Bill O'Reilly is delusional

This is just too funny. From Media Matters:

On last night's The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News Michelle Malkin claimed that "Jane Fonda's anti-American position has never changed over the last several decades." O'Reilly responded: "[Y]ou say it's anti-American. You know that the Fondas and [Sean] Penns are going to say, 'Listen, I'm as American as you are, Michelle Malkin. I just see things differently.' And I'm willing to give them the benefit of that doubt. I don't want to say that they're anti-American."

But earlier, during the "Talking Points Memo" segment, onscreen text referred to Penn as "anti-American actor Sean Penn." While that text was up O'Reilly referred to Penn as "far-left actor Sean Penn."

Bill O'Reilly is such a clueless dumbass he can't even recall what he said from one minute to the next in the same episode of his own stupid show.

Republican hypocrites

This post is awesome. Glenn Greenwald calls bullshit on Republican Senators who now want to allow President Bush unlimited powers to wage war, but were singing a different tune when Bill Clinton was President.

The only one who's consistent with what he said then and now is Russ Feingold -- NOT a Republican.

Fact Checking the President

Tonight's Special Comment by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown is well worth watching.

The Real McCain

Watch this video -- see John McCain in his role as a gymnast -- flip, flop, flip. Flip, flop flip. And the best part -- it's all in his own words.

Scooter's in trouble

How about this? One of Bush's chief liars turning on the administration. Fleischer's testimony that he learned Valerie Wilson's identify from Scooter Libby several days before Libby claimed to have heard about it from a reporter will almost surely sink Libby's defense.

Another Bush power grab

Where does Bush get the nerve to do this? The newset power grab is an executive order allowing Bush political appointees to control the regulations promulgated by agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Elections don't stop him. Political opponents don't stop him. Well meaning advice from political supporters doesn't stop him. Laws don't stop him. Judges don't stop him. Constitutions don't stop him.

What's left but impeachment?

This puts the LIE in Lieberman

Senator Joe Lieberman (Liar, Connecticut), on Fox News Sunday today:

"I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican, or even an Independent if there's a strong one," the U.S. Senator from Connecticut told "Fox News Sunday."

"You make a decision based on a whole range of issues. But obviously, the positions that some candidates have taken in Iraq troubles me. Obviously, I will be looking at what positions they take in the larger war against Islamist terrorism."

Lieberman, July 2006, during last year's campaign for the Democratic US Senate nomination. As you'll recall, he lost the primary to Ned Lamont and then ran successfully as an independent:

LIEBERMAN: That's why I say [Lamont] is running a single issue campaign. Every campaign, as President Clinton reminded us, is about the future. And what I'm saying to the people of Connecticut, I can do more for you and your families to get something done to make health care affordable, to get universal health insurance, to make America energy independent, to save your jobs and create new ones. That's what the Democratic Party is all about.

He is a single issue candidate who is applying a litmus test to me. It's not good enough to be 90 percent voting with my colleagues in the Senate Democratic Caucus. He wants 100 percent. And when a party does that, it's the beginning of the defeat of that party.

I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008. This man and his supporters will frustrate and defeat our hopes of doing that.

Think the voters of Connecticut feel like they were tricked?

Conecticut Bob has some information here on legislation that would permit recall elections in Connecticut. I'm all for it.

More of that liberal media bias

Yahoo headline of recent Reuters story:

Bomb kills 15, Bush critic Pelosi visits Baghdad

"Bush critic"? That's the best descriptive Yahoo could come up with?

Not "Speaker of the House"? Not "Congresswoman"?

When can I expect the same treatment for Republicans from the allegedly liberal media? Will I soon see headlines referring to Bush as "Constitution Ignorer" or "Privacy Violator"?

Down the memory hole

White House revisionists have again manipulated history to match their propaganda. Media Matters for America previously noted that the prepared text of President Bush's State of The Union speech included the phrase, "Democratic majority," but instead Bush instead congratulated the "Democrat majority." Now the White House's "official text" of the speech has been changed what Bush said, rather than what he was supposed to say.

There are snapshots (here and here) of the original transcript from State of the Union.com and the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access (U.S. Government Printing Office). Compare them to the revised White House text, here (snapshot) and here (snapshot).

