Let the Smearing Begin

It's incredible, isn't it? The candidates are barely out of the gate, some of them haven't even announced they are running yet, and already the rumors are flying. I'm not even going to dignify calling them rumors, they are smears. Dirty, disgusting lies aimed to cast doubt toward anyone credible. Do you think these lies would start if the candidates had little to no chance of succeeding? If so, then where are the Dennis Kucinich smear campaigns? No offense to Dennis, I like him, but we all know he has very little chance of making it in his presidential bid.

Here's Barack Obama, defending where he went to school when he was six year old... SIX!... and no, he's not Muslim and no, he didn't go to a madrassa. Unbelieveable!
And where did we first hear the smear? From a right wing web based magazine Insight. And how did it initially spread? The female Rush Limbaugh, Melanie Morgan on KSFO in San Francisco. And who picked up the story? John Gibson on FOX NEWS, another right wing freak.

But let's not stop there. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Not only can they spread the smear that Obama is Muslim and was taught at a madrassa, but they can also say that the Hillary Clinton Campaign is where they got the info from. These people have no morals, they are no worse than the scum on the bottom of my shoes.
Oh, Melanie Morgan then says she got the story wrong, it wasn't the Clinton Camp that started the smear, it was the JOHN EDWARDS Camp. TRIFECTA! Boy, these people are rotten to the core.
From the minute this story came out, it was debunked; ABC and CNN even sent producers and crews out to INDONESIA to check out the school, and found what they'd find in a "normal" school: kids learning math, science and English. Spongebob on the walls.

Has no one learned from the John Kerry swiftboating smear? Does no one remember that John McCain's own party smeared him in calling his adopted Bangladeshi daughter his own "illegitimate black child" when he was running against George the Liar in the Republican Primaries? Doesn't that disgust you? Don't you remember decorated war veteran Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, being linked to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin laden in TV smear ads by Saxby Chambliss? Isn't that vile to you?

Wake up sheeple! This kind of crap CAN'T work anymore. We must not allow ourselves to fall into the pit with these snakes.

By the way, fair warning to all: usually, I try not to use foul language on this site (although I have a sailor's mouth), but I find I've been censoring myself more and more these days. Well, NO MORE! If I think it, I'm going to post it, so I apologize in advance for offending anyone with future racy language. And boy, is it going to be racy! I'm going to call these people what they are and I'm not holding back. So hold on to your keyboards, its going to be a foul mouthed ride!

Hagel: "If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes!"

I'm really starting to doubt this guy is a Republican. Senator Chuck Hagel went ballistic on the Resolution Committee (actually, just the Republicans) for not doing more on the issue. He was the only Republican Senator to vote in favor of opposing troop escalation (or rather "troop increase") in Iraq. This after his GQ interview came out bashing the Bush Crime Family. GO, CHUCK, GO!

At this point, considering that 21 Republican Senators are up for re-election in 2008, I can't see how the fractured Republican party won't continue to desert the sinking ship of SS George the Liar. It may take more time, but at this rate, someone's got to take the ball and run with it in an attempt to blow the final cannonball in the hull of George the Liar.

Hagel: "Why are you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes!"

Chuck Hagel's GQ Interview

Senator Chuck Hagel, the most outspoken Republican Senator against the war in Iraq was interviewed in GQ Magazine, and boy is it scathing!

GQ: What would it take to secure Baghdad?

Hagel: It’s not ours to secure. We have never understood that! We have framed this in a way that never made sense: “Win or lose in Iraq.” Wait a minute! There is no win or loss for us.

**************
GQ: It {the resolution] said, “to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.”

Hagel: In the event that all other options failed. So it’s not as simple as “I voted for the war.” That wasn’t the resolution.

***********
Hagel: ...finally, begrudgingly, they sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.

GQ: It wasn’t specific to Iraq?

Hagel: Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. I mean, is Central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything they wanted. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.

GQ: They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere they wanted in the Middle East?

Hagel: Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up, and put our language in it.

Boston Legal: No Fly List

This is a great scene from the creators of Boston Legal, regarding "No Fly" lists and Homeland Security. It would be REALLY funny if it weren't so close to the truth.

Cheney Involved In CIA Leak

What a surprise! More information is coming out on the first day of Scooter Libby's trial. It seems Dick the Devil is possibly much more deeply involved than originally thought.

State of the Union Address 2007

So what does George the Liar have in store for us this evening? It will be very interesting to see how he will be received, this being the first Democratic Congress he's had to address in his poor excuse for a Presidency.

Sen. Tom Harkin on possibly cutting off funding for additional troops: "It's like having a grade school kid and you're giving him an allowance, and they're spending all their allowance on candy. And you want him to stop so you say, "Don't spend your money on candy. But, by the way, here's some more money."

This Kinda Sums Things Up

Daryl Cagle's editorial cartoon from January 17th. Click on it to view in a larger format.

Sirota: What They Said...

...And When They Said It

Great article by David Sirota writing in the San Francisco Chronicle. No one is taking responsibility. No one is being held accountable. Not the politicians, not the media, not the pundits.

Sirota: "How can we expect to change course in Iraq, if a president is given a pass to claim he has never stayed the course in the first place? How can we expect to hold lawmakers accountable if they are never questioned about their efforts to deliberately mislead us? How can we expect the media to be a watchdog if its leading analysts and news framers face no public sanctions when they disrespect the truth or give credence to fringe ideologies?

