Time to impeach

In the past, I have been a tepid opponent of impeachment for a number of different reasons. However, after listening to Ron Suskind's interview on Fresh Air- I think there is compelling evidence that the president committed some egregious acts in getting us into war with Iraq and keeping us there. I am not sure if Suskind's case is iron clad, but there is certainly enough there to at least start impeachment hearings.

Wow...just, wow

The next person that says the media is in the tank for Obama, I am going to beat with Disco's beard.

The OTHER forgotten war

I don't like to say 'we told you so'...but we told you so. One of the most noticeable problems with going to war with Iraq was that it would strain our resources in Afghanistan. As I imagine just about anyone would agree, the real threat to American security came from the terrorists who were residing in Afghanistan and not the petty dictator a thousand miles away. Now it turns out that NATO forces are retreating from certain areas over there:

U.S. troops abandoned a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan where militants killed nine American soldiers this week and insurgents briefly overran the area, officials said Wednesday, underlining the difficulties faced by forces in the border region.

Furthermore, if I was a certain candidate running for president- I would make it absolutely clear to the American people that the trouble in Afghanistan has its roots in the failed policy advocated by McCain. But what do I know, I am just a caveman graduate student.

Magic!

I am really starting to think that one of my friends is messing with me. This is all an elaborate ruse, just like in the movie The Game- as there is no way that one candidate can get away with this kind of stupidity and live to tell the tale. Here is the McCain deficit reduction plan:

“The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit.

But wait...it gets better. As Josh Marshall notes:

But here's the thing. McCain doesn't have any numbers. None. Not vague numbers of fuzzy math. He just says he's going to do it. Any other candidate would get laughed off the stage with that kind of nonsense or more likely reporters just wouldn't agree to give them a write up. But this is all over the place.

He then gets the McCain campaign to answer some questions about how they would do this, and this is their explanation:

It's pretty straightforward, as we win, costs will go down with a smaller footprint over time, and those savings will go to deficit reduction. It's really the logical extension of Senator McCain's position as articulated in the 2013 speech. Achieving success in Iraq would obviously lead to reduced expenditures on the effort.

Well, duh.

I mean, I have the same kind of plan for making $5 billion dollars. You see, I am going to cure all forms of cancer. How am I going to accomplish this masterful plan? Well...when I cure cancer, lots of people are going to be interested in cure. They will then pay me for it. The plan is really quite genius.

I am glad I do not have a TV

If I did, I would have lost my f-ing mind yesterday.



What is it with these people? How do they get from what Obama said on Iraq, which has been incredibly consistent, to 'he is adopting McCain and Bush's strategy'? It boggles the mind.

Michael Scherer writes things

Shorter intrepid Time Reporter- Michael Scherer:

If Obama said that his plan for Iraq was to give everyone a gumdrop pony we wouldn't have to scrutinize his plan, but since he has addressed this topic with serious thought, he must be pulling a fast one on us.

Who did what to who?

From the write up for 60 Minutes tonight-

For a man who drew America into two wars and countless military engagements, we never knew what Saddam Hussein was thinking. But you are going to hear more than has ever been revealed before.

After his capture, Saddam met every day with one man, an American he knew as "Mr. George." George is FBI agent George Piro, who was the front man for a team of FBI and CIA analysts who were trying to answer some of the great mysteries of recent history. What happened to the weapons of mass destruction? Was Saddam in league with al Qaeda? Why did he choose war with the United States?

There is no doubting Saddam's general horribleness, but did he really draw us into war the second time? I thought there was a general consensus that this was a war of choice for the Bush administration. It kind of scares me to see this framed as Saddam's choice.

Dept of Not Holding my Breath

It would be great if the US press picked up on this story. But as the title to this post indicates, I am not holding out for that. Anywho, the Independent has some interesting nuggets from before the Iraq war and what was really going on.

1. The President didn't seem too concerned with WMD attacks on our soldiers (I wonder why?)

...The troops were well within range of any weapons of mass destruction, military analysts have pointed out.

US administration officials had already prepared public opinion for war by raising fears of Saddam Hussein's nuclear programme and his ability to create "mushroom clouds." But the transcript reveals the two leaders were more concerned about getting a fig leaf of international approval for the war, than any imminent threat from Saddam.

2. The President had no idea how much the war would cost

Mr Bush does admit that averting war would be "the best solution for us" and "would also save us $50bn," greatly underestimating the cost to the US treasury of nearly five years of warfare. But he also talks of how he planned to exact revenge on countries, that did not back the US in its drive to war.

3. Oh yeah- there was also this- as the title indicates

Saddam 'ready to walk away for $1bn'

Another America Hater

Fortunately, we have Rush Limbaugh to tell us all we need to know about this guy.

Different day, same...

Here is what I don't understand, if I am considered anti-war why aren't those that march to support the invasion of Iraq labeled pro-war? I have always found it so strange that the public discourse places the pro-war folks as resolutely pro-troop. If someone could explain this to me, I would be really grateful.

Cheney's Incredible Hypocrisy

Think Bush Cheney Inc. couldn't have anticipated the outcome of our Iraq occupation? Think again.

Absolute Disasters of Human Beings

I don't want to wade too deeply into this, but the conservative blogosphere is made up of some pretty horrible people. Case in point, their recent all-out assault on a US soldier serving in Iraq (see madness: here*; see coverage: here here here here). In a nutshell, here is what happened:

1. Using a pseudonym, the soldier writes a story for The New Republic (TNR) detailing some rather disturbing behavior on the part of himself and fellow soldiers in Iraq.
2. Nutcases on the right, declare that because we don't know his name- the story is made up and demand that TNR apologize for making things up.
3. The soldier who wrote it comes forward to let the right wing know that he does, indeed, exist.
4. Nutcases on the right, from the safety of their parents' basements, personally attack the soldier going as far as to post pictures of him on their blogs and threaten him with physical harm.

My one thought in reading all of this is, who on God's green Earth behaves this way? These aren't some isolated crackpots who are doing this, these are people who guest host for Bill O'Reilly, appear on CNN and write for major American newspapers. Yet, when faced with the fact that they were 100% wrong, they don't kindly apologize and then decide to shut the F-up. Instead, they act like a pack of wild dogs who just got a taste of blood. As Digby notes, the fact that war makes soldiers do things which are morally questionable or downright wrong, is not a secret. But in listening to the right wing on this, you would think that war is all gumdrop bullets and lollipop IEDs.

*I don't often check out Malkin's blog, but doesn't it seem that she is coming unhinged? It is like reading something written by someone suffering from schizophrenia. It is both rambling and random, visually disorganized and is filled with paranoid delusions.

The Troops Hate America: Further Evidence

Our soldiers must really hate freedom, here are the percentage of contributions given by soldiers to our current slate of Presidential contenders:

Group 1
Ron Paul 26.23%
Barack Obama 24.02%
Hillary Clinton 11.08%
Bill Richardson 5.59%
John Edwards 2.63%
Joe Biden 0.84%
Mike Gravel 0.16%
Dennis Kucinich 0.05%
Chris Dodd 0%

Group 2
John McCain 18.31%
Mitt Romney 4.05%
Rudy Giuliani 2.44%
Mike Huckabee 1.84%
Tom Tancredo 1.63%
Duncan Hunter 1.05%
Sam Brownback 0.07%
Tommy Thompson 0%
Jim Gilmore 0%
John Cox 0%

Do you notice the difference between those in Group 1 and those in Group 2? Group 1 represents all of the candidates that want to see an end to the war in Iraq, which had 70.6% of all donations from the troops. Group 2 wants this war to last indefinitely and they got 29.4% of all donations from troops.

Joe Lieberman is going to be hopping mad when he finds out that the troops are being partisan.

Journalistic Theater

Of all the horrible coverage on the Republican filibuster, this is absolutely the worst.

True, there is a bit of political theater involved here but it is happening for a reason. Senate Republicans are purposefully ignoring the wishes of the American people, we want an end to the conflict in Iraq. While we pay the price for this mismanaged ill-conceived war, the President's supporters have managed to keep us headed in the wrong direction. They don't seem to care that this war has cost us billions, thousands of American and innocent Iraqi lives.

Instead of pointing this out, Tumulty frames it as a petty political squabble. The problem, as Tumulty sees it, is that it is just so UNCOOL to point out that the Republicans are standing in the way of what the American people want.

Unfortunately, the reaction from the pundit class is not that surprising. They are more concerned with finger-wagging than they are with things that actually matter to the American people.

If only

If only the news of the day looked like this:



What pisses me off is that Olbermann is considered a liberal. He is really just an honest journalist.

Al Qaeda Everywhere

Over at TPM, Josh Marshall has a short video explaining just how devious President Bush is being in regards to the different factions in Iraq. Watch it here.

As expected, the press has decided to swallow the line that the only enemy we face in Iraq is the terrorists.

Good Move

I just thought I would join the chorus in celebrating the fact that Harry Reid is going to force an actual filibuster over the Iraq War. The American people need to understand just how far the Republicans will go in supporting this horrible war.

I am also dying to find out how the pundit class is going to react to this. My gut tells me they will paint this as the Democrats being too partisan/political. Instead of what it really is, the Republicans ignoring the will of the American people.

Moving Goal Posts

ThinkProgress has a great post up regarding the constant change on our mission in Iraq. It is a long post, so I won't reproduce it in full, but I recommend checking it out. In short, they take Bush quotes to point out that the mission in Iraq has gone from:

1. The pre-War mission was to rid Iraq of WMD
2. After the war began, the mission expanded
3. Then the mission was complete
4. But then it continued again
5. Then the mission was to develop a free Iraq
6. And to train the Iraqi troops
7. Then it shifted to advancing democracy
8. And protecting America from terrorists
9. Then the mission was providing security for the Iraqi population
10. Now?? Undefined
    

Ten separate missions in 5 years, and now it is not entirely clear just what the hell we are supposed to be doing over there.

I am left wondering, however, after reading this post, why did it take a dirty hippie blogger to point this out? Couldn't someone in the press look through what this Administration has said, and maybe ask some pointed questions about why the mission keeps changing? This isn't rocket science.

Lastly, this is a pretty clear example of what the Democrats have to fight through with regards to the press. Democratic leaders have been saying since 2003 that the mission in Iraq was not entirely clear and that President Bush kept changing the goal posts. Yet, we have had nothing from the media pointing out, just like this post did, that the mission has never been certain.

Circle Jerk

The Republicans have a plan! The Republicans have a plan! Sakes alive, the Republicans have a plan!

Two leading Republican senators said today that President Bush should seek a new war authorization and present a plan to Congress by Oct. 16 outlining contingency plans in Iraq. Those plans, which would include reducing American forces, should begin by the end of the year.

Senators John W. Warner of Virginia and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, both of whom have criticized the administration’s troop buildup plan, introduced a measure expected to be considered next week when the Iraq war debate resumes. The senators said it was critical to move beyond the current clash between Congress and the White House and begin making plans to be implemented after the military releases its progress report in September.

Atrios, captures my thoughts on any Republican plan perfectly:

There will come a point where all of the very serious members of Congress (the wanker caucus) will come together on some bill or another which will pretend to force Bush to do something about Iraq but which won't actually force him to do anything. David Broder will applaud, the media will praise the president for not vetoing it, and only us dirty f-ing hippie bloggers will point out that it doesn't change a damn thing.

These very serious people are in way way over their heads.

O'Reilly Gets the Smack Down from Donahue

Still waters run deep. Here at Discomo we have such a carefully orchestrated plan for postings, that I now present a vid posted exactly 13 months ago, in honor of this being Friday the 13th....or, I just found it and thought it was cool. You be the judge.

Why doesn't Fox put on Donahue opposite Hannity, instead of that lapdog Colmes?