wapo

Rudy - Out of Touch

Rudy Giuliani said yesterday he "never had any doubt" that if he were President four years ago, he would have invaded Iraq. He said he is now "even more certain" that it was the correct national security move.

"I actually believe that Democrats are going to agree with me on that by the time we get to the general election," the Republican former New York City mayor said. Giuliani addressed a wide range of issues in an hour-long meeting with editors of the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Amazing. Almost 2/3rds of this country feel it WASN'T the right thing to do. As matter of fact, 63% said it wasn't the right thing to do in an ABC/WaPo poll conducted 10/29-11/1. So Rudy aligns himself more with Bush - living somewhere beyond the reached of reality. I guess he got lost in Oz during one of his cross-dressing episodes.

3/4 Of This Country Thinks It Is Going In The Wrong Direction

That is an astonishing number from the latest ABC/WaPo poll. This country is fed up with how it is being run. I don't give the Republicans the sole blame for this either. The Democrats have give their fair share of help to this low number. They came into power last year promising all this change, yet not much has happened. Instead we have stuck with the typical Washington style game of finger pointing.

Something else I found interesting in this poll was how people rank items of importance. First was Iraq, second was the economy and third was healthcare. These three items should lead Democrats to a sweep next November, but will they act on it? Hillary has been all over the radar on what she will do with Iraq, so people can't be to certain she will do what's right.

On healthcare, Hillary still wants the insurance companies to play a big role. This could work, but not without other reforms. The insurance industry spends millions a year in lobbying and they won't hesitate to dump more money into that if they are facing tougher regulations. That could really hurt the Hillary-care program. Of course it is still better than the Republicans plan of giving the insurance companies even more control.

Basically I am getting the feeling from this poll that a lot of Americans will end up staying home next November. People are fed up, but they aren't given a clear choice for change. Instead we might get some minor improvements, but most will stay the same. It is really looking like America is entering it's dark ages here.

Is John McCain The WAPO's Editor?

This is very interesting. Last night Joe on AmericaBLOG posted this from a Washington Post article:

Five suicide bombers struck Shiite marketplaces in northeast Baghdad and a town north of the capital at nightfall Thursday, killing at least 122 people and wounding more than 150 in one of Iraq's deadliest days in years.

The savage attacks came as a new American ambassador began his first day on the job, and Senate Democrats ignored a veto threat and approved a bill to require President Bush to start withdrawing troops.

At least 178 people were killed or found dead Thursday, which marked the end of the seventh week of the latest U.S.-Iraqi military drive to curtail violence in Baghdad and surrounding regions.

I went to the article linked by Joe and read the entire thing, which started with those three paragraphs. Now today when you go to the link, the first three paragraphs are as follows:

Bombs tore through crowds of after-work shoppers in Baghdad and a town north of the capital on Thursday in an onslaught of violence that killed more than 100 people, according to Iraqi government and hospital officials.

Today's WaPo

"Hospital Officials Knew Of Neglect" - now that says alot, but not as much as the actual article:

Top officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including the Army's surgeon general, have heard complaints about outpatient neglect from family members, veterans groups and members of Congress for more than three years.

A procession of Pentagon and Walter Reed officials expressed surprise last week about the living conditions and bureaucratic nightmares faced by wounded soldiers staying at the D.C. medical facility. But as far back as 2003, the commander of Walter Reed, Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, who is now the Army's top medical officer, was told that soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan were languishing and lost on the grounds, according to interviews.

So all the outrage we heard last week from top officials was nothing more than a publicity stunt; an attempt to spin something so horrible. That is disgusting, but it gets better worse:

In 2004, Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and his wife stopped visiting the wounded at Walter Reed out of frustration. Young said he voiced concerns to commanders over troubling incidents he witnessed but was rebuffed or ignored. "When Bev or I would bring problems to the attention of authorities of Walter Reed, we were made to feel very uncomfortable," said Young, who began visiting the wounded recuperating at other facilities.

Why Does The War Bloggers Hate Our Veterans?

