Happy Hour Roundup
Rudy Accuses Hillary And Obama Of Being "Anti-Troops"
In an interview with ABC News radio, Rudy Giuliani said that Hillary and Obama's votes against the no-withdrawal-timetables Iraq funding bill showed that they had "moved from being not just anti-war, but to being anti-troops." No response yet from either Dem.
Intelligence Committee: Administration Ignored Warnings That Iraq Would Turn Out Badly
By a 10-5 vote — Eight Democrats plus Republicans Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel — the Senate Intelligence Committee has issued a report accusing the Bush Administration of ignoring warnings from the nation's spy agencies in 2003 that Iraq could degenerate in the wake of a U.S. invasion, creating a situation ultimate benefitting Al-Qaeda and Iran. In his dissent, the committee's head Republican Kit Bond said the committee "has become too embroiled in politics and partisanship to produce an accurate and meaningful report."
Several White House Candidates Didn't Read The NIE
Ben Smith reports that numerous Presidential candidates are now admitting they did not read the National Intelligence Estimate before voting on the Iraq War, but simply received briefings about it from the White House. The ones who have admitted to not personally readiing it: Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Chris Dodd — and they're the ones who have admitted to it so far. By contrast, Senators who did read the classified document included Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Dick Durbin (D-IL).
Poll: In Kentucky, Fletcher Facing Landslide Defeat
In the first poll released since Tuesday's Kentucky primary, SurveyUSA has incumbent Governor Ernie Fletcher (R) losing in a landslide to the Democratic nominee, former Lt. Governor Steve Beshear, by a margin of 62%-34%. Interestingly, the poll shows that half of those who voted for Fletcher's two challengers in the Republican primary now intend to vote for Beshear.
Brownback: Religion Belongs In Public Life — But Not Theocracy
Sam Brownback told a group of Christian conservatives in Iowa that religious faith has an important role to play in politics: "I believe we should celebrate faith, not run it out of the public square." Brownback also stressed, however, that he is not advocating theocracy, the direct control of government policy by religious leaders. "I think it would be bad for religion," Brownback said. "I also think it would be bad for government."
Romney Loses Marsha Blackburn To Thompson
Mitt Romney has lost the endorsement of Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), a strong conservative who served as a national co-chair for the Romney campaign and now intends to join up with the expected campaign of fellow Tennessean Fred Thompson.
Edwards Proposes "Total Force GI Bill"
Presidential hopeful John Edwards proposed a number of policies to aid service members, including expanded health and other benefits and a "Military Families Advisory Board" at the Department of Defense. — T. W. Farnam
Key New Hampshire Legislator To Hold House Party With Biden
Joe Biden will be holding a house party in New Hampshire next Friday at the home of New Hampshire state Senator Lou D'Allesandro. A leading Democrat in the state legislature, supported John Edwards in the 2004 cycle. Is he playing the field this time?
Poll: Chambliss Potentially Vulnerable
A new survey from independent pollster Insider Advantage shows Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) potentially vulnerable to a challenge by former Governor Roy Barnes (D), edging Barnes by a mere 42%-40%. Barnes has not shown any interest in the race, was used as a baseline measurement for a well-known Democratic name. Barnes was defeated for re-election in 2002, the same year that Chambliss was elected to the Senate over one-term Democrat Max Cleland. The poll showed Chambliss beating current candidate Vernon Jones, the CEO of DeKalb County, by a wider 48%-31% margin.
Anti-War GOP'er Gilchrest Faces Primary Challenge
Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), who has voted with the Democrats on war funding during this Congress, now has an opponent in the Republican primary. State Sen. Andy Harris, a Johns Hopkins obstetric anesthesiologist and a commander in the Naval Reserve, has formed an exploratory committee to challenge Gilchrest from the right, saying that "People across the country desire to return to the Reagan values that brought the Republican Party to power — fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, traditional values and an optimistic view of this country and its role as a world leader.
Paccione To Run Again In Musgrave's District
Right-wing Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) may be in for a rematch with her 2006 opponent, former state Rep. Angie Paccione. Paccione has announced that she will seek the Democratic nomination for a rematch, and has a new campaign Web site up. Currently there are two other Democrats seeking the nomination: State Sen. Brandon Shaffer, and ex-Republican Eric Eidsness, who served in the Reagan Administration and took 11% of the vote last year as the Reform Party candidate.
