A(nother) Crock of Shit

Gary Cross decides that Democrats don't really support the troops because John Murtha, David Obey and James McGovern have proposed that we actually ask the American people to pay for the war through a surtax referred to as the "McGovern surtax" after the Worcester, Ma representative.

I suppose that the GOP supports the troops, evidenced by

1. conditions at Walter Reed;
   
2. extending troop deployments from 12 to 15 months;
   
3. stop-loss orders & recruitment;
   
4. denial of VA benefits;
   
5. hanging the troops out to dry with lack of armored vests and vehicles;
   
6. obscured and juggled figures and reporting on the maimed, wounded and killed*;
   
7. reductions in the budget for handling returning vets service-related injuries and disabilities;
   
8. paying private contractors at multiples of what we pay US soldiers — even the British pay 100% more;
   
9. cutting the combat pay and family separation allowance by 60% since 2003 to a measly $100 a month;
   
10. doing absolutely nothing to help military families, including the 25,000 families that are on food stamps — food stamps for crying out loud! What a disgrace!

And you’re all worried about John Murtha? Can’t you have the intellectual honesty to look at how Bush is merely militaristic and not pro-military? How out of touch are you?

In 1999, Bush the candidate wrote “A volunteer military has only two paths. It can lower its standards to fill its ranks. Or it can inspire the best and brightest** to join and stay.” Yet, after having 6 years, mostly with a free hand to spend as much as they wanted, the conditions for the troops remain largely unchanged. The troops don’t even qualify for Bush’s hyped child tax credit… because they make too little! Not only that, but Bush even had the gall to propose that combat pay not count towards eligibility for food stamps in 2005.

No, make no mistake about it. The Bush cabal cares no more about our troops than they did about serving our country in Vietnam. The presnit puts the W in aWol, bested only by five-deferment Dick, flag pin on his lapel and all.

And the idea that, somehow, by Murtha jumping to a conclusion before the facts are in, by MoveOn using a rhyme to make a point, and/or by Democrats calling for an end to the War makes them less patriotic or caring for our troops, is, forgive my language, a crock of shit.

---

* Interesting item of note (of what's missing): I input the entire sentence "obscured and juggled figures and reporting on the maimed, wounded and killed" into Google, and this was the first page that was listed.

** Another Google oddity: when searching for the original source, and using the entire quote as the search term, it was Donald Rumsfeld's swearing-in ceremony commemorative booklet in pdf format that came up first. I had to put George Bush in the search term to find a speech by W. which referenced his earlier (ghost-written) work.

Being Fiskally Conservative

Gary Gross takes on Satirist and Democrat Senate Candidate Al Franken for his op-ed in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Al sez "It's been a banner week for ridiculous" and I cannot but agree.

Why does Mr. Franken think it’s ridiculous spending a day debating something as important as MoveOn.org’s defamation of a commanding general in wartime?

Because:

• The advertisement was in no way defamatory. It isn't defaming if the criticism is true, and in this case, it is demonstrably true;
  
• It's wartime, and topic "a" is an advertisement in the New York Times, not the war, not the troops, not stridently working on a practical political compromise (to whit, how can we expect the Maliki government to reach a grand compromise if we can't?));
  
• The continued reliance by the radical right wing of the republican party on hashing and rehashing a partisan grassroots level organization advertisement is wearing thin, to the point of becoming a hostile act, possibly even treasonous (we are at War!).
  
• Spending time debating this is an absurd waste of resources, and it would be laughable were 160,000 of our troops not in harm's way.

Why should Mr. Franken get away with not speaking out against a radical fringe organization after they’ve accused Gen. Petraeus of lying?

Al isn't getting away with anything. His op-ed was in response to an advertisement run by Norm Colman a day or two after the Senate voted to condemn Move On, attacking him because he was not joining in the condemnation (for those of you keeping score at home, this is Franken not getting away with it). However, MoveOn is not a radical fringe organization, nor did they not fully substantiate all of the claims in the ad. You've linked to the page on their web site, as I do above, with their fully-attributed and documented claim. Go back and look at it again... the evidence is pretty overwhelming.

Your next fisk is the best part, though, because you shoot yourself in the foot saying "Would Franken stay silent if a Republican called Hillary a liar? Of [course -ed.]he wouldn’t stay silent nor would anyone expect him to." Setting up the classic straw man analysis requires parallel examples in the analogy. The better phrasing of this argument would have been "if a republican called Admiral Fallon a liar," in reference to Fallon's statement that Petraeus was an "ass-kissing chickenshit." But what is delicious, to borrow your term, is that you chose a highly political example because either you agree that Petraeus is a political figure, as anyone who undertakes water-carrying for the White House would be, or it just naturally came out due to subconscious thoughts or feelings that only a good therapist and several years on the couch could uncover. I don't think it's the latter.

But being intellectually honest, you have to look at Al Franken's stand on the issues, particularly Iraq before you say he "hasn’t shown even a slight interest in defeating the jihadists or in securing the Middle East." Just because he doesn't agree with you doesn't mean his stand is ill-conceived or he has not given serious consideration to his position. Not knowing what you're talking about betrays your partisan position as superior to all else. Gary Gross is as guilty of mouthing anti-democratic talking points as he accuses Franken of likewise.

Skewing the Numbers

So, CalCon links to a rightwingnut "news" source under the guise of a Gallup report, which itself does not include a link to the Gallup poll, but instead offers it's "reporter" for interviews? And this is Proof that the public thinks that Petraeus didn't mislead the Congress and American people about the situation in Iraq.

Now that's what I call a stretch.

First, and setting aside the quotation of another rightwingnut as a evidence of anything, this particular wingnut gives away their bias by simply suggesting that they would give an interview, or at least the last time I checked the Columbia School of Journalism didn't offer that as a course. Reporters do the interviewing, as when you cross that line, you become a defacto pundit.

Second, Randy didn't link directly to the report because the report says nothing about why Petraeus favorable ratings went up, but rather, simply reports that they did. Co-incidentally, the "unknown" percentage decreased at the same time, while the "unfavorable" rating remained constant. What this tells you is that as people became aware of who he is, they had a "favorable" impression.

And, a favorable impression does not necessarily translate into a belief that he is right on the war.

The people may look at him more favorably and view him as a good spokesman for the war, he has not done much to change the public's opinion on the war.

But only if we're looking at the matter from an objective point of view.

After reading the comments on this post, it came to me that there is just too incredibly vast a difference between liberals and conservatives. From the Top 10 Differences Between Progressives and Conservatives list:

Number 9
• Progressives believe in facts.
• Conservatives believe that anything that does not explicitly favor them is biased against them.

For example, this post claiming that Petraeus' favorable ratings increasing means that the public believes him, that the war is going just great and we should stay for another 10 to 50 years. And the presnit is going to ask for $200 Billion for the continuing war effort next week, making 2008 the most expensive year yet.

Don't worry; the weak and worthless Democrats in the Congress will fall all over themselves to give Bush every last dime, because the neocons and republicans have somehow managed to make funding the troops the same as supporting the troops and vice-versa. Nevermind that the liberal founding fathers set up the system specifically giving Congress the purse strings to check the president's power. Or, at least that was their stated goal.

The bottom line, as clearly evidenced on this blog over and over:

And, the Number 1 Modern Difference Between Progressives and Conservatives
• Progressives believe that “we are all in it together.”
• Conservatives believe that “you are on your own.”

Am I wrong?

Don't blame the Republicans!

This is rich, coming from California Conservative.

Nevermind that there is never a shortage of political finger pointing coming from this blog (and conservatives in general). Gosh, the bridge fell down, now let’s not point fingers. Why so defensive? Could it be the republican lawmakers who are responsible for this mess?

You’re right on one count: the 2007 transportation bill that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed wouldn’t have prevented the bridge from falling down, but the 2005 bill he vetoed sounds like it sure would have. Some facts:

Vetoed Transportation Bill: In 2005, Pawlenty vetoed a transportation finance bill that would have provided $7.8 billion over 10 years for roads, buses and passenger trains. The bill also included an increase in the state’s tax on gasoline by ten cents per gallon. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, 5/20/05)

Pawlenty 2004-05 Budget Proposal Did Little For Local Roads & Transit: In 2003, Pawlenty conceded that his proposed 2004-05 budget proposal for transportation did little for local roads and transit. Pawlenty proposed an overall 11 percent cut in transportation funding with a 64 percent drop in state general fund money. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, 5/24/03; Star Tribune, 2/19/03

Finances Delay Highway Construction: The state’s decision to build with borrowed money and expected federal funding has led to deteriorating roadways. Existing roads are now in their worst condition in decades, according to the state Department of Transportation. The agency’s cash balance dwindled from a $155 million surplus in 2002 to a deficit of $60 million before officials were legally required to get back in the black. According to the Star Tribune, tight finances are starting to delay highway construction, even on projects already underway. (Star Tribune, 7/4/06)

Funny how conservatives were so quick to blame Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco… yet want to wait an “appropriate amount of time” for the investigations to run their course before we hold anyone accountable for this disaster. I know, an oxymoron to use conservative and accountable in the same sentence, but this is theoretical. In practice, we all know how the cycle works. Which, of course, leads me to the question: When are we going to blame Bill Clinton for this?

The real gem, though, is this:

let’s all practice some personal accountability in this country by firing the blamers we put into office and find some real leaders.

What? Did this guy actually just say that we should hold the people who are asking questions about this disaster accountable, but not the people whose neglect and tax-cut politics at least contributed to this disaster, if not outright caused it? This is one of the finest pieces of spin, ever. Worthy of Billo! Congratulations, I nominate John G. Miller for today’s Worst Person in the World!

Simply shameless. And exactly what we should expect from republicans.

(Not) Understanding the Seperation of Powers

Blocked again in the midst of a discussion

Carlos criticized me on a previous post about focusing too much on the not-too-distant past (the 2000 election), suggesting that I should just put it behind me and move on. Well, TA, may I suggest that you put the Bill Clinton presidency behind you. The comparisons are so... well, pre-9/11. I mean, I guess it's okay to molest children, just so long as you do it under the auspices of religion. And maybe your parental rights should be subject to a foreign country's laws. Just hope you're wife doesn't die while in another country with your kids, 'cause who knows who'll get 'em since you seem to be for observing those laws, rather than your own.

No, let's talk about the countless children, both here in the US and the vastly higher number in Iraq who have lost parents, let alone those that have been killed and maimed, and the approximately 5,000 per month dying simply because they can't get clean drinking water, in Iraq. And how about all those refugees that have fled from Iraq to Syria, Egypt and elsewhere. Kind of makes the 21 who died as a result of their parents' religious zealotry pale in comparison, doesn't it?

Carlos, where are you coming up with this crap about Pelosi thinking she's running the war? Or did you forget that it was James Madison's famous quote regarding the power of the purse, a separation of power as enumerated in the Constitution? But I have to give you props for working Alice in Wonderland into a reply, however lacking in eloquence. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of your reference better than anyone else.

Allusions to literature aside, it is the insanity in the White House that is leading us down this path, towards a Constitutional crisis. This administration cabal is not unfamiliar with actions leading to a showdown, having started out under cloudy circumstances (oops, there I go again), and proceeding to lies, deceit, corruption, obsfucation, negligence, incompetence, and who knows how much criminal behavior. After all, in this presnit's government, the people don't deserve to know what's going on. It's not their government... anymore.

Coleman throws in towel, Klobuchar supports our troops

Indeed, “with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course.” We’ve pushed the violence out of Baghdad and into Mosul, Diyala and Kirkuk. Oh wait, unless you count the ever-present violence in Baghdad, where 11 people were killed including 3 soldiers on Wednesday, and then we have… no change. (And they wonder on Fox & Friends why McCain’s campaign is going up in smoke.)

But let’s turn to someone with first hand experience:

Salah Muhamad Amin, a retired army general from Baghdad said: “To be fair to the government, security has slightly improved since the implementation of the surge; however, it is not only about security.

“I am preparing myself to leave Baghdad, because I am not able to cope with day-to-day requirements. I am 70-years old and my wife is 62. We do not have enough electricity and we cannot tolerate the hot weather any more.”

He said his family has to daily manoeuvre through army checkpoints and barricades until they reach petrol stations where the queues can run for several blocks - all in the hope of securing fuel for the generators.

He said: “We are fed up with having to risk our lives every time we need to go and get our pensions, so I will sell my house and leave to a country where I can live normally.”

So, what small change has come, at least to Baghdad, has brought a new set of problems. Did this administration cabal foresee and account these changes? Of course not. We’re talking about the Bushes here. Even McCain admits that if we give the surge more time, he doubts that we can be successful there (”even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq.”). So, we’re just supposed to continue shedding blood and spending $12 Billion a month (I hope the grandkids have their charge cards handy!) for how long? Almost nobody knows, because nobody has planned for anything in Iraq. I say almost nobody, as Bush is just running out the clock, and “AQI” is prepared for this to go on forever. That is their plan.

Would that we had a plan for winning the war in Iraq. We haven’t from the beginning, and we still don’t. What do you expect from a presnit who, to repeat your test of Middle Eastern IQ, can’t name the capital of Diyala (or have you forgotten that Bush didn’t even know who Pervez Musharraf was prior to January 20, 2001)?

In the end, this vote was a good move for the Democrats. We now have, for the record, the names of 52 senators who support the troops, and the 47 who, at the cost of our soldiers lives, support the failures of the Bush cabal. That alone is worth the price of admission. The icing on the cake is the “get into Congress free” card that Norm Coleman just handed Al Franken.

ACLU v. NSA reversed, Gross Gloats

The ACLE v. NSA ruling was reversed not because of the merits of the arguments at the heart of the case, but rather, that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case. Don't make this out for more than it is; the arguments still hold water, and if not the ACLU, then some other group or individual may certainly step forward to bring this case, and this time, clearly with standing.

What is it about conservatives that they hate our freedoms? Why gloat, and why oppose a fight that is for some of our most fundamental rights? Why conflate international and domestic intelligence gathering (as though the separate agencies hadn't been in place for a reason)? Its not like anybody said the government shouldn't investigate and survey suspicious characters; there already is that mechanism and system under the FISA courts, which you ironically quote and twist their argument to support this, frankly un-American concept.
History seems to have to repeat itself, as we go through yet another cycle in which individual rights are curtailed by the government, only to have the rights restored with an even greater understanding of why they should not be curtailed, and the ensuing regulation and law that comes with further guarantees. Commenter Carlos continuously accuses me of wanting a huge "guvmint" that coddles every citizen, when this is case-in-point that I want the government out of my private life, along with shedding the huge bureaucracy required to perform this level of domestic spying!

Meanwhile, the chatter that has been reported is being compared to the level the Summer before 9/11. Al Queda is issuing statements of "spectacular" attacks. I suppose that despite these warnings, it will be a big shock that no one was paying attention, and we can attribute it to the liberals fighting domestic spying terrorist surveillance.

And not the fact that we're creating enemies faster than we can kill them.