Bush Plays Dodge Ball -- make that Shoes -- with Iraqi Journalist

Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi from Al-Baghdadia television network shouted, "This is a farwell kiss, you dog" -- at least according to the MSNBC reporter in the clip (AP is saying the journalist shouted, "This is the end") -- and then threw a pair of shoes at President Bush. Hey, al-Zaidi was just doing what a lot of us have wanted to do for the past 8 years!

In Iraqi culture, throwing shoes at someone is a sign of contempt. Iraqis whacked a statue of Saddam with their shoes after U.S. marines toppled it to the ground following the 2003 invasion.

What I love most about this clip is how they keep showing the incident over, and over, and over ... ha!


h/t to Petulant at Shakesville

.

Never Forget

Graphic by Tengrain at Mock, Paper, Scissors

NBC owes Ashleigh Banfield an apology - and back pay!

And Phil Donahue, too!

Ashleigh Banfield, the reporter who made wearing glasses fashionable, was basically dumped by MSNBC for daring to make a public speech critical of the way reporters were covering the war. Given all the current hype over Scott McClellan's new book, I think NBC owes Banfield and Donahue an apology -- and back pay!

In 2003, Banfield was asked to speak at Kansas State University, as a participant in the school's Landon Lecture series. Her speech touched on many issues, with probably the most controversial being the "sanitized" coverage of the war.

You didn't see where those bullets landed. You didn't see what happened when the mortar landed. A puff of smoke is not what a mortar looks like when it explodes, believe me. There are horrors that were completely left out of this war. So was this journalism or was this coverage? There is a grand difference between journalism and coverage, and getting access does not mean you're getting the story... . [...]

As a journalist I'm often ostracized just for ... going on television and saying, "Here's what the leaders of Hezbullah are telling me and here's what the Lebanese are telling me and here's what the Syrians have said about Hezbullah. Here's what they have to say about the Golan Heights." Like it or lump it, don't shoot the messenger, but invariably the messenger gets shot.

We hired somebody on MSNBC recently named Michael Savage. Some of you may know his name already from his radio program. He was so taken aback by my dare to speak with Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade about why they do what they do, why they're prepared to sacrifice themselves for what they call a freedom fight and we call terrorism. He was so taken aback that he chose to label me as a slut on the air. [...]

How can you discuss, how can you solve anything when attacks from a mere radio flak is what America hears on a regular basis, let alone at the government level? I mean, if this kind of attitude is prevailing, forget discussion, forget diplomacy, diplomacy is becoming a bad word.

Banfield goes on to talk about the "FOX news effect" and how by having an "agenda" in their coverage they were able to take viewers away from CNN and MSNBC. Marketing replaced reporting. A memo that I'm sure was meant to be confidential leaked about why Donahue was fired. MSNBC didn't want an "anti-war" voice while FOX was waving the flag every night, calling anyone who opposed the war unpatriotic.

I'm hoping that I will have a future in news in cable, but not the way some cable news operators wrap themselves in the American flag and patriotism and go after a certain target demographic, which is very lucrative. You can already see the effects, you can already see the big hires on other networks, right wing hires to chase after this effect, and you can already see that flag waving in the corners of those cable news stations where they have exciting American music to go along with their war coverage.

As responsible citizens I think we must question the actions of our government, and our media. The Fourth Estate has great power, and with that power should go a responsibility to serve the best interests of the people. It can do that by presenting all sides of an issue, and then letting the people decide.

When a news outlet bangs the war drum, we need to call them on it. And when it jumps on the bandwagon for a particular candidate, we need to call them on that as well.


See:
MSNBC's Banfield Slams War Coverage
Ashleigh Banfield: "Don't Shoot The Messenger"
Commentary: The Surrender Of MSNBC
Battling For The Soul Of Donahue

WAR: good for profiteers, bad for everyone else

Greedy war profiteers are poised to further line their pockets as they launch a new campaign to push the United States into war with Iran. A new advocacy group, Freedom's Watch, will sponsor a private forum of "20 experts on radical Islam" that is expected to make the case that Iran poses a direct threat to the security of the United States. The alleged "experts" have close ties to the White House.