More than a day after the WaPo exposes the horrible way some of our wounded soldiers are being treated at Walter Reed and we still don't even have mention of it from the right-wing blogs. Yup - these poor soldiers are no longer of any value to them because they aren't out there "killin some brownies".

Meanwhile, John has dug up an interesting article where Bob Novak at least showed some interest in the way our veterans were being treated.

Who Supports Bush's Plan?

Yesterday CNN ran clips of the same 3 or 4 people saying they support Bush, but the clips of the people against the escalation plan were numerous. One clip they ran for support of the plan came from Iraq, where a member of the military thought it was a good idea. Now we got the WaPo with a story of another soldier, who feels it is not a good plan:

A few hours before another mission into the cauldron of Baghdad, Spec. Daniel Caldwell's wife instant-messaged him Thursday morning. President Bush, Kelly wrote, wanted to send more than 20,000 U.S. troops and extend deployments in Iraq. Eight weeks pregnant, she was worried.

Caldwell, a tall, lean 20-year-old from Montesano, Wash., wondered whether he would miss the birth of his child. He walked outside and joined his comrades of Apache Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker Brigade. They, too, had heard the news.

Moments before he stepped into his squad's Stryker -- a large, bathtub-shaped vehicle encased in a cage -- Caldwell echoed a sentiment shared by many in his squad: "They're kicking a dead horse here. The Iraqi army can't stand up on their own."

(emphasis mine)

Before people jump on the "well of course there are a couple of soldiers who disagree" bandwagon, stop and think about this. You have a soldier publicly speaking against their commander in chief's new policy. This is something that is relatively unheard of. These soldiers are nearing wits end in Iraq, and Bush is doing nothing to help that.

How Did The Bush Administration Try To Prevent 9/11?

From Yesterday's NYTimes:

On July 10, 2001, the book says, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice at the White House to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence the agency was collecting about an impending attack. But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously.

Tomorrow's WaPo:

The book also reports that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, grew so concerned in the summer of 2001 about a possible al-Qaeda attack that they drove straight to the White House to get high-level attention.

Tenet called Rice, then the national security adviser, from his car to ask to see her, in hopes that the surprise appearance would make an impression. But the meeting on July 10, 2001, left Tenet and Black frustrated and feeling brushed off, Woodward reported. Rice, they thought, did not seem to feel the same sense of urgency about the threat and was content to wait for an ongoing policy review.

I wonder if Condi feels the urgency now?

Raw Story has much more.

Working To Get Out The Vote

The WaPo has an interesting article today regarding the mid-term elections:

There's probably no way congressional Republicans can lose this fall, no matter how unpopular President Bush is or how unhappy the voters are with the war in Iraq. That's the prevailing view in Washington today.

But it's wrong.

If history is any guide, we're heading into a major political storm. And that means we could see a national tide in November that will sweep the Democrats back into the majority.

Virtually every public opinion measure points to a Category 4 or 5 hurricane gathering. Bush's job-approval rating is below 40 percent, and congressional job approval is more than 10 percentage points lower. Only a quarter of the electorate thinks the country is moving in the right direction, and voters are unhappy with the economy under Bush. Finally, Democrats hold a double-digit lead as the party the public trusts to do a better job of tackling the nation's problems and the party it would like to see controlling Congress.

What's causing the skepticism about Democrats' chances for victory in November are changing election patterns. Until recently, one of the few iron laws of American politics was that the president's party loses House seats in midterm elections, with the size of the loss depending on how many seats are at risk and how the public evaluates the president's performance. But all that seemed to change in 1998.

The real interesting part is here, where it highlights the biggest obstacle for Democrats:

First, party divisions may have hardened so much that few voters will be open to conversion. Party-line voting is at its highest level in decades. While many GOP voters are critical of Bush and the Republicans in Congress, many may return to the fold by November. On the other hand, there are enough pure independents and weak partisans to make a significant shift in the national vote possible.

Second, polls reveal a Democratic advantage in the level of interest in the midterm elections comparable to what the Republicans enjoyed in 1994. But it's still uncertain whether Republicans' traditionally higher turnout rates, combined with the GOP's vaunted get-out-the-vote operation, will significantly reduce or eliminate that advantage.

