Why Does This POW Denigrate McCain's POW Service?

Fellow Naval Academy classmate and POW of John McCain Phillip Butler is shrill.

John was a wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit and he was intelligent. But he was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4 inch thick USNA Regulations book. And I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. John had me "coming around" to his room frequently during my plebe year. And on one occasion he took me with him to escape "over the wall" in the dead of night. He had a taxi cab waiting for us that took us to a bar some 7 miles away. John had a few beers, but forbid me to drink (watching out for me I guess) and made me drink cokes. I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates [...]

John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW's in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor - 8, Service Crosses - 42, Silver Stars - 590, Bronze Stars - 958 and Purple Hearts - 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.

It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush's war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John's views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.

Wow. It's stunning to see someone who knows McCain lay this all out so specifically. And he hits everything - the age, the temper, the flyboy antics, the policies right in line with Bush. It's all there.

Dr. Phillip Butler has been writing op-eds for Military.com and elsewhere for quite a while. This is not some new arrival to the scene.

Barack Obama today went to the VFW and did the "shame on you" bit, condeming McCain for questioning his patriotism and calling for a real debate, while "honor(ing) Senator McCain's service."

There's a difference between huffing and puffing and targeting shameless Republicans for shame, and telling the truth. Phillip Butler told the truth. And he should have some fun with his newfound not-stardom, with all the not-appearing on news programs and not-being cited in the print media. Because what he said, you can't say on television.


...Butler could have added that McCain's party and his own policies show disrespect for the military and the soldiers.

Mold infests the barracks that were set up here a year ago for wounded soldiers after poor conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center triggered a systemwide overhaul, soldiers say.

Twenty soldiers, who spoke to USA TODAY early last week, said their complaints about mold and other problems went unheeded for months. They also said they had been ordered not speak about the conditions at Fort Sill.

Officers at the Army base last week ordered that ventilation ducts in two barracks be replaced and soldiers be surveyed, anonymously if they wished, about any concerns. Maj. Gen. Peter Vangjel, the commanding officer, said it was "inappropriate" for soldiers to be ordered not to talk about the mold.

That's Billion With A B

The kicker is that there's an Exxon station right by my house which I try desperately to avoid but occasionally visit. Me and most of the rest of the civilized world:

Record earnings for Exxon, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, have become routine as the surge of oil prices in recent years has filled its coffers. The company’s income for the second quarter rose 14 percent, to $11.68 billion, compared to the same period a year ago. That beat the previous record of $11.66 billion set by Exxon in the last three months of 2007.

Exxon’s profits were nearly $90,000 a minute over the quarter, but it was less than Wall Street had expected. Exxon’s shares fell 4.6 percent, to close at $80.43. (The company calculates that it pays $274,000 a minute in taxes and spends $884,000 a minute to run the business.)

Which means they make a million bucks a minute in raw revenue. They really expect us to not know the meaning of the word "profit." Also, I know something they're not paying 10 cents a minute on - alternative energy.

Shell's profits were a record, too. But Wall Street thinks they should have been MORE of a record, so I'm supposed to feel sorry for the oil companies and give them offshore leases.

There are these little nuggets - oil spills on the Mississippi, record profits for Big Oil, Veco bribing a sitting Senator - that should demolish the "Drill Now" argument. It's real simple - if you expect the folks who are getting rich off of high gas prices to do the lowering for you, then you're a sucker. And guess what? People actually aren't the suckers that media types and politicos make them out to be.

1. Yesterday's CNN poll found 69% supported coastal drilling, but only 51% believed it would lower gas prices. And that's without a real coordinated effort to get the facts out about how painfully little coastal drilling would affect prices.

2. Also in that CNN poll, when voters are asked which presidential candidate would do a better job on gas prices, coastal drilling opponent Barack Obama beats coastal drilling supporter John McCain, 51% to 40%. Obama has emphasized the need to invest in clean energy and use less oil, and that forward-thinking approach appears to resonate more than the drill, drill, drill mantra.

3. The headlines in California today talk up a Public Policy Institute of California poll showing support for coastal drilling rising from 41% to 51%.

But PPIC's own analysis says: "California adults narrowly support allowing more oil drilling off the California coast and narrowly oppose building more nuclear power plants, with deeply divided opinions across party lines. By comparison, there is solid support and consensus for increasing fuel efficiency of automobiles and increasing federal funding for research on alternative energy sources."

4. All of the above is in sync with last week's poll from the Wilderness Society, which found:

-- Only 34% "strongly" support coastal drilling, with another 19% merely supporting it "somewhat."

-- 54% don't believe coastal drilling will lower gas prices (slightly more than in the CNN poll), a number that rises to 64% when respondents are reminded that "we have already opened up most of our public lands to oil drilling and gas prices have not gone down."

