Author: up2date

From It Affects You

Today’s press gaggle lasted 32 minutes. For Scotty, it must have felt much longer. You see, in that 32 minutes, reporters repeated essentially the same question twenty three times. For those wishing to calculate such things, that’s once every 83 seconds.

Reporters wanted to know why the administration is peddling Miers’ religious beliefs, and when he refused to answer, they asked again. And then they asked again. And then again. They kept this up practically from start to finish, 23 times, once every 83 seconds. They had to repeat the question 23 times, and still they received no straight answer.

That’s quite pathetic, and it brings avoidance to new levels. But that’s not really the interesting part, of course, because avoidance is why he’s there. What’s really interesting is reporters actually followed up. Rather than just letting it go, or worse dutifully reprinting the administration’s talking points, they hounded him 23 times.

Below the jump read the 23 questions Scotty refused to answer:

1. “Scott, the President has said that religion was part of Harriet Miers’ life, and the White House’s outreaching has mentioned the fact that she does go to this conservative Christian church … No such efforts were made, not to this extent, anyway, in terms of Chief Justice Roberts. No one in the White House even mentioned his religion, as best we can tell. Why is this case”
2. “I know, but it was never — it never was brought up at this podium, and the President never mentioned it.”
3. “Do you think Harriet Miers’ religion is being emphasized more by this administration than Chief Justice Roberts’ was?”
4. “what relevance does it play in a conversation between Karl Rove and James Dobson? Why would he bring it up, even?”
5. “Also that she’s a member of a very conservative church.”
6. “But in the context of the conversation between the President’s Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor and the head of a very conservative Christian organization, it sounds like code.”
7. “Back to Miers for a moment. When you say that Ms. Miers understands that religion has no role in the business of the Court, at the same time the President has said he knows her heart, her beliefs, her character; he talked today about people wanting to know about her life and, therefore, her religion. How are we not to interpret that her religion was one of the factors in his selection?”
8. “So her religion played no role in her making it to the final group and then, ultimately — “
9. “All right. So there was no — no role at all in the President’s decision-making of Harriet Miers’ religion?”
10. “Why is Karl Rove calling up religious leaders telling them it’s okay, she belongs to an ultra evangelical church?”
11. “Wait, wait, wait. What relevance does how a person prays have to the judicial philosophy?”
12. “So why are you peddling it?”
13. “But you just said it was relevant to judicial philosophy.”
14. “It seems that what you’re doing is trying to calm a revolt on the right concerned that Harriet Miers isn’t conservative enough, by saying, it’s okay, she is conservative enough, because she goes to this church.”
15. “Why is his top aide going around and telling people how she prays?”
16. “Scott, isn’t — the bleed-over here, though, is that if we understood the account correctly — and it doesn’t sound like you’re disputing it — that Karl was making an argument that her religious faith and her membership in the evangelical church was evidence of what her judicial philosophy — conservative judicial philosophy would be. He was using it to buttress the question of how she would rule — am I misunderstanding that?”
17. “Scott, if that’s the case, then, wouldn’t Karl’s statement to Mr. Dobson have been, “you know, what church she belongs to is completely irrelevant to how she would serve on the Supreme Court; I’m not even going to tell you what church she went to because it doesn’t have anything to do with her philosophy.” Wouldn’t that be the consistent statement?”
18. “So there was no effort, to your mind, that it was not Mr. Rove’s desire here to use her church background as evidence of how she may approach cases from the bench?”
19. “If personal views don’t have a role to play, then why would anybody from the White House talk about what church she goes to and what the beliefs are of the people in the church?”
20. “I’ll try to ask an earlier question a bit more directly. Did Rove talk to Dobson about Miers’ religious beliefs to signal in any way how he thought she would vote on an issue before the Court?”
21. “Okay, but part of the discussion — you talked earlier about it — part of the discussions was about her religious beliefs.”
22. “Did he — I haven’t heard an answer. Did he bring that up to signal — “
23. “I don’t feel I have an answer. Can you just say yes or no, did he try to signal — was he trying to signal how she might vote on any particular — “

(Note: In the first question I edited out Scotty’s interruption. Other questions seem to end abruptly – that marks the point Scotty cut them off.)

