Bush leaves soldier to die

This is BULLSHIT:

The Prime Minister of the country we "saved" says we can't look for our kidnapped soldier. George W. Bush says "okay."

Could President Bush be any more of a disaster? He just left a US soldier to die.

"Exploiting GOP vulnerability in the Nov. 7 elections, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki flexed his political muscle Tuesday and won U.S. agreement to lift military blockades on Sadr City and another Shiite enclave where an American soldier was abducted.

U.S. forces, who had set up the checkpoints in Baghdad last week as part of an unsuccessful search for the soldier, drove away in Humvees and armored personnel carriers at the 5 p.m. deadline set by al-Maliki. Iraqi troops, who had manned the checkpoints with the Americans, loaded coils of razor wire and red traffic cones onto pickup trucks.

Their departure set off celebrations among civilians and armed men in Sadr City, the sprawling Shiite district controlled by the Mahdi Army militia loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Small groups of men and children danced in circles chanting slogans praising and declaring victory for al-Sadr, whose political support is crucial to the prime minister's governing coalition."

No veteran will ever again support George W. Bush. Every member of the military knows you never leave a comrade behind.

In the Army, this notion is part of what we call The Warrior Ethos:

I will always place the mission first.

I will never accept defeat.

I will never quit.

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

What Bush has just done in the name of raw politics is unconscionable.

Allen's staff goes nuts

'Calling All Wingnuts' creator, University of Virginia law student and former US Marine Mike Stark was tackled today by staffers for Senator George Allen while he was asking Allen (Republican, Virginia) a question:

"Why did you spit on your first wife?"

In response Allen's goons knocked down and assaulted this individual.

Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

Stark says he's suing and pressing assault charges.

Good. I hope Allen and his "staff assistants" get what they have coming to them.

Jim Webb's Navy Cross citation

While serving in Vietnam, Virginia Senate candidate James Webb received the Navy Cross. For those not familiar with military awards, the Navy Cross is second in order of precedence -- only the Medal of Honor is higher. After reading the citation for Webb's award, see my two observations.

The Navy Cross is presented to James H. Webb, Jr., First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism while serving as a Platoon Commander with Company D, First Battalion, Fifth Marines, First Marine Division (Reinforced), Fleet Marine Force, in connection with combat operations against the enemy in the Republic of Vietnam. On 10 July 1969, while participating in a company-sized search and destroy operation deep in hostile territory, First Lieutenant Webb's platoon discovered a well-camouflaged bunker complex which appeared to be unoccupied. Deploying his men into defensive positions, First Lieutenant Webb was advancing to the first bunker when three enemy soldiers armed with hand grenades jumped out. Reacting instantly, he grabbed the closest man and, brandishing his .45 caliber pistol at the others, apprehended all three of the soldiers. Accompanied by one of his men, he then approached the second bunker and called for the enemy to surrender. When the hostile soldiers failed to answer him and threw a grenade which detonated dangerously close to him, First Lieutenant Webb detonated a claymore mine in the bunker aperture, accounting for two enemy casualties and disclosing the entrance to a tunnel. Despite the smoke and debris from the explosion and the possibility of enemy soldiers hiding in the tunnel, he then conducted a thorough search which yielded several items of equipment and numerous documents containing valuable intelligence data. Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade. Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body. Although sustaining painful fragmentation wounds from the explosion, he managed to throw a grenade into the aperture and completely destroy the remaining bunker. By his courage, aggressive leadership, and selfless devotion to duty, First Lieutenant Webb upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and of the United States Naval Service.

Webb also earned the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts.

First, I can't believe that Webb's actions didn't result in the Medal of Honor.

This brings me to observation number two: how can anyone in Virginia NOT vote for someone who displayed this kind of character, integrity and selfless service?

Rush's fantasy world exposed

Read this excellent opinion piece in today's Washington Post. William Saletan (that's him in the photo) effectively takes apart "el Rushbo" over his lies and fantasies about the illness of Michael J. Fox.

Where's Rush's apology?

On October 23 Rush Limbaugh alleged that Michael J. Fox's physical appearance in a recent campaign advertisement for Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill was "purely an act." Fox suffers from Parkinson's disease and in the ad his symptoms, including involuntary tremors, are clearly visible. Limbaugh then added "this is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two." In the on camera version of his broadcast Limbaugh is seen wildly gesticulating and bouncing around in his chair, clearly mocking Fox's illness.

