If Only Rand Paul Would Use His Filibuster Powers For Good Instead Of Evil

This week Kentucky Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul decided to have a thirteen hour, one-man circle jerk filibuster on the Senate floor in opposition of the nomination of John Brennan as the next CIA director until he got assurances from the White House that drones would not be used to target US citizens on US soil, you know because it's happening almost daily on our streets already.

This all stems from the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born expatriate who repeatedly called for jihad against the United States, had ties to three of the 9/11 hijackers, Fort Hood shooter Nadal Malik Hasan, underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and was elevated to regional commader in Al-Qaeda. Yes, the same Al-Qaeda which we are supposedly involved in a war against. Not what I would call a model US citizen, that al-Awlaki. Yet all these politicians are getting the vapors over this particular drone strike targeting someone that clearly was an enemy of the US, but since he was a US citizen the logical conclusion is that clearly it can happen here on American soil, even though it's never happened. And why would that be? Enter Rand Paul.

Paul sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder to ask if the Obama Administration thought it was legal to use drones against American citizens on American soil. Holder responded with the following:

"As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.” 

“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” 

“For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.”

So, the answer: It's never happened, we have no intention of making it happen but hypothetically under the most extreme circumstances, it's possible. And the only thing Rand Paul focused on (as well as a lot of the media - you know, because controversy du jour) is the "it's possible" part to begin his fist shaking (and fundraising opportunity) outrage.

As David von Ebers writes, no one was worried about "the possibility" of military strikes on US soil under extreme circumstances when we were under attack.

"...the fact that the Bush Administration sent military aircraft – both armed and unarmed – into the skies on September 11 surprised exactly no one. As events were unfolding, and before anyone knew exactly who was responsible for the attacks, the President and the military were prepared to use lethal force to stop planes from hitting additional targets, even if it meant killing innocent American passengers, and regardless of the nationality or citizenship of the hijackers. 

If you paid any attention to the news coverage at the time, you knew this. And I suspect, like me, you didn’t object to it in the least. As much as I abhor nearly everything George W. Bush did as president, I can’t fault him or his military leaders for making that awful decision. What other choice did they have? If they’d had the opportunity to shoot down even one of those planes, they might have saved the lives of thousands of other innocent people. It’s an awful choice to have to make, but we expect presidents to make extraordinarily difficult choices in extraordinarily difficult circumstances... 

...Atty. Gen. Holder told Sen. Paul that the Obama Administration would do exactly what the Bush Administration attempted to do on September 11, 2001, in identical circumstances. Now I’m old and my memory is imperfect (although I did remember, quite clearly, that the Bush Administration scrambled fighter jets on 9/11), but try as I might to wrack my middle-aged brain, I recall exactly no controversy – as in none, zip, zero, nada – absolutely no controversy whatsoever following the Bush Administration’s attempt to use lethal military force that day. 

So you can understand my confusion. This is not a case where the Bush Administration expanded the powers of the presidency and the Obama Administration followed suit; instead, this is a situation where Pres. Bush’s actions were met with no controversy at the time because they were not controversial. What Pres. Bush did on 9/11 – ordering fighter pilots to take to the air, to shoot down hijacked airliners if necessary – appeared to everyone at the time to be right in the presidential wheelhouse, legally and constitutionally. Awful, yes. Illegal? Of course not."

Now, don't misunderstand. I think the usage of drones and who orders them and where are important issues. I think that their usage puts the US' moral creditability on the line (if we have any left to begin with). But it makes absolutely no difference to me whether the target is a US citizen or not. 

All these politicians wetting their diapers over the drone debate have framed the issue as a hypothetical attack on an American citizen, and the hypocrisy is astounding. What about those brown people we've been vaporizing "over there" with the drone program that we all knew about? Fuck them, what do we care about killing innocent civilians in a foreign land? Collateral damage. Wrong place, wrong time. Besides, they're probably jihad loving mooslims anyway, right?

Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen and therefore and deserved a fair trial? But those 160 guys imprisoned in Guantanamo for years without benefit of trial - fuck those guys. And so says the rest of the Senate with their continual votes not to fund the closing of Gitmo. The only thing for which Rand Paul should be given credit is for actually using the filibuster as it was intended (instead of placing a cowardly, anonymous hold on a vote) even though all it amounted to was free publicity and some campaign cash as intended.