From It Affects You

From It Affects You

I missed Bush’s speech this morning.  An hour or so later, I went over the transcript expecting to see mostly tired Bushisms on the war.  I wasn’t disappointed.  The speech was nothing new, with one of the few things to note being the extent which the lines between the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq have been completely blurred.

There were at least six direct references to September 11 in the speech.  And guess how many references to Saddam?  That’s right: zero.  Saddam Hussein has gone from Bush’s favorite evil tyrant to someone Bush would like you to forget about.

This is not really new either.  I’ve written many times here how conservatives have shifted months ago to discussing the war in Iraq solely in the context of the war on terror.  In the days leading up to the war and in the months after, it was all about mushroom clouds and WMDs and evil tyrants.  Whenever Cheney or Bush or one of the conservative talking heads tried to link Iraq to 9/11, they were met with rebuttals from the reality-based community.  Sadly, that didn’t always include very much of the media.

Fast forward a few years, and Iraq is a central front in the war on terror.  But, as I’ve written before, it became that way not despite conservative foreign policy but because of it.  Now that a political version of the self-fulfilling prophesy has in part made conservative rhetoric accurate, they would like you to forget the middle steps.  They would like to completely blur the lines and convince Americans that we have always been fighting terror in Iraq, that our initial invasion was against the evil armies of al Qaeda.  Too much media attention on Saddam ruins that illusion because it reminds Americans that, oh yeah, it wasn’t bin Laden and Zarqawi from the start, this war wasn’t always about terrorism, and Iraq wasn’t always such a massive terrorist recruiting and training ground.  How’d it get so screwed up?

Bush and co have largely received a free pass from the media on this transition.  It is almost a bit odd.  Back near the start of the war, activists and some in the press gave conservatives a hard time when they tried to link Iraq to 9/11.  But now years later when the press is actually showing some signs of life, they generally have been completely willing to allow this line of rhetoric to go unchallenged.  In response to one of these press conferences, I would love to see a member of the press ask a question something like, “Mr. President, do you regret your role in greatly expanding terrorists’ grip on the Middle East?”

From It Affects You

From It Affects You

I’ve read many great defenses of prosecutor Ronnie Earle here and elsewhere.  As they point out, he’s got a decidely nonpartisan record, having prosecuted four times as many Democrats as Republicans.  But as good and as accurate as these defenses are, many play into DeLay’s frame.

The evidence is clear enough and presented well enough that we will convince any reasonable person that Earle’s motivations are not partisan. But the mere mention of the argument in these terms forces people to answer the question “Is Earle (Are Democrats) targeting DeLay for partisan reasons?”  The frame is of angry Democrats out on a witch hunt for Republican blood, and so it allows DeLay to change the subject.  When responding, we need to reframe it so people are instead asking themselves, “Are DeLay and his supporters smearing an honest public servant so they can avoid accountability?”  The frame now is of unethical Conservatives looking to get away with bad behavior by blaming others.  The focus stays on conservative corruption, and we become the aggressors rather than the defenders.  

It should not be difficult to do.  After all, wouldn’t you expect someone with a history of unethical behavior to defend himself using unethical methods?  It plays right into our frame.  So when we’re facing accusations of Earle being on a partisan witch hunt, we should not respond with, “Earle is not playing politics because…”  Instead we should respond with, “As he’s always done, Tom DeLay is using dishonest and unethical methods to achieve his goals.  Now that he’s been indicted for some of those tactics, rather than face the consequences, he and his supporters are attempting to smear those who stand against his unethical behavior…”

And then, thanks to the great work of Think Progress and others, we have plenty of evidence to go on the attack to show that DeLay and his apologists are sliming a dedicated and honest public servant.

This is not a time to be on the defensive, it’s a time to attack.  

From It Affects You

From It Affects You

During his testimony to the congressional whitewash panel on Katrina, Brownie got right down to the heart of the problem:

“It is inherently impractical, totally impractical, for the federal government to respond to every disaster of whatever size in every community across the country.”