Fred Thompson Wows Connecticut Crowd With Jokes
Fred Thompson had a good reception at dinner for the Connecticut Republican Party last night, impressing the crowd with humor. On his 2002 retirement from the Senate, Thompson said, "After eight years in Washington, I longed for the sincerity of Hollywood." And when he told the audience that he had an important announcement to make, "Law & Order will return for an 18th season," a woman shouted back to him: "We need you for a different job!"
Video: Bird Defecates On Bush
Here it is — A YouTube of President Bush being struck by bird dung while taking a question about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:















So Rudy thinks backing the President's plan is supporting the troops? 15 month deployments for multiple tours of duty in a combat zone is supporting the troops?
A lack of body armor and humvee armor is supporting the troops? Failing returning wounded troops is supporting them? Screwing disabled troops out of their disability pensions is supporting the troops?
Denying PTSD evaluations and sending these same troops back to the war is supporting the troops?
Sending troops into harm's way when weapons inspectors would have worked is supporting the troops?
These are some double talking sons of bitches, no offense to the dogs. They used lie after lie to start a war of preemption (but not) for God's sake.
Using this philosophy any mother of a troop could kill Bush out of the sure knowledge that he will try to kill her kid in an illegal war. I would not advocate this action, but if I were on a jury.....
May 25, 2007 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary and Obama had it coming. They've been talking in terms of "supporting the troops" and "funding the troops" this whole time. Is it any wonder they've made themselves into targets? They could have been providing some leadership. They could have been shooting McCain and McConnell and the rest of those morons down every time they tried to make this about the troops. They should have been pointing out that the funding was for BUSH and his stupid war--not for the troops. Instead, they stupidly and carelessly played along with the Republican talking points. They seem like such smart people--why are they so ignorant when it comes to the power of words?
May I suggest the Democrats never utter the phrases "fund the troops" or "support the troops" again? Instead, I'd like to suggest replacing them with the phrase "pay for the president's war". It's much more accurate.
May 25, 2007 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bird turd on Bush, priceless.
May 25, 2007 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
We know he's full of shit, but it's unusual to see him wearing it.
May 25, 2007 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brownback: ya 'think'? OMG, how about 'I know'.
May 25, 2007 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
[uproarious applause]
May 25, 2007 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Guiliani and McCain really think that the American people want yet another four years of Bush's failed policies, that have demonstrably increased the number of terrorists thereby making us less safe, I say: Bring it on.
What's really anti-troop, is to moronically place them in the middle of a civil war without a strategy to extricate them.
May 25, 2007 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No they didn't. The logic of your position gives the Repos license to distort the facts for purely partisan gain.
I think it's obvious that Hillary and Obama would be targets no matter what they said.
I suggest that Democrats and Progressives should not form a circular firing squad because Guiliani and McCain lack intellectual integrity and are partisan hacks.
May 25, 2007 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently Rudy thinks we're fighting this war for the benefit of the troops themselves.
Further, he had never heard any suggestion that 9-11 was a response to US policies in the Middle East until Ron Paul enlightened him on national television.
And this guy is their front-runner.
May 25, 2007 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the life of me I can't understand why Bush doesn't get impeached. He and his administration lied us into war and everyone knows it. Many would never say it because it would destroy the republican party.
At this stage everything is really about the survival of the republican party. They have to continue the perpetration of the lie no matter what.
The entire conservative movement rests upon the Bush lie. The exposure of the lie would undermine every facet of the conservative movement. Issues connected with labor, race and gay rights would change dramatically if conservatives were charged with the losses in Iraq and everything else they have pursued that has harmed this nation.
This is why we see so much outrageous fabrication all the time. They have no choice but to heap one lie upon another. The problem is they've gotten quite good at it. So good, that people believe them. And being lackeys of corporate America they control very important pieces of the puzzle that is America.
May 25, 2007 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is this Edwards' article? Didn't see it in hyperlink provided.