So Rand Paul, and Tea Party wingnut Ted Cruz and Poland Spring spokesman Marco Rubio who took the opportunity to ride Paul's coattails in the latest search for the 2016 spotlight, please spare me the crocodile tears of Constitutional rights on one drone terrorist target who also happened to be an American citizen. Until Congress sets trials for everyone in detention centers like Gitmo, they should just shut their cake holes.

Mitt-mentum?

Posted by Long Island Weegie B.

Before we embrace another Republican president, let's just remember what happened under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and the 107th, 108th and 109th Republican led Congresses. In my opinion Bush and Cheney have lived up to the term "Worst. Presidency. Ever."

How quickly we forget while listening to the Fox Lies. The propaganda really does work.

What happened on W.'s watch (and I am just going from memory):

September 11th, two unjust wars, thousands of Americans dead by war or by natural disaster (remember a little place called Louisiana where dead Americans were floating in the streets and left to die on rooftops, in attics, and their homes?)

Then there was Terri Schiavo.  Congress made a mockery of the woman's privacy, death, and dragged her family through the mud for months as I recall. I find this particularly hypocritical and offensive as a government intrusion into a private discussion.

Hmm... what else?

Revision of posse comitatus, suspension of habeas corpus, expansion of eminent domain rights. With the changes in eminent domain the government can now take your property and give it to a private corporation.

It used to be the government could only take for a public good. Before, if Corp A wants your house, you'd say give me a million dollars and then negotiate until you get what you want and they get what they want. Now, if Corp A wants to build on your property they just get the governor to take it, pay market rate (not necessarily what it is worth), and gives it to them. Not hard to understand, your rights of property ownership just disappeared. Cases are still open in Florida about this.

What else...

...financial collapse, recession, depression, a nosedive in unemployment, the bank disaster (all of which we are still fighting to emerge from), the GM bailout, the housing collapse... outsourcing to China... the only thing he could have done to top it off was to fire a nuke at Russia.

Obama? He is trying to give everyone health care, green energy, tax the super rich, and rebuild the middle class. Yeah, yeah, he let the gays get married, he's black, and America is a deeply racist, bigoted country. I get it. But if we are really just interested in the economy and jobs, what does that have to do with anything?

For some reason, we are all genetically engineered to attack the word SOCIALISM. Well, socialism is a very good thing in moderation. We have Social Security, Medicare, and any number of other socialism based enterprises like the Armed Forces, departments of water supply, sewer departments, departments of traffic, etc. Last I checked, nobody wanted to disband the Army because they function as a socialist organization.

Socialism is no better or worse than Capitalism, Communism, or any of the other 'isms' out there with the exception of Libertarianism. Libertarians are social Darwinists and should be bludgeoned on sight. Most Corporatists are Libertarians in their basic design, except for eating those government bailouts when they fail.

In Socialism (which the US is not), the people own the means of production. Sounds good to me. The Hoover Dam: government built and people owned. Niagara power project: government built and owned by the state of New York. Tennessee Valley Authority? Same thing. In New York alone, George Washington Bridge, Robert F. Kennedy Bridge, Whitestone Bridge, Midtown Tunnel, Central Park. These are all products of Socialism.

Social Security, yes that too. It is your money, owned by you like a bank account so you should be very aware of what the government is doing with your money... because it is YOUR money.

I've gone far longer here than I wanted, so all I want to say is think before you jump to embrace an ideology that has failed for 30 years. Think before you blindly believe the patented lies that are being delivered by the corporate owned media. You see, that was deregulated too. Now the news is no longer fact based as much as it is entertainment based opinion (some call it lies).

Presidential Campaign Season...

...starts early in New York City.

This billboard is on display on the Manhattan bound side of the 59th Street Bridge.



The picture on the left side of the billboard is of President Obama shaking hands with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas showing proof positive that Obama is anti-Israel. You know... sort of like this:



(Billboard photo sent to me by avid reader, Nowhere Man)

Charles Krauthammer Is Missing Something

Today's op-ed from Charles Krauthammer has one craaaazy headline: Call Obama's Bluff

Hasn’t the White House leaked that he’s prepared to raise the Medicare age or change the cost-of-living calculation?

Anonymous talk is cheap. Leaks are designed to manipulate. Offers are floated and disappear.