Forget for the moment Brownie’s specific incompetence (though it is great) and forget for the moment he’s accepting some responsibility primarily by blaming others.  (He said he should have recognized Blanco and Nagin were not getting the job done and stepped up himself, for example.)  Forget for a moment the specific incompetence of the Bush administration (though it, too, is great.)  Brownie’s quote gets right to the philosophy which pervades conservative thinking, and which is really at the heart of the failed preparations and response.

Katrina was not, of course, some small disaster effecting one or two communities across the country.  It was likely the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States.  It’s an argument for a responsible government – before, during and after – if there ever was one.  Hearing Brownie express disdain for the very job function of the agency he headed gets at the larger problem which most of what we witnessed springs from – modern conservatism itself.

The Katrina disaster did not simply expose incompetence at high levels of government.  It did that in spades, to be sure, but it exposed a great deal more.  Bush didn’t fill key positions at agencies critical to the safety of Americans with cronies strictly because he’s part of a corrupt system.  He was able to do it with relative ease because Conservatives do not take these agencies seriously.  In the modern conservative view, it’s not the role of the federal government to provide disaster relief, so it’s not any sort of controversy to appoint a clearly under-qualified individual to head the agency assigned to respond to disasters.  It’s not the role of the federal government to oversee health care issues, so there’s nothing wrong with placing a veterinarian in charge of women’s health at the FDA.

Politically, they could not cut cut these programs, but that does not mean they need to take them seriously.  If you don’t value these programs, if you don’t believe their missions are any business of the federal government’s, then you don’t really care about the qualifications of the people you appoint.  These are useless, wasteful programs which can’t be cut, so they might as well be used to reward supporters.  So what if key government programs are undermined?  They’re not worthwhile to begin with. This is not a surprising development, and perhaps even an inevitable one, of the modern conservative takeover of government.

We can try to fix the problems on the ground – which we must – but we cannot let it end there.  We have an incompetent conservative administration in the White House and mostly incompetent conservative leadership in congress.  That made matters worse, but it did not create the problems.  The real problem is modern conservatism itself.

From It Affects You

From It Affects You

There’s a new AP poll measuring Americans’ attitudes towards issues relating to Katrina – mostly it highlights the usual areas.

But viewing the topline results (PDF), I found a very interesting question not featured in the AP’s own story on their survey:

If you had to choose, which one of the following options do you think is the best way for the government to pay for the relief effort for Hurricane Katrina:

Cut spending on Iraq:  42%

Delay or cancel additional tax cuts:  29%

Add to the federal debt and gradually pay it back:  14%

Cut spending for other domestic programs like education, welfare, transportation, and health care:  11%

Not sure:  4%

As I’m sure you noticed, these priorities are exactly opposite from what the president and the Republican controlled congress plan to do.  Conservative leaders, in fact, could not possibly wait to begin envisioning the ways they would try to cut domestic spending while quickly promising not to raise taxes.  No doubt some were pleased Katrina offered them a way to propose what they could not have otherwise.

While they avoid eliminating parts of Bush’s tax cuts, the deficit will surely soar to greater heights than it has during the first part of Bush’s watch.  That, of course, will require additional cuts in domestic spending down the road greater than what they are proposing now.  Oh how they must be looking forward to that day.

This is not what Americans want.  But the Republican Noise Machine will kick into high gear, throwing some pseudo economics out there to justify faulty economic policy and convince us that what is in our worst interests is really in our best interests.  I can easily hear Bush and other Conservatives talking about how “tough times require sacrifice” as they ask a single mom to go without health insurance for her child, all the while they cling to their tax cuts for the wealthy like a baby clings to a security blanket.  

The scary thing is they have pulled off such sleight of hand politics before.  Conservatives might just succeed in delivering to Americans what they neither want nor need, particularly if we let them.  The Conservative position is weakened, they have been exposed, and people in large numbers no longer trust George Bush.  Going up against poll numbers like this in the best of circumstances should be a steep uphill battle.  There’s no reason we should even let them get out of the gates.  Fighting Dems, mount up.

From It Affects You

From It Affects You

I know many on the Religious Right have a disdain for divorce, but nevertheless here we are.  It seems the once fruitful relationship between the Religious Right and the GOP is, sadly, not what it used to be.  

We’ve all heard grumblings from the Religious Right about how they are courted every couple of years for elections but then dumped by the second week of November.  We’ve witnessed them try to purge the GOP of all moderates.  We’ve heard the threats of pulling support, demands made for judicial appointments and legislative action.

Well, it seems arch Conservative Paul Weyrich is growing tired of all this and, probably citing irreconcilable differences, is taking steps towards ending the relationship.  (For those not very familiar with Weyrich,  I recently went over just what a juggernaut he is in the Cosnervative movement.  He is one of the architects of the VRWC, not some random wacko.  If he’s talking like this, it’s big.)
Weyrich is writing a series on the Next Conservatism.  In previous entries, he sharply disagreed with Conservative foreign policy.  And by sharply, I mean sharply.  His vision was almost completely incompatible with Bush doctrine.  And on the home front, he strongly derided the Patriot Act while clearly he’s utterly frustrated with the lack of progress in the “culture wars.”

In short, he’s been railing not just against the usual liberal targets, but against modern Conservatism and the GOP.  While in previous entries he highlighted his gripes with modern Conservatism, in his most recent entry he gives some idea of how he plans to either bully the GOP into his corner or engineer a complete split.  I’ll skip over the parts where he essentially repeats his gripes and get right to the threats:

We should put a new line on every ballot, “none of the above,” and if it wins there should be a new election with new candidates. Voters in Russia have the power to reject all candidates, and they sometimes do so. Why should American voters all too often have to hold their nose and pick the lesser of two evils? NOTA would put pressure on all political parties to offer better candidates.

Ouch.  Does that sound like someone happy with the candidates he’s been voting for?  I wonder if he held his nose while he pulled the lever for President Bush.  That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of Republican candidates.

The threat here is clear.  The GOP has been wooing the Religious Right for years, yet they often fell short in delivering after the elections.  The Religious Right wants to send a message.  The GOP can no longer put up candidates who do not meet their strict guidelines and expect the Religious Right to vote for them because they have no choice.  If such election reforms are put in place, the Religious Right will threaten to urge their supporters to vote “NOTA” unless a “suitable” candidate is found.  Message: don’t think we’ll vote for you by default.  If you don’t put up a Religious Right approved candidate, we won’t vote.

At present, incumbents have a tremendous advantage over challengers, an imbalance made worse by McCain-Feingold, which was really an incumbents’ protection act. We need to establish a more level playing field. One way to do that might be allow challengers to spend several times as much money on their campaigns as incumbents. It is much easier for incumbents to get free media attention, and the government subsidizes incumbents to the tune of $2 million for each Congressman with regional offices, staffs, mailings and so on.  Allowing the challenger to spend more would reduce the incumbent’s unfair advantage.

I’m sure Weyrich wants such legislation so he can raise vast amounts of money to go after sitting Democrats, but that’s not the interesting part.  Given the tone of his criticisms of the GOP and points he makes in this very article, Democrats are not Weyrich’s primary target here.  Weyrich clearly means to threaten sitting Republicans.  During the years between elections, Weyrich can use the threat of heavily financing a primary challenger to demand concessions out of Republicans.  And in at least a few of those cases, he’s likely to follow through.

His following point should remove mosts doubts about who his primary targets will be:

We also need to create a level playing field for third parties. Third parties have historically played important roles in advancing new ideas, something the next conservatism should keep in mind. The Republican and Democratic parties collude in keeping third party challengers out of the system. The next conservatism should insist on more options for the voters and fair play for all parties.

Weyrich plays for keeps.  He’s not the kind who lobbies for wider participation in the democratic process and you won’t find him a champion for voting rights.  He lobbies for a system which helps his ideas and the candidates who support them triumph.  If he’s pressing for a stronger role for third parties, you can bet it’s not for “fair play for all parties.”

This falls right in line with his two previous points.  He not only wants to be able to threaten to pull votes and finance primary challengers, he wants to make the threat of the Religious Right bolting from the GOP real.  If the GOP fears losing a critical bloc of votes, they may be forced to deal.  All that extra money he wants to be able to spend against incumbents isn’t for Democrats.  He wants the GOP to feel an independent Religious Right will be able to inflict serious damages.

All his ideas are essentially ways to attain additional leverage within the GOP and, should that not work, of actually following through and causing a deep split.  Make no mistake, though.  This is not a war between moderates and extremists within the Republican Party; moderates already lost that one.  This is a struggle between which extreme element will control the Republican Part for the next decade or two.

Weyrich is one of the primary architects of the current VRWC, and he’s giving us a look at his next design.

Remember, divorce is toughest on the children.  If you see a poor wingnut lost, split between both ideological parents, give ’em a little hug.

Cross Posted From It Affects You

To hear Bush speak of the war in Iraq, one might momentarily forget about Saddam Hussein.  One could easily be led to believe the war was always about fighting terrorists and that we have been fighting directly against al Qaeda from day one.  I’ve been harping on this theme (here and here) for a few days now because I believe it is an important one.

Conservatives have been trying to tie Iraq with the war on terror since the early days, and we correctly fought them when they did, pointing out the war in Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror and the likely result would be a step backwards in fighting terror.  Now that the very policies they pursued have resulted in Iraq truly becoming terrorist recruiting and training grounds, Conservatives feel completely free to justify the war in Iraq as the war on terror.  It’s as good of a self fulfilling prophesy as you’re likely to see in politics.  What’s worse, they have been doing this largely unchallenged.  Every time Bush uses the war on terror to drum up support for the war in Iraq (which is to say always ), we must remind Americans just how it got that way.  

Bush was at it again in his radio address:

As these hopeful events occur in the Holy Land, the people of Iraq are also making the tough choices and compromises necessary for a free and peaceful future. In January, eight-and-a-half million Iraqis defied the terrorists and went to the polls to vote. […]

The terrorists are trying to stop the rise of democracy in Iraq because they know a free Iraq will deal a decisive blow to their strategy to dominate the Middle East. But the Iraqi people are determined to build a free future for their nation, and they are uniting against the terrorists.

We saw that unity earlier this month when followers of the terrorist Zarqawi tried to force Shiite Muslims to leave the Iraqi city of Ramadi. Sunni Muslims in that city came to the defense of their Shiite neighbors. As one Sunni leader put it, “We have had enough of Zarqawi’s nonsense. We don’t accept that a non-Iraqi should try to enforce his control over Iraqis.”

By choosing to stand with their fellow Iraqis, these Sunnis rejected the terrorists‘ attempt to divide their nation and incite sectarian violence.

Iraqis are working together to build a free nation that contributes to peace and stability in the region, and we will help them succeed. American and Iraqi forces are on the hunt side by side to defeat the terrorists. As we hunt down our common enemies, we will continue to train more Iraqi security forces.

Bush continues to speak of Iraq solely in the context of the war on terror, and in almost all cases it goes unchallenged.  He’s actually using one of the results of his grand mistake to garner continued support for that grand mistake.  We wouldn’t let him get away with that back in April of 2003, and there’s no reason we should be letting him get away with that today.  The Democratic response should be swift and strong.  Whenever Bush mentions Iraq and the war on terror, we need to remind Americans just how it got that way and who is to blame.  Fighting the war on terror in Iraq is not something Bush should be boasting about; it is something for which he should be apologizing.

It wouldn’t hurt either if members of the media would do their jobs.  It’s not just Democrats who have let him get away with this.  I can scarcely recall reading any article where Bush or one of his supporters was quoted tying Iraq with the war on terror and the writer did anything but reprint it.    

And on another note, did anyone else notice that in the radio address Bush actually quoted a Sunni leader saying, “We don’t accept that a non-Iraqi should try to enforce his control over Iraqis.”  Gee, can anyone else think of at least one other non-Iraqi who might be trying to enforce control of Iraqis?  Hmmm…

Cross posted from It Affects You

Yesterday Bush mouthpiece and asshole Trent Duffy just said those opposed to Bush’s policies want to lose the war on terror.  No, really, that’s what he said in response to a question during yesterday’s press gaggle:

Q Is the White House concerned about the protests that are planned in Salt Lake City today?

MR. DUFFY: The President addressed that directly. He can understand that people don’t share his view that we must win the war on terror, and we cannot retreat and cut and run from terrorists, but he just has a different view. He believes it would be a fundamental mistake right now for us to cut and run in the face of terrorism, because if we’ve learned anything, especially from the 9/11 Commission Report, it is that to continue to retreat after the Cole, after Beirut and Somalia is to only empower terrorists and to give them more recruiting tools as they try to identify ways to harm Americans.

What Duffy is saying quite clearly is that people who oppose the president’s flawed Iraqi policy, unlike the president, don’t want to win the war on terror.  Duffy wants the press to print his quote, so that people read that protesters like Cindy Sheehan want to lose the war on terror.  He wants you to believe they line the president’s route carrying signs which read, “Let’s lose the war on terror!” and “If the president opposes terror, I oppose the president!”  He wants you to know politicians like Chuck Hagel want the terrorists to win.  He wants you to forget everything else and just believe that the entire reason they are protesting, in fact, is to lose the war on terror.

But it’s not just the Sheehans and Hagels he’s targeting.  A majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, so isn’t he saying that a majority of Americans are terror supporters?  That likely includes you, your neighbor, and the guy who sells you your paper in the morning.  You might not have realized it, but according to Duffy, you are all terror supporters.

Some may object to me bluntly calling Duffy an asshole, and I understand where they are coming from, but I’m not going to apologize for it.  Duffy’s answer is not political discourse, and there is no attempt at honest debate.  He has elavated talk show and online political forum discourse to the White House breifing room (or its vaction equivilent.)  If he were a random wingnut, we could just ignore him.  But he is not, so here we are.  

Duffy is using the age old technique of identifying with an idea, not a specific plan.  The president is not someone with a plan to fight terror, Conservatives want you to see him as someone who embodies the fight against terror.  Therefore if you criticize the president, you are not criticizing his plan, you are criticizing the very idea “that we must win the war on terror.”  It’s not only a way of immunizing yourself from any criticism, it’s also backhanded way of pretty directly villanizing your opponents, with an emphasis on backhanded.  If you’re going to call people like Cindy Sheehan and Chuck Hagel terror supporters, at least have the stones to do it straight up without any word games.  That makes Trent Duffy not only an asshole, but a weasely asshole.

Oh, and my rant is not over just yet.  This whole bit about how a reason to support Bush is because we must not “cut and run in the face of terrorism” in Iraq is getting old.  Imagine a fire fighter dedicated to stopping forest fires.  For whatever reason (maybe he’s bored, maybe he’s afraid the Fire Dept. will lay him off if there isn’t enough work, maybe he just made a colossally stupid mistake) he takes to starting his own fires, spreading them to parts of the forest which would otherwise have been completely unaffected.  And then to top it off, he uses the need to fight those fires as the primary justification for why we need him.  What we do is clear, isn’t it?  We may need to fight the fires he started, but we don’t keep him around to do it.  You can be sure of that.

Cross posted from It Affects You

One of my favorite radical Right Wing groups is still at it, I see.  Concerned Women for America decided to weigh in on Cindy Sheehan’s vigil, and to nobody’s surprise they came out against this grieving mother.  And they did it in typical sleazy CWA style.

Early on in the article (in the second sentence) they write “we need to respect her grief at losing her son.”  Of course, they go on to show an amazing lack of respect.  

While their “respectful” commentary is filled with vile remarks, there’s one slap in particular which stands out.  CWA attempts to label Cindy a “crackpot” (their exact word) by painting some of what she said as irrational.  And look at what they include:  

She is even urging the President to send his two “party-animal” daughters into the conflict and she is threatening to impeach everyone in the White House and U.S. military. Those are not rational statements

They just figuratively slapped Cindy Sheehan across the face.

I’d like to ask CWA just what is so irrational about the idea that either of the Bush girls might join the military?  Should they be exempt?  Is it beneath them?  Is it not their war to fight?  Just what, exactly, makes the thought so “irrational” to you?  Why was it okay for Casey Sheehan to go to Iraq, but irrational for the Bush girls to do the same?  You mind explaining that one to me?

And now on to the rest of their commentary.  First, there is the title:

Exploiting Cindy Sheehan’s Emotional Crackup

Nothing says “respect” like labeling someone a “crackup.”  And I mean nothing.

And look at these other expressions of respect CWA bestows upon Cindy:

• “The woman is clearly unhinged”
• “It is embarrassing and inhumane for the media to expose this poor women’s unbalanced behavior.”
• “Somebody needs to step in to provide her with a quiet place to rest and, one would hope, regain her rationality and emotional balance.”
• “It is terribly sad to see the press — bored from a slow-news August and the forced inactivity in Crawford, Texas — exploit someone who has become a crackpot.”
• The woman can spew out foul language and call people names with the best drunken sailor or dock worker.
• “It is unspeakably sad that a woman who should be grieving the loss of her son has, instead, turned to name-calling and unseemly behavior in an ideological campaign that dishonors the memory of her son and disparages the heroic cause for which he gave his life.”  (CWA, like Maglalang, apparently has the power to speak with those from beyond the grave.”

All I can say to CWA is well done.  You sure respected the hell out of Cindy Sheehan.

Link to CWA’s article.

Cross posted from It Affects You

I was shocoked (shocked!) to learn that Republican lawmakers are providing aid and comfort to meth dealers everywhere.

As everyone no doubt knows, the Super Glorious Leader announced a comprehensive strategy to combat methamphetamine.  (Macho words like “combat” are always good to sprinkle into a press release for a really kick-ass sound.)  It is a brillaint and flawless plan to rid the world of the scourge of meth.  Our Leader is going to fight the meth dealers on the street so we don’t have to fight them in our living rooms.  I don’t want to fight them in my living room, do you?  Well, believe it or not, some people do want to fight meth dealers in their living rooms.

Rep. Mark Souder, a Republican from Indiana, wants drug dealers  in your living room:

“If this is a cohesive national policy, it is embarrassing.” […]

He suggested that the initiatives announced Thursday may be just a public relations ploy aimed at curbing congressional criticism of the administration’s lack of response to the illegal meth problem.

Souder’s hatred of America is just sickening.  If that’s the way he feels, he should just leave the country.  Move to the Netherlands or something.  By criticizing the Bush Global War on Drugs (or GWOD), all he is doing is giving aid and comfort to Meth dealers everywhere.  How can Bush be expected to effectively fight the War on Drugs when he’s attacked at every turn on the home front?  How does it make our DEA and other law enforcement officers on the front lines feel to see this kind of anti-American garbage in the press everyday?

In fact, I think we should all proudly display DEA badges to show we love America and support the troops in the War on Drugs.  I’m going to have this placed on a magnet and stick it on my car to show I support President Bush and his Global War on Drugs.  Souder would never put the magnet on his car, because he hates the troops in the Drug war.  He secretly roots for drug dealers to win just to make Bush look bad.  Every time a Republican like Souder criticizes Bush’s drug policies, the drug dealers win.  They’re trying to undermine America’s resolve to fight the War on Drugs, and people like Souder play right into their hands.  You know all the drug dealers voted for Souder.

And Souder is not alone:

Another Republican lawmaker from a meth-plagued state, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, said the meth proposals announced Thursday leave administration officials with “egg on their face.”

Grassley, chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, promised to “jack up the pressure through more hearings” if the administration fails to adopt a tougher meth policy. […]

Grassley said the administration’s plan shows that White House officials are “listening more to Wal-Mart than to the economic and social problems” caused by meth.

The administration officials will have “egg on their face”?  I bet drug dealers agree with you.

The Bush plan also would not require that cold medicines be sold from behind pharmacy counters, a key part of congressional legislation proposed by Sen. Jim Talent, a Republican from Missouri, and Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California.

“Their plan is inadequate,” Talent said. “If they are not in the dark (about meth), they are in the twilight. They need to come up with a strategy.”

Jim Talent, why do you hate America?