John McCain, Go F*ck Yourself

It's too bad he's not following his friend, Holy Joe out the door.

UN Ambassador Susan Rice has withdrawn her name from consideration as a nominee to replace Hillary Clinton as the next Secretary of State, after a constant barrage of criticism leveed at her from Republicans following her intelligence community sanctioned statements on the Sunday talk shows a few weeks back, with Senate curmudgeon John McCain leading the charge.

“If nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly - to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities,” she wrote in a letter to Obama that was released to the public on Thursday afternoon.

 ...Rice said in November that she “relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community” in delivering her assessment. Intelligence officials said that they approved her talking points, having decided ties to organized terrorism, and specifically al Qaeda, were still unclear at that point just five days removed from the attack.

The knives were out from the very beginning, and McCain certainly knows this as I'm sure he got the same intelligence reports that Rice used to make her comments. But it wasn't very long ago when John McCain defended another Rice, Condoleezza, in her nomination for the same position after "mushroom clouding" us into a war. But that Rice was a Republican, wasn't she...



Fuck you, John McCain. You can't retire fast enough.

And There Goes the Sane One

POSTED BY JHW22


Jon Huntsman is withdrawing from the campaign in the morning.

OK, Republican friends, this guy was your most mature, sane, reasonable candidates. I have been telling you for years that your party was slipping from your grip. Do you realize that this man would have given Obama, and America, an honest, fair challenge to hear and think about?

If I were a Republican, I'd be really sad for my party. As an American, I am really sad what the Republican party is doing to America.

No Nuance

I've been doing a little more reading than writing on the blogs today, when my internet and cable wasn't out (DAMN YOU, TIME WARNER!!!) and it's pretty interesting, the blackness and whiteness of it all. No, I'm not comparing President Obama to the Senate. I'm reading the left ripping their hair out over the fact that they were duped by Mr. Hope and Change and this Afghanistan decision proves it. I'm reading the right throwing their feces at the arrogance of the Manchurian Candidate's timeline that includes a withdrawal date, because the enemy will just wait us out, even though since they live there, there can always wait us out.

Nuance has never been a forte of the far left or right. I had a conversation with someone regarding the President's speech and ultimate decision after almost three months of planning and thought. I expressed how I didn't like the idea, hated that we'd have to stay, how we've done nothing substantial there for eight years but that leaving now would be like the early 80s all over again, when we funded the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in their fight against the Soviets and then cut and ran when we needed to help them rebuild. I thought that a timetable for withdrawal was a good thing, making sure Pakistan's nukes didn't fall into Taliban hands was a good thing, how it's really no surprise as Obama has characterized Afghanistan as "the good war" as opposed to Iraq and how he voiced his opinion while still Senator to expand there.

And the response I got?: "So you're for the expansion of the war then?"

Fuck! No, I'm not for war expansion, who is? But what other choice does President Obama have? Are others privy to information behind closed doors at the White House that I am not, and can make a better decision than the President? I wasn't happy about President Bush's escalation when he decided to surge troops into Iraq either, but it seems to have worked out there and I was wrong. Obviously they know more than we do. And yet I see the left calling Obama a sellout and caving to the Pentagon. The same Obama that rejected every initial plan from the Joint Chiefs and told them to come back when they included an exit strategy.

Were they not paying attention when the President, then Senator, said he would escalate in Afghanistan during his campaign run? Or were they "duped" then too? And anyone supporting the President on this most difficult of decisions is now an Obama apologist, or has drank the Obama Kool-Aid. That seems to me to be the old Bush, "you're either with us or against us" black and white ideology. Has anyone been happy with the policies of a politician they voted for 100% of the time? Can't it be possible to still support a president for the things he's doing right and take a "wait and see" attitude with things on which you disagree?

I read things like, "This is not what I voted for" or "He's supposed to please his base." Well he's not supposed to please anyone, he's supposed to do what he thinks is right and what's best for the nation. It wasn't his base that won him the nomination, it was the independents. His base, who is now calling him worse than Bush and a sellout, were whining back them about how he was blowing the campaign by not addressing Rev. Wright immediately or letting the "pallin' around with terrorists" fester. And he kept showing us that he was smarter than any of us.

The title of David Sirota's column today made me wince. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a president's political image?" Pretty clever, rephrasing John Kerry's question in front of a Congressional hearing during Vietnam, and in my opinion, pretty shallow to suggest that this decision was made based on Obama's image. But I would submit to Mr. Sirota that the same question could be asked had the President ordered an immediate withdrawal.

Now, if the President backs off on the withdrawal date, whether the situation on the ground dictates it or not, then I believe he may be in trouble. We might then see a one term President and I'm sure that Obama knows this. The real thorn in Obama's side isn't Afghanistan, but slow job recovery and the economic downturn. If those factors don't turn around by mid to late 2011, it might be one and done.

But there is one thing I can believe: this decision from this President was not made lightly. And I believe he made it because he thinks it's the best decision for the country.

Party Before Country

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

~ President Barack Obama, January 20, 2009

Here we are 24 days later, 24 days into the Presidency of Barack Obama, who was handed the task of leading us out of this abysmal mess left by the previous administration because of the avarice of those men behind the curtain to which we should have been paying attention, pulling the levers and pushing the buttons; making the jaw move and the head bobble and the walk swagger of their Great and Powerful Wizard of Intellectual Slothfulness.

President Obama had a message, and in our joy and excitement for the glorious day that had finally arrived, we failed to realize who he was speaking of, as the Wizard took his final balloon flight. He spoke to the Muslim world when he asked to "seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." He spoke to leaders around the world when he warned that "your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy."