Freedom’s Watch, a deep-pocketed conservative group led by two former senior White House officials, made an audacious debut in late August when it began a $15 million advertising campaign designed to maintain Congressional support for President Bush’s troop increase in Iraq.

Founded this summer by a dozen wealthy conservatives, the nonprofit group is set apart from most advocacy groups by the immense wealth of its core group of benefactors, its intention to far outspend its rivals and its ambition to pursue a wide-ranging agenda. Its next target: Iran policy.

The organization formed in response to MoveOn.org. Since the group is organized as a tax-exempt organization, it doesn't have to reveal its donors -- but clearly a few dozen conservative CEO's with very deep pockets think their point of view should trump the point of view of more than 3.3 million MoveOn.com members

For years, the group’s founders lamented MoveOn’s growing influence, derived in large part from its grass-roots efforts, especially on the debate about the Iraq war. “A bunch of us activists kept watching MoveOn and its attacks on the war, and it just got to be obnoxious,” said Mr. Sembler, a friend of Vice President Dick Cheney.

So a war started on the basis of a lie isn't "obnoxious" -- but bringing it to the public's attention is! I guess if you are going to make money on the backs of our fighting men and women, it would make sense to try and extend the war for as long as possible.

[The group] denies coordinating its activities with the White House, although many of its donors and organizers are well connected to the administration, including Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary.

Bradley Blakeman, the president of Freedom’s Watch, is a former deputy assistant to Mr. Bush.

Mr. Blakeman denied the accusation that Freedom’s Watch is a White House front group. “I don’t need their help,” he said of his former colleagues at the White House. “I don’t seek their help. And they don’t offer it.” Mr. Blakeman is a long-time friend of Ed Gillespie, the new counselor to Mr. Bush who succeeded Dan Bartlett. Mr. Blakeman said that he spoke frequently with Mr. Gillespie, but that they were careful not to discuss the activities of Freedom’s Watch.

And neo-con Republicans have the nerve to call Democrates "elite." They invented the term!

So there you have it. A small number of billionaires are planning to buy enough television and advertising time to try and "sell" the American public on going to war with Iran. And why? Not because there is any imminent threat from Iran, but because it's good for business to keep this country at war.

The president said this week he will veto the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), because Congress raised the total amount from about $5 billion to $12 billion annually for the next five years. It's okay to bloat the pentagon budget, but funding for health care for children is excessive.

And while we are on the topic of money, Bush did sign a bill to prevent a government shutdown, but not without taking a jab at Congressional Democrats.

"Congress failed in its most basic responsibility," the president said in his weekly radio address.

The bills are tied up because Democrats want to add $23 billion for domestic programs to Bush's $933 billion request for the approximately one-third of the federal budget funded by the yearly spending bills. Bush has threatened vetoes on most of the bills, eager to re-establish his party's reputation as the place to go for fiscal discipline.

The president said Democrats are planning the "biggest tax increase in American history" to pay for the new spending.

"Earlier this year congressional leaders promised to show that they could be responsible with the people's money," he said. "Unfortunately they seem to have chosen the path of higher spending."

Democrats say their spending add-ons are relatively modest given the overall size of the budget and in comparison with Bush's pending $189 billion request for Pentagon operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008. And most of the additional money, Democrats say, simply restores cuts proposed by Bush to popular programs such as community development grants, health research and anti-crime initiatives.

So here it is folks ... Congress is out of control ... and only the President can reign in their irresponsible spending habits. AND, he will have assistance selling his new profit-making venture -- war with Iran -- with the help of a few billionaires.

Good grief!

Memo to Democrats

What a week it has been, watching our Democracy continue to crumble. I will let these fine voices elaborate on my frustration.

Taylor Marsh offers these comments:

Before a single Democrat condemns MoveOn's ad, they should insist that George W. Bush and the Republican Party repudiate the anti-military smears on war heroes that have been the hallmark of Mr. Bush's political career. ... - Paul Begala

A little good old political theater is what was in order today. Senate majority leader Harry Reid should have gathered Democrats together and when the Cornyn amendment came up they all should have walked out. Then on the Capitol steps Reid should have given a short speech on Republicans voting against the Webb amendment, which actually aided the troops, and that while soldiers are dying in battle he would not allow the Senate to be used for a political show. Not on his watch. End tape. [...]