Say it, Mr. President. Give us one single structural change in entitlements. In public.

Now obviously, when in the course of negotiations, it's a pretty dumb idea to float your ideas in public as far as specifics are concerned. And of course, Mr. Krauthammer knows this - surely he's not that stupid. He's just trying to shoehorn his perspective into his piece. But apparently, Mr. Krauthammer hasn't been listening when it comes to statements in public.

Obama signaled at his press conference today that changes to Social Security could be a bargaining chip in a deficit reduction deal with Republicans – something many Democrats have staunchly opposed.

“The reason to do Social Security is to strengthen Social Security to make sure that those benefits are there for seniors in the out-years,” Obama said. “ And the reason to include that potentially in this package is if you’re going to take a bunch of tough votes, you might as well do it now, as opposed to trying to muster up the political will to get something done further down in the future.”

There's your public statement, Mr. Krauthammer, right in the middle of a news conference, for which the President has taken a barrage of hits from the fringe left that would rather primary him, to the Democratic members of the House. But no matter. He continues:

The Republicans are being totally outmaneuvered. The House speaker appears disoriented. It’s time to act. Time to call Obama’s bluff.

A long-term deal or nothing? The Republican House should immediately pass a short-term debt-ceiling hike of $500 billion containing $500 billion in budget cuts. That would give us about five months to work on something larger.

Well, President Obama has already stated he will accept no short-term deal. The time for that passed, by Mr. Krauthammer's calculation, about 5 months ago. And his premise sits on the notion that the GOP would work in good faith to "work on something larger" and not use the borrowed time to drag their feet until the next debt ceiling increase vote all the way to November, 2012. Past performance has dictated such an outcome. But let's see what Mr. Krauthammer's proposal on "something larger" is:

Republicans should call for urgent negotiations on tax reform along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles commission that, in one option, strips out annually $1.1 trillion of deductions, credits and loopholes while lowering tax rates across the board to a top rate of 23 percent. The president says he wants tax reform, doesn’t he? Well, Mr. President, here are five months to do so.

And that's where Mr. Krauthammer's fist shaking falls apart. He is still under the impression that the Republicans are actually serious about debt reduction.

From the very beginning the Republican negotiators have stated unequivocally that any revenue increase is  a non-starter, including closing tax loopholes, streamlining deductions and even an expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Krauthammer assumes the Republicans will automatically change their mind if only that stubborn, mule-headed Obama would accept a short-term deal to work out the kinks of these reforms in the meantime. ...Please...

And taking a jab at the President as a "born-again budget balancer" when St. Ronnie tripled the debt and George W. Bush doubled it in their respective terms in office is just comical. Look at your own party's White House leadership history when it comes to deficit spending, Mr. Krauthammer. Don't try crying crocodile tears now.

Krauthammer ignores the fact that the supposed leader of these negotiations on the GOP side, House Speaker John Boehner, doesn't even have full support of his own members, where somewhere between 60 and 70 Tea Party House members have stated they wouldn't vote for a debt ceiling increase under ANY circumstances, which means Boehner needs Democratic votes in order to pass ANYTHING. To get those votes he needs to make it palatable. It's called "compromise." So please spare me the Republican superiority. The current crop of Krauthammer's party are the ones who decided to tie spending cuts to the debt ceiling increase in the first place. To cry foul now and project that it's President Obama who is holding the debt ceiling hostage is completely preposterous.

And then he ends with this kicker:

If conservatives really want to get the nation’s spending under control, the only way is to win the presidency. Put the question to the country and let the people decide. To seriously jeopardize the election now in pursuit of a long-term, small-government, Ryan-like reform that is inherently unreachable without control of the White House may be good for the soul. But it could very well wreck the cause.

Ah, the cause. Not to save the economy, but to win back the White House. So ultimately, Krauthammer's suggestion of calling the president's bluff is a political ploy to implode the economy in order to gain traction in winning back the Presidency, apparently not aware of polls showing that if there is a US default, the American people will blame the Republicans in Congress before the only adult in the room occupying the White House. How will that bode for the 2012 elections up and down ticket? It is to laugh.

Andrew Card is Sad...

...because there will be no Democratic debate before President Obama is chosen as the nominee.



