state-by-state
spending caps would not be an issue. Still, Obama and Clinton are likely to
spend significantly more than Edwards here.

On the Republican side, many presidential candidates will be in Des Moines
this evening for a
dinner hosted by the socially conservative Iowa Christian Alliance, known
for carrying significant influence in the Republican caucuses. Former Sen. Fred
Thompson will be making his first appearance in front of the group, but Rudy
Giuliani wasn’t invited. Steve Scheffler, organizer of the event and kingmaker
among Republicans in the state, said “I think a lot of our base would rather
wander in the wilderness for eight to 12 years than to vote for [Giuliani].”

Finally, the celebrities have also started coming to town. “Sexy plumber”
James Denton, star of the ABC series Desperate Housewives, is making
a swing through Iowa for Edwards this weekend, and The Last King of
Scotland‘s Forest Whitaker will campaign
on behalf of Obama next week.

If you’d like to follow the news in Iowa in between these Saturday updates,
head over to Iowa Independent or to
my personal blog for more.

Share

What really scares the wingnuts is that Hillary Clinton is not only prepared, but she’s tough, determined, as well as able to deliver a shot when put on the spot, then pivot and smile with aplomb. What bothers progressives is more complex, though some are so averse to Clinton that reaching these people is impossible no matter what. Then there are those with an open mind who are troubled about a couple of things, especially her recent vote on the Lieberman-Kyl amendment. I’m with former Governor Cuomo on this one. But this week was a tipping point in the primary, so let’s begin to tackle some of the developments.

Iowa is very tight, especially if you look at the new Newsweek poll. (Chase Martyn from Iowa Independent will be posting later this morning on it.) But Obama just isn’t delivering in performances what his fans are in cash. Not voting on the Cornyn amendment or the Lieberman-Kyl legislation didn’t exactly show courage. I disagree strongly with Clinton’s vote, but at least she stood up and was counted. However, as the new Iowa poll suggests, Iowans are looking at him seriously. With
Edwards now accepting public financing, it’s clear his financing machine is in trouble, which if he’d win the nomination would also leave us in a very bad position come the general election. SEIU’s decision not to endorse anyone doesn’t help Edwards either. Of course,
the campaign is spinning the funding aspect like mad, but even Joe Trippi, a main Edwards advisor,
in previous statements lays out the reality.

While leading Howard Dean’s campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2003, Trippi told The Washington Post that this “campaign believes that any Democratic campaign that opted into the matching-funds system has given up on the general election,” Trippi said. “There is absolutely no way you can sustain the hits that are going to come from now until August with a $45 million limit.” … .. Edwards to Accept Public Financing

It didn’t help that neither Obama nor Edwards could articulate an Iraq
war strategy that separated them from Clinton this week. In fact, they joined
her circumspection that getting
out of Iraq will not be quick or easy by the time we hit 2009. Congress has procrastinated itself into a further disaster.

So even though the wingnuts are always ready to attack the Clintons, they’re
gearing up just in case, because she’s looking like she’s unstoppable. Cue up the VRWC. Um, but they’re going to need a lot more money.

Richard Collins, a wealthy Texas businessman and a leading organizer of Stop Her Now, a political committee devoted to opposing Clinton’s White House bid, told The Hill his group will spend $500,000 to $600,000 between now and February targeting her candidacy. “We expect we’ll be much more intense in our efforts between now and Feb. 28,” said Collins. (snip) Republican operative David Bossie, president of Citizens United, is producing a critical film documentary about Clinton that conservative financial backers hope will be as effective as the attacks of another group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, against former Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry (Mass.). … .. $600K aimed at Clinton

However, even with “StopHerNow” (they link to me), Rush, Sean and a whole host of wingnuts, people have seen Clinton in action in forums and debates. She’s delivering, even when put on the spot (see video above), with people surprised by her performances.
A witch hunt will be harder to pull off this time around. What the attacks will do is galvanize women, who will be paying attention in record numbers, including Republican moderates who won’t like this stuff the second time around, any more than people like me, who were writing about it at the time, liked the Clinton smears the first time.

Segue to John Dickerson, who doesn’t want to stop her as much as he wants her to stop laughing. Feministing rightly slaps him around.