Third, when the president is in political peril, it is easier for the opposition party to recruit strong candidates and raise campaign money. But many analysts have noted the absence of strategic behavior on the part of the Democrats, who have failed to recruit good candidates and have allowed the Republicans to maintain a fundraising advantage.

Bush's Failing Foreign Policy Highlighted In Today's WaPo

So how bad are things on the international front? The Washington Post gives us a great view:

From deteriorating security in Afghanistan and Somalia to mayhem in the Middle East, confrontation with Iran and eroding relations with Russia, the White House suddenly sees crisis in every direction.

North Korea's long-range missile test Tuesday, although unsuccessful, was another reminder of the bleak foreign policy landscape that faces President Bush even outside of Iraq. Few foreign policy experts foresee the reclusive Stalinist state giving up the nuclear weapons it appears to have acquired, making it another in a long list of world problems that threaten to cloud the closing years of the Bush administration, according to foreign policy experts in both parties.

"I am hard-pressed to think of any other moment in modern times where there have been so many challenges facing this country simultaneously," said Richard N. Haass, a former senior Bush administration official who heads the Council on Foreign Relations. "The danger is that Mr. Bush will hand over a White House to a successor that will face a far messier world, with far fewer resources left to cope with it."

Yes and whoever that President is will have to deal with this and with a budget that is out of control and other messes Bush has made (ie. FEMA). This is what happens when you get someone who would rather play President then be presidential. Bush has the most dangerous of egos - thinking he is right on everything. That ego has cost America more then it will ever know.

And A New Site Is Born

I posted yesterday about an article in Friday's WaPo, which said Jon Stewart was hurting democracy. Now a new site is born. Check out Enemy of Democracy and help support Jon Stewart (h/t Paulpaz in the comments)

Cowards In The Senate And Press

Sounds like that pussy Specter is bowing down to the big old bully called Dick Cheney now:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has proposed legislation that would give President Bush the option of seeking a warrant from a special court for an electronic surveillance program such as the one being conducted by the National Security Agency.

Sen. Arlen Specter's approach modifies his earlier position that the NSA eavesdropping program, which targets international telephone calls and e-mails in which one party is suspected of links to terrorists, must be subject to supervision by the secret court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The new proposal specifies that it cannot "be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President to gather foreign intelligence information or monitor the activities and communications of any person reasonably believed to be associated with a foreign enemy of the United States."

Also notice how the WaPo is downplaying the NSA surveillance in this article. They are saying that is intercepts calls that are "international". Of course we have all been told this is not the case and it does target in on domestic calls also. Nice bow down there WaPo. Apparently the pussies there also got scared of big bad Dick.

Glenn Greenwald has an excellent assessment of this latest act of pandering by Specter.

The WaPo Is Creepy

On April 18, 2005, the Washington Post did a write up about Rick Santorum entitled "Father First, Senator Second". This story was really creepy as it talked about Santorum bringing the dead fetus home from his wife's miscarriage and treating it as part of the family. You can read more about it in my post titled The Creepy Side of Santorum from last July or read the entire article here.

13 months later and the Washington Post does not cease to amaze. They published an article today entitled "Bill Frist: A Doctor at Heart". Again they show us how creepy these Republicans are. Instead of going into details, I urge you to either read the article or check out the great synopsis Aravosis did on it. Both of these articles are about the creepiest thing that could have ever been published in a newspaper.

Defending Ben

So I decided to take a stroll on over to RedState.org and read what the radical-right is saying in the wake of the Domenche scandal. As usual, they are their typical apologetic selves. This of course is no shock from a group of people who blindly support the worst President in American History. True these are the same people that still believe Saddam had WMD and was able to attack the united states in a matter of minutes. These are also the same people who sit around and play soldier on their computer but are not willing to go fight in a war they so greatly support (they should really be referred to Operation Yellow Elephant).