-- 63% believe coastal drilling "is more likely to enrich oil companies than to lower gas prices for American consumers."

-- A whopping 76% believe "Investing in new energy technology including renewable fuels and more efficient automobiles" is a more important priority than "expanding exploration and drilling for more oil."

More on the CNN poll here - oil companies are blamed for high gas prices, overwhelmingly.

So this suck-up from Republicans, thinking they've got an issue to run with, is another phantom, as sure as immigration was in 2006. Meanwhile, Harry Reid smartly let the GOP walk right into a trap today.

Going into this week, the Senate Republicans insisted that they would block all the legislative measures until an energy bill was first brought to the floor.

Democratic leadership, initially furious over the obstructionism, is now calling their bluff. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last night introduced a Department of Defense Authorization bill that would, among other things, include a 3.9 percent across-the-board pay raise for military personnel; major funding increases for research into traumatic brain injury treatment and troop suicide prevention efforts; $26 billion for the Defense Health Program, and $500 million for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. A vote could come as early as tonight.

It did come tonight, and Republicans filibustered. Now I know the DSCC has a large war chest. Every dollar of it that goes against those Senators up for re-election who either voted "No" today or missed the vote:

Sununu (NH), Cornyn (TX), Chambliss (GA), Inhofe (OK), McConnell (KY), Stevens (AK), Wicker (MS)

And the message is simple - "Your Senator voted to get your kids killed. Send them a message and send them home."

They can stamp their little feet on this oil thing all they want. In so doing they make a mockery - yet again - of "supporting the troops."

Worst Presidential Candidate Of My Lifetime. Worse Than Mondale.

I think I'm going to join the chorus from conservatives lamenting that John McCain isn't getting enough attention from the press. Because if he was, he'd be down in the polls by 116 points.

Today's "This Week" appearance is an example, containing enough gaffes, misstatements and flat-out lies to consume a week and a half in the news cycle. McCain completely contradicted himself on the question of timelines.

July 25, 2008:

BLITZER: So why do you think he said that 16 months is basically a pretty good timetable?

McCAIN: He said it’s a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it’s a pretty good timetable.

July 27, 2008:

MCCAIN: I didn’t use the word timetable.

I mean, that's just breathtakingly dishonest (Obama's campaign welcoming him into the timetable fold must have gotten under his skin). So is this notion that a timetable is OK when the Prime Minister of Iraq offers it up because it's conditions-based but when Obama offers the same timetable it's likely to cause the end of Western civilization.

The Maliki endorsement of a timetable simply has McCain in knots. He's gone from endorsing an open-ended, indefinite presence in Iraq to endorsing whatever timeline comes down the pike. The man has no grounding in principle and is frantically trying to pander to every element of American society by taking 13 positions on the same issue. In addition to timetables, McCain flip-flopped on affirmative action today, endorsing a ballot initiative in Arizona he once called "divisive"; he claimed that American troops were actually greeted as liberators, at odds with five years' worth of reality; and he muddled the issue on gay adoption, again.

At another point in the interview, McCain was asked to specify his position on gay adoption, an issue where the Senator's political leanings remain somewhat opaque. He did little to clear the air. McCain stumbled in his response and wouldn't answer the question definitively one way or the other. Also, after saying initially that the gay adoption issue was "not the reason I am running for President of the United States," he made an about-face, claiming,

"I'm running for president of the United States because I want to help with family values. I think family values are important when we have two parent families that are parents of the traditional family."

There was actually more than that, all packed into one interview: claiming that America has ignored the energy crisis for 30 years after tying high gas prices strictly to Obama; flip-flopping on "no new taxes"; and more. The worst is that Sen. McCain is out with a truly dishonest ad that zeroes in on Obama "going to the gym instead of visiting troops" when Obama was restricted access to Landstuhl AFB because he was on a campaign trip, and the footage they use for "going to the gym" is Obama meeting TROOPS in Kuwait. It's simply unbelievable.

UPDATE: Jake Tapper notes the ad also claims that Obama cancelled the trip because he was told he couldn't bring the media. There is absolutely no evidence for that one. The campaign insists that the plan had been to leave us at the airport, and the military has confirmed that arrangements were being made to hold media and staff there at a passenger terminal.

As I have heard the campaign's explanations for this decision over the past few days, as well as the attacks, I am convinced that it comes down to something that campaign strategist Robert Gibbs told reporters on the plane: When the campaign learned of the Pentagon's concerns (Wednesday night), they realized that, however they structured the hospital visit, they were going to come in for criticism.