How’s a girl to be taken seriously among this bunch?

But given her frontrunner status, Clinton’s troubling vote on the Lieberman-Kyl amendment is all the more worth noting. Lieberman’s hyperbolic Iran war stance is legendary. The vote also harkens back to memories of how we got into the Iraq war in the first place and has made people like me nervous, while others think it’s the next step to war. Considering what’s transpired over the months and years, the reactions are justified. The vote still troubles me, but not just because of Clinton’s vote. It’s because Congress keeps abdicating their war powers authority to neocons who have pre-planned for regime change in Iran. But I am not one of those who believes Clinton is a warmonger; quite the contrary, actually. Clinton’s explanation of her vote on Lieberman-Kyl is important. The money quote for me follows:

“In February, after troubling reports about the possibility of military action against Iran, I took to the Senate Floor to warn that President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran. Specifically, I said it would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further and explicit Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority. “Nothing in this resolution changes that.” Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment

Clinton obviously is convinced that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards is a terrorist organization. The financial tenacles inside Iran and beyond are extensive. Some consider it a mafia type organization. Specifics and proof of the Iranian Guards actions inside Iraq are weak, because U.S. intel is weak on Iran in general. There’s also the reality that Iraq and Iran have had cross-border involvement for years.

Then there’s the obvious. Clinton is increasingly mounting a general election campaign in parallel motion with the primary. It’s obvious team Clinton is looking towards an eye of meeting up with ‘Mr. 9/11′, Rudy Giuliani. She’s not going to get caught in a position of looking weak on Iran.

Wesley Clark’s endorsement, among other things, bolsters my belief that Clinton does not want war with Iran. In addition, Clark has been a leading progressive voice against an Iran war, with his picture on a site declaring “StopIranWar.” I’d be interested to know what Joseph Wilson thinks about her vote, which is exactly what Steve Clemons asked recently. Clemons was on the same call I was when Wilson endorsed Clinton, and Steve asked Wilson then what he thought about Clinton regarding Iran. Wilson said Clinton is of the same mind as he is. Still, the Lieberman-Kyl vote is not what anyone wanted to see from any Democrat. But Clemons doesn’t believe Bush will bomb Iran, so it’s hard to figure how people are predicting that Clinton will. Bush has made everyone paranoid.

Oh, and Patrick Healy is at it again. More to follow, no doubt, because the race has moved into a new phase.

Share

Another Crappy Day updated
guest blog by Cujo359

Taking another step toward the
Kingdom of Idiots, the Senate passed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Wednesday.
This amendment to the defense authorization bill has had much of its incendiary
language removed but still refers to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist
organization:

The Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment — which ratchets up the confrontation with Iran by calling for the designation of its Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization responsible for killing U.S. troops — just passed overwhelmingly, 76-22. … The bill’s backers had tried to mollify its critics by taking out some of its most incendiary language, particularly the idea that “it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies.” Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment Passes By Huge Margin

Officially, this thing is a resolution, which doesn’t have the force of law,
but it gives President Bush more rhetorical backing for his quest to get us
involved in yet
another war, this time with Iran.

Of the Democratic Presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton voted for
this piece of nonsense. Barack Obama missed the vote. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden
voted against it. The guy who’s coming in last among the serious candidates,
and the guy who seems to have nothing to recommend him except his expertise
in foreign policy, are the only ones who are willing to call this nonsense for
what it is.

To say I’m not impressed with this field of candidates is an understatement.
There may be some real leaders in the twenty-two
Senators, including Dodd, who voted against this thing, but the ones who
voted for it or abstained represent more of the same to me. Besides, two of
the dissenters, Lugar and Hagel, are Republicans.

In fact, right now I’m really depressed by the possibilities seemingly presented
in this election. Biden, despite his vote here, represents more of the same
to me, as does Clinton. Obama is a wannabee
crook, with an apparent tendency
for narcissism. Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd can’t seem to get their campaigns
in gear, at least partly due to their own inability to manage a national campaign.
I think anyone who’s predicting that things will be much better six years from
now thanks to our new President had better start getting his rationalizations
in order now.

(h/t to SusanUnPC
at NoQuarter, who covered this in the comments thread of that article; aircraft carrier image via.)