From Media Matters:

"The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic."

I think there's an ever more sinister reason, which you can read about here.

Of course, as wel all know, this is not the first time the White House has resorted to Orwellian revision. See here, here, and here for more examples.

Rush Limbaugh -- chickenhawk loser

From yesterday's Rush Limbaugh program:

The liberals did indeed bandy about, bang on the drums for women in combat. Now anyone with, it just isn’t right. Whether they can do it or not, that’s not what a cultured civilized society does to its women, they just don’t do it. Except in dire, dire circumstances, but yet they did. But yet we’ve not, they have in college, women should be allowed to place kick in college football, but they haven’t said a thing about women playing pro football, now why is that because they know it would be impossible. They know the average human being wouldn’t last more than two plays, the average woman wouldn’t even, it would be, they don’t even suggest it yet they do for the military? So what does it tell you they of the military? Its nothing but a little social playground for experimentation, by the way since they’re liberals they’d love to weaken it and love to tear it apart and cause all kinds of controversy and strife, and they do it under the guise of women’s rights, I’m sure there are some imminently qualified women in the military I am not talking about their ability to do, I am talking about the institution and what it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the foxholes. It can be done, but its not recommended.

Where does he get the nerve?

Rush Limbaugh, a man who escaped the draft during Vietnam because he had a cyst on his ass, dares to demean thousands and thousands of American women who serve their country honorably?

When I was in Iraq I saw numerous female soldiers taking part in one of the toughest missions we had -- convoy security. Every day they'd put on their body armor and ballistic goggles, charge their machine guns, and the travel the dangerous roads of Iraq to guard soldiers, supplies and equipment as they moved from place to place. Those soldiers showed up every day ready to fight and die, and they did their jobs well.

Before Limbaugh runs his mouth again, maybe he should do some research. He could start by going here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

John Kerry made a joke about George W. Bush and it was used by Bush and other Republicans to falsely claim Kerry had insulted America's men and women in uniform.

Can I expect from the "liberal" media the same hysterical pack journalism coverage of Limbaugh's ACTUAL insult of our female service members ?

Somehow I doubt it.

Sean Hannity lectures General Clark on strategy

What's funnier than a right-wing conservative propagandist college dropout who never served a single day in the military condescending to explain military strategy to four-star General?

Hannity: Alright. You said there was no new strategy. Let me tell you what the new strategy is ‘cause clearly uh I guess you’re missing what the President’s saying here. The prior strategy, and the President admitted that there were some mistakes made, was that they go in and they’d clear out the insurgency and they didn’t stay long enough or hold those areas long enough. Now the new strategy with the troop surge will be go in, remove the insurgents, hold the areas as pa…and also accelerate the training of Iraqi troops and police. That is a new strategy.

How does Clark not make it a point to meet Hannity face-to face and beat him senseless?

Go to Crooks and Liars and see it for yourself.

Helping Lara Logan

From Media Channel Dot Org:

One would assume that Ms. Logan, as CBS chief foreign correspondent, has a fair amount of influence as to what stories she gets to cover, and that most of her important stories, once produced and delivered, will be broadcast. But when the story comes out of the mean streets of Baghdad, and doesn’t fit the officially-sanctioned narrative of Iraqis and US soldiers working arm in arm to help protect thankful Iraqi citizens, even chief foreign correspondents sometimes need to ask for help in getting it seen. Imagine our surprise recently when–over the digital transom–we received a copy of an email from a frustrated Lara Logan (see here).

In it, Logan asks for help in getting attention to what she calls “a story that is largely being ignored even though this istakingplace everysingle [sic] day in Baghdad, two blocks from where our office is located.”

The segment in question–”Battle for Haifa Street”–is a piece of first-rate journalism but one that only appears on the CBS News website–and has never been broadcast. It is a gritty, realistic look at life on the very mean streets of Baghdad, and includes interviews with civilians who complain that the US military presence is only making their lives worse and the situation more deadly.

“They told us they would bring democracy, they promised life would be better than it was under Saddam,” one told Logan.
“But they brought us nothing but death and killing. They brought mass destruction to Baghdad.”