Fox supports stem cell research and has also filmed ads on behalf of Maryland Democratic Senate nominee Rep. Ben Cardin and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D) and, as for Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) in the 2004 general election.

Limbaugh went on during his October 23 broadcast to say "I will apologize to Michael J. Fox if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act."

In fact, Fox's symptoms are not caused by "going off his meds" as Rush claimed. The tremors and shaking are a symptom of being ON the medication.

But as always, the supposdly liberal media dropped the ball, treating Limbaugh's qualified future tense statement "I will apologize IF..." as though it's an ACTUAL apology. From Media Matters, here's a sample:

• On the October 24 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported that "[a]fter listeners contacted Limbaugh to say it was no act, the radio host apologized."

• On the 9 a.m. ET hour of the October 25 edition of CNN Newsroom, CNN national correspondent John King stated: "I think we should take Rush at his word. He has issued this apology."

• In an October 25 New York Times article, Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley reported: "Mr. Limbaugh later apologized for accusing Mr. Fox of exaggerating his symptoms, but said that 'Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democrat politician.' "

• In an October 25 Washington Post article, staff writer David Montgomery wrote that "[l]ater Monday, still on the air, Limbaugh would apologize, but reaction to his statements from Parkinson's experts and Fox's supporters was swift and angry." Like the Times, the Post reported that after "apologizing," Limbaugh "renewed his attack on Fox" by accusing him of "shilling for a Democratic politician."

• In an October 25 Associated Press article, writer Jim Salter reported that "[c]onservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh claimed Fox was 'either off his medication or acting,' though he later apologized."

• On the 3 p.m. ET hour of the October 25 edition of CNN Newsroom, CNN anchor Don Lemon said, "We should note that Rush Limbaugh offered an apology."

Well, Rush DID NOT apologize. In fact, THIS is what he said on his October 25 broadcast:

"I stand by what I said. I take back none of what I said. I wouldn’t rephrase it any differently. It is what I believe; it is what I think. It is what I have found to be true."

Far from apologizing, Limbaugh is digging in his heels and ridiculously claiming the moral high ground. Where's the apology in that?

Perhaps the mainstream media that's falling all over itself to absolve Rush shouldn't give credence to a man who made himself deaf through Oxycontin addiction (obtained illegally) and traveled to the Dominican Republic with Viagra obtained in someone else's name.

Candy Crowley is a stupid douche too

In previewing the October 24 installment of a week-long series on CNN, "Broken Government," the show CNN Newsroom aired two times a segment in which correspondent Candy Crowley asked North Carolina US House candidate Heath Shuler if he is "a Nancy Pelosi Democrat."

For anyone who doesn't know, Nancy Pelosi is Minority Leader of the US House and will likely become Speaker if the Democrats take control of Congress in this next month's elections.

But here's the thing: Republicans, increasingly desperate because they know they're on the verge of losing power, have begun to smear the Democrats who will play key roles in Congress if the Democrats take charge, namely Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. This is a preemptive move designed to negatively impact Democratic leadership of Congress if the Dems are successful in November. (See here and here and here and here.)

And of course, the media, which is frequently alleged to have a liberal bias, plays along with the Republican hatchet job on Reid and Pelosi. This includes Crowley, one of the most egregious spouters of GOP talking points and oozers of contempt for Democrats on television today. (See here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

And you can bet your ass Crowley has NEVER, EVER asked asked a Republican congressional candidate if he or she is a "Dennis Hastert Republican."

Liberal bias in the media? I think not.

That's why Candy Crowley is a douche.

Chris Jansing is a stupid douche

Here's what MSNBC's Chris Jansing SAYS Hillary Clinton said:

"What about the concern that Senator Clinton -- frankly acknowledged it's legitimate to consider in the voting, we just heard it -- that she is laser-focused on the presidency and not on representing the people of New York?"

And here's what Hillary Clinton REALLY said in the video clip to which Jansing was referring:

"I have made no decisions about any future plans, and if that is a concern to any voter, they should factor that into their decision on November 7th."

Didn't Jansing get the memo? According to conservatives, the media (including Jansing) is supposed to have a bias FOR liberals.

What kind of network will allow a journalist to outright fucking LIE -- this isn't shading the truth, this isn't a difference of opinion, and this isn't a metter of interpretation. It's FALSE -- Clinton NEVER uttered the words that Jansing put in her mouth.

Liberal bias in the media, my ass. And try to tell me the photo at the top of this post isn't ironic.