UPDATE: Update addressing Taylor’s question in the comments and “wanna be crook” line found here.

Share

A Rush Swiftboating Oldie updated

Via
Nico.

Now Fox “News” is getting in on the action.

But Rush Limbaugh has been smearing veterans for years. He delights in it. Maybe it’s because he’s secretly ashamed of why he didn’t serve.

El Rushbo called Paul Hackett a “staff puke.” Said Hackett
went to Iraq “to pad [his] resume.” Says he is just “a
liberal hiding behind a military uniform.”

The only soldiers Rush Limbaugh supports are those who are silent, sycophantic
and standing for Republican photo ops. It’s been that way for years.

UPDATE: Presto! False Associated Press Reporting Makes Limbaugh’s Bogus Pushback Sound Perfectly Reasonable! Insert laugh track here.

Share

Where did Bill Richardson Get His Information? updated

Hearing this week that none of the top tier candidates can commit to redeploying all combat forces out of Iraq before 2013 was a jolt. But Bill Richardson has a post up at Huffington Post stating something even more alarming.

Edwards and Obama have said that they will get the combat troops out of Iraq. But they would leave behind tens of thousands of other troops unprotected, in the middle of a civil war, indefinitely. It doesn’t make any sense. Clinton told her own military advisors that she expects to have troops in Iraq at the end of her second term in office, in 2017. … .. 2013? Get Our Troops Out Now

I contacted the Clinton camp. The response was emphatic: “Absolutely
false.”

Did Richardson just make it up? First he tries to pander his
way to winning the primary by saying we can pull all of our troops out of Iraq,
no problem. He then fudges that a bit by also saying we’ll leave light equipment
behind as we redeploy, trying to make sense of the timing in the face of what people like Joe Sestak have said. But now he’s put up a post stating something
that is absolutely false about the frontrunner, at least according to Clinton’s own people who should know.

There is a lot of Hillary hatred out there. However, one would hope that outright
falsehoods wouldn’t come from a presidential candidate hoping to climb his way to
the top.

Where did Governor Richardson get his information? This matters, especially since people are obviously taking him at his word. Reader Matt Hawkins put up a Hot Topics post on it, trusting that it was true. After all, if a man with Governor Richardson’s resume says it that’s good enough, right? The majority of commenters over at Huffington Post don’t even question his bold statement, even though it’s not backed up by anything. There is no quote from anyone in camp Clinton. Not even blind sourcing. No anonymous sourcing either. There
is no substantiation whatsoever. He just throws the line out there
hoping Democratic primary voters will grab hold.

Beware. Sometimes a line is tied to an anchor.

UPDATE: Ring-ring, who is it? Richardson’s internet director. … .. Let’s get this really clear. This week has the potential to hurt all Democratic candidates vying for the ’08 nomination. The inability for our candidates to promise to withdraw by 2013 has shocked everyone. But it’s really simple. If you know the source, cite it, even if it is from June and no one else picked it up. I also respect Ted Koppel, who evidently “ran into an old source” who “occasionally” briefed Clinton before he retired stating what Richardson said in his post. Again, cite the source. But as of this week, according to the transcript of the Russert debate, Clinton got Koppel’s message (however indirectly) and changed the words she uses today. But every regular reader knows I do not support Richardson’s plan, because I think it’s naive in the extreme given the mess Bush has made. I was against this war, but I do think we’ll have troops in Iraq, though I’m not willing to accept that fact through 2013. I’ve been saying, long before the candidates came clean with Russert, these very things. But the 2017 date Richardson excavated for his post today is really reaching into the paranoia grab bag. Is it possible? You bet. Did Clinton say it? They say no. You all will have to decide the rest, but let’s play with all the facts, sources and information, shall we? We’re supposed to be on the same side.

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting. You know, we do not know, walking into the White House in January 2009, what we’re going to find.

UPDATE: It’s really simple, if this is the source, cite it. Clinton’s team denies it. You have to figure it out from there.

Share

h/t GunTotingLiberal

Rush should have stopped while he was ahead. Limbaugh’s "phony soldier"
slur continues to get worse every time the man now opens his mouth about it.
Friday was a lesson in what not to do if you’ve stepped in it. Army
of Dude lays Limbaugh out (h/t memeorandum).