One congressman from California showed more spine than Edwards and Obama
combined.

"I commend MoveOn for their ad and for speaking truth to power," said Stark. "Up is not down, the earth is not flat, and the surge is not working. General Petraeus betrayed his own reputation by standing with George Bush in opposition to the timely withdrawal of all of our brave men and women from Iraq. I thank MoveOn for their patriotic ad and call on Petraeus to help Bush end a war the President should have never started." - Pete Stark

Jane Hamsher at firedoglake adds this:

The only one who got this right was Hillary Clinton. She’s been on the receiving end of mock right wing outrage before, she knows how it works and she didn’t get played by the typical GOP charade that even THEY aren’t sincere about. Every word coming out of their mouths on the floor of the Senate this morning was pure santcimonious hypocrisy, dancing on the head of a pin as they tried to distinguish between this and the outrageous things it was perfectly okay to say about Abizaid or Kerry or Max Clelland. But thanks to the willingness of human Gumby dolls like Bill Richardson, Barack Obama and John Edwards who thought it best to bow down before the right wing when it gets its bluster on, the PR blitz nobody would have otherwise cared about kept gaining momentum until it reached this shocking abrogation of free speech with the help of 25 Democrats.

I should actually qualify that — it wasn’t Edwards who bagged MoveOn, he had his wife do it. I suppose that’s better somehow. Maybe not as good as Barack “I never met a fight I couldn’t duck” Obama who was there to vote on the Boxer Amendment, but couldn’t be bothered to stick around and vote against Cornyn. But close.

More from Marsh:

Hillary Clinton gets it. Even in the middle of a brutal attack launched by Rudy Giuliani, which will only get worse because of her vote today, Clinton stood up, stood proudly and cast a vote against the Cornyn charade. No doubt she remembers well when Democrats wanted to flee from Bill Clinton during the Lewinski witch hunt. No one sanctioned what her husband did, least of all her. But Hillary knew what was at stake and what Republicans were really after, so she didn't flinch, gathered herself and the Democratic party and fought back against the right-wing who was after only one thing, same as they were today.

Power.

Never give in. Never give up. And above all else know who is the real enemy. Clinton knows -- as sure as she saved Bill Clinton's presidency -- that the enemy of Democrats is not MoveOn.org. Today Clinton proved why she's the frontrunner. She left the boys in the dust.

THE COURAGEOUS 25 WHO VOTED NAY

Akaka (D-HI)

Bingaman (D-NM)

Boxer (D-CA)

Brown (D-OH)

Byrd (D-WV)

Clinton (D-NY)

Dodd (D-CT)

Durbin (D-IL)

Feingold (D-WI)

Harkin (D-IA)

Inouye (D-HI)

Kennedy (D-MA)

Kerry (D-MA)

Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Levin (D-MI)

Menendez (D-NJ)

Murray (D-WA)

Reed (D-RI)

Reid (D-NV)

Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sanders (I-VT)

Schumer (D-NY)

Stabenow (D-MI)

Whitehouse (D-RI)

Wyden (D-OR)

And finally, from The Nation: Democrats Stab MoveOn in the Back

"Memo to Democrats: you control the Congress. That means you can decide what bills come to the floor for votes--and what don't. So why, in a week where Republicans blocked the restoration of habeas corpus, voting rights for DC and adequate rest time for our troops between deployments, did you allow Republicans the opportunity to score a cheap PR stunt by approving a resolution condemning a week-old newspaper ad by Moveon.org--on the same day Republicans once again voted to keep indefinitely continuing the Iraq war?!"

Stay tuned ...

Things are great in Iraf

In The Know: Everything Is Great In Iraf

Getting to 60

60 votes, that is the magic number to make anything happen in the United States Senate. Without 60 votes, legislation dealing with Iraq (or any social justice issue) simply cannot pass.

Today the Senate failed to pass two key measures, a vote to require that troops get as much time at home as they spend overseas before being redeployed, and a move to give terrorism suspects the right to challenge their detentions in federal court.

Senate Democrats fell short late this afternoon in what was seen as their best chance to shift the course of the war in Iraq, in a vote on a measure to require that troops get as much time at home as they spend overseas before being redeployed.