And then he said, "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent...". Who do you suppose he meant?

It didn't even take a month. In just a little over three weeks, we now know to whom he was referring when he spoke those words. President Obama has extended his hand, but the GOP has not unclenched their fist. "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent..." Can you think of any examples of corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent off the top of your head these last eight years?

He extended his hand as he met with Republican lawmakers in an effort to get support for his recovery bill to try and fight out of our current economic crisis. But why should Republicans help a newly elected Democratic President? Why should the Republicans care about the constituents they were elected to represent? And they slapped President Obama's hand away, claiming they'd been left out of the process.

He extended his hand again, in the interests of bipartisanship, trying to yet again appeal to the GOP's better angels in hosting them at the White House to discuss further ideas for economic stimulus and heard nothing but petty griping, about grass on the mall and contraception. After all, how can creating jobs by repairing the infrastructure of our crumbling national monuments and funding family planning that would save an estimated $60 billion in future government medical costs possibly help our economy? President Obama heard their complaints, removed the "offensive" items from the bill and held out his hand. And they slapped his hand away, claiming they'd been left out of the process.

President Obama then nominated Republican Senator Judd Gregg as Secretary of Commerce. Gregg accepted. After all he had lobbied for the job, why would he refuse? He then abstained from voting on the recovery bill, and decided he didn't want the job after all, in a weak, "It's not you, it's me" moment.

White House statement:

"Senator Gregg reached out to the President and offered his name for Secretary of Commerce. He was very clear throughout the interviewing process that despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace, and move forward with the President’s agenda. Once it became clear after his nomination that Senator Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama’s key economic priorities, it became necessary for Senator Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways. We regret that he has had a change of heart".

Shorter Gregg: Yeah, I wanted the job, thought it would look cool on my resume. Then all my Republican friends got mad at me and I fell to the peer pressure. Besides, I'm going to retire in 2010 anyway since the GOP is going down faster than Larry Craig in an airport bathroom stall, and there's no way I'd be re-elected. But what did you expect? I'm a Republican. That's what we do.

SABOTAGE

Is it possible that the Republican Party is thinking about nothing but trying to sabotage President Obama and the Democrats in order regain control of Congress in 2010? That would be pretty outrageous, don't you think?

Andrew Sullivan: "Their clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the new administration (and the economy to boot). They want failure. Even now. Even after the last eight years. Even in a recession as steeply dangerous as this one. "

TPM: "It's hard not to think that Gregg's withdrawal, with the grumbling about the census and the stimulus, was not timed to cause the most damage possible to the Obama administration. Releasing the statement just as Obama took the stage in Peoria was clearly designed to undermine the President's event. The fact he scheduled a presser only seems to confirm it. The classy exit would have been to wait til tomorrow afternoon to quietly bow out. Basically Gregg decided not just to politely decline, but rather to blow shit up and burn the bridge behind him. Do not think this portends good things for the wider political climate. "

Robert Reich (H/T Bob Cesca): "But going into the midterms, I think a lot of Republicans would like to say this was not our bill, this was not our bank bailout, if you had followed us with out tax cuts, we would not be in this position today. And they're gonna want to do what [Newt Gingrich] did in 1994 to nationalize the election."

Bob Cesca: "Ultimately, I don't mind that Senator Gregg has dropped out. But this is yet another indication that the Republicans have no intention of meeting the president halfway on a goddamn thing. They will, in fact, attempt to sabotage the president at every turn because it's their nature."

Yes, it would be pretty outrageous, but in my opinion, not out of the question. Show me the evidence. Give me examples where they have acted for the greater good of the country than for their own political gain. Never underestimate the Republican Party's lust for the return to power that they've lost and what lengths they'll go to regain it. In their minds, they're burning the village in order to save it. If that isn't party before country, I don't know what is.

Lost In Translation

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not back the plan of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and his comments to a German magazine on the issue were misunderstood, the government's spokesman said on Sunday.

Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement that Maliki's remarks to Der Spiegel were translated incorrectly.

Uh... yeah. Is it possible that someone got a call from the White House? I'd comment on this myself but driftglass did such a good job of it, I'll just quote her:

Yes, this could simply be a translation error.

An un-fucking-believably gargantuan translation error where the microencephalic Babelfish that is apparently now being used for all such vital, nuanced, high-level translations got knee-walking drunk and just for goofs came back with "You can haz go now! All time leave now and sooner for to leave go home! Now! Now!" when what Prime Minister al-Maliki really said was "Please keep your troops in my country until my children's children's children are as old as John McSame!"

Yes, that is one possible explanation.

UPDATE (7/21/08 11:47pm): It seems the translation was accurate after all! The New York Times confirmed the story through a recording of the interview. Not to mention the fact that it was translated by Maliki's translator and not someone from the magazine.

Maliki: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

“Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

Of course, the McCain campaign, always being one step ahead, is still going with the mistranslation story. Oops. What a bunch of buffoons.

Checkmate?

Nouri al-Maliki: "So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."

Maliki endorsement of Obama's 16-month withdrawal proposal is an admission from the Prime Minister of Iraq that they're ready to take over. Countless times you've heard the chickenhawks in the GOP say that we should leave when they ask us to leave. Seems like it's time to go.

You have to wonder what McCain's response will be to Maliki's statement. So far, all we've been hearing from the McCain campaign are crickets.

(H/T TPM & Cesca)