And yes, this is the same Andrew Card who was George W. Bush's Chief of Staff during the 2004 election cycle... when Bush was the incumbent and didn't have to debate fellow Republicans before he was chosen as the nominee for his party.

...The stupidity, it burns!

A Classy Move

It was very classy of President Obama to invite former President Bush to join him at the Ground Zero ceremony on Thursday after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. It was also just as classy for Bush to decline, no matter what the reason.

I can't help but wonder however (yes, I'm a cynic), how this will be reported, or not reported as the case may be, by the conservative media. Will Fox News mention it? Will Rush Limbaugh short out his mic with spittle in berating the President for "taking credit" without Bush at his side and omit the fact that Bush was invited? We'll find out soon enough.

Ten Years Too Late

Sam Stein: In an interview set to air this Sunday, former President George W. Bush said he was done with politics and that he is uninterested in campaigning or raising money for political candidates.

Everything Old is New Again

Ah, the good ol' days. Jon Stewart on George W. Bush's book plug circuit. These jokes really do write themselves.

Barbara Bush is One Crazy Mamma Jamma

If this story is true, and it's from the horse's mouth so why should it be doubted, then it's the first time I feel sympathy for George W. Bush. From Decision Points:

George W. Bush’s pro-life stance solidified when he was a teenager in Texas—after his mother suffered a devastating miscarriage and showed him the fetus in a jar, the former president said in an extraordinary interview that airs tonight.  

“She said to her teenage kid, ‘Here’s the fetus,’ ” the shockingly candid Bush told NBC’s Matt Lauer, gesturing as if he were holding the jar during the TV chat, a DVD of which The Post exclusively obtained.

“There’s no question that affected me, a philosophy that we should respect life,” said the former president, who had to drive his distraught mother to the hospital at the time.

What kind of parent does that?

(H/T Balloon Juice)

Michael Steele is An Idiot

Steele thinks George Bush created jobs.



Facts:

"Bush’s job data 'shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.' A paltry 1 million jobs were created under Bush; that’s 'a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration.' Even President Carter — who conservatives love to cite as the paragon of poor economic management, and who only served one term — created 10.5 million jobs. That’s more than three times as many jobs as Bush, in half as much time. More jobs may be created under Obama in this year alone than in Bush's eight."

I just love the "Well, I'll get numbers too and we'll compare" line. Like that'll ever happen. I wonder if Steele goes home at night and factchecks himself and then says, "Shit, I got that one wrong too." 

(H/T Think Progress)

You and Me BOTH, Brother!

George W. Bush: "I have no desire to see myself on television. I don't want to be a panel of formers instructing the currents on what to do..."

(H/T GottaLaff)

McCain Economy Would've Been No Different - UPDATED

If things had turned out differently on a November night in 2008 and we had the pleasure of a McCain/Palin administration, the record deficit would have been the same or perhaps worse. So says John McCain's former economic policy advisor.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin argued that under McCain's stewardship economic policy would have been strikingly different than under Obama -- with a much smaller stimulus bill and government expenditures going down as opposed to up.

But the former Congressional Budget Office director did acknowledge that, even with these changes, the country "probably would still have a record deficit" as is projected under the Obama administration.

And we all know why.

...many of the deficit problems the current administration faces today are traced directly back to the policies of its predecessors. This, indeed, seems to be implicit in Holtz-Eakin's acknowledgment.

In December 2009, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded that the then-$1.4 trillion annual deficit run by the government under Obama had much to do with the Bush administration's package of tax cuts, the wars it launched in Iraq and Afghanistan and its response to the recession.

I wonder if McCain would have "blamed it on Bush"?


UPDATE (4:15pm): Of course, no sooner does President Obama release his budget than The Maverick gets busy twiddling his thumbs to come up with this asinine tweet:



Maybe he should have spoken to Holtz-Eakin...

Fair and Balanced

Do we really have to deal with these idiots day after day? There is plenty with which to criticize President Obama if Fox was a serious news organization instead of right wing National Enquirer.



The horror that this man would dare put his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office! How dare he! Who the hell does he think he is disrespecting the office in such a way?



...Yeah...

And what does the story link to, by the way? Wingnut Hot Air Pundit. But this is a serious "fair and balanced" news organization.  I don't what's sadder, the fact that they have a voice or the fact that millions upon millions of rubes fall for this shit.

(H/T Bob Cesca)

There Is Evil In The World

Evil is everywhere. And no, I'm not talking about natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, or the tsunami in Indonesia or the most recent devastating earthquake in Haiti that we're witness to now, but to some of the reaction that it is garnering.

Regardless of political ideology or religious persuasion, I never expected some public, prominent figures to not even bother taking a breath before using this horrible situation as an opportunistic opening.

A supposed man of the cloth, the televangelist shyster Pat Robertson spewed the usual hateful crap in the guise of religion.

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," he said on Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club." "They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal."

Robertson said that "ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other" and he contrasted Haiti with its neighbor, the Dominican Republic.

...Or whatever... True story.

Then there's the  always-good-for-an-outrageous-statement douche Rush Limbaugh, taking the tragedy and using it for right wingnut political hackery and of course, attacking and criticizing President Obama for his quick response.

LIMBAUGH: I want you to remember it took [Obama] three days -- three days -- to respond to the Christmas Day Fruit of Kaboom bomber. Three days. And when he came out after those three days, he was clearly irritated that he had to do it. He didn't want to do it. He comes out here in less than 24 hours to speak about Haiti.

[...]

Oh, this is what he lives for. He lives for serving those in misery. Now don't misunderstand here, folks. See, this is -- I wonder -- I don't have the whole press conference, but I wonder: Did he apologize for America before acknowledging we are the only people on Earth that can possibly help them out down there in any significant way?

[...]

This will play right into Obama's hands -- humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their -- shall we say -- credibility with the black community, in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community, in this country. It's made-to-order for 'em. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there. Could not wait to get out there.

You have to wonder what Limbaugh's reaction would have been had it been his favorite sex tourism spot, the Dominican Republic, where he loves to travel with an illegal cache of Viagra. Of course, Limbaugh would have been the first to criticize the President had he not made a statement for being aloof or indifferent.  It's a win-win for the Obama's enemy political pundits.

Speaking of aloof or indifferent, do you remember the embarrassment this country suffered at the Bush government's reaction in 2004 in aiding the victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami?

The year before Katrina, Bush had faced international complaints about what was seen as a sluggish response in both U.S. aid and manpower to the Asia tsunami that killed 226,000 people in 13 countries.

His administration's initial cash assistance of $35 million for tsunami victims was widely derided as paltry. What helped to salvage the U.S. image in affected countries was a goodwill tour then launched jointly by Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush and former President Bill Clinton.

They Can't Help Themselves

You can't watch any cable news television nowadays without coming across a lying Republican. They just can't help themselves. It seems to be in their DNA. Whether they're talking about death panels, or a government takeover of health care, or wanting to protect Medicare in a sudden reversal of the GOP agenda to kill Medicare before health care reform was in the forefront. But the latest egregiousness really takes the cake.

America's Mayor, Rudy Giuliani was on Good Morning America today and since the GOP blue plate special has been to attack President Obama and blame him for the failed terrorist attempt of Taintman™ on Northwest Airlines flight 253 landing in Detroit, Rudy thought he'd up the stakes.



Giuliani: "What [Obama] should be doing is following the right things that Bush did -- one of the right things he did was treat this as a war on terror. We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We've had one under Obama."

I suppose Rudy forgot about 9/11, although I don't know how that's possible since "9/11" was his middle name during his pathetic presidential campaign. But to give Rudy the benefit of the doubt, maybe he's blocked the trauma. Maybe he doesn't remember running through the streets of lower Manhattan, away from the Emergency Command Center that he decided to move to the same location that was attacked in 1993. I guess he equated terrorist strikes with lightning strikes; Rudy probably thought they never strike twice in the same place.

But even if you forgive Giuliani his little slip and assume he meant to say that we had no domestic attacks under Bush post 9/11, which is now what a spokesperson for America's Mayor is saying in an attempt to pull Rudy's foot out of his big, fat mouth, it's still not true.

Does Rudy not remember the anthrax attacks in the weeks after 9/11 that killed five people? Does Rudy not remember the DC Sniper who killed ten people in October of 2002? Does he not remember Richard Reid, the failed shoe bomber in December, 2001? I certainly do every time I have to remove my shoes at the airport. Oh wait, my mistake. Rudy does remember the shoe bomber, but says that attack happened before 9/11. Just another lie by another Republican. Just like the lie Rudy told that President Obama waited 10 days before addressing the failed attack when it was three. But it's so easy for them to lie. It's in their DNA.

Does Rudy not remember the attack at Los Angeles International Airport in March of 2006 when two people were shot to death at the El Al ticket counter by an extremist in an incident that was deemed an act of international terrorism?

Of course he does. Rudy remembers all of these attacks, but he decides to deny them. He decides to remain with the Republican meme that Democrats are weak on national security although all signs point to the contrary in terms of actual attacks. Because it's easy for them to lie. It's in their DNA.

This follows on the heels of former Bushie Press Secretary Dana Perino and resident Wicked Witch of the GOP Mary Matalin pushing the same lie; that the Bush administration kept us safe from attacks... pay no attention to those fallen towers behind the curtain. And that doesn't even begin to address the daily Dick Cheney report from Politico or whatever Sunday talk show is scheduled to kiss his ass that particular week.

You can't say that the US wasn't attacked under the Bush administration while discounting the worst terrorist attack in US history. And even if you dismiss 9/11, yes, we were attacked... multiple times. And shame on the mainstream media for letting the lies go unchallenged. George Stephanopoulos has since admitted he should have followed up on the Giuliani lie, but too little too late, George.

I know that the GOP got used to creating it's own reality during those very long Bush years, but do they actually think that revisionist history is going to work on such a traumatic event as the deaths of 3,000 people in one day on their watch? And the GOP making political hay out of this and using the failed Underpants Bomber attack as an opening to malign President Obama and his administration for partisan advantage diminishes the importance of those deaths.

But then again, they just can't help themselves. Being lying jackasses seems to be in their DNA.

Tweet of the Day

WALSH: In May 2002 National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice complained that "no one could have imagined" al-Qaida using airplanes as weapons -- when, in fact, the U.S., and the Bush administration, had been warned of such planning many times.

...By contrast, Obama stood up and described the many missed opportunities to identify, detain and question Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab less than two weeks after the near-tragedy, but concluded: "I'm less interested in passing out blame than in learning and correcting mistakes. The buck stops with me."

[...]

Imagine President Bush doing the same thing after 9/11. I know, you can't. I couldn't either. In almost eight years, he never did.

The Problem With Afghanistan

I haven't blogged about this subject because there's really not much to say about it. I can't imagine that anyone is happy that the United States is committing another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Anyone sane, that is. I'm not speaking about chickenhawks like Dick Cheney or war profiteers like Halliburton. And it's easy to say "withdraw" when you're not the President of the United States. I personally would like to see a withdrawal from Afghanistan as soon as possible but we know that that isn't going to happen.

And think about the situation the Obama administration finds itself in. Put yourself in the President's place and really think about not just the ideological stance but the political ramifications of this decision. It's damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Either A) Commit more troops and anger the liberal Democrats, although this shouldn't come as a surprise since President Obama did say during his campaign that we took our eye off Afghanistan and that he would finish the job.

B) Decide to withdraw and you're labeled as soft on national security. That combined with the terrorist trials being held in New York City and the "Obama love terrorists" meme continues.

C) Commit less troops than the request of the generals and be ridiculed for not listening to the commanders on the ground; not that former President Bush listened to his commanders when they asked for more troops in Afghanistan as he was playing Stratego™ in Iraq and Osama bin Laden was reenacting The Great Escape in Tora Bora.

But whether we stay in Afghanistan, escalate or withdraw, the real problem is that it only legitimizes Hamid Karzai's tainted election, and a corrupt, drug profiteering government. So no matter what the President announces tonight, and from all indications it looks like an escalation of 30-35,000 troops, there is no upside except for the possibility of outlining a definite exit strategy with a specific timetable. Of course, there will be talk of benchmarks, but with the new administration, I'm expecting said benchmarks to be specific and attainable, as opposed to nebulous and fishy. You can move the goal posts only so many times.

At this point, there really is nothing to do except to hope that the new strategy works, and give President Obama the benefit of the doubt and the time to make it work. Otherwise, we should take to the streets in protest with the same vigor as the wingnut teabag contingent, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

We'll find out tonight.

This Is Perfect

Booman (Via Cesca): "Yesterday was probably the most embarrassing day yet for the progressive blogosphere during the short reign of the Obama administration. So, now is probably a good time to just let loose and register my disgust with the movement I've been a part of for the last five years.

If you supported Obama during the primaries, you know who you are and this does not necessarily apply to you. For the rest of you, you spent the primaries either shilling for Clinton and telling us our guy was all talk and no show, or you spent them bitching that David Plouffe wouldn't respond to and obey your emailed wisdom. As soon as he won the presidency, you started bitching about his appointments. As soon as he became president, you started bitching about his messaging, his framing, his agenda, and his lack of deference to your opinion. I want to know where the point was in this process when Obama was supposed to conclude that you were his allies and that you were responsible for his victory. When was he supposed to conclude that he owed you something, or that you had any respect for him, or that you credited his good intentions, or that you understood the myriad responsibilities of the job might mean that your pet issues might have to wait six months, a year, or two years to get to the top of his agenda.

You call him a warmonger, but he gets the Nobel Peace Prize. He ends torture and allows his Attorney General to investigate it, and you call him a torturer. He tries to enact health care reform with a robust public option and you accuse him of seeking every opportunity to sell-out to the insurance industry. He bails out the cratering financial services industry and prevents a second Great Depression, and you accuse him of selling his soul to corporate CEO's. I'm not saying that all of these criticisms lack validity. I'm not saying that people shouldn't advocate for the things they care about passionately. I just want to know where you get the fucking idea that an anonymous White House staffer who gets asked about all this criticism would feel obligated to show you deference and respect."

I've increasingly felt this way for the last few months now, very early on with DADT and DOMA, and now with the health care reform debate. It seems to me that everyone has their billy clubs out ready to pounce on any perceived slight by the White House, whether on the right (which is expected) or the left (which is surprising and depressing).

We're 9½ months into a new administration that started in the deepest of ditches on January 20th. Think about it: you really couldn't get handed something much worse. And despite some of the accomplishments that President Obama and his administration have succeeded on in just 9 months, there's been nothing but the feeling of "it's not good enough, or fast enough" when it comes to a specific issue that any one person can have.

Even now I look into health care debates online where some of the Progressive commenters who support single payer say, "Obama is worse than Bush." Really? Did you just say that George W. Bush could do a better job than President Obama when it comes to health care reform? The guy that cut S-CHIP? That George Bush? The guy who signed Medicare Part D into law without the means to pay for it? Is that the Bush you're talking about? And that's just on the health care front.

All the talk lately was about how Obama had too many balls in the air all at once, but if one of those balls wasn't Medicare for All or repealing DADT immediately, it wasn't good enough.

So yes, I am in agreement with Booman and Bob Cesca. You have every right to voice your opinion and feel passionate about the issues that mean something to you. But if it isn't 100% to your liking or it isn't fast enough for you, just take a deep breath and think about what the alternative might have been.

Meet the new boss, DEFINITELY not the same as the old boss.

Merkel Has Obama's Back

NY TIMES: Mr. Obama was speaking at a press conference after meeting here [in Dresden] with Chancellor Angela Merkel, who praised the president’s speech in Cairo, saying it offered a “new beginning” for relations between the United States and the Muslim world.

...Mrs. Merkel called Mr. Obama’s words an “ideal basis” to pursue peace efforts [in the Middle East].

It seems that Chancellor Merkel has Obama's back as opposed to just a few years ago when Dubya "had her back" in the mighty clutches using his python forearm strength.

Chris Matthews and Pissant Criticism

I wrote about this yesterday because it struck me as ridiculous that the RNC apprently still thinks it's campaign season and continues to come out with almost daily inane messages trying to knock President Obama down a peg. Maybe to get him down to a 60% approval rating. I'd leave it alone but I can't help submitting this Chris Matthews video where he nails Bush, the RNC, and Michael Steele.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

"Pissant criticism." BANG! "Nincompoop anti-intellectualism." POW! Chris is fun to watch when he gets his dander up.

Commenter Annette also wrote about Air Force One and that any plane the President is on is AF1. My response was that calling the gulfstream they took to New York City "Air Force One" was a deliberate attempt to confuse their non-thinking, knuckledragging followers into picturing the large jet that the President usually uses to invoke outrage of waste. I wasn't wrong.



They even used the AF1 flyover photo-op that was criticized by most and caused the resignation of the director of the White House Military Office, Louis Caldera. Keep it up, you classy Republicans.