It is also positively absurd for wingnuts to assert that Limbaugh was talking
about one phony soldier or even specific frauds wearing the uniform. When you
start lumping Jack Murtha and John Kerry into the mix it’s even worse, especially
when the "phony soldiers" line was plural to begin with and the one
soldier Rush is hanging his hypocrisy on wasn’t mentioned until several comments
after the disgusting slur. The Kerry commentary Rush carried on his show Friday
harkens back to what Kerry had to go through during 2004, which now even Newt
Gingrich has called “cheap and nasty.” Ya think? Too bad the chickenhawk didn’t speak up when
it mattered, but that’s not the right’s way.

Whether Democrats manage to pass the resolution condemning Rush’s "phony
soldier" slur, one thing is for sure. Mr. Limbaugh has fallen a long way
from where he began. His drug surrender was one thing, but his continuing spiral
downward is now like watching a slow moving train wreck. This continual assault
on the Limbaugh slur is very important. It’s a warning to the wingnuts that
Democrats aren’t going to take these attacks silently any longer. As for Rush, he’ll still have his listeners to keep him warm; people who remain on the other end of a very long line.

Rush is running out of rope.

From the September 28 edition of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: I was not talking, as [MSNBC's] Contessa Brewer said here, about the anti-war movement generally. I was talking about one soldier with that "phony soldier" comment, Jesse MacBeth. They had exactly what I’m going to play for you. This is Michael J. Fox all over again. Media Matters had the transcript, but they selectively choose what they want to make their point. Here is — it runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds — the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy. [...] LIMBAUGH: He just assumed that what he was told was true, that I called anti-war troops "phony soldiers," when everybody involved in this knows full well I was talking about one genuine, convicted, lying, fake soldier who was undermining this mission, who was doing his best to demoralize the troops. I stand up for the troops. The Democrat [sic] Party has been trying to demoralize them. The Democrat Party has been trying to lose the Iraq war, the war on terror. They own defeat. They are invested in it. They have failed to hang defeat around the neck of this president and the presidency they have been trying to destroy. Later on September 28, Limbaugh again changed his story after a caller pointed out the contradiction: LIMBAUGH: Putting it all in context — I’m sorry you missed it. What I can tell you is that what you’re hearing on these shows is, is so incompetently, purposefully taken out of context. It’s something I never said. I was talking — I did say, "phony soldiers," talking about an actual fraud named Jesse MacBeth, who is found – CALLER: But you did say "soldiers" in plural, though, didn’t you? LIMBAUGH: Yes, because there have been a number of these people, but they were not active duty — I was not talking about anti-war, active duty troops. I was talking about people who’ve been exposed as frauds who never served in Iraq but claimed to have seen all these atrocities, [unintelligible]. Claimed to be a Green Beret, he was an Army Ranger, he never was [unintelligible]. Claimed that he had a Purple Heart. He never got one. He was busted out of the Army in 44 days in boot camp. This is the guy I was talking about. Limbaugh falsely recasts "phony soldiers" smear

Share

The Edwards campaign is running straight on in to head winds. Elizabeth Edwards
appearing on “Countdown” last night comes at an important moment,
when the SEIU has decided not to endorse, while the campaign has also decided
to accept public funding. I’ll talk more about the race tomorrow.

Sunday night ends the third quarter fundraising cycle, so this appearance of Mrs. Edwards was well timed. Whether you are for John Edwards or not, you cannot deny Elizabeth
Edwards is a formidable presence and such an asset to her husband’s campaign. She always gives a great
interview, which she certainly did again last night on “Countdown.” She talks about the recent ad she did, as well as the public financing, explaining it and the consistency with John Edwards’s political philosophy. Mrs. Edwards makes the best case she can, even with the campaign challenges circling and mounting.

Share

The song is "Living in the Future." This is part of what Springsteen said yesterday morning on "The Today Show" before he let loose.

Before singing “Living in the Future” Springsteen said the song was about “The things we love about America – cheeseburgers, French fries, the Yankees battling Boston … the Bill of Rights, trans fat and the Jersey Shore.”

Then he let loose. The singing came afterwards.