I mean, this is getting ridiculous. Obama has a successful trip, a trip that mirrored where McCain visited after securing the nomination, and he's criticized for it. McCain spends a week flapping his arms trying to get attention, then lays an egg on national television, contradicting himself about eight different times. He criticizes Obama for events he concocts out of thin air. The guy is a liar and an opportunist and has left whatever honor he has claimed long before this general election campaign started. And you know, I think Americans are going to figure this out, and he's going to get stomped. Just putting that out there.

(just to note, Obama was pretty solid on MTP and CNN today)

Support The Troops' Drug Habit

It's just touching what this government does for our men and women we send into battle. If they have concerns about the overextended tours of duty, or the multiple deployments, or the lack of body armor or safety equipment, and the undefined mission, our boys in uniform get the best blue pills money can buy:

For the first time in history, a sizable and growing number of U.S. combat troops are taking daily doses of antidepressants to calm nerves strained by repeated and lengthy tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The medicines are intended not only to help troops keep their cool but also to enable the already strapped Army to preserve its most precious resource: soldiers on the front lines. Data contained in the Army's fifth Mental Health Advisory Team report indicate that, according to an anonymous survey of U.S. troops taken last fall, about 12% of combat troops in Iraq and 17% of those in Afghanistan are taking prescription antidepressants or sleeping pills to help them cope. Escalating violence in Afghanistan and the more isolated mission have driven troops to rely more on medication there than in Iraq, military officials say.

At a Pentagon that keeps statistics on just about everything, there is no central clearinghouse for this kind of data, and the Army hasn't consistently asked about prescription-drug use, which makes it difficult to track. Given the traditional stigma associated with soldiers seeking mental help, the survey, released in March, probably underestimates antidepressant use. But if the Army numbers reflect those of other services — the Army has by far the most troops deployed to the war zones — about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq were on such medications last fall. The Army estimates that authorized drug use splits roughly fifty-fifty between troops taking antidepressants — largely the class of drugs that includes Prozac and Zoloft — and those taking prescription sleeping pills like Ambien.

And if the combination of psychotropic drug use and the horrors of a war zone prove too much for them upon return to the states, that's OK - they just stick them in the back of the base by the firing range:

FORT BENNING, Ga. -- Army Sgt. Jonathan Strickland sits in his room at noon with the blinds drawn, seeking the sleep that has eluded him since he was knocked out by the blast of a Baghdad car bomb.

Like many of the wounded soldiers living in the newly built "warrior transition" barracks here, the soft-spoken 25-year-old suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. But even as Strickland and his comrades struggle with nightmares, anxiety and flashbacks from their wartime experiences, the sounds of gunfire have followed them here, just outside their windows.

Across the street from their assigned housing, about 200 yards away, are some of the Army infantry's main firing ranges, and day and night, several days each week, barrages from rifles and machine guns echo around Strickland's building. The noise makes the wounded cringe, startle in their formations, and stay awake and on edge, according to several soldiers interviewed at the barracks last month. The gunfire recently sent one soldier to the emergency room with an anxiety attack, they said.

"You hear a lot of shots, it puts you in a defensive mode," said Strickland, who spent a year with an infantry platoon in Baghdad and has since received a diagnosis of PTSD from the military. He now takes medicine for anxiety and insomnia. "My heart starts racing and I get all excited and irritable," he said, adding that the adrenaline surge "puts me back in that mind frame that I am actually there."

It's like they're TRYING to create another generation of strung-out homeless veterans.

Put A Band-Aid On Your Brain And Get Back Out There!

This is really an unforgivable statement by VA Secretary James Peake.

On the topic of [post-traumatic stress disorder], Peake questioned if the condition is being overdiagnosed, considering the mental health services available to those in the armed forces.

"I worry about labeling all these kids coming back," he said. "Just because someone might need a little counseling when they get back, doesn't mean they need the PTSD label their whole lives." [...]

VA secretary Peake suggested some of the concern about post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury has been overblown.

Many of the brain injuries are serious but some of them are akin to what anyone who played football in their youth might have suffered, Peake told Guinn.

I played football as a kid. Even played in Veterans Stadium in Philly one time. Interestingly, I never woke up in a cold sweat screaming that the enemy was on my tail, nor have I ever put a gun in my mouth while crying because I couldn't take the signals my brain was sending me.

This is disgraceful. Concussions at the high school level of football and above are pretty serious, but TBI is on a whole other level. It's a severe medical condition that requires constant treatment, otherwise you get another generation of veterans living on the streets. Dismissing TBI and PTSD is symptomatic of a belief that troops are sausage, merely existing to be ground up. And that's the message from the Bush Administration since their series of wars began, and that's how McCain would "lead," too.

This guy Peake should resign.

Food Fight Over The GI Bill

Old Man McCain decided to yell at a cloud today. See, he isn't allowed to vote on legislation while there's money to be raised on the campaign trail, so he wasn't allowed to give his opinion that lucky duckie Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are getting too many education benefits. But Barack Obama did on the Senate floor, saying that McCain's opposition to the Webb-Hagel GI Bill is unconscionable, and in response, McCain got really ornery, on the "how dare you disagree with me on veteran's affairs policy" tip:

"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.

"I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has offered legislation with very generous benefits. I respect and admire his position, and I would never suggest that he has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans. Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

See, only members of the military have earned the right to give members of the military education benefits.

They used this "he didn't serve his country" crap against Bill Clinton, too, and it didn't work. Obama hit back pretty forcefully.

"I am proud to stand with Senator Webb and a bipartisan coalition to give our veterans the support and opportunity they deserve. It's disappointing that Senator McCain and his campaign used this issue to launch yet another lengthy personal, political attack instead of debating an honest policy difference. He should know that this is not about John McCain or Barack Obama -- it's about giving our veterans a real chance to afford four years of college without harming retention. Senator Webb's bipartisan bill will do this, and the bill that John McCain supports would not. These endless diatribes and schoolyard taunts from the McCain campaign do nothing to advance the debate about what matters to the American people."

It's just not rational for McCain to claim some kind of support for the troops while essentially saying that we can't let them leave because there wouldn't be enough people willing to fight in multiple wars that he'll authorize. Go ahead and keep talking about it. I'd LOVE to have this debate play out in public.

...also, John Cornyn, who voted against the bill today, decided to call those who want to honor veterans' service "the antiwar crowd." Man, that's the wrong way to go with this. Cornyn is in deep trouble in November.

Worst. Messenger. Ever.

The short version of this is that your policy isn't worth a damn if you're so embarrassed by it that you have to get Larry Craig to make the amendment.

Huffington Post reports that Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) “quietly created presidential campaign ripples on Tuesday” when he “announced that he would offer an amendment to the forthcoming Iraq war supplemental that would strip the legislation of Sen. Jim Webb’s [D-VA] GI Bill.”

The Republicans already tried to insert their crap version of the GI Bill into a bill that would strengthen the collective bargaining rights of first responders. They got shot down.

Republicans, it should be reminded, support the troops.

Our Current Class Of Elites

If the guys in power now are supposed to be the workaday types and those like Obama who have a different viewpoint on national security the elitists, can we get the elitists into power as soon as possible? I don't remember the White House beer-drinking contest as central to governance, but I do pretty much know that a President can launch an unnecessary war.

Elite #1, Doug Feith.

LEHRER: The public was never told that the Parade of Horribles were considered possibilities. Instead we were told it would be a cakewalk. Were you–

FEITH: You weren’t told that by the administration. Absolutely not.

Except when you were told it here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Elite #2, Dick Cheney.

I mean, if I look at what [Ahmadenijad's] beliefs supposedly are, the allegation that the return of the 12th Imam is something to be much desired, and that the best contribution that a man can make is to die a martyr facilitating that return, and all that goes with it, I always think of Bernard Lewis, who has said that mutual assured destruction during the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviets meant peace and stability and deterrence. But mutual assured destruction in the hands of Ahmadinejad may just be an incentive.

Bernard Lewis is the guy who decided that Iran was going to launch a nuclear attack on Israel on the date on the Islamic calendar when the Prophet Mohammed entered Jerusalem. So the elite Dick Cheney believes in numerology.

Elite #3, John McSame.

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona may not have been paying the closest of attention last week during hearings on the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.

Speaking Monday at the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

“I would not do that unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,” McCain said, referring to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Petraeus, however, made clear last week that he has nothing to do with the decision. Testifying last week before four congressional committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee on which McCain is the ranking Republican, Petraeus said the decision about whether troops could be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan was not his responsibility because his portfolio is limited to the multi-national force in Iraq.

Decisions about Afghanistan would be made by others, he said.

Actually, this isn't really a mistake, per se. McCain really believes that our entire foreign policy should be hijacked and held hostage to the situation in Iraq. I'll leave it to you to decide whether it's wise to cede our military readiness to the hope of changing events on the ground. Especially when the events changing typically fall along the lines of the Iraqi security forces deserting their posts like they did yesterday.

Elite #4, the most smug and self-satisfied elitist of all, George W. Bush.

RADDATZ: All during that period -- April, May, June, July [of 2006] -- when things were really going downhill, people were talking about there being civil war.

BUSH: Yes.

RADDATZ: .You were saying, 'We're winning. We have a plan for victory. We are winning,' up through October [...]

BUSH: Well, yes. I think we -- and I wanted -- that's as much trying to bolster the spirits of the people in the field as well as -- look, you can't have the commander in chief say to a bunch of kids who are sacrificing either, "It's not worth it," or, "You're losing." I mean, what does that do for morale? I'm the commander in chief of the military as well, obviously, as, you know, somebody who speaks to the country. And if you look at my remarks, they were balanced. They weren't Pollyannaish.

Yes, the President is saying here that he had to lie to the nation for the sake of troop morale. As Phillip Carter puts it:

I was in Iraq during this time in 2006. I remember well how the violence spiraled out of control after the Samarra mosque bombing in February 2006. How every single indicator pointed in the direction of doom; how all our advisory efforts seemed to produce little to no security improvement; how we felt like spectators watching a civil war engulf Iraq, with too few troops to make a difference, and no political direction to do so.

All through this period, I remember the president, his senior aides and senior military commanders toeing the party line that things were going swimmingly. The dissonance between the rhetoric from Washington and our experience in Iraq was stark. WWe knew the ground truth. Being deceived by our senior political leaders certainly didn't change that, nor did it help morale at all. If anything, it hurt morale by undermining confidence in the chain of command. Put bluntly, if you can't trust your generals and political leaders to tell you and your families the truth, how can you trust them at all?

It's disappointing to hear now, two years after the fact, that the president was knowingly bull----ing us the whole time. And that he justified such dishonesty in the name of supporting the troops and protecting their morale. That's an insult to America's men and women in uniform (and their families), who deserve to be told the truth by their political leaders about what's going on. It's also an insult to us, as voters, who deserve the truth so we can make the right decisions in the voting booth.

That's about the most elitist thing I've ever heard.

UPDATE: I forgot Elite #5, Bill Kristol, who's pushing the meme that Obama is some kind of Marxist who believes religion is the opiate of the masses, when the Kristol family has basically believed this all their lives.

John McCain Hates Our Troops

Via Digby, I can't tell whether this is a campaign ad for John McCain or an epsiode of "Why We Fight":



War is a force that gives us meaning.

It's interesting that McCain frames war as something soldiers engage in for the sake of their compatriots, not for any cause or ethos or any reason at all. Which makes sense, since McCain strongly believes in the nobility and bravery of the American soldier but doesn't believe in giving them an education.



S.22 and H.R.2702 would update the GI Bill for the 21st century and reward those who do fight for causes in our name with the world-class education they deserve. John McCain doesn't support it. He says that he hasn't examined it. The truth is that he doesn't want to get in trouble with his anti-public education conservative base who think that soldiers who protect them are some kind of welfare queens.

McSame cannot credibly talk about supporting the troops. He rejects providing them with anything once they return home. He thinks they're automatons, sausage, killing machines. Nothing else.

Portrait of the Fallen

If you squint you can see the hubris coming off of these two. This is the only time that these 4,000 young men and women will ever be on George Bush and John McCain's minds.



Every one of these deaths was a preventable tragedy.

Also, as Brandon Friedman notes, 25 of these men and women died in the past two weeks, an uptick of violence not seen since last summer.

We are now entering a period of Iraqi restlessness in which Sunni Sahwa militias are growing restive, Muqtada al-Sadr's ceasefire is on the verge of unraveling, and little political progress is being made. In fact, I received an email today from a friend in the Green Zone who told me he slept in his body armor last night--something not typically done these days. And it's not a good sign.

Perhaps this will give John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman pause to stop patting themselves on the back for five minutes in order to realize that they are not vindicated, they are still wrong, and any sort of resolution in Iraq will require a serious change from the current short-sighted Bush administration strategy of "pay them off until I'm out of office."

When the most secure and most transformed areas of the country are using Saddam-era brutalization tactics to keep the peace, you have to conclude that this war exacted a terrible cost on Iraqis, Americans, and the whole world.

4,000

A prayer for the dead.

Not to mention that 57 Iraqis lost their lives today.

This is still a war out there. And the cost is tremendous.

Let's get the hell out of the Middle East, shall we?

Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) calls Feingold bill "a bullet right in the hearts of our troops"

This is exactly why Russ Feingold was so prescient in pushing the Iraq debate forward today; because the batshit insane Republicans will give a million commercials' worth of soundbites that will show their callousness, stupidity, and tone-deafness on this issue. We've already extracted at least two today. Here's the first.

Speaking about a Democratic proposal to force Iraq troop withdrawal within 120 days, Hutchison said Tuesday that such a proposal would "put a bullet right in the hearts of our troops who are there."

Really?

I think what puts a bullet right in the hearts of our troops are... bullets. Bullets shot by Iraqi insurgents. Bullets shot by Shiite militia. Bullets that have killed nearly 4,000 Americans. Bullets that could have been stopped by the body armor that she voted against providing those troops.

"Poor choice of words from a senator who voted against providing our troops with the body armor needed to stop bullets in the first place," said Rodell Mollineau, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Indeed, Reid's office was quick with the oppo research, producing a 2003 vote in which Hutchison joined other Republican senators to kill an amendment that would have provided $322 million for body armor and other equipment while reducing funds for Iraq reconstruction.

Get this, Hutchinson's office is spinning that she meant to say "bulls-eye". Which is of course, better. It's better to metaphorically target a troop for murder than to do the actual metaphorical killing yourself, you see.

This isn't even the only slip of the lip of the day. Huckleberry Graham, who has repeatedly pronounced that the Iraqi government would be reconciling its disparate factions any day now, has now claimed the job is done:

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) returned this week from a trip to Iraq and was “brimming with optimism.” This morning on Fox News, Graham said he wishes Washington would be more like Baghdad:

"The truth is that political reconciliation in Iraq is going better there than it is here at home because of better security."

So, does Graham really want Washington to function more like Baghdad? Does he want to see one political faction assassinating the other’s officials? Politically-linked murders of judicial investigators, doctors, and politicians? Sectarian bombings of civilians trying to freely practice their religion?

I always wonder if that makes the Republicans the Shi'a or the Sunni in that scenario.

The point here is that Republicans somehow think this kind of talk bolsters their case on Iraq, when in fact they are completely out of touch. As an example, hundreds of American troops are dead because Congress and this Administration failed to do their job to provide equipment like armored vehicles in a timely manner. And those who want to pull us out of this nightmare, which at best will be a quagmire based on the input of all the experts, the ones interested in ending this occupation are the ones shooting a bullet into the hearts of the troops? This is was passes for the Republican side of this debate?

In that case, let's have this debate every day from now until November.

Invisible Congress

So the Senate is still gaveling those pro forma sessions, even though late Friday the President politely informed them that they don't exist.

Because the bill has so much in it for veterans and active members of the Armed Forces, Bush apparently doesn't dare sign an affirmative veto. Instead, he'll pretend it... just went away on its own.

But this bill was presented to the president for his signature on December 19th. It's been eight days since then, not counting Sundays as the Constitution outlines. Seven if you give an extra day for Christmas. Hasn't been ten days yet.

Not only that, but you may recall that the Senate has remained in session all this time explicitly to prevent trickery like this. The most oft-cited reason was to prevent recess appointments, but the pro forma sessions -- the most recent of which was held today, yes, the very day Bush claimed there was no session -- also serve to avoid adjournment, and therefore the pocket veto.

But not in Bushworld. In Bushworld, these sessions don't count. Because he says so.

And if Bush thinks the Senate's sessions don't count, what's stopping him from making recess appointments?

How much more abuse can this Congress stand?

There was some confusion about whether or not this was a legitimate use of the pocket veto, since the House created the spending bill, and technically they weren't in session. It depends on how the Constitution is interpreted. It may not surprise you to know that I'm not going with the reading from the guys who think Article II allows them to torture.

Constitutional questions aside, Bush is vetoing the defense bill. And while the cover story is that he's doing it to save Iraqi government assets from claims of reparations dating back to the Saddam regime (not "pork," as a commenter here claimed), it could be for any number of reasons (provisions conditioning funding for missile defense, Congressional requests for intelligence assessments, etc).

But regardless, we know how this should be handled politically, right? Bush is vetoing a bill that includes a pay raise for soldiers and increased medical care for veterans. That should really be the only discussion of the bill from national Democrats. Your President just took the troops' pay raise away. Any reference to the President should include the phrase "who just vetoed a pay raise for the troops." Any reference to REPUBLICANS should include the phrase "whose leader just vetoed a pay raise for the troops." It should be made absolutely radioactive.

Of course, I expect none of that.

Face Of The Republican Party: Booing The American Soldier

I've only seen Steve Benen pick up on this so far.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Gen. Kerr, who was in the audience for the event, whether he was satisfied with the responses. Not surprisingly, he wasn’t.

“With all due respect, I did not get an answer from the candidates,” Kerr said, adding, “We’re talking about doctors, nurses, pilots, and the surgeon who sews somebody up when they’re taken from the battlefield.”

Wmtriallawyer has an excellent post about CNN's apology for allowing Ret. Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr to ask candidates in the Republican YouTube debate about the don't ask don't tell policy toward gays in the military. Wingnuts are screaming and shrieking that Kerr was a Hillary plant and that this proves that CNN is in the tank for her. But I don't think they want to harp on this too long, because maybe then the Democrats will wise up and start playing the tape. And the whole country can see, over and over again, Republicans booing a career military officer for the "crime" of being gay.

At which point, the Republican audience began booing the 43-year military veteran. It was an interesting contrast — at Democratic debates, veterans get standing ovations. At Republican debates, veterans get booed if they’re gay.

The nutjobs can keep yelling "Hillary plant! Hillary plant!" (as if Grover Norquist was just an average American getting his question answered), but do they really need this replayed over and over:



Check it out around 4:00 in.

This is a question that has been asked of both Democrats and Republicans in previous debates. You don't need a plant to get this question across. However, when the questioner is retired military, THEN some in the audience saw fit to boo him. Someone who served this country for 43 years. Simply because they disagree with him on a policy.

THAT was the most revealing moment from the debate. The party that "supports the troops" takes every opportunity to smear, marginalize, and even outright attack troops that disagree with them on policy.

Redefining "Phony Soldiers"

While some conservatives push for Peter Pace to accept the duty of being crushed by Mark Warner in next year's Virginia Senate race, they're also smearing a general who dared to speak out. It's a curious construction, reverance for those officers of the military that don't speak their mind, and slander for those who do.

Iraq war/Bush lovers John McCain, Lindsey (DADT) Graham, and Mitch McConnell are now smearing Sanchez, suggesting that as a top general he was supposed to contradict and undermine his commander in chief during wartime by snitching to Congress and the public about Bush's incompetence.

Putting aside the irony of Republicans now suggesting that it's okay to smear our troops - their opinion on that subject changes by the week, and putting aside the irony of the fact that McCain, Graham and McConnell never once dared challenge Bush on the war while they expected Sanchez to do so - I'm equally fascinated that the GOP now thinks that active duty service members are supposed to openly undercut the commander in chief.

They're not, of course, but the GOP has to play with the hand they're dealt. If Sanchez changes his tune after leaving active duty, he must be smeared for a lack of candor. Lord knows what they're going to do with these twelve former Army captains:

As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out [...]

Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts [...]

There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.

America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice.

But rather than respect the advice of those closest to the situation, those who were on the ground on a day-to-day basis, they will be told that their eyes deceived them, that they have an "agenda," that they should not be trusted. And in the same breath, they will sanctimoniously say that there must not be any criticism of "our men and women in uniform." This is the new paradigm of the right: "phony soldiers" are those who disagree with the Dear Leader and his warmongers.

UPDATE: That last point that the 12 Army captains make, as MY notes, is very important. You either carry out the strategy with the amount of force required to do the job or you leave. Doing some slow drawdown in between, to save the fragile egos of policymakers, does nothing for the Iraqis and endangers the troops. The worst possible option happens to be the option preferred by most of the leading Democratic candidates. Hopefully they'll have the capacity to listen to soldiers like these once they get into office. You either have to go in or get out. And going in really isn't an option at this late date, either. So get out.

We're Talking About Lapel Pins?

The firestorm of controversy over Barack Obama's lapel pin, or lack thereof, kind of proves Obama's entire point.

“You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin,” Obama said. “Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.

“Instead,” he said, “I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”

Good on him. This bumper-sticker patriotism is worse than annoying. It's debilitating. The idea is that you can advocate the most un-American policies imaginable, including secret detentions, torture, pre-emptive war, anything, but if you're wearing a flag on your suit, you're a patriot. You can support policies that deny troops the benefits they deserve, deny them the armor on the battlefield they need, but if you put a "support the troops" magnet on your car, you support the troops.

Life doesn't work that way. Patriotism takes work. It's not a slogan. It means pushing for your country to do the right thing. It means actually working to promote your values and ensuring that they are displayed on the national stage. It means accepting negative speech, it means fighting against unreasonable searches and seizures, it means defending the Constitutional rights of even the most downtrodden. Barack Obama is basically saying to the country, "Grow up. Democracy isn't as easy as wearing a sticker. Do something." Thank you.

Of course, it also goes without saying that the people most concerned with Barack Obama's lapel pin are rank hypocrites.

UPDATE: Paul Waldman:

This is a pretty clear conservative/progressive split. Conservatives are huge fans of symbolic patriotism -- flag lapel pins, flags on cars, full-throated singing of "God Bless the U.S.A." (aka "Proud to Be an American"), and so on -- public displays, in which one demonstrates to other people that one loves America.

Progressives, on the other hand, tend to favor substantive patriotism, which involves doing things to make one's country better. After all, if progressives really hated America, why would they even want to change it in ways that would make it conform more with their values? That would mean, from their perspective, making it better, something you wouldn't do if you just hated the country. I hate the Yankees, so if I figured out the perfect combination of trades that would lead to them winning the next five World Series, I'd be sure not to tell them.

This is the difference between thinking that patriotism means talking about how super-awesome America is, and that patriotism means doing things to make America great. There's nothing wrong with the former, if that's what moves you (and of course, there's nothing wrong with doing both simultaneously). But in practice, symbolic patriotism is all too often offered as a substitute for action. To take just one example, the conservative avers that we have "the best health care system in the world," even though that's plainly not true, and therefore we don't need to change it, while the progressive attempts to improve the health care system until it actually is the best in the world.

Congress Moves To Condemn Betty Jackson Of Mobile, AL For What She Said Last Week To Her Neighbor

The whole condemning specific figures for using specific language is not the stuff of America, and as much as some Democratic partisans want to say we have to fight fire with fire, I just don't buy it. Especially when there's a perfectly logical punishment for Rush Limbaugh's slander against troops that don't think like him:

What is the Senate's business, however, is that Rush Limbaugh is on Armed Forces Radio Network. His show is broadcast daily to nearly a million troops in 177 countries. In a poll conducted earlier this year, only 35% of service members said they approved of George Bush's handling of the war while 42% disapprove, and 41% say the US is not very or not at all likely to succeed. A full 37% say the US should never have gone to war. It's their network, too.

These young men and women do not deserve to have to listen to their commitment being besmirched by Rush Limbaugh, who never served in the armed forces and whose idea of personal valor is sending his $380 a week housekeeper out to buy his drugs for him. He's got no business on the radio launching attacks on military personnel like that, and his right to free speech does not guarantee him placement there at government expense. I'm sure the GOP would fight like hell to keep him on -- look at all the effort they went to in order to keep Republicans on the reservation with Ari Fleisher's ads and the Petraeus three ring circus -- but that's because removing him would actually be meaningful.

Take Rush off the air. Really, Senators, protecting the troops from this kind of abuse actually is what you are elected to do.

Our members of Congress just don't seem to have a decent understanding of the Constitution when they engage in tit-for-tat resolutions condemning free speech. They should have never brought the MoveOn thing up for a vote and they should not be condemning Rush's speech. Stick to something that's actually in your purview.

(Incidentally, Rush is selectively editing audio to try and change around what he said. It won't work.)

UPDATE: Yes, the resolution made by GOoPer Jack Kingston commending, not condemning, Rush Limbaugh proves that the Republicans can maneuver around this outrage game much more nimbly. Probably because it's so insincere.

Could You Possibly Hate America More?

To counter Jim Webb's dwell time amendment that gives the troops the rest and readiness they need to keep the military from becoming completely broken, Republicans are going to offer the legislative equivalent of a "Support The Troops" car magnet:

Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), an ardent opponent of a pro-troop measure to relieve the stress on the overstretched armed forces, announced he will propose a toothless, watered-down substitute to the Webb amendment.

McCain said he and Sen. John Warner (R-VA) have teamed up to put together a “sense of the Senate” amendment to express “very clearly that we all want all our troops home and we understand the stress and strain that’s been inflicted on the men and women in the military and the guard and reserves.”

The White House put all kinds of pressure on Warner to support this toothless bill, literally the most nonbinding resolution I've ever seen, and despite the fact that he AND the Bush Administration will be retired come January 2009, he bought it. Disgraceful.

After the White House acceeded to Warner's paltry wishes and offered an early troop cut (which isn't even a troop cut, that MEU was coming home in November anyway), his knees went all to jelly and he put up this side-by-side amendment that will give the troops nothing so much as a Hallmark "we're thinkin' of ya!" greeting card. It should shock the conscience of every American, the extent to which the Republicans hate our military so much that they'd rather see it disintegrate than end their catastrophic war.

Back of the Envelope

They're trying to wiggle out of ending the surge.

“Somebody made a back-of-the-envelope calculation and put a number, 30,000, out there,” a senior administration official told reporters hours before the speech. “As you know, we have tried to make clear to people in this room and outside this room that no one in the administration has ever used that number. And we cautioned against using that number.”

White House officials said the administration does not want to make predictions “beyond what you can do with reliability.” That means that Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will come back in March “and give a fresh assessment on how we’re doing on the ground, what they can foresee, because we’re six months further down the road at that point, and what the situation will bear.

30,000 will be shaved to 20,000, and before the end of it there'll be only 8 or 10,000 less troops there than before, and the White Hosue will claim that it's just because rotations are overlapping, and the media will turn away and forget, and we'll have an even bigger presence than before if we're not careful.

Who Put Out This Talking Point?

All of a sudden, everybody is talking about some statistic that the military is the only institution that the American people trust. Really? Americans desire a military junta? Since when?

There's a MAJOR push to get everyone in Congress not to criticize St. Petraeus. I have no doubt that the Democrats are buying it. America's deification of the military continues.

In fact, everything Ike Skelton and Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Tom Lantos is saying is prefaced by "Not a knock on you fine men, but..." Lantos and Skelton are actually being pretty strong. But if anyone dares take the gloves off, we're going to hear the punditocracy erupt. "How dare they question St. Petraeus! Why do they hate the troops?"