The vote on the measure, offered by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, was 56 to 44 in favor — four less than the supporters needed to prevent a filibuster. The outcome was almost the same as that in a vote on the measure in July, when 56 senators voted in favor and 41 against.

Senator Webb and Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, made an aggressive last-ditch push today for the proposal, but to no avail.

“War is hell, but politicians shouldn’t make it any worse,” Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, said in urging support for the Webb measure.

Sen John McCain argued that the message the president is getting from the troops is "Let us win." and Sen. John Warner, who had indicated he "endorsed" the measure, also said he intended to "vote against it."

In explaining his decision, Mr. Warner said he had been persuaded, at a meeting earlier in the day with senior military officials, that the Webb plan could not be carried out without causing havoc for the armed forces, potentially lengthening soldiers’ tours in Iraq.

Digby has an excellent post about Warner.

A move to give terrorism suspects the right to challenge their detentions in federal court fell short, even though it had majority support.

Fifty-six senators voted to cut off debate, and move forward to a vote on the bill itself, a step known as cloture. But under Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture. [...]

“The truth is that casting aside the time-honored protection of habeas corpus makes us more vulnerable as a nation because it leads us away from our core American values,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, a co-sponsor of the measure with Senators Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, and Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut. Mr. Leahy is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Mr. Specter the committee’s senior Republican; both are former prosecutors.

The legal concept of habeas corpus (“You have the body” in Latin) dates back to medieval England, and is meant to protect people from being locked up indefinitely without a court review. Last year, Congress passed and President Bush signed an act eliminating the right of habeas corpus for non-Americans who are labeled “enemy combatants” in the continuing campaign against terrorism.

So there you have it. No longer is a simply majority enough to pass legislation out of the Senate, it now takes 60 votes! When did filibuster become the norm? I have written about this in the past, but there is a need to keep saying it -- we MUST vote in 2008, and we MUST elect enough progressive candidates to reach that 60 vote standard if we ever want to see change.

Rev. Lennox Yearwood Attacked and Arrested by Capitol Police

from Tennessee Guerilla Women and firedoglake

Rev. Lennox Yearwood was arrested by the Capitol Police while he was standing in line to get into the hearing room where General Petreaus was giving testimony. Apparently, the Reverend's crime was the free speech on the button he was wearing. It said: "I Love the People of Iraq." Not as bad as "Impeach Bush," but still enough to get you roughed up and arrested.

Rev. Yearwood has a broken leg and is being charged with disorderly conduct and assaulting a police officer. I must have blinked when he did that, but next time I go to Capitol Hill, I'm staying away from the police lest they view my free speech as an assault and break my leg too.

WASHINGTON - September 10 - Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr., president of the Hip Hop Caucus, was attacked by six capitol police today, when he was stopped from entering the Cannon Caucus Room on Capitol Hill, where General Petreaus gave testimony today to a joint hearing for the House Arms Services Committee and Foreign Relations Committee on the war in Iraq.

After waiting in line throughout the morning for the hearing that was scheduled to start at 12:30pm, Rev. Yearwood was stopped from entering the room, while others behind him were allowed to enter. He told the officers blocking his ability to enter the room, that he was waiting in line with everyone else and had the right to enter as well. When they threatened him with arrest he responded with “I will not be arrested today.” According to witnesses, six capitol police, without warning, “football tackled” him. He was carried off in a wheel chair by DC Fire and Emergency to George Washington Hospital.

Rev. Yearwood said as he was being released from the hospital to be taken to central booking, “The officers decided I was not going to get in Gen. Petreaus’ hearing when they saw my button, which says ‘I LOVE THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ.’”

Capitol Police are not saying what the charges are, but an inside source has said that the charge is assaulting a police officer. Rev. Yearwood is scheduled to be transferred to Central Processing to be arraigned tomorrow morning.

Firedoglake: The Capitol Police work for the Speaker’s Office. I’m calling the Speaker’s office to “discuss” this and I hope you will too. Her office number is:(202) 225-0100.

This is outrageous.

A day of mourning

The attack on September 11 destroyed more than we could have imagined. Nearly 3000 people perished that day. In the ensuing years we've seen the decimation of our Constitution as well.

Has the Patriot Act made us safer, or simply less free?