“But over the last six years we’ve had to add to the American picture rendition, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, no habeas corpus, the neglect of our great city New Orleans and the people, and an attack on the Constitution, and the loss of our best young men and women in a tragic war. This is a song about things that shouldn’t happen here happening here." And so right now we plan to do something about it, we plan to sing about it. I know it’s early but it’s late so come and join us.” – Bruce Springsteen

Bush’s SCHIP veto to be added to the outrage.

Share

The master at work. I don’t care what anyone says, this man can represent me anytime.

Seriously. Watch him.

Now that wasn’t so hard was it? For Senate Democrats it evidently is. The best they can do is write a letter, though that’s a step in the right direction to be sure.

Oh, and Bill Clinton will be on “Meet the Press” this Sunday.

But right now former President Clinton directs his attention at Barack Obama.

“I was, in terms of experience, was closer to Senator Obama, I suppose, in 1988 when I came within a day of announcing,” Mr. Clinton said in a interview on “Political Capital with Al Hunt” that was scheduled to be broadcast tonight on Bloomberg television and again this weekend. Mr. Clinton did not run that year, he added, because “I really didn’t think I knew enough, and had served enough and done enough to run.” The former president quickly noted that he did not mean Mr. Obama should not be pursuing the nomination. But he said that compared to Mr. Obama, who went from the Illinois Legislature to the United States Senate in 2005, Mr. Clinton had far more experience when he finally did run in 1992, as governor of Arkansas for nearly 12 years and as a leader of national policy initiatives. Mr. Clinton did not run that year, he added, because “I really didn’t think I knew enough, and had served enough and done enough to run.” The former president quickly noted that he did not mean Mr. Obama should not be pursuing the nomination. But he said that compared to Mr. Obama, who went from the Illinois Legislature to the United States Senate in 2005, Mr. Clinton had far more experience when he finally did run in 1992, as governor of Arkansas for nearly 12 years and as a leader of national policy initiatives. The former president quickly noted that he did not mean Mr. Obama should not be pursuing the nomination. But he said that compared to Mr. Obama, who went from the Illinois Legislature to the United States Senate in 2005, Mr. Clinton had far more experience when he finally did run in 1992, as governor of Arkansas for nearly 12 years and as a leader of national policy initiatives. … ..

Share

I received an email a bit before 3:00 p.m. announcing that Mark Udall will
be introducing legislation to condemn Rush Limbaugh, and honoring our soldiers
who deserve better than the right-wing wants to give.

As Greg
Sargent notes, it is significant, but Udall needs co-sponsors and a lot
of Democratic support to get it done. However, it is still a strong step and
something that will cut to the quick of Mr. Limbaugh’s gigantic ego.

Hey reader Jo-Ann. Start popping the popcorn.

110TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. Honoring all Americans serving in the Armed Forces of the United States and condemning the attack by broadcaster Rush Limbaugh on the integrity and professionalism of some of those Americans. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Honoring all Americans serving in the Armed Forces of the United States and condemning the attack by broadcaster Rush Limbaugh on the integrity and professionalism of some of those Americans. Whereas on September 26, 2007, the broadcaster Rush Limbaugh told a nationwide radio audience that members of the Armed Forces who have expressed disagreement with current policies of the United States regarding military activities in Iraq are ”phony soldiers”; and Whereas such a description constitutes an unwarranted slur on the integrity and professionalism of members of the Armed Forces who exercise their constitutional right to express their opinions regarding public policy in a manner consistent with good order and discipline: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), SECTION 1. Congress makes the following findings: (1) Americans serving in the United States Armed Forces have volunteered for such service and have not been drafted for that purpose. (2) Those who serve in the Armed Forces deserve the respect of all Americans for their willingness to undertake that service. (3) Those who serve in the Armed Forces do not relinquish their constitutional right to express their opinions regarding public policy in a manner consistent with good order and discipline. (4) The dedication and honor of Americans serving in the Armed Forces should not be impugned because of their exercise of such right. SEC. 2. Congress – (1) recognizes the service of all members of the Armed Forces serving in good standing and with honor to defend the United States, and the personal sacrifices made by them and their families; (2) commits to judge the merits of the opinions of members of the Armed Forces regarding the policies of the United States, including those related to military actions in Iraq, without prejudice or personal bias, including refraining from unwarranted personal attacks; (3) condemns in the strongest possible terms the personal attacks made by the broadcaster Rush Limbaugh impugning the integrity and professionalism of Americans serving in the Armed Forces who have expressed opinions regarding military actions in Iraq; (4) honors all members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel serving in harm’s way, as well as their families; and (5) pledges to debate any supplemental funding request or any policy decisions regarding the war in Iraq with the solemn respect and the commitment to integrity that the sacrifices of these members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel deserve.

In the end this is about a show of force. An illustration that we’re not going
to take this swiftboating nonsense from chickenhawk Republicans. It’s a wake
up call for the 2008 elections. I’ll have more on that in a little while, because
the wingnut hate crew are revving up the machine. Game is on.

Share

John McCain Demands Rush Retract ‘Phony Soldier’ updated

The first Republican candidate for president has come out strong against Rush’s slur.

Via
Time (h/t Greg
Sargent):

Any American who risks his or her life to defend us has earned the respect and gratitude of every American citizen, irrespective of their views on this war. If Mr. Limbaugh made the remark he is reported to have made, it reflects very poorly on him and not the objects of his offensive comment. I expect most Americans, whatever their political views, will have the same reaction. He would be well advised to retract it and apologize.

If McCain had stood up to Bush’s swiftboating in South Carolina in 2000 the world might look a lot different today.

As a friend said in an email, Where’s Rudy’s anti-Rush NYT ad?

UPDATE: Slick Mitt had his people do it for him. We don’t call him Slick Mitt for nothin’.

“Governor Romney would disagree with the negative characterization of those men and women who serve with honor and distinction in the United States Military. There may be disagreements with individual opinions, but no one would ever dispute the fact that those members of the military who disagree with the war have earned the right to express that opinion.” – Romney’s spokesman

Share

Rush v. MoveOn.org updated & bumped

Where are
the Republicans? Do they approve of Rush’s
“phony soldier” swiftboating? Will the hack pack media pick this up and run with it like they did the MoveOn.org ad?

Will the Democrats go after Rush? Considering that David Obey and the Democrats
have caved on
right-wing radio many times before, even encouraging them, I’m not holding
my breath. Democrats still don’t get what right-wing radio does to our candidates.
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, they will be merciless, using innuendo and
little fact to smear her.

Do Democrats in Congress approve of what Rush Limbaugh said? Do they think military men and
women speaking out against the Iraq war and what ridiculous odds our troops
face are “phony soldiers”? What are they going to do about it? How about a little indignation theater?

John McCain said Moveon.Org should be “thrown
out of the country.” Should Rush? He called the MoveOn.org ad “McCarthyite.”
Rush using “phony soldiers” is swiftboating at the highest level of
media power. What will McCain say about that?

UPDATE: Any American who risks his or her life to defend us has earned the respect and gratitude of every American citizen, irrespective of their views on this war. If Mr. Limbaugh made the remark he is reported to have made, it reflects very poorly on him and not the objects of his offensive comment. I expect most Americans, whatever their political views, will have the same reaction. He would be well advised to retract it and apologize. – John McCain

Fred Thompson railed against
MoveOn.org. He wanted our ’08 candidates to be asked every day on the campaign
trail about the ad. Well, someone needs to ask Fred Thompson if he agrees with
Rush’s “phony soldier” slur.

Slick
Mitt weighed in as well: Romney called the ad “outrageous,”
adding, “Like the men he commands, he is risking his life to protect our
freedoms here at home. We should not prejudge him or his testimony, or give
him anything less than the full respect he deserves.”

What about Rudy Giuliani? Does he agree with Rush? Does ‘Mr. 9/11′, who has
smeared the troops
(and got away with it) before in favor of propping up the president, agree with
the “phony soldier” swiftboating? Rudy went
at Hillary Clinton directly.

“I know that MoveOn.org contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to Democratic campaigns. But it’s the way in which they contribute it, that’s really the offensive part. They contribute it, by and large, doing character assassination on Republican politicians and they get away with it,” Giuliani said. “But they should not be allowed to get away with it when they try to do character assassination on an American general who is putting his life at risk to protect America.”

Where are the Republicans? Will they disavow Rush’s comment?

