Didn't GW's dad do this with Iraq (encouraging uprising) and it was a disaster....?

President Bush today called on the Iranian people to reject their hard-line government, saying they "can do better" and need not be isolated by a leadership that destabilizes its neighbors and pursues a suspected nuclear weapons program.

Speaking of Daddy Bush, yesterday's NY Times piece suggests GHW gets more involved in GW's presidency than publicly known. I wonder does GHW really want it to be known that he's had more say and influence on his son's disaster of a presidency? Who in their right mind would want any association with calamitous reign if they could avoid it...?

So the Dems got weak in the knees and caved to Bush on expanding the eavesdropping program. Many wonder how the party in control could be strong-armed by an increasingly powerless president. Go figure. Worse yet, it's a matter of the fox guarding the hen house since the people running the program are also the people who are to make sure the program complies with and does not abuse the law. One of the two in charge to ensure this? Alberto Gonzales.

Glenn Greenwald wrote, "It is staggering, and truly disgusting, that even in August, 2007 -- almost six years removed from the 9/11 attacks and with the Bush presidency cemented as one of the weakest and most despised in American history -- that George W. Bush can 'demand' that the Congress jump and re-write legislation at his will." Jack Balkin wrote, "The passage of the new FISA bill by the Senate and now the House demonstrates that the Democrats stand neither for defending civil liberties nor for checking executive power....Conversely, the new bill shows that the Republican Party can get the Democrats to surrender almost any civil liberty-- indeed, to give the President just as much unchecked power as he might obtain under a Republican controlled Congress-- simply by playing the fear card repeatedly and without shame."

As horrifically bad as Bush's reign has been, it's not difficult to get mightily disgusted with the folks who serve as the alternative. A larger group of grubbing wet noodles would be hard to find.

The Iraqi government continues to unravel.

It will be impossible for the progress report due in September to be anything but negative. Very negative. Yet, reality never stopped this administration before so get ready for a twisted version of non-truths.

The U.S. military lost 190,000 guns in Iraq, many of which likely ended up in the hands of the insurgents -- the same folks who are fighting our troops. And guess who was in charge when this screw-up occurred? The right's favorite, General David Petraeus. Bravo.

"Rudy would make a terrible president…”

The above quote is from none other than Jerome Hauer, Giuliani's emergency management director from 1996 to 2000. He said, "Rudy would make a terrible president and that is why I am speaking now. He’s a control freak who micro-manages decision, he has a confrontational character trait and picks fights just to score points. He is the last thing this country needs as president right now.”

Ouch. Words served up on a silver platter for the existing GOP contenders to use against Rudy, and then the Democrat running next year will likewise certainly get some good mileage out of the quote.

Don't be surprised if other Giuliani associates begin to speak out. Just a suspicion.

Guess who said this:

I don’t think it’s the job of the United States to export our form of government. It’s the job of the United States to protect our citizens, to secure our own borders, which we have failed to do for over 20 years. It’s the job of our government to make us free and us safe…I don’t think we can force people to accept our way of life, our way of government. What we can to is to create the strongest America: change our tax system, make it so that people are healthier, create the enviable education system on this planet, make sure that jobs come back to this country rather than disappear from this country…That makes a whole lot more sense to me than spending billions and billions and billions of dollars to try to prop up some government we don’t even like when we get it.

A Democrat? Guess again. Try GOP prez contender Mike Huckabee, a conservative who is typically observed throwing red meat to the religious right. Perhaps the tide is beginning to turn, with Republican hopefuls beginning to learn the harsh lesson of John McCain and begin now to distance themselves from Bush.

But Dick Polman writes, "If these guys are talking this way about Bush now, even while attempting to woo Republican primary voters, imagine what the putative nominee will sound like next spring, when it’s time to woo the independent swing voters who have already judged Bush to be an irreparable disaster." I've written many times before that when the eventual GOP nominee must reverse course and renounce all of his pro-Bush statements in attempt to win over mainstream America, it will ring hollow and false. To nail down the party nomination too much will have been said in support of GW and the country will simply not have the stomach for someone who even remotely offers a hint that we'll have to suffer through four more years of this nightmare. To that end, the GOP has no shot at the White House in 2008.

Bush threatens to veto the House-approved energy bill because it reduces tax breaks and corporate welfare for the energy companies. No shock here given a president who has basically governed for the energy companies, allowing them to write legislation and in large part it's why we're in Iraq in the first place. A bill comes along that stresses conservation and renewable resources at the expense of oil and gas interests and you can be sure GW is going to nix it. Had enough?

Regarding the question of why the Republicans appear more than willing to go down with the sinking ship, I am just as perplexed as Steve Benen. They continue to sip the cyanide-laced juice despite the elections last year and having the lamest of presidents as their leader. What am I missing? Oh, that's right, they remain principled, right.

Then again, Republicans didn't make much sense when they were in control, why expect anything different now....

Brandon Friedman, senior advisor to VoteVets.org, spoke last week on Guy James' radio show. Brandon reiterated that the surge was not working, mentioning in particular that the July fatality rate for U.S. soldiers was the highest yet for that month. Not to mention access to electricity is down to 1-2 hours per 24-hour day, the Sunni bloc recently pulled out of the Iraqi government, and as we know the Iraqi government decided to go on vacation for all of August despite knowing full well the moment of truth is fast approaching here in the U.S. to judge the war (one month away). Apparently they could give two sh*ts.

Friedman also made clear that most politicians visiting Iraq get the "dog and pony" show (yeah, I know, surprise!). He said the military wants to look good, like true professionals, so they make sure any visitors from Washington see them at their best, see the Iraq situation at its best, and make sure the delivered message is a positive one. It's similar to business firms and clients, where everyday work occurs in a casual setting, but when a client comes to call it's on with the suit & tie (if male), the desk is cleaned up, and smiles appear all around.

This war has long ago devolved well beyond the point where fake formalities should mean anything, much less energy spent to pawn them off on our representatives. Enough. For once, let's get unvarnished truth to be the main priority conveyed.

Interesting. The latest Fox News poll has Hillary Clinton defeating Giuliani by a 46%-41% margin. It also has Hillary defeating all other GOP candidates, notably Romney by a whopping 15%, and again need I remind this is the Fox News poll.

There is unfortunate sexism in this country that will be a hurdle for any woman to overcome when running for president -- for Hillary no different. Yet, given the woeful slate of GOP contenders, Hillary could very well cruise into the White House despite the chauvinistic stigma facing her.

Nothing against Hillary, but this current bunch of nitwits comprising the GOP secretly despise the fact that for the first time a woman could win the presidency while they're in office. It's similar to no pitcher wants to be the one to serve up Bonds' record-breaking homer. Republicans have always been heavily male-dominated and to think a woman could win the White House surely keeps them up at night.

Truly a sad state of affairs when in response to the Minneapolis bridge tragedy, politicians suddenly wake up to the fact that our infrastructure has been in desperate need of repair and maintenance. This realization is not new news. For years reports have been produced highlighting this need, but of course it would require billions of dollars and thus gets promptly ignored by politicians.

U.S. politicians on Thursday treated the collapse of a highway bridge that killed or injured dozens of people as a jarring wake-up call to fix the nation's aging roads and bridges, but experts have been sounding the alarm for years with limited success.
<..>
Rep. James Oberstar, the Minnesota Democrat who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, blamed President George W. Bush's administration for shortchanging road and bridge repair in a highway funding bill two years ago.

Bush, he said, "failed to support a robust investment in surface transportation," adding the president insisted on only $2 billion a year for bridge reconstruction when lawmakers were pushing for $3 billion a year.
<..>
The problem of aging infrastructure is not new. A 2002 report by the Department of Transportation said about 30 percent of the nation's highway bridges were structurally or functionally deficient.
<..>
A 2005 report by the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the country's infrastructure an unacceptable D grade -- almost failing. The group estimated the United States needed to spend $1.6 trillion over five years to put its infrastructure into good shape.

"This has been out there for quite some time," said Kent Harries, an engineering professor at the University of Pittsburgh. "It's not only the transportation and bridge infrastructure, it is infrastructure in general."

The work will require billions of dollars and you'll hear Washington talk about a choice between cutting programs/costs or raising taxes. What you likely won't hear is the $500 billion price tag of the Iraq war which will eventually cost $2 trillion.

So it's OK to spend that much money on a lied-into war that was poorly planned, has only worsened our national security, and has resulted in the deaths of 3600+ U.S. soldiers. But when it comes to money needed for our roads and bridges, that will require sacrifice here at home. I guess those millions of kids without insurance will remain uninsured.

Recently on three separate occassions, Bush has invited the following lists of talking heads and journalists to the White House: Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, Scott Hennon, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Janet Parshall, Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, Mike Gallagher, David Brooks, Rich Lowry, and Kate O’Beirne.

Imagine Bill Clinton having private meetings with this many liberal/progressive journalists and bloggers -- we'd never hear the end of it from the GOP scream machine.

I had to laugh though. Notice two names not on the list above? Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Apparently GW has invited every right-wing zealot and nutjob on the air waves, but not those two blowhards.

Wow, for even Bush to exclude them amongst that list of luminaries is quite a statement.

Yesterday on his always-terrific radio show, Guy James pointed out a crucial yet subtle truism. He mentioned how over and over we've heard Bush utter the line, "I took an oath to protect the American people."

But Guy rightfully states that Bush took no such oath, nor has any president prior to GW. The oath of office for the President of the United States is, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." They are not one and the same. Protecting the Constitution is not necessarily synonymous with protecting the people. Our