And then there is Iraq. A war based on lies, that has now cost as many lives as the attacks in 2001.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, delivered his report to Congress on Monday. Questioning continues today.

During questioning, Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, Democrat of New York, suggested the war in Iraq was not integral to the anti-terror effort.

“Isn’t it true, General, that Al Qaeda in Iraq formed in 2005, two years after we first got there?” pressed Mr. Ackerman.

“Congressman, I’m not saying when it started,” the military commander said. “I’m saying merely that Al Qaeda-Iraq clearly is part of the overall greater Al Qaeda network.”

That could be true General, but it's also true that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11, and Al Qaeda-Iraq may never have formed had we not invaded the country.

Now we appear close to invading Iran. We must not allow this administration to take us further down a dark hole.

Petraeus report to Congress

Gee, I wonder what the general is going to say? Will he be candid and tell Congress the surge isn't working? Will he report that billions of dollars have literally been lost? What could be on his mind as he prepares to present his report?

The WaPo gives us a clue:

For two hours, President Bush listened to contrasting visions of the U.S. future in Iraq. Gen. David H. Petraeus dominated the conversation by video link from Baghdad, making the case to keep as many troops as long as possible to cement any security progress. [full story]

Bush wants $50 billion more for failed Iraq war

If this doesn't make your blood boil, nothing will. The WaPo reports:

President Bush plans to ask Congress next month for up to $50 billion in additional funding for the war in Iraq, a White House official said yesterday, a move that appears to reflect increasing administration confidence that it can fend off congressional calls for a rapid drawdown of U.S. forces.

WTF??

Why should George Bush have "confidence" that he can push through another spending increase? Because so far, the spineless Congress HAS LET HIM!

JUST SAY NO!

The request -- which would come on top of about $460 billion in the fiscal 2008 defense budget and $147 billion in a pending supplemental bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- is expected to be announced after congressional hearings scheduled for mid-September featuring the two top U.S. officials in Iraq. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker will assess the state of the war and the effect of the new strategy the U.S. military has pursued this year.

The request is being prepared now in the belief that Congress will be unlikely to balk so soon after hearing the two officials argue that there are promising developments in Iraq but that they need more time to solidify the progress they have made, a congressional aide said.

Call your members of Congress on Tuesday and DEMAND that they say NO to this out of control administration. The Congressional switchboard number is 202-224-3121. They can connect you to your Representative or Senators office. If you don't know who your Congress members are, go here and type in your zip code in the box on the left.

Let them know you have read the GAO report that finds little progress on Iraq goals.

Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration.

The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. They are expected to describe significant security improvements and offer at least some promise for political reconciliation in Iraq.

The draft provides a stark assessment of the tactical effects of the current U.S.-led counteroffensive to secure Baghdad. "While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved."

We already know the commanders are not going to present a negative report to Congress. They know Bush would find a way to punish them if they dare tell the truth. Congress has got to stand up to this lunatic president.

Where will you be September 15?

from Blue Gal

Military Injustice?

from The Pfc. LaVena Johnson Petition web site:

Dr. Johnson spoke ... at the Veterans for Peace speakout on sexual assault in the military outside the Robert A. Young Federal Building in downtown St. Louis. This was just one of many events and workshops comprising the 22nd annual national convention of VFP.

In the video embedded here, Dr. Johnson talks about learning of LaVena's death, his suspicions about how she died, and the family's attempts to get the Army to reopen its investigation. He is introduced by antiwar activist and retired Army colonel Ann Wright.

Help compel the Army to reopen the investigation of a young soldier's death in Iraq.

Pfc. LaVena Johnson's death was ruled a suicide by military officials. The Johnson family believes she was murdered. Given the other stories that have come out of Iraq about violence against women in the military, I would absolutely agree with them. The family has pursued this matter for months. Please take a few minutes to visit their site and sign the petition.

As Logan Murphy, at Crooks and Liars, noted:

We know that George Bush and the military are still covering up the truth about the murder of Pat Tillman and lied about Jessica Lynch’s story so why should we trust we’re getting the truth about LaVena’s death?

h/t to Murphy at Crooks and Liars

Army Suicides Highest in 26 Years

Is anyone surprised? You can't extend the tour of duty indefinitely, ask people to return again and again, and not think there will be consequences.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of a new military report to be released tomorrow that indicates the suicide rate for Army soldiers is at a 26 year high. According to the report, more than a quarter did so while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The report, obtained by The Associated Press ahead of its scheduled release Thursday, found there were 99 confirmed suicides among active duty soldiers during 2006, up from 88 the previous year and the highest since the 102 suicides in 1991 at the time of the Persian Gulf War. [...]

Last year, "Iraq was the most common deployment location for both (suicides) and attempts," the report said. [...]

There also "was limited evidence to support the view that multiple ... deployments are a risk factor for suicide behaviors," it said.

The report also indicates that almost twice as many women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan committed suicide as did women not sent to war.

Again, it's not surprising when you consider a report from last year indicating women were reducing their water intake, and consequently suffering from dehydration. Their reason why? So they would not have to leave their tent during the night to use the restroom. A number of women reported being assaulted by their fellow soldiers while on the way to the latrine.

For a whole host of reasons we need to get out of Iraq.




Note: My only problem with this video is that is shows an image of George W. Bush under the lyric "a brave man once requested me ..." Bush is NOT a brave man.

Michael Moore vs. Wolf Blitzer

Bush has lost the heartland

How long will it take for the Democratic leadership to acknowledge that Bush has lost the support he once enjoyed from all those "red" states in America's heartland?

Republican Senator Richard Lugar (pictured), from my home state of Indiana, has now conceded that we must begin to bring the troops home from Iraq. The Washington Post reports:

In an unannounced speech on the Senate floor Monday night, Sen. Richard G. Lugar Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said the U.S. military escalation begun in the spring has "very limited" prospects for success. He called on Bush to begin reducing U.S. forces. "We don't owe the president our unquestioning agreement," Lugar said.

The harsh judgment from one of the Senate's most respected foreign-policy voices was a blow to White House efforts to boost flagging support for its war policy, and opened the door to defections by other Republicans who have supported the administration despite increasing private doubts.

Lugar's comments were follow by another heartland Senator, George V. Voinovich, a Republican from Ohio.

Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, sent a letter to Bush yesterday urging the president to develop "a comprehensive plan for our country's gradual military disengagement" from Iraq. "I am also concerned that we are running out of time," he wrote.

And the comments just keep coming.

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, praised Lugar's statement as "an important and sincere contribution" to the Iraq debate.

As Republican skepticism grows the question remains -- will the Democrats seize the day and use this momentum to finally pass legislation that will begin troop withdrawals any time soon?

Only time will tell.

Liberals and the War in Iraq

After reading an op-ed in The Washington Post by Michael Kinsley, an alleged liberal, it's clear that our side doesn't know how to do spin. Kinsley actually wrote:

Last week President Bush condescended to sign a bill authorizing $100 billion for his war, but only after any serious timetables or criteria or deadlines for troop withdrawal were stripped from the legislation.

con·de·scend·ed -- 1. to descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself. 2. to put aside one's dignity or superiority voluntarily and assume equality with one regarded as inferior: He condescended to their intellectual level in order to be understood.

Does anyone really think Bush did this?

The sentence would be more accurate if it read: "Last week President Bush triumphantly signed a bill authorizing $100 billion for his war, after bullying Democrats into stripping from the legislation any serious timetables or criteria or deadlines for troop withdrawal."

tri·um·phant·ly -- 1. having achieved victory or success; victorious; successful. 2. exulting over victory; rejoicing over success; exultant.

Kinsley went on to say:

A confused Wall Street Journal editorial last week seemed to be addressing this question of how an elected representative might legitimately oppose a war in our democracy. It began by accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid of cowardice. They "claim to oppose the war and want it to end, yet they refused to use their power of the purse to end it."

But what happens if you, as a member of Congress, do attempt to use the power of the purse? Sens. Clinton, Obama and Chris Dodd (also running for president) voted against the final Iraq funding bill because all meaningful deadlines and timetables had been stripped out so that President Bush would sign it. That Wall Street Journal editorial accuses these three Democratic senators of "vot[ing] to undermine U.S. troops in the middle of a difficult mission." If this is true of last week's vote, it will always be true of any attempt to cut off a war by cutting off funds. Unless the Journal is in favor of undermining U.S. troops, this makes the alleged "power of the purse" unusable.