Edwards Proposes "Total Force GI Bill"
Presidential hopeful John Edwards proposed a number of policies to aid service members, including expanded health and other benefits and a "Military Families Advisory Board" at the Department of Defense. — T. W. Farnam
May 25, 2007 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes they did. and they continue to.
all you have to do is google "hillary clinton" + "support our troops" to see that she uses the phrase all the time. and even uses the phrase to defend her vote against the funding bill.
seems to me that dems think they can win the fight over the phrase as if it isn't already loaded. by not rejecting the phrase they seem to think they can win public opinion/perception on vapid 'who supports our troops?' polling questions.
they might be right. if bush/cheney can trick people into believing iraq was responsible for 9/11 and do so merely through repetition and insinuation, why couldn't the inverse be true? repeat 'i support our troops' over and over, implying that your republican opponents by their words and actions do not 'support our troops' (the same way the republicans do all the time), all things being equal the phrase can become a meaningless wash. but if public opinion is on your side with the votes and positions you associate with the phrase (even and especially voting against funding without timelines) the phrase can become a positive for you and a negative for your opponent.
the problem is the dem candidates won't make the 'support our troops' meme go away (no matter how empty and meaningless the phrase has become) by simply ignoring it. certainly you have to create your own memes and cutting sound bites, but if the media and the public don't imagine 'support our troops' to be anything but a legitimate and straight-forward phrase, the trick isn't dumping the phrase but doing battle over what the american people believe constitutes 'supporting our troops'. and since the majority of americans want to see timelines for ending the american occupation in iraq, it is the republicans who will have a hard time convincing those people that by agreeing with the dems, they don't 'support our troops'.
May 26, 2007 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Happy Memorial Day to the Families of the Fallen:
Saturday, May 26, 2007
1,106 IED deaths on Bush's head
by John Aravosis (DC) · 5/26/2007 09:25:00 AM ET
http://www.americablog.com/
1,106 US troops died since the time the Marines begged George Bush for IED-proof vehicles, vehicles that actually exist, and Bush ignored them because he didn't want to spend the money (or because he wanted to use the IEDs as an excuse for war with Iran?).
Check out the chart of growing IED deaths, and check out how many occurred AFTER the troops begged Bush for the vehicles in February 2005 (shown in yellow shading on map). The total number by months in yellow is 1,106.
Happy Memorial Day- Bush was too cheap to save your kid.
Map at: icasualties.org
CBS Exposes Bush Admin’s ‘Outrageous Delay’ In Providing Marines With Bomb-Resistant Vehicle
While President Bush has been busy politically demagoging funding for the troops, CBS Evening News highlighted a disturbing report tonight that the administration waited over a year before acting on a “priority 1 urgent” request to send blast-resistant vehicles to Iraq, the so-called Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles.
Calling it “an outrageous delay,” CBS noted, “The Marines in the field asked for 1,200 MRAPs in February 2005 — but so far, they’ve received less than 100.” The report also noted that the problem is widespread and systemic:
A Marine Corps document obtained by the Associated Press says that of 100 requests for critical gear sent in last year, less than 10 have been filled. It blames red tape and the failure of bureaucrats to take risks.
“Unnecessary delays cause … deaths and injuries,” the document says — and nowhere is it more true than with MRAP.
For American troops in Iraq, the heavy-duty armored vehicle has proven to be a life-saver. As a testament to MRAP’s effectiveness, top Marine commander Gen. James Conway said recently, “We have yet to have a Marine killed in the al Anbar Province who is riding inside an MRAP.” He added, “How do you not see it as a moral imperative to get as many of those vehicles to theater as rapidly as you can?”
As AmericaBlog noted, the Marine Corps lied about why it had failed to fulfill the urgent request for the priority equipment, claiming it was not “a budgetary decision” when internal documents prove that it was.
In an open letter to President Bush, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) urged the administration to publicly make MRAP production a national priority. He wrote, “How is it possible that with our nation at war, with more than 130,000 Americans in danger, with roadside bombs destroying a growing number of lives and limbs, we were so slow to act to protect our troops? … We need to know how and why this happened so that it does not happen again.”
At least 1,419 U.S. soldiers have been killed by roadside bombs in Iraq.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/25/cbs-on-mrap/
May 26, 2007 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best way to support our troops is to vote against funding bills that don't contain a timetable for withdrawal, or at least redeployment.
That's what Hillary and Obama did, and they should get credit for it.
May 26, 2007 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink