Tag: Iraq

(Cross-posted at MyDD.)

Back in April, in the face of massive public support for a clear timeline to end the war in Iraq, only two Republicans in the House and two in the Senate dared to buck the White House’s pressure tactics and vote for the Iraq Accountability Act. The four were Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), and Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD).

Coincidentally, all four are now facing potential primary challenges from the right.

In Nebraska, Sen. Hagel, the most noted opponent of Bush’s Iraq policy in his party, is facing a very real challenge from Attorney General Jon Bruning (who even led Hagel in a recent primary poll):

“It’s pretty clear Nebraska voters understand Sen. Hagel is voting with the Democratic Party on the issue that they feel is most important at this time, which is the Iraq war, and that’s troubling to them”

Meanwhile, in Oregon, Sen. Smith is facing the current wrath and potential candidacy of anti-tax activist Bill Sizemore for his perceived lack of partisan loyalty:

“At the national level, Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of defeating Gordon Smith. After all he has done for liberals in Oregon, they still want to take him out, simply because he is a Republican. To them, a Republican in name only is still a Republican. Smith’s political vulnerability is no secret.”

Rep. Walter “Freedom Fries” Jones’ marked turn away from supporting Bush’s Iraq policy has been the “single issue” encouraging Joseph McLaughlin, an obscure country commissioner, to challenge the seven-term Congressman from a “safe seat” in North Carolina:

“A number of us have become very concerned about his drift to the left, espousing ideas that we don’t think reflect the views of the conservative base back in the district,” McLaughlin said. “Virtually every major vote on the war on terror, he has lined up with the liberals.”

And in Maryland, Rep. Gilchrest is facing a well-organized primary challenge from right-wing State Senator Andy Harris:

“People across the country desire to return to the Reagan values that brought the Republican Party to power – fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, traditional values and an optimistic view of this country and its role as a world leader,” Harris said.

Primary challenges are wonderful things. In our two-party, big-money system with engineered super-safe districts for incumbents, it’s where the real small-d democracy gets done these days. The more choices for voters, the better. These four potential primaries, as well as the presidential primaries in the early states, will have the added benefit of providing an early look for the entire nation at the direction GOP activists want the Republican party to take on Iraq.

However, this pro-democracy opinion of primaries (especially those where Iraq is a major issue) was certainly not one shared by right-wing and “centrist” politicians, “civil” pro-war pundits, and other members of the “reasonable” traditional media establishment, all of whom happily took part in last summer’s Rove-inspired media orgy demonizing the year’s most significant primary challenge and grassroots movement as nothing but an attempted party “purge.” (Nevermind that the incumbent in question actually promised to quit the party himself before the primary, and then swiftly followed up on it after losing).

So, a question: How many of the following figures who were so quick to see Stalinism in Stamford last August will be denouncing pro-war Republicans for their attempted quadruple “purge” this cycle? Don’t hold your breath:

It’s no wonder that so much time is being given to the Democratic primary in Connecticut, and that so many voices are being heard. The ideological triumphalists proclaim it a great renewal in the Democratic Party, beginning with the glorious purge of Sen. Joseph Lieberman.

– William F. Buckley, August 12, 2006

It should be noted that both Cheney and Mehlman pointedly referred to the Lamont win as a “purge,” echoing the seminal anti-Lamont editorial by the Democratic Leadership Council from two months ago which used the term eight times. They were joined in that effort last week by virtually the entire conservative punditry establishment, with everyone from Cal Thomas (“Purge by Taliban Democrats” was his clever innovation) to American Conservative Union chief Patrick Keene (“The purge that began with the McGovernite seizure of the party . . . “) to Foundation for Defense of Democracies president Clifford May (“The August Purge of Lieberman,” a funny historical malapropism; May was trying to echo Soviet Russia, which had an August putsch, not a purge) to Fox’s John McIntyre to a whole host of others decrying Lamont’s supporters as rich, elitist, neo-commie liberals bent on softening us all up for a terrorist attack, apparently just for the pure, America-hating thrill of it.

– Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, August 15, 2006

Meanwhile, the New York Times’s David Brooks lashed out at the “liberal inquisition” unfolding in Connecticut, the type of phenomenon that could be understood “only [by] experts in moral manias and mob psychology.” ABC’s Cokie Roberts sang from the choir sheet this Sunday morning, announcing a Lamont win would mean “a disaster for the Democratic Party.”

Roberts’s ABC colleague Jake Tapper labeled Lieberman’s challenge as a “a party purge of a moderate Democrat”; a cliché repeated constantly among the talking heads. Los Angeles Times columnist Jonathan Chait ridiculed grassroots Lamont activists by suggesting “their technique of victory-via-purge is on display in Connecticut.” Martin Peretz, editor in chief of The New Republic, who in a recent radio interview refused to say whether he actually wanted Democrats to gain control of Congress in November, denounced the “thought-enforcers of the left” supporting Lamont, whom Peretz mocked as “Karl Rove’s dream come true.”

Earlier in the campaign, Washington Post columnist David Broder dismissed Connecticut’s progressives as “elitist insurgents.” Over at the Rothenberg Political Report, Beltway mainstay Stuart Rothenberg was in a tizzy that Lamont’s win would “only embolden the crazies in the [Democratic] party,” the “bomb-throwers.” (Like Broder, Rothenberg opted for terror terminology to describe the democratic process unfolding in Connecticut.)

– Eric Boehlert, The Nation, August 11, 2006

“And as I look at what happened yesterday, it strikes me that it’s a perhaps unfortunate and significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, that what it says about the direction the party appears to be heading in when they, in effect, purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who was just six years ago their nominee for Vice President, is of concern, especially over the issue of Joe’s support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.”

– Vice President Cheney, August 9, 2006

From Rep. Shelley Moore Capito’s web site (up today, but strangely with tomorrow’s date listed):

“However, those of us who have the privilege to serve in Congress would do well to remember that it is acceptable to disagree as long as we remain agreeable. Too often, debate moves away from the respected differences we hold and evolves into overly partisan vitriol that serves no one.”

Also from her web site:

Instead, we were presented with a bill that gives the enemy our playbook while adding billions of dollars of budget-busting spending that has nothing to do with providing for our troops. 

“By giving our enemy a date-certain timeline for withdrawal, we are simply asking them to duck into the shadows and wait for us to leave.  Such timelines hog-tie the hands of our commanders in the field and essentially hand our enemy a roadmap to victory.

Saying that Democrats are aiding the enemy because they call benchmarks for the Iraqis to provide their own security is “civil” debate? Calling a bill that provides billions in additional health care dollars for U.S. veterans injured in the Iraq war “pork” is civil?

Shelley Moore Capito preaching civility is like her old friend and fellow Republican Mark Foley calling for tougher laws to stop online sexual predators of children.

If she wants more civility and less “partisan vitriol” in Congress she should begin with herself.

Congressman Dean Heller (R) hears it from his constituents. They want out of Iraq:

Heller returns to Washington this week after hearing deep opposition to the war from constituents in Nevada during spring recess. He said he heard similar sentiments in private conversations, in grocery stores and in homes from “some of my friends, neighbors, colleagues.”

Heller came away believing that two of every three Nevadans oppose the war – on par with national polls. (emphasis added)

And now he’s being hit by an ad campaign run by Americans United for Change.

Watch the ad challening Heller on his stance on Iraq:

Yet, Heller is still voting with the Bush administration on Iraq and is supporting the surge:

Heller voted for Bush’s troop surge and stepped up when the president called Republicans to the White House for a show of support. He called the Democratic House speaker “Gen. Pelosi,” a favorite Republican derision for Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

[…]

“I think this is a process you’re constantly reassessing,” Heller told the Sun. “I probably spend the majority of my time thinking about Iraq.”

Heller has struggled during his three months in office to become an Iraq expert. He keeps a copy of the Iraq Study Group report in his briefcase.

You can read the entire article by Lisa Mascaro titled “Heller hears it from every side and now in ads, too” at the Las Vegas Sun.

One Nevada blog, the Desert Beacon, had this to say about Heller:

(Note to Rep. Heller: Removing the report from the brief case and reading it in its entirety might prevent future misinterpretations similar to “It supports the Surge.”) Those who don’t have a copy of the report for their briefcases can download one here. (PDF)

To keep an eye on Congressman Heller, I started a blog this week, entirely devoted to the 435th most powerful member of the House, titled Helluva Heller. Here’s what it’s about:

“Helluva Heller” is intended to track Rep. Dean Heller’s (R, NV-02) actions in Congress and advocates the defeat of Dean Heller in the next general election on November 8, 2008.

“Helluva Heller” will report on Dean Heller’s speeches, his votes, his fundraising and so much more. To help you track Dean Heller, I have posted a list of links on the sidebar.

“Helluva Heller” will also report on possible candidates against Dean Heller in 2008, especially on the Democratic side.

Enjoy “Helluva Heller,” let others know about this blog, and help make Dean Heller a one-term Congressman.

Dean Heller is beatable. While he was Secretary of State of Nevada for three terms he almost lost the Republican primary and his campaign was so much in trouble, that Bush himself had to fly into Reno to fundraise for him. After the 1st quarter of this year his campaign is still in debt. He only beat Democrat Jill Derby last year 50% to 45% in a district that has never seen a Democratic Representative in Congress. However, recently this district is trending away from the Republicans with Democrats especially making inroads in the largest county, Washoe (Reno), which Jill Derby won with 50% to Heller’s 46%.

Keep an eye on Helluva Heller for more, especially on news about finding a challenger for Heller.

Yesterday, I posted a diary asking help in formulating a response to an editorial printed in my local newspaper that slanders those who oppose Bush’s escalation.

I have written a draft of a response (quoted over the flip).  There were many things I wanted to talk about such as the fact the all three Iraq war veterans in Congress voted for the resolution, how the Iraq War took time, effort, troops, materiale, and attention away from the hunt for Osama, and so on.  However, I decided to keep in short (158 words) and focus only on the question of supporting the troops, hoping it will increase the chances of getting printed.

This letter is in response to Monday’s editorial by Cal Thomas, an article full of untruths, faulty logic, and distortion.  What I really want to address is Thomas’ main argument that those who oppose Bush’s plan to escalate the Iraq War by sending 20,000 more troops into Iraq do not support the troops.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.  The greatest test of one’s support for the troops is not how fervently one waves the flag or how quickly one gets behind whatever plan the President has, it’s making sure that troops are asked to risk and give their lives only when absolutely necessary and only when some good will come of it. 

So, those of us who oppose escalation support our troops by demanding that they not be sent into the crossfire of a civil war, knowing that past troop increases have not helped and that the President has no clear definition of what constitutes victory.

I have noticed recently that my local newspaper, The Daily Tribune-News (Cartersville, Georgia) runs only editorials from right-wing talking heads like Mike Reagan, a former chair of the county Republican Party, and the like.  A couple years ago, there was balance.  The chair of the county Democratic Party, Howard Dean, and a local Democratic activist all had columns at one time.  Now, that’s changed.

But I digress.  The object of this diary is not to complain about the right-wing slant of my local paper.  It’s to ask help in formulating a response to one column published recently.

More over the flip.

In this column (linked and quoted), one wingnut spouts out the typical Democrats undermine troop morale bullshit:

http://www.daily-tri…

Before political correctness, a person who gave someone a gift and later took it back was called an “Indian giver.”

This is what a majority in the House did last week when they “gave” their support to American forces fighting to stabilize Iraq and defeat our enemy and then promptly took it back. How else should one interpret this “nonbinding” resolution when part one said, “Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq,” but part two negates part one: “Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”

This is like sending your love a valentine last week and this week sending a note withdrawing the sentiment.

Last Saturday, Republicans managed to block a similar effort in the Senate, but by only four votes. Senate Democrats — and a few like-minded Republicans — vowed to try again.

Once, most members of Congress supported the president’s prosecution of the war. That was when his approval numbers were sky-high. Now that those numbers have fallen, so has congressional support. Most Democrats claim, falsely, that the November election was a referendum on the war. If the president’s policy succeeds, though, two things will happen. First, some members who opposed him will claim they were behind the troop surge all along. Second, most Democrats will assert that success is actually failure because they can’t afford politically to admit they were wrong.

Do the troops feel supported by this House resolution? There are no opinion polls of military and civilian workers in Iraq, but two comments have come to my attention. One is a letter to the editor of The Washington Times from John McFarlane, a military trainer for Northrop-Grumman Technical Services in Elizabethtown, Ky. McFarlane writes that he has just returned from Iraq “after coming out of retirement to go there … I can tell you that the greatest fear of the young service members over there is that the American public will fail to pursue total victory and will leave early, thereby wasting their battle buddies’ life and blood. They feel pain every time somebody pays lip service to his or her conscience with the line: ‘I support the troops, but not the policy.’ (They) know they are the policy and that you should feel shame if you as an American would commit them to anything less than total victory.”

The second letter is from Army Sgt. Daniel Dobson, about whom I wrote in a column last week. Sgt. Dobson says he was in the chow hall in Mosul, watching CNN on the day of the House vote. He writes in an e-mail, “…it made me furious to see congressmen unashamedly proclaim their cowardice, but the reaction of the soldiers tore my heart in two. The faces were that of men that looked as if they were just told there is no United States to go home to. The fury gives way to depression: the thought alone that our elected representatives do not represent us anymore is more than depressing. We see cowardice, sickening spineless cowardice and it makes soldiers sick.”

So much for the assertion by some members of Congress that the House resolution, with the promise of more and binding ones to come, will have no affect on troop morale. How many other soldiers feel this way? How many others might be affected by these “no-confidence” votes? Of equal importance, how emboldened does the enemy feel as he sees the prophecy of Osama bin Laden coming true, that America doesn’t have the stomach or staying power for a long war and will eventually give up if enough death and injury is inflicted upon American troops?

If Congress wants to end this war, it should immediately vote to cutoff funds and receive whatever benefits, or consequences, that result. But too many who lack the spine to win also lack the spine to accept accountability for defeat. The only victory they appear committed to is the next election.

Some points I would like to make:
1. Thomas leaves out that all three Iraq war veterans in Congress are Democrats and all three voted for the resolution.

2. Voting for this resolution does support the troops by saying they should not be thrown into the middle of a civil war.  What is so hard to comprehend about that?

3. He leaves out the fact that most Americans oppose the escalation.

4. His saying the election was not a referendum on the war is bullshit and the exit polls say so.

5. Keeping point four in mind, is he saying that most Americans don’t support the troops and are enabling the terroists.

Please chime in with points, information (citations especially), ways to word things, etc.

I just want to point out for everybody the existence of the “Victory Caucus,” a new GOP pressure group that’s intended to find primary challengers for House members who – like most of the country – oppose Bush’s escalation. The nearest equivalent of the netroots available on the right is all over this, demanding primary challenges.

An instructive comment:
The RINOS who vote for surrender with the Democrats should be removed from office. They join with the Party of Treason in sabotaging the war and in giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

To put this more practically: they’re talking about knocking moderate-ish Republican incumbents out of moderate-ish districts and replacing them with firebreathing conservatives who emphasize particularly their enthusiasm for continuing the war.

This would be of great assistance in preserving our majority. Can you imagine a Redstate-approved hawk trying to win in, say, IL10 or even MN3?

Is there any way we can encourage this? Maybe some direct mail to right-wing voters?

co-authored by Carnacki and SLJ of West Virginia Blue.

West Virginia Republican Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito (WV-02) had a chance to earn our praise yesterday. If she had continued on a path she had begun, we would have been the first to have credited her for doing the right thing for West Virginians and the American people. We would have crossed party lines to sing praises because bringing peace to Iraq, bringing our troops home or freeing them for where they are needed in Afghanistan — that is bigger than partisan politics.

She did not. She deserves to be called out for her cowardly action and this is something you can help with as we’ll explain at the end of the diary.

NOTE: WV-02 is frequently rated at this site as one of the top 40-50 pick-up opportunities in 2008.

She had the chance to take a stand against an unnecessary war that has already claimed thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. It has cost us allies, the respect of the world. It has not helped the fight against terrorism. Indeed, according to studies by the Department of Defense, the CIA and the recent National Intelligence Estimate, it has created even more enemies for us.

Capito had been on the course to change

During the election campaign of 2006, she mostly ran away from her previous Rubber Stamp Republican support of President Bush. She claimed she was independent of him and that she was eager to bring the troops home. She won with 57 percent of the vote.

After she won election, she claimed to have heard us.

Capito conceded the war had a major impact on her race and others throughout the nation. She called for the new Congress to “join together in a bipartisan way with the president to bring our troops home as soon as we can.”

Then at the beginning of the year, she opposed sending more troops.

“The No. 1 issue is how to get our troops out of there as quickly as possible.

She was even more forthright with West Virginia’s Hoppy Kercheval, the dean of West Virginia talk radio:

“Capito told me candidly, “I don’t see it (GeeDubya surge plan) as the solution to the problem.”

“The four term congresswoman believes sending more troops would simply put them in “very precarious situations to try to settle a situation that really doesn’t affect our vital national interest.”

“There, she said it. She doesn’t believe the “surge” makes America safer.” Hoppy Kerchival.

But what did she do when it came time to act?

Here’s how the Huntington News described it in an editorial:

Capito sliced it about as thinly as one can in a floor speech during in the House of Representatives yesterday as she made “clear” that, while she still opposes President Bush’s new surge of troops in Iraq, she cannot vote for a House resolution that says…exactly what she believes.

Come again, Congresswoman Capito? Which is it now: yea or nay?

Capito’s tortured reasoning is that, while she agrees with the content of the resolution, she fears that the Democrats may see it as a first step towards taking away funding from existing troops in the field.

Nevermind that the resolution nowhere states such a thing. Moreover, nobody is saying that Capito has to sign on to any further resolution or action by the Democrats if she finds sound cause to reject such future actions.

She said the resolution would be “tying” the military commanders’ hands by not giving them the “resources” they need.

In other words, she for opposing the escalation of the war before she was against opposing it.

Now the problem is that while some of the media did an excellent job in reporting her reversal, the others did not. Poor media coverage of her actual votes and work on Capitol Hill is one of the reasons she’s been able to market herself as a political moderate.

She’s not. She’s a hard-core Rubber Stamp Republican who is able with the complicity or ineptness of some of the media to mask her true self.

Now here’s where we ask you to action. The Rev. Jim Lewis took action. He was escorted out of Capito’s office by police after staging a protest for 10 hours in her Kanawha City office. We’re not asking you to occupy her office. We’re just asking you to call or email some people.

Room for Improvement

Martinsburg Journal, WV – by Lauren Hough – Capito comments on troop resolution

Contact Martinsburg Journal
By Email: news@journal-news.net
By Phone: 304-263-8931, extension list
Form for Letter to the Editor

Key points:
– Their coverage does not make Capito’s two-faced stance clear. Isn’t it odd for a Representative to say one thing and do the complete opposite? Isn’t it newsworthy that her actions (her vote) conflicts with her words?
– Urge them to cover the brave actions of Rev. Jim Lewis and Patriots for Peace. Capito’s action is unpopular. The depth of displeasure is news.

Improving

Daily Mail – Charleston, WV
Original Article by Jake Stump – Capito speaks against resolution critical of Iraq troop surge
Updated Article by Jake Stump – Capito opposes Iraq resolution

Contact Jake Stump
By Email: jakestump@dailymail.com.
By Email via form.
By Phone: 304-348-4842

Key Points
– Thank them for correcting the mis-impression left by their original coverage.
– Urge them to cover the brave actions of Rev. Jim Lewis and Patriots for Peace. Capito’s action is unpopular. The depth of displeasure is news.

Nice List

HNN Huntingtonnews.net – WV
Article (by HNN Staff): Capito Opposes Troop ‘Surge,’ Also Opposes Democratic Iraq Resolution in House
Editorial: Capito Has Her Cake, Eats It, Too, and Then Some

Contact HuntingtonNews.Net
Contact information.

Key Points
– Thank them for their strong coverage of the story.
– Express your interest in hearing more news about anti-war protests in the area including Rev. Jim Lewis and Patriots for Peace demonstration at Capito’s office.

In Summary
Thank you for your help. This is how we stop the Iraq war–this is how we turn a red district blue–by fighting every day for what is right.

I am compiling a list of bills introduced in the 110th Congress dealing with ending, lessening, or keeping at the status quo, American involvement in Iraq. 

H.Con.Res.23: Offered by Dennis Kucinich
Expresses the sense of the Congress that troops not be escalated (note the use of the word “escalated”) in Iraq.  I may be wrong, but this appears to be a non-binding resolution.  Judging from the compartively high number of cosponsors and the fact that Lynch is a cosponsor, it appears this may become a “consensus” piece of legislation, basically hot air but no substance.  It has 21 cosponsors as of 12:28 PM EST on January 11: 

Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] | Rep Carson, Julia [IN-7] | Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] | Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]| Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] | Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] | Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] | Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] | Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] | Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] | Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] | Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] | Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] | Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] | Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9] | Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] | Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] | Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] | Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] | Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] | Rep Wu, David [OR-1]