Why should Democrats care what the Wall Street Journal says? Everyone knows the WSJ is a right-wing rag, serving corporate interests over the interests of the American people. Democrats should consider it a badge of honor to be blasted by the WSJ. It would mean they are representing the majority of Americans, who oppose the war!

The Democrats should have continued to include meaningful time-lines in the legislation, and forced Republicans and the President to explain to the American people why they want to continue funding a war that never should have been started in the first place, that has no exit strategy, and one we cannot "win."

It's well past time to put the President on the defensive.

Memorial Day tribute to Cindy Sheehan

Memorial Day is about remembering friends and loved ones we have lost to war ... but it should also be a day when we recommit to never sending young women and men into battle unless there is no other choice. That was not the case in Iraq, and far too many people have paid with their lives.

Cindy Sheehan saw a wrong and tried to right it, and for that she has been demonized by both the "right" and the "left." Anyone who has ever challenged "the system" can certainly identify. As Sheehan so eloquently points out:

Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt “two” party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland.

She also perfectly describes what seems to plague far too many so-called "progressive" organizations when she writes:

I have also tried to work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. This group won’t work with that group; he won’t attend an event if she is going to be there; and why does Cindy Sheehan get all the attention anyway? It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.

I have faced similar challenges within the women's movement for daring to speak up.

As Memorial Day 2007 comes to a close I urge you to take a moment and read Cindy Sheehan's statement. And then, make a commitment to challenge Republicans and Democrats alike when they are taking this country in the wrong direction. It's our duty.

___________________________________

Cindy Sheehan Quits Peace Movement

Via AfterDowningStreet.org & Crooks and Liars:

I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called “Face” of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such “liberal blogs” as the Democratic Underground. Being called an “attention whore” and being told “good riddance” are some of the more milder rebukes.

I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.

Camp Casey has served its purpose. It’s for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford, Texas? I will consider any reasonable offer. I hear George Bush will be moving out soon, too…which makes the property even more valuable.

This is my resignation letter as the “face” of the American anti-war movement. This is not my “Checkers” moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources. Read more…

War Without End

This Memorial Day Weekend voters need to take a hard look at just who is in office. Anyone who didn't have the courage to stand up to a president with a 28% approval rating needs to go. How many more Memorial Day's will pass before our troops come home?

The New York Times editorial echo's my thoughts:

Never mind how badly the war is going in Iraq. President Bush has been swaggering around like a victorious general because he cowed a wobbly coalition of Democrats into dropping their attempt to impose a time limit on his disastrous misadventure.

By week’s end, Mr. Bush was acting as though that bit of parliamentary strong-arming had left him free to ignore not just the Democrats, but also the vast majority of Americans, who want him to stop chasing illusions of victory and concentrate on how to stop the sacrifice of young Americans’ lives.

And, ever faithful to his illusions, Mr. Bush was insisting that he was the only person who understood the true enemy.

Speaking to graduates of the Coast Guard Academy, Mr. Bush declared that Al Qaeda is “public enemy No. 1” in Iraq and that “the terrorists’ goal in Iraq is to reignite sectarian violence and break support for the war here at home.” The next day, in the Rose Garden, Mr. Bush turned on a reporter who had the temerity to ask about Mr. Bush’s declining credibility with the public, declaring that Al Qaeda is “a threat to your children” and accusing him of naïvely ignoring the danger.

It’s upsetting to think that Mr. Bush believes the raging sectarian violence in Iraq awaits reigniting, or that he does not recognize that Americans’ support for the war broke down many bloody months ago. But we have grown accustomed to this president’s disconnect from reality and his habit of tilting at straw men, like Americans who don’t care about terrorism because they question his mismanagement of the war or don’t worry about what will happen after the United States withdraws, as it inevitably must.

On Memorial Day 2008 let's hope the war in Iraq is a distant memory.

Memorial Day message for Democrats

Watch Keith Oberman's comments on Crooks and Liars (and below) -- it's a message we need to share with our members of Congress over this Memorial Day weekend.

Special Comment: “The only things truly “compromised” are the trust of the voters … friends, and family, in Iraq”

By: John Amato on Wednesday, May 23rd, 2007