Bush lies as usual

On ABC’s This Week, President Bush tried to distance himself from his core Iraq strategy. George Stephanopoulos asked about James Baker’s plan to develop a strategy for Iraq that is “between 'stay the course' and 'cut and run.'” Bush responded, "We’ve never been stay the course, George!"

Are you fucking kidding me? Thanks to Think Progress, here are a few choice quotes showing Bush is lying:

BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]

BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]

BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]

BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]

Mehlman accidentally tells truth

On Friday Ken Mehlman appeared on "The Today Show" and actually told the truth about the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Afghanistan:

"…. the goal is defeating the terrorists and making sure that Iraq is able to not become another Afghanistan, which would be the consequence if we were to cut and run."

There you have it. Ken Mehlman admitting that the Bush administration "cut and ran" from Afghanistan and that as a result we have not stopped al Qaeda or the Taliban.

I'm confident that Mehlman didn't tell the truth on purpose -- in my view he lies compulsively. Mehlman lies so routinely that he reminds me of the following quote Harry Truman uttered about Richard Nixon:

"Richard Nixon is a no good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in."

Up is down and down is up

How to argue with a man who's either lying or delusional?

Bill O'Reilly aired on October 16, 17 and 18 an interview he recently conducted with George W. Bush. Here's my favorite exchange:

O'Reilly asked Bush: "Sixty percent of Americans are now against the Iraq war. Why?"

Bush replied: "Because they want us to win."

O'Reilly the tough but fair interviewer then continued: "Is one of the reasons they've turned against the war in Iraq is that the anti-Bush press pounds day in and day out in newspapers, on the network news, in books like Bob Woodward's, that you don't know what you're doing there?"

Bush replied: "I'm disappointed that people would propagandize to that effect because the stakes are too high for that kind of illogical behavior."

Only in Bush's world can 60 percent of the people being against your position be described as proof that they favor it.

Sunni, Shia, what's the difference?

Read this editorial by Jeff Stein. For the past several months he's been ending interviews with counterterrorism oficials by asking “Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?”

Here's how Stein described the responses:

But so far, most American officials I’ve interviewed don’t have a clue. That includes not just intelligence and law enforcement officials, but also members of Congress who have important roles overseeing our spy agencies.

By far the dumbest response came from Congressman Terry Everett, an egregious Bush rubber-stamp from Alabama. Everett has been in the US House for fourteen years and is the current Vice Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee's subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence:

Mr. Everett responded with a low chuckle. He thought for a moment: “One’s in one location, another’s in another location. No, to be honest with you, I don’t know. I thought it was differences in their religion, different families or something.”

Stein says that to his credit, Everett asked Stein to explain the differences

“Now that you’ve explained it to me,” he replied, “what occurs to me is that it makes what we’re doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area.”

Well, DUH!

But my favorite response was from Jo Anne Davis, another hack Republican from Virginia:

“Do I?” she asked me. A look of concentration came over her face. “You know, I should.” She took a stab at it: “It’s a difference in their fundamental religious beliefs. The Sunni are more radical than the Shia. Or vice versa. But I think it’s the Sunnis who’re more radical than the Shia.”

JESUS CHRIST!

How can these people attain positions of responsibility where they're making life and death policy decisions about a country and a set of corcumstances about which they are WHOLLY ignorant? Worse, they are not disturbed by NOT KNOWING. All my military and business training and experience teaches me to consider all available information before deciding upon a course of action. Sometimes you have make a decision based on incomplete information, but you continue to refine your course of action as you gather more information and observe the results of your initial actions. These supposedly responsible decision makers seem to be completely uninterested in learning even the most basic facts about the Middle East in general and Islam in particular.

For the record, Sunnis are more numerous that Shiites. However, Shiites outnumber Sunnis in Iran and Iraq.

All Muslims revere Mohammed (peace be upon him) as God's messenger. Shiites believe Mohammed's (pbuh) official successors as God's messenger were his descendants Hussein and Hussein's son Ali. Tody's Imams are descendants of Hussein and Ali. The Shiites invest authority in a hierarchy which is led by senior Imams, the Grand Ayatollahs, who interpret Islamic laws and religious questions and govern how charitable contributions are spent. The term Shia or Shiite is a contraction of "Shiat Ali" or Ali's Followers.

Sunnis accept the wisdom of the "sunnas," or oral traditions and interpretations of the Koran made after Mohammed's (pbuh) death. These interpretations were originally called "sunnas", and later "Hadiths." Sunni means "followers of the tradition." Sunnis believe that Mohammed (pbuh) had no official successor and generally accept that all Muslims are equal in the eyes of God, able to approach him directly without the need for the intervention of an Imam. Sunnis have no ayatollahs and give to charity as they see fit, rather than answering to a religious hierarchy.