Several bodies are shown in the two- minute segment–”some with obvious signs of torture,” as Logan points out. She also notes that her crew had to flee for their lives when they we were warned of an impending attack. While fleeing, another civilian was killed before their eyes.

Logan’s email, with the one-word subject line of ‘help’, was sent to friends and colleagues imploring them to lobby CBS to highlight that people are interested in seeing the piece. In it, Logan argues that the story is “not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore… It should be seen. And people should know about this.”

We agree. And we’d like to help Ms. Logan and CBS get the piece seen, although that task would be made immeasurably easier if CBS News chief Sean McManus simply made the decision to broadcast it.

Ms. Logan, who is embedded with US forces in Iraq, was unavailable for comment. But CBS News spokeswoman Sandy Genelius told us that the segment in question was not broadcast but only run on the web because “the Executive Producer of the Evening News thought some of the images in it were a bit strong­ plus on that day the program was already packed with other Iraq news.”

See for yourself what the controversy is all about. You can watch the video here (RealPlayer required):

And don’t forget to let CBS know what you think about this outstanding example of video journalism–and help Lara Logan by telling CBS what you think about them keeping those images of the battle for Haifa Street–no matter how strong, no matter how gruesome–far from the eyes of their prime-time audience.

TEXT OF THE EMAIL FROM LARA LOGAN:

From: lara logan
Subject: help

The story below only appeared on our CBS website and was not aired on CBS. It is a story that is largely being ignored, even though this istakingplace verysingle day in central Baghdad, two blocks from where our office is located.

Our crew had to be pulled out because we got a call saying they were about to be killed, and on their way out, a civilian man was shot dead in front of them as they ran.

I would be very grateful if any of you have a chance to watch this story and pass the link on to as many people you know as possible. It should be seen. And people should know about this.

If anyone has time to send a comment to CBS – about the story – not about my request, then that would help highlight that people are interested and this is not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore.

Many, many thanks.

How to be unprofessional

Petraeus testifies on January 23, 2006. Associated Press photo/Dennis Cook

From yesterday's confirmation hearings for General Petraeus:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy "would give the enemy some comfort."

Petraeus agreed they would, saying, "That's correct, sir."

This is just wrong. As a professional military officer Petraeus's response should have been "that's not for me to say. I don't set national policy, I execute the policy set by Congress and the President."

General Petraeus should know better than to be used as a tool for partisan political purposes. It it was up to me he'd be fired.

McCain's fuzzy math

15% is equal to 79%?

From this weekend's Meet The Press:

MR. RUSSERT: You are a veteran of Vietnam, and you understand when public opinion slips away from support of a war. Here’s the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll out this morning. And we asked, if Congress passes a resolution against the president’s position on more troops, should President Bush proceed? Yes, 30; no, 65 percent. Two out of three Americans, senator. And look at this breakdown by party. Democrats, 85 percent say no. Independents, voters you know well, 71 percent say no, do not proceed. And now 33 percent, one third of Republicans, say listen to Congress more than the president. Why should the American people, after they voted the midterm elections and have a Congress that says no to the president, why shouldn’t they be listened to?

SEN. McCAIN: Well, I understand their frustration and sometimes anger over the lack of success and lack of progress, particularly coupled with optimistic statements made time after time when things were not going well and deteriorating. At the time of the first Gulf War, only 15 percent of the American people thought we ought to go to Kuwait and get rid of Saddam Hussein there.

Oh, BULLSHIT.

New York Times, January 18, 1991:

The initial reaction by the American public to President Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq is positive, according the Gallup Poll.

Seventy-nine percent of those interviewed on Wednesday night said they approved "of the U.S. decision today to go to war with Iraq in order to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait," while 15 percent disapproved, and 6 percent had no opinion.

On the issue (Iraq) where we ought to expect his perspective based on his formative life experience (Vietnam) to matter, he’s dangerously, disturbingly, consistently wrong. I have no faith in his judgment. The notion of McCain in the White House ought to give us all cause for concern.

Bill Kristol -- just shut up

"A leading neoconservative pundit wishes that Democrats would "be quiet" about Iraq for at least six or nine months so that President Bush's "surge" plan can have a "chance to work."