Will the Democrats put together a resolution condemning him in the Senate and
House? You know the answer to that one. It’s the reason we’re losing the marketing
war against the war. We shrug, they slug.

UPDATE: Today on his show Rush Limbaugh said he was only talking about “one soldier.” That is a lie. He talked in the plural of “phony soldiers.” Again and again, Rush Limbaugh attacks — wait for it — Democratic soldiers. There wasn’t one single Republican mentioned in his “phony soldiers” slur. Not even the transcript follows his faulty logic. He doesn’t even mention the one soldier until well after his “phony soldiers” line. He knows he’s been caught attacking soldiers who are against the Iraq war. I’ve been listening to Rush since the beginning. The man is freaked. He’s going back to John Kerry, swiftboating him again with lies. Desperation from Limbaughcam alert.

UPDATE: Bill Kristol & Co. defend Rush Limbaugh today.

Share

David Shuster Targeted by Wingnuts updated

LESSON: Don’t piss off the wingnuts!

They can’t handle Keith, so they want to make sure they stop David Shuster
in his tracks. Jane’s
right, Dan Abrams caving to their concerns is not only wrong for journalism,
but wrong on the facts. It’s also not the first time a Republican couldn’t name
a soldier while standing behind them, using them, while giving aid and comfort to swiftboaters.

Remember Ari
Fleischer drawing a blank recently? He couldn’t
remember the soldier he was using in his Freedom Watch ad. So when Republican
congresswoman Marsha Blackburn drew a blank should anyone have been shocked?
After Ari’s ignorance, why didn’t Blackburn care enough to know any soldier
killed in her district or state?

Newsbusters
started the attack on Shuster. They got Fox
“News” to jump in too. Of course Rush
had to chime in as well.

I didn’t hear one person screaming about the Clinton “gotcha” from
Tim Russert. Complete silence on that one. Maybe because Hillary Clinton knocked
it out of the park.

So why is supposed “gotcha” a big deal with Shuster, especially since he’s right?

Because having another objective voice on MSNBC, beyond Keith Olbermann, is
a line the wingnuts have decided to draw. Or if you think Shuster is Democratic, so what? The rest of the network is conservative. Wingnuts would much rather have Tucker on,
because no one watches him and it wastes primetime cable space.

After Shuster caught Blackburn, the furor erupted over the fact that the soldier Shuster mentioned supposedly didn’t
live in Blackburn’s district. It’s being alleged that Dan Abrams wrote the apology and directed Shuster (link added) say it. But Abrams was not only too quick to react, but wrong on the facts.
Via
Instaputz:

But Shuster’s apology may have been premature. The tiny hamlet of Bon Aqua, Tenn., is where Bohannon lived in the months immediately prior to entering the Army. The Census Bureau places his home in Blackburn’s 7th Congressional District. He lived in Bon Aqua for “close to a year” immediately prior to entering the Army, said Tonya Taylor, 35, who permitted him to stay at her house while Bohannon was dating her daughter. Bohannon grew up, was home-schooled and was buried in McEwan, which is clearly in the 8th Congressional District of U.S. Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. But his last legal address was in Blackburn’s district. Blackburn’s tiff

The point is that David Shuster caught Blackburn, just like Mike Barnicle caught
Ari Fleischer. Both MSNBC hosts were right on the facts.

UPDATE: Are we missing the point here? Conservatives are arguing that Shuster pulled a fast one on Blackburn and would not do the same to a Democrat. No one knows the answer to that hypothetical. But what we do know is this: Whether or not Bohannon is or isn’t from Blackburn’s district, the fact remains that Blackburn failed to recall the name of the last person to die in Iraq from her district. Big Bad Liberal Media conspiracies aside, Blackburn failed that basic test. Shuster: Exonerated?

The ugly truth of the matter is that a Republican congresswoman couldn’t name the
last soldier who died in her home district, and a former spokesman for Mr. Bush couldn’t name the maimed soldier being used in a television commercial created to sell the war. This isn’t “gotcha”
journalism. It’s proof of the marketing plan of Republicans who will use soldiers,
without knowing who any of them are.

Dan Abrams should stand by his people, especially when they’re right.

CONTACT DAN ABRAMS