I learned this information even before I went to Iraq. I did a quick Google search (here and here and here), and found that these details can be found on numerous web pages and in many news articles. If I can find it in 10 minutes, how come members of Congress and other officials responsible for our Middle East policy can't be bothered to learn it?

Bill O'Reilly, total tool

On his October 11 radio show, Bill O'Reilly stated that it "is never the case" that a "mother's life is in danger" during pregnancy. Therefore, according to Bill O, there would never be a situation in which a pregnant woman would need to obtain an abortion to save her life or health.

In fact, as any woman and most men know, there are several pregnancy complications that can threaten the health or life of a pregnant woman.

For instance, there's ectopic pregnancy. In this circumstance, a fertilized egg attaches itself outside the uterus. Complications to the mother can include internal tissue damage, severe blood loss, sterility, and death.

Another pregnancy complication is preeclampsia. This condition is defined by high blood pressure and excess protein in the urine. Left untreated it can lead to serious complications for mother and unborn baby, including death. In fact, worldwide preeclampsia and similar high blood pressure disorders are a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death.

These conditions are not rare, either. Preeclampsia affects as many as 1 in 7 pregnant women. Ectopic pregnancies happen in as many as 2 out of 5 pregnancies.

Sometimes these conditions result in miscarriages. Sometimes the conditions are treatable. But sometimes they affect the health or life of the mother to the point where a theraputic abortion may be the only way to save the life of the mother. If O'Reilly knows that, he lied on his show. If he doesn't, then he's truly stupid.

Democrats lead in House races

Check this out. Democrats are currently poised to gain 19 seats in the US House. This means the House would be made up of 224 Democrats and 205 Republicans. The trends since August have all been towards the Democrats.

This is a landslide in the making.

Dems lead in Senate races

Democrats need to gain six seats to regain control of the Senate. As of today they hold leads in enough races to do it.

Here are the Pollster.com five-poll averages for the eight Republican held seats Democrats are concentrating on. Democrats lead in seven races -- all but Virginia.

Pennsylvania: Casey (D) 48%--39% Santorum (R)
Maryland: Cardin (D) 47%--40% Steele (R)
Montana: Tester (D) 49%--43% Burns (R)
Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) 46%--40% Chafee (R)
Ohio: Brown (D) 47%--42% DeWine (R)
Tennessee: Ford (D) 47%--44% Corker (R)
Missouri: McCaskill (D) 46%--44% Talent (R).
Virginia: Allen (R) 48%--42% Webb (D)

Momentum has swung towards the Democrats and they're inching ahead across the board.

How desperate is media to keep status quo?

Look at what ABC's Charles Gibson said on October 9 while discussing a recent poll:

"...the Foley scandal is dwarfed by other concerns," such as the Iraq war, terrorism, and the economy, "would seem to be good news for Republicans."

What did Bush apologist Gibson NOT say as he sarched for the silver lining to this dark cloud hovering over the GOP? That by significant margins more Americans trust Democrats, NOT Republicans, to handle the Iraq war, terrorism, and the economy.

According to the ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted from October 5 to 8, respondents said the most important issues were the Iraq war (83 percent), terrorism (78 percent), and the economy (77 percent). When asked which party they "trust to do a better job handling" Iraq, 51 percent of respondents chose Democrats, compared with 38 percent for Republicans. On terrorism, 47 percent chose Democrats, compared with 41 percent who chose Republicans. On the economy, 54 percent chose Democrats to 37 percent for Republicans. In fact, as ABC's analysis noted, "Democrats lead in public trust to handle each of seven areas tested in this poll," including immigration, health care, ethics in Washington, and the "main problems the nation faces over the next few years."

Liberal bias in the media my ass.

Liberal bias in the media? Oh, please!

It was bad enough when Bill O'Reilly's show mislabeled disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley as a Democrat at least three times during the course of a day.

It was worse when CNN incorrectly identified disgraced former Congressman Dan Crane as a Democrat.

In today's partisan hackery, The Beltway Boys on Fox News incorrectly labled Senator Lincoln Chaffee as a Democrat and challenger Sheldon Whitehouse as a Republican. Whitehouse is way ahead of Chaffee in the latest polls.