Sunday morning on Fox News, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol said that Democratic congress members are "so irresponsible that they can’t be quiet for six or nine months and say the president has made a decision, we’re not going to change that decision, we’re not going to cut off funds and insist on the troops coming back, so let’s give it a chance to work..."

Where does he get the balls?

First, this neocon idiot was one of the leading proponents of the Iraq war, which has not turned out as he predicted, to put it mildly.

Second, he continues to be wrong about Iraq, yet he's still listened to as a credible commentator. Why?

Third, did Kritsol or any of his fellow Republicans "be quiet" when Bill Clinton was President? Fuck no, they didn't. Instead they undercut him at every opportunity and constantly questioned his motives.

Fucking hypocrite Kristol.

Enlist, you shallow hypocrites

The Marshall University College Republicans plan for a semester full of "fun" activities.

Planning is underway for a "Fun with Guns" squirt-gun tournament in March. At this event students will engage in a water "war" with possible prizes for tournament winners.

"Basically it is a way of saying it's OK to own handguns," Lauren Myers, College Republican president, said.

How fucking self-centered and oblivious can these people be? In case they don't know, there are REAL wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. And in case they've forgotten, the one in Iraq was totally discretionary and has been enabled and executed by the Republican politicians this organization supports.

You want to show that it's OK to own guns? Try this, this, this, this, this, or this.

Washington Post smears another Democrat

Rat bastard "journalist" John Solomon, who tried a few months ago to smear Senator Harry Reid despite Reid not having done anything wrong, is at it again. Sure, Solomon's switched employers, going from the Associated Press to the Washington Post, but his modus operandi hasn't changed. He's still lying about Democrats and doing half-assed reporting in a baseless attempt to make them look corrupt. This time the target is former Senator and likely candidate for President John Edwards. And this time he has help from fellow Washington Post writer Lois Romano:

In the January 19 front-page article on the sale of Edwards' Georgetown townhouse, Solomon along Romano reported that the sale price was ultimately "half a million dollars below the asking price but still $1.4 million more than the Edwardses paid four years earlier." They explained that the Edwardses had owned the house for five years and "did substantial renovations" during that period. That's all true.

But while the article noted that Edwards received $1.4 million more than his original purchase price, Solomon and Romano failed to put the transaction in context. For instance, the article gave no indication of the actual profit Edwards made after transaction costs and the cost of the "substantial renovation" are factored in. Nor did the article give any indication whether that profit was out of line for houses in that neighborhood over that time period.

In fact, as Salon.com's Tim Grieve wrote, taking into account rising property values in the Georgetown neighborhood between 2002 and 2005, as well as the unspecified Edwards "renovations" that presumably increassed the value of the house, there is nothing "particularly suspect" about the fact that the Edwardses sold the house for $1.4 million more than they bought it for in 2002.

And as Media Matters for America has previously noted, Solomon has a history of smearing Senate Democrats.

Liberal media bias, my ass.

Even MORE Liberal Bias

The White House Correspondents Association is so afraid of criticizing the President during a social event that I have to believe the same cringing attitude affects their reporting? How can these reporters write accurate stories about the lying, thieving corrupt Bush administration if they are so afraid of saying or doing ANYTHING that might upset it?

Attytood:

(Rich) Little said organizers of the event made it clear they don't want a repeat of last year's controversial appearance by Stephen Colbert, whose searing satire of President Bush and the White House press corps fell flat and apparently touched too many nerves.

"They got a lot of letters," Little said Tuesday. "I won't even mention the word 'Iraq.'"

Little, who hasn't been to the White House since he was a favorite of the Reagan administration, said he'll stick with his usual schtick -- the impersonations of the past six presidents.

"They don't want anyone knocking the president. He's really over the coals right now, and he's worried about his legacy," added Little, a longtime Las Vegas resident.

Why is the WHCA so gun shy? because last year's guest, Stephen Colbert, had the balls to speak the truth to power, one of the first steps in changing the perception of Bush as strong, decisive and honest.

The White House Correspondents Association is a sham -- these guys are not reporters. Journalism isn't about getting the President to like you. You're supposed to speak the truth to power and tell your listers, viewers, and readers what's really happening.