H.R.353: Offered by Edward Markey
This one prohibits the use of funds for any escalation. Text of it is currently unavailable.  It has nine cosponsors as of 12:36 PM EDT:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] | Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] | Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] | Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] | Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] | Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] | Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] | Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] | Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5]

S.233: Offered by Edward Kennedy
Appears to be very similar to the Markey bill (it’s probable, considering the sponsors are from the same state, that they are intended to be companion bills).  It prohibits funds for any escalation.  Text is currently not available.  It has six cosponsors as of 12:45 PM EST:

Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] | Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] | Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] | Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] | Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] | Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT]

S.121: Offered by Russell Feingold
Calls for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.  Text is currently not available.  There is one cosponsor as of 12:50 PM EST:

Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA]

Some things jump out.  First, there appears to be no consensus on what to do.  We have three strategies in four bills.  One states disapproval of the escalation, another bars funding, and a fourth says leave.  The first seems to tantamount to huffing and puffing.  The second sounds better but is also a major political liability.  I could just see the ads saying that Democrats want to leave our troops in the cold.  The third is the best strategy, in my opinion, but there are only two Senators currently supporting it.

Second, it appears that most of our prospective presidential candidates are willing to go out on a limb.  Only Kerry is willing to do something.  Obama, Clinton, Dodd, and Biden are conspicuously silent. 

Third, this seems to be a Democratic effort.  Even though some Republicans, for example, Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, have come out against the war, they are absent.  It would appear that many in the Republican Party are a) out of touch with reality and the American and still supporting the war or b) are only publicly condemning the war to save their own asses but not won’t do anything about it.

Fourth, it seems many of the “centrists” are spinless and out of touch as ever.

It’s set in the context of a teacher discussing with his adult students all the evidence that the Bush administration is as corrupt as they are incompetent. I took the liberty of writing in comedians and our favorite political commentators to play the students, so it’s very funny despite how infuriating it is. ….and every day since I wrote the first draft Bush keeps making it more relevant than the day before. I’ve had Bush suppporters change their minds about him and had a WWII vet say, “You made me feel guilty for not paying attention to Clark in 04!”

It’s at http://www.clarkvsbu… (which goes to the file at my geocities page)

Here’s an excerpt to pique your curiosity…

“Teacher, speaking of creating opportunity,” asked Whoopi Goldberg, “what do you make of the fact that Republican Senator Lugar told Al Franken: `The government can’t create jobs’?”
  “I’d like to make a noose of that fact and hang The Republican Party. They ought to just put up a sign at their headquarters that reads: `WE’RE USELESS AND WE HAVE NO IMAGINATION.’ For starters, the government could hire every electrician to install light and motion sensors on the light switches in every building. And besides merely telling Americans that we need to conserve, they could also make low-interest long-term loans available so communities can weatherize their homes, schools and businesses. And they can’t use the excuse that no one has ever thought of this idea since Harry Reid has already thrown it out there. It’s as though *their playbook is to do the opposite of the Democrats and common sense, i.e., `Dark Days for Energy Efficiency’ and `Senate Republicans Screw Troops Yet Again.'” 
  “Not only are they useless,” Whoopi noted, “but they’re also clueless; as was first proven when Reagan took office and removed the solar panels Carter had put in; then again when Senator Dole ran a commercial denouncing Democrats for promoting midnight basketball; and again when a Republican Congresswoman said on the house floor that `The American people know how to spend their money more wisely than the government.’ By that logic it would mean that beef is a wiser purchase than tofu, cows’ milk a wiser purchase than soy milk or soda, and that more than half the stuff in Wal-Mart is not useless junk.”
  “Indeed, Whoopi,” said Lynn Samuels, “but, considering that the current incarnation of Uncle Sam believes that applying a `waste not, want not’ strategy to the economy would hinder prosperity, you have to admit that she’s right to accuse the government of being unwise with its spending; i.e., WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY FOR THE LEVEES!!!!???  …So I guess it shouldn’t surprise anyone that despite Katrina’s wrath they have still made it explicitly clear that their avarice knows no bounds, and, thus, won’t be satisfied until they repeal the estate tax on the top 2%, which amounts to $1 trillion in tax revenue. And to add insult to injury, on November 18, 2005 *the Republican-controlled Congress helped itself to a $3,100 pay raise and then postponed work on bills to curb spending on social programs and cut taxes in favor of a two-week vacation. Then on June 23, 2006 they voted down the increase in the minimum wage!! No wonder Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson were able to fill a whole book on their completely parasitic style of legislating in Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of Democracy to complement John Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience.”
  “Not only that, teacher, but Bush and his crazy neo-Cons still insist that the super rich get huge tax cuts despite the $200 billion it’s going to take to rebuild the devastation. So I guess we’re all going to have to set ourselves on fire to prevent that, otherwise it’s only a matter of time before China calls in its loan.”
  “Teacher,” asked Jim Hightower, “why does President Flip-Flop act like he deserves a medal whenever he stands on principle even if it’s in the face of serious opposition, but then frowns upon others who do the same thing in opposition to him as if it’s not their civic duty to voice their dissent? Like, with the Dixie Chicks. If Bush had half a clue about setting an example to the world about the beauty of democracy, not only would he have told the people to back off of them, his retort would have been: `I’m proud of my fellow Texans who have the character to honor America’s most important principle.’ Or like, with Terri Schiavo. If they genuinely believe that the federal government is morally obligated to usurp everyone else, then, fine. But how do they dare argue to the rest of us that we’re immoral for thinking that sometimes it’s necessary to decide if people get to continue living? What the hell do they think they were doing when deciding to explode bombs around civilians or when they execute those who might very well be innocent?”
  “It would certainly be interesting to hear how he’d answer that himself. And he certainly deserves a special Presidential Academy Award for being able to keep a straight face when he said of Terri that `It’s always wise to err on the side of life.'” 
  “Teacher, a caller to Michael Reagan’s radio show said: `The war is going magnificently.’ So  maybe Wes, Chuck Hagel, James Baker, Bill Krystol, Francis Fukuyama, William Buckley, Shep Smith, Newt Gingrich, Bruce Bartlett, Jack Straw, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Scott Ritter, Christopher Shays, Jack Murtha, Col. Mike Turner, Marine Captain Christopher H. Sheppherd, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Charles Pollard, Marine Maj. William McCollough, Richard Haass, the Stop the War Coalition and Generals Sir Richard Dannatt, Colin Powell, Anthony Zinni, John Batiste, Paul Eaton, Gregory Newbold, John Riggs, Charles Swannack, Jr., William Odom and Paul Van Riper don’t know what they’re talking about?”
  “Well, go read The Guardian article from Nov. 29, `Nowhere to Run,’ by Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the world’s foremost military historians. Several of his books have influenced modern military theory and he is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army’s list of required reading for officers. According to him, President Bush should be impeached and put on trial `for misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them.’ And that in Iraq `There is now a multi-party electoral system, but it has institutionalized and consolidated the country’s ethnic, sectarian and tribal divisions-exactly the sort of thing that should be avoided when attempting to democratize.’ Furthermore?`No one can claim that any of this was unexpected. The dangers had been foreseen by numerous analysts and commentators long before the war started but they were ignored in Washington, mainly for ideological reasons.’

It’s official!  Gordon Smith (R-OR) planning to run for reelection as a panderer and opportunist.

Editor & Publisher

In a major speech in Congress on Thursday night, Sen. Gordon Smith called the current U.S. war effort “absurd,” perhaps even “criminal” and called for rapid pullouts.  He added that he would have never voted for the conflict if he had reason to believe the intelligence the president gave the American people was inaccurate.

Citing the hundreds of billions of dollars spent and 2900 Americans deaths — and saying he needed to “speak from the heart” — Smith said, “I for one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. So either we clear and hold and build or let’s go home.”

Gordon Smith is only now at the end of his rope?  Has he not been paying attention for the last three years?  How is it possible that anyone with so much as a subscription to the Des Moines Register can only just now realize that U.S. intelligence was accurate?  Is there something particularly magical about the number 2,899 – the number of casualties Smith cites as provoking his change of heart – that 1,000 or 2,000 doesn’t really move the soul?  $100 Billion, $200 Billion: all acceptable appropriations for a failed policy, but now that we’ve hit $290 Billion, Smith has to speak out. 

How absolutely convenient that Smith has a change of heart just when it’s time to run again, exactly when the Iraq Study Group and Bob Gates announcement that we’re not winning has given him cover to do so.  How convenient that he can now point to another example of principled moderation to appeal to the independent voters of Oregon.

Read Smith’s whole speech in the Congressional Record.  It’s like discovering a whole new senator we never knew we had.