What do all three examples of this idiocy have in common? They all make Republcians look good and Democrats look bad. Coincidence? I think not.

There is no liberal bias in the media.

The military shows its best -- and worst

Navy Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift is the best the military has to offer.

Swift called the Bush administration to account for its Global War on Terrorism excesses. He had been assigned to defend Salim Hamdan, who was captured on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan while fleeing the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Hamdan admits to working as bin Laden's $200-a-month driver on a farm in Afghanistan, but says he was not an al Qaeda member and has never taken up arms against anyone.

While at Guantanamo as an "enemy combatant," Hamdan, through his lawyer, used civilian courts to challenge the constitutionality of his detention and the military tribunal proposed for trying him. The US Supreme Court ruled in June 2006 that President Bush overstepped his constitutional authority by creating ad hoc military tribunals, which forced the Defense Department to work out a new system for trying those still being held as alleged enemy combatants.

Swift's bold defense reaffirmed a basic tenet of American democracy -- that no one, not even the President, is above the law.

Swift's promotion board is indicative of the worst the military has to offer.

The Navy and the Bush administration have showed how they deal with those who dare speak the truth to those in power: Charles Swift has been passed over for promotion to Commander and must retire in accordance with the Navy's "up or out" promotion system.

The results of the promotion board are a fucking disgrace. The National Law Journal lists Swift as among the top 100 lawyers in America, putting him in the company of Floyd Abrams, Robert Bennett, David Boies, Morris Dees, Robert Fiske, Abbe Lowell, Barry Scheck, Dickie Scruggs, and Lawrence Tribe. Most of the people on this list are a generation or two older than Swift and far more established in the profession -- he's obviously well thought of to be considered a peer of these legal luminaries. Swift was also a runner up for the NLJ's Lawyer of the Year award in 2005.

The notion that he somehow doesn't meet the standards for promotion to Commander is a joke -- he's clearly far superior to his peers in terms of ability.

Based on the results of the promotion board, I'd say there's no question that Swift also tops its members in terms of integrity and honesty.

Republicans Falsely Implicate Democrats in Foley Scandal

There are two things Republicans know:

1 -- The best defense is a good offense, even if the offense involves blatant lies.

2 -- When Republicans begin lying to escape the consequences of their actions (or inactions), they can count on a compliant media to abet them.

In their panicked attempts to dodge the fallout of the storm caused by Mark Foley's misdeeds, Republicans have resorted to asking for an investigation of DEMOCRATS.

The reporters who are working on this story KNOW the Republicans are falsely blaming Democrats in an attempt to preserve the GOP's hold on power. The Republicans doing the lying certainly know they're lying -- they even hold strategy meetings to plan their lies in advance. The anchors and hosts of the TV and radio shows where the Republicans are spreading their falsehoods know those Republicans are lying. Yet no one calls a lie a lie and no one calls a liar a liar. As always, the concept of "balanced" reporting means that every question has two sides and each side is equally credible. I say the sky is green. You say the sky is blue. The anchor of the show we appear on to debate says "A says green. B says blue. Let's agree to disagree. We'll continue to bring you coverage of this unfolding story. Now in other news..."

The American people have been way ahead of the media and the politicians for more than two years -- they've had enough of the Bush administration's lying and stealing, and enough of the Republicans in Congress lying and stealing.

Come November, the establishment media that backs Bush and the Republicans at all costs will find out just how out of touch they are.

I'm through with the Almanac of American Politics

I'm through with The Almanac of American Politics. I've purchased each new edition every two years since 1984. Not any more.

My irritation with Almanac co-author Michael Barone has grown over the years as his work in the Almanac has gotten less informative and more partisan. Barone is clearly pro-Republican and apparently does not have the ability to inform without proselytizing for the GOP.

I've put up for years with his pro-Republican opinions in the guise of information in the Almanac, but on TV and in his work at US News and World Report his hackery has become increasingly hard to bear. His October 5 appearance on Hannity and Colmes was the last straw.

In this appearance, the hosts and panel were discussing the Mark Foley scandal. Barone condemned Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, saying that CREW "would also have been wise to turn [the Foley emails to House pages] over to, for example ... the House Page Committee."

In fact, House Republicans, including Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader John Boehner, Republican Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds, and Page Board Chairman John Shimkus, as well as numerous staff members. These Republicans purposely kept Democrats in the dark about Foley's misdeeds and the evidence associated with them.

AND the House REPUBLICAN leadership learned of the emails long before CREW did. In addition, many members of the media knew about the Foley e-mails and IMs and did not make them public. In other words, how can CREW be criticized for not giving to the House Republicans something they ALREADY HAD?