Liberal media bias my ass.

More Liberal Media Bias

Time Magazine correspondent Mike Allen appeared on the January 17 edition of the Glenn Beck TV show. In discussing Senator Barack Obama's possible presidential candidacy Allen stated that "probably" most people who watched Obama "say at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, "we worship an awesome God in the blue states, too," "are unaware that Senator Obama had 100 percent from Planned Parenthood when he was in the state legislature." Allen's comments referenced a January 17 Associated Press article noting that Obama's "eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes."

Needless to say, Allen did not explain why voters might be surprised that Obama both claimed to believe in God and received a perfect score from Planned Parenthood.

Liberal media bias, my ass.

Bush, Cheney Rejected Iran Concessions

Unreal. All the things the Bush administration currently demands of Iran, under threat of war, are things Iran offered to do in 2003. Naturally, Iran was rebuffed by Bush and Cheney.

Remember back in 2000 when we were told that "electing" Bush and Cheney meant the "grownups" would be in charge?

George W. Bush has become Greg Stillson. He thinks he can fight a three-front war -- or more. He must be removed from office NOW, before he kills us all.

IMPEACH.

America's best

I thought that maybe some readers would be interested to know about the real heroism and valor among the members of America's military. These are the people the Bush administration takes for granted and continues to commit to an unwinnable war in Iraq in the name of political expediency:

Sergeant First Class Paul Smith, Medal of Honor

Corporal Jason Dunham, Medal of Honor

Air Force Cross, Navy Cross, Distinguished Service Cross recipients Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom

Silver Star Recipients, Operation Iraqi Freedom

Silver Star Recipients, Operation Enduring Freedom

These are just a few of the many who have been recognized for their heroism. Do Google searches on the Bronze Star with "V" for Valor, the Army Commendation with "V", and the Soldier's Medal if you want to find out more.

To find out more about the war in Iraq I also suggest reading this book.

To find out more about those who have received the Medal of Honor, read this.

I also suggest you read this story about Mark Procopio, a Vermont National Guard lieutenant who was killed in Iraq.

Real journalism -- check it out.

Check out this excellent story by Mark Seibel of McClatchy Newspapers:

President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration's statements about Iraq.

It gets better from there. Imagine if reporters had been doing this kind of work during the entire Bush administration. We might have avoided the Iraq debacle, tax cuts for the rich, budget deficits, an abandonment of Congressional oversight of the executive ...

70 percent of Americans "irresponsible" says Bush

George W. Bush is simply shameless. According to him, 70 percent of us are irresponsible when it comes to American foreign policy and deployement of the military.

President Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad.

"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said.

What does this say about his arrogance and conceit? Acccording to Bush, he knows better than us, and that's so even if he's the ONLY one who thinks it. According to his reasoning, the Iraq debacle is everybody's fault but his and the Republican rubber stamp Congress who brought us this war.

Way to be "bipartisan" Mr. President.

Here's what I want to know -- who says no one else has proposed a plan?

Ted Kennedy proposed a plan.

Joe Biden has proposed a plan.

The Iraq Study group proposed a plan.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Bush may not like these proposals, but he can hardly deny that they exist.

I'm convined George W. Bush is a sociopath. He's also a psychopath, in my view.

With his latest Iraq proposal, he's jumped the shark. Who knows what's next? How could he possibly sink any further?

We simply cannot afford two more years of this.

IMPEACH.

Jack Kingston -- jackass

Last month, Republican Jackass Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia moaned about the Democratic plan to have lawmakers work longer hours -- more than the two days a week they had worked under Republican rule. Kingston said then that families are more important, responding to the Democratic plan to extend the congressional work week to five days this way: “keeping us up here eats away at families. Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families — that’s what this says.”

Kingston has flip-flopped. Check this out:

"Last night, Kingston shared some advice with Americans living in poverty: work longer hours. During House debate over the minimum wage, Kingston said raising the minimum wage would do nothing for poor Americans. Instead, if people marry and work longer hours, “they would be out of poverty,” he said. “It’s an economic fact.”"

First, doesn't working longer hours “eat away at families”?

Second, "the annual salary for workers earning the national minimum wage still leaves a family of three about $6,000 short of the poverty threshold.” In most instances people working minimum wage jobs don't get overtime pay -- they work second and third jobs at stright time to make ends meet. In other words, Congressman, working longer hours won’t solve the problem.

If Kingston and his lfellow Republicans believe the minimum wage should stay at $5.15, let them explain why. Making shit up in the attempt to find a plausible excuse for rejecting an increase only leaves Kingston looking like a jackass. As usual.

The Swift Boating of America's Military

Unbelievable.

Where does neo-conservative rat bastard chickenhawk Michael Ledeen get the balls to write this:

"We’ve got lots of soldiers sitting on megabases all over Iraq. They should be out and about, some of them embedded, others just moving around, tracking the terrorists, hunting them down. I don’t know how many guys and gals are sitting in air-conditioned quarters and drinking designer coffee, but it’s a substantial number. Enough of that."

I spent a year in Iraq. The only air conditioning I saw was in the two offices in which I worked during my deployment. The offices were air conditioned so the computers in them would continue to function -- it was not for the convenience of the troops.

Some bases have restaurants and coffee shops (Burger King, Green Beans), but I didn't get to use them and I don't know many people who did.

You know who does get to sit in air conditioned offices and drink designer coffee? Conservative think tankers like Michael Ledeen. And he gets to do it without worrying about getting hit by a car bomb or an improvised explosive device killing or maiming him on his way to work and back. He gets to do it without wondering if mortars and rockets will hit his workplace, his non-air conditioned sleeping quarters, or the trailer where he shits and takes showers in full view of his buddies. He gets to do it without leaving his spouse and children behind for a year and a half at a time. He gets to do it with a high six, or maybe a seven figure salary, as opposed to the average soldier, sailor, airman or marine who could make way more in the civilian sector.

Clearly the "support our troops" rhetoric of conservatives like Ledeen applies only when we can make them look good or when they can bask in our glory. Otherwise, we're lazy and stupid.

Go to hell, Mr. Ledeen.

Tony Snow -- lying sack of shit

In today’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow tried to distance President Bush from his infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech, claiming that Bush said “just the opposite.”

"I think the public ought to just listen to what the president has to say. You know that the mission accomplished banner was put up by members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, and the president, on that very speech, said just the opposite, didn’t he?"

On May 1, 2003, Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in front of a large banner that read, “Mission Accomplished.” In his opening line, he asserted, “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

In his weekly radio address shortly after the speech, Bush stated, “I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: their mission is complete and major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

In October 2003 the White House staff lied and said the banner had been placed by the crew of the Lincoln. Then-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was forced to admit that the White House staff, not members of the Lincoln's crew, had “take[n] care of the production of the banner.”

Not one word Tony Snow said was true. The record is clear, so there's no question about whether Snow knows what he said isn't true. That makes him a lying sack of shit.

Who argued that Bush should not send more troops?

As George W. Bush prepares to unveil a plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq, perhaps we should consider these words:

"Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."

Who imparted these thoughts on US policy in Iraq?

George W. Bush, June 28, 2005.

Bush also said in the 2005 speech that “if our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them.” He also stated in the same remarks "as we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders."

Last month, General Abizaid, commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM) revealed that he asked his subordinate commanders in Iraq for their advice and none of them wanted more troops.

The Bush solution was to replace Abizaid.

For good measure, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are against adding troops in Iraq.

Bush's solution? Threaten their jobs.

Does that sound like he's being guided by the advice of his military leaders?

IMPEACH.

Check out this disparity

Check out this post from Bob Johnson, which can be found on No Quarter, Larry Johnson's blog:

The first week of 2007 brought news of two exits: one emblematic of capitalism gone awry, the other, the tragic death of a 20-year-old man in Iraq.

Bob Nardelli was the CEO of Home Depot for six years. The company's stock went nowhwere during his tenure, but his compensation package skyrocketed. His reward for leaving? An exit package of $210 million.

Pfc. William R. Newgard, 20, of Arlington Heights, Illinois died on December 29, 2006 when his vehicle struck an IED in Iraq. His "exit package?" Less than 1/4 of 1% of Mr. Nardelli's going-away present.

Madam Speaker

Congratulations, Madam Speaker.

Today, Sanfranciscoliberalnancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker of the House.

This is a great day for the House of Representatives as an institution, a great day for women everywhere and a great day for America.

Impeach

President Bush plans to order extra U.S. troops to Iraq as part of a new push to secure Baghdad, but in smaller numbers than previously reported, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

The president, who is completing a lengthy review of Iraq policy, is considering dispatching three to four U.S. combat brigades to Iraq, or no more than 15,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops, the officials said. Bush is expected to announce his decision next week.

===============

In what appears to be a military shakeup surrounding Iraq, President Bush has replaced both the top US general in the Middle East and the top General in Iraq, ABC NEWS is reporting on air.

Admiral William J. Fallon will replace Gen. John Abizaid, US commander in the Middle East, who announced his retirement in December, and was expected to leave the post in March. Abizaid was a critic of Bush's efforts to add more troops to Iraq -- the circumstances of his early departure are unclear.

"The president wants a clean sweep," an official told ABC News.

"Fallon, who is in the Navy, is currently head of Pacific Command; he will be overseeing two ground wars, so the appointment is highly unusual," ABC reports.

====================

This is not what voters demanded in November 2006. Clearly, the mandate from last year's elections was for the United States to LEAVE Iraq, and leave sooner, rather than later.

Combine Bush's absolute REFUSAL to consider anyone's views but his own with yet another power grab, and it's clear that he has exceeded his authority and failed to live up to his oath of office.

IMPEACH.

I apologize to General Casey

On Dec. 23, an anonymous Defense Department official told the Los Angeles Times that top American military commanders in Iraq, including Gen. George Casey, had “decided to recommend a ’surge’ of fresh American combat forces.” I blogged about that and had some unkind things to say about General Casey.

In an interview last Friday, Casey told reporters that he still has doubts about an President Bush’s troop escalation plan in Iraq. From today’s New York Times:

The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq’s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq’s problems, which are at base their problems. … It’s always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term.

In addition, Casey’s spokesman says the general has “not recommended more troops be sent here.”

Based on this new information, I retract what I wrote about General Casey in my earlier post and I apologize for questioning his integrity.

And I'd really like to know which anonymous Defense Department official thinks it's OK to lie about the views of the US commanders in Iraq.

Associated Press -- this is not journalism

AP Asks: Why So Many Upset by Iraq Death Toll?

The country largely kept the faith during World War II, even as about 400,000 U.S. forces died - 20,000 just in the month long Battle of the Bulge. Before turning against the wars in Korea and Vietnam, Americans tolerated thousands more deaths than in Iraq.

Has something changed? Do Americans somehow place higher value on the lives of their soldiers now? Do they expect success at lower cost? Or do most simply dismiss this particular war as the wrong one - hard to understand and harder to win - and so not worth the losses?

The Associated Press recently posed these questions to scholars, veterans, activists, and other Americans. Their comments suggest that the public does express more pain over the deaths of this war.

Let me clear it up for you, AP.

Americans will accept any number of casualties if they believe the goal is worthwhile. That's why as much as people were appalled by the high numbers of deaths and woundings in World War II, World War I and the Civil War, the national consensus was clear -- the ultimate objective was worth the cost.

Iraq is not an "all hands" mobilization to fight dictators who want to take over the world. It's not an "all hands" fight against a great moral evil like slavery. It's not even retribution against someone who attacked us.

The war in Iraq is a discretionary war that did not have to be fought. There is no clearly articulated strategy. There is no articulated intent or desired end state. There is no "all hands" mobilization that would cause civilians to conclude that the US is in a life or death struggle or a fight over a moral question that would make the large number of casualties is worthwhile.

What we're dealing with is the will of one man -- George W. Bush -- who took us to war in Iraq simply because he wanted to. And no matter how much the situation in Iraq deteriorates, he refuses to admit that he's so wrong that the US should leave, or even wrong enough to change what we're currently doing there. (Note that I didn't call it a strategy or a plan, because there isn't one.)

The mere fact that the AP feels it has to ask this question is proof positive that the cost of blood and treasure in Iraq isn't worth it.