While on my reading campaign at RedState (appropriatley called that because I know see red, but that is because my eyes are bleeding from the pain), I came across a couple very interesting items. Those items I just have to share with my blue friends:

The leftist frenzy over WaPo's Red America continues unabated into its second day. And it is, paradoxically, turning out to be a good thing. Not only are they acting the fools, paranoid and aggrieved at a blog, they are also putting their own ugly proclivities on full display. Their penchant for dumb incivility in discourse is already well-noted -- there's even a book on it -- but less appreciated, from the side that claims to care most about the touchy-feely things in life, is their bottomless opposition to parents. It seems a tremendous claim to make, especially as you'll rarely get a leftist to say it outright. "Parenting" is among the indistinct absolutes that draw universal approval. Who is against mothers? Who is against freedom? Who is against peace? But conclusions can be drawn from the concrete actions rather than the gauzy platitudes of rhetoric. We already knew that the left expends massive energies on behalf of the negation of parenthood. And now, in the spluttering chorus attacking Ben Domenech, we are reminded that they also hate parents acting as such in the fullness of their roles. They hate homeschooling.

First off the book they are pimping there is Michelle Malkin's book. That is ok, everyone needs some good fiction in their life. That is not the problem. Most of that is not, it is typical right wing, fanatical writing. Typical of people who live a life in fear that a terrorist will strike at any moment or that an abortion a thousand miles away will affect their lives (and do not even mention gay marriage or they will lock themselves in a room for fear).

My Finds On Domenech

I haven't written yet about the Washington Post's decision to hire Ben Domenech to be their "conservative blogger". I have followed the story very close but feel there are numerous other bloggers out there getting the message out. Atrios has taken the lead on this and done a great job as usual. Hunter at Daily Kos also revealed some troubling news about the newest hire at WaPo. Turns out he is a plagiarist.

In a way, I feel the decision is going to do nothing but hurt the Washington Post in the end. The neo-con movement is dead. Get over it. Even the original neo-cons have admitted it. They blame Bush and this Republican controlled congress for killing the movement they worked so hard to start.

The views of Domenech will also provide us with even a greater return fire when pundits like Coulter try to "blame the liberal media". We now have proof the media is biased and they lean highly to the right. Of course newspapers are becoming a thing of the past and the top new site on the internet when it comes to number of viewers is MSNBC.

Anyways, I decided to do a NewsBank (must be subscriber) search on Ben today and came up with something interesting. The following appeared in the May 7, 2000 edition of the Washington Post:

At 18, Benjamin Domenech, of Round Hill, has landed himself a plum assignment in the world of inside-the-Beltway journalism. He writes a column, "Any Given Sunday," recapping the political talk television programs for the World Wide Web site of the conservative National Review magazine.

If there was a Top 10 list of young Loudoun County people to watch, he'd be on it. And agree with him or not, you would be hard pressed to deny that Domenech is a sharp writer with an obvious command of his national politics beat--especially considering that this is the first year he is eligible to vote.

"He really shows maturity beyond his years," said Richard Lowry, editor of the National Review.

Lowry said he runs into a lot of George Will-wannabes trying to break into national journalism circles at a very young age, but "few of them can actually pull it off. [Domenech] just seems to be just a couple steps in front of everyone else."

Living In 2003

Well things are really heating up with Iran. You can tell that Bush's approval ratings are in the crapper and they really need something else to divide this country. What a better way to do this then to get Cheney out there opening his mouth (from the WAPO)

Though Lavrov said it was too early to discuss U.N. sanctions against Iran, Vice President Cheney had already issued a blunt threat that Iran will face "meaningful consequences" if it fails to cooperate with international efforts to curb its nuclear program.

OK. Now remember last summer when Cheney was running his mouth about Kim Jong-Il? He said he was the worse leader in the world and this of course upset the North Korean leader and he even broke off talks on the nuclear stand off between us and them. Well Cheney's motor mouth is doing it again (from the AP).

Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program.

What does Cheney not get about the word diplomacy? I guess he is just following the normal suit for this entire administration. When numerous other countries disagreed with us on Iraq then we acted like a pack of spoiled brats and even said "whaaa we won't call them French Fries anymore".

It has become obvious how this administration operates. Bush is the spoiled brat that has to always get what he wants. Cheney is the big bully that helps George out so when George needs something its Cheney to the rescue. What will it take to get these two to go on a hunting trip together?