Michael Barone is not stupid -- he must know that what he said is false. But his need to defend Republicans at all costs has caused him to take leave of the truth. That's why I'm not buying his Almanac any more.

Who's to blame for the Mark Foley scandal?

Why, Bill Clinton of course. Just ask Speaker Dennis Hastert or a host of right wing talk show hosts: "All I know is what I hear and what I see," he said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune on the eve of the ethics meeting. "I saw Bill Clinton's adviser, Richard Morris, was saying these guys (Democrats) knew about this all along, If somebody had this info, when they had it, we could have dealt with it then."

In fact, Morris (a fucking disgrace himself), who has advised members of both parties and now flaks for Fox News offered no independent knowledge of Democrats being aware of Foley's e-mails and instant messages. ABC News, which broke the story, says former Republican-sponsored pages were the source.

But wait, there's more. It appars that Mark Foley's bad behavior started as long ago as 1995, and that the Republicans covered it up back then. Gee, what "sex scandal" came up between 1995 and now that Republicans thought required a multi million dollar investigation -- the same Republicans who are now downplaying what Foley did? Here's a hint. Isn't this the textbook definition of hypocrisy?

By the way the photo is Debra DeBode of the Gallatin County, Montana Democrats.

Al Qaeda supports Bush

A newly translated letter al Qaeda letter to their organization in Iraq demonstrates clearly that Bush’s “stay the course” strategy is exactly what al Qaeda wants:

The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq, and that you be patient and forbearing, even in weakness, and even with fewer operations; even if each day had half of the number of current daily operations, that is not a problem, or even less than that. So, do not be hasty. The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission.

Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot

Rush Limbaugh, on the radio, October 2, 2006:

"I'm just thinking out loud here. What if somebody got to the page and said, you know, we want you to set Foley up. We need to do a little titillating thing here. Keep it and save it and so forth. How would you get a kid to do that? Yeah, who knows? You threaten him or pay him. There's any number of ways given the kind of people that we're dealing with and talking about here."

Gee, I wonder where Limbaugh could have gotten the idea of partisan politicians setting someone up and saving the evidence? Could it have been here? Or maybe here?

Seems like Hypocrite Limbaugh's tendancy to be suspicious depends entirely on whose ox is being gored.

Bush administration condones pedophiles

Congressman Mark Foley resigns in disgrace after being caught hitting on teenaged male US House pages. The Republican leadership in the House is scrambling to cover its asses because they knew about this disgusting behavior, did not report it, did not stop it and in fact enabled the behavior to continue. Tony Snow, Bush's press secretary thinks this is no big deal:

CNN's Soledad O’Brien: I would assume everybody would want to know, including the president. I mean, we’re not talking about any old person. We’re talking about the leadership of the Republicans in Congress. Why would he not hear something that’s disturbing, or his office — over-friendly — when I see that word as a parent — and I think any parent would say, Whoa, over-friendly? Any communication between a 16-year-old and a congressman, why doesn’t that raise red flags — major, massive red flags?

Tony Snow: Yes, look, I hate to tell you, but it’s not always pretty up there on Capitol Hill. And there have been other scandals, as you know, that have been more than simply naughty e-mails. You know, look, again, I reiterate my point. I think it’s important to protect these kids and make sure that they have a good experience. And look, like you (inaudible) want to find out what happened. But before we prosecute, let’s figure out what all the facts are. That’s probably the most important thing to do is to be fair to all parties.

So let's look at one of these "naughty e-mails":

Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
Maf54: :)
Teen: did you pick a night for dinner
Maf54: not yet…but likely Friday
Teen: ok…ill plan for Friday then
Maf54: that will be fun

More from the same exchange:

Maf54: I want to see you
Teen: Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner
Maf54: and then what happens
Teen: we eat…we drink…who knows…hang out…late into the night
Maf54: and
Teen: I dunno
Maf54: dunno what
Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here…im not sure what I would be comfortable with…well see

Contrast this with Monica Lewinsky's description of her relationship with Bill Clinton:

"This is something that I never wanted to talk about publicly and I know he wished had never become public. But this was a mutual relationship, from the way it started all the way through."

So let's make sure we've got this right -- Republican Congressman makes advances on teenaged boys -- OK. Democratic President engages in consensual relationship with adult who pursued him -- investigate, lie, smear, and impeach.

As long as they've got their priorities straight...