A country whose national political conversation is dominated by voices that deny their own complicity in national security tragedies; downplay human casualties, and generally make dishonesty mundane, is a nation prevented from reflecting on its bad decisions -- and thus is doomed to repeat such bad decisions in the future."

Sen. Byrd: "Listen! Hear Me!"

89 year old Sen. Robert Byrd (D -W. Va) made an empassioned plea on the Senate floor today opposing the Gregg Amendment that would allow line item vetos in the Ethics Reform Bill that is under debate in the Senate. This would give the president authority to single out individual spending items in legislation for elimination.

As was reported on January 17th, "Democrats failed to clear a crucial legislative hurdle when the Senate voted 51-46 to proceed with the bill that would have reduced the influence of lobbyists in shaping legislation and forced lawmakers to be more open about the pet projects they slip into legislation. Sixty votes were needed to advance the legislation."

Sen. Byrd: "I will stand here until my bones crumble under me... until I have no further breath, if necessary, to let such a proposal become law."

Here is the video in two parts:

Part One:

Part Two:

Hagel on Face The Nation

Look everyone, an endangered species. A Republican! No, not the ones who are currently in the party. One who actually believes in fiscal responsibility and smaller government, and doesn't just say they do.

Sen. Chuck Hagel had plenty to say on Face The Nation this past Sunday including, "The party that I first voted for on top of a tank in the Mekong Delta in 1968 is not the party I see today, Bob. Fiscal responsibility, engagement with others, pro-trade, personal responsibility, less government--that's not who we are today. Parties should be the framework of philosophies and beliefs."

You can watch the video here.

Here's part of the transcript:

SCHIEFFER: The [Washington Post today] reports that when President Bush met with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki back on November 30th that Maliki gave him the following information. It was his plan. He said that he wanted no more US troops in Iraq, he wanted US troops in Baghdad to withdraw to the outskirts of the city and let the Iraqis take over in Baghdad, and he wanted other US troops to shift to the borders with Iran and Syria so they could concentrate on tracking down al-Qaeda. The president, we are told, said that he didn't think that would work, that it would cause Baghdad to just collapse into chaos. But frankly, that sounds like the recommendations that the Baker-Hamilton Commission reported back after studying this problem for about a year. What is your reaction to that?

Senator CHUCK HAGEL (Republican, Nebraska; Foreign Relations Committee): I think you're brief analysis is correct. It does include what the prime minister framed up for the president, if that story is correct. Very much the foundation of the 79 recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report, which I supported, which I have said publicly and privately that I thought the administration should seize upon that, build upon that. Because first, it represents a diplomatic framework for dealing with, not just with the immediate problems in Iraq, but the future. In fact, the Iraqis were already doing this, reaching out the Iranians, reaching out to the Syrians. They've been to Damascus and Tehran. That is going forward. And I'm very happy, very pleased, because I think, in the end, some of us believe, I suspect Baker-Hamilton believe, that there is going to be--have to be a diplomatic resolution. That's going to include a diplomatic accommodation, but also a political accommodation within Iraq that's going to require some shifts. And what Maliki was talking about I think makes sense. In fact, the resolution that Senators Biden and Levin and Snow and I have put forward details, in some ways, and references, in general ways, exactly what you just talked about, exactly what supposedly Maliki told the president and is incorporated in the Baker-Hamilton report.

SCHIEFFER: So you think the president made a mistake here in not accepting some of these recommendations?

Sen. HAGEL: I've said that he has made a mistake. I think, for whatever reason, the advice he got was not very solid, because I have believed from the beginning, Bob, that the future of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqi people. We can help. For example, the territorial integrity of Iraq. That is something that we could do, to start helping seal off those western borders. That's what Maliki's talked about. We had a panel of four former retired four star generals before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week, various ideas and positions. But one of those generals said that this was a fool's errand to continue to put American troops in the middle of a sectarian civil war. I think Maliki was moving in the right direction. I hope he continues to move in the right direction. The future of Iraq is not going to be determined by American military. And, by the way, Generals Casey and Abizaid said this in open hearing in November. So I too found that front page story in The Washington Post both puzzling and also encouraging.
****************

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this, senator. Vice President Cheney says this sort of thing [Congressional resolutions] undercuts the troops. What's your response?

Sen. HAGEL: Well, let me tell you this. I served in Vietnam in 1968. Others did, too--Jim Webb, John McCain, John Kerry, other members in the House. In 1968, when I was there with my brother, worst year, deaths, I would have welcomed the Congress of the United States to pay a little attention as to what was going on. I would have welcomed that. That is complete nonsense to say we're undercutting the support of the troops. What are we about?
We're Article I of the Constitution. We're a co-equal branch of government. Are we not to participate? Are we not to say anything? Are we not to register our sense of where we're going in this country on foreign policy?
****************
SCHIEFFER: The president says if we pull out, it would be chaos there. What do you think would happen if the president took your suggestions and we began to draw down troops?

Sen. HAGEL: ...We have right now anarchy in Iraq. We have disaster in Iraq. It's not getting better; it's getting worse. So to say somehow that, if we eventually leave there, it's going to be anarchy, no one wants a defeat. No one wants to put America or the Middle East in a worse situation. I've not heard of anybody doing that or wanting to do that. What we're trying to do is come up with a relevant, realistic approach bringing the partners in, letting Maliki do what he suggested to the president he'd do, and find a way out of the militarily committed peace of this. That's what Baker-Hamilton said. That's what I believe.
***************
Not bad for a real Republican. This government could do a lot of things if more politicians were like Hagel, putting aside their partisan labels and trying to figure out what works best for the country instead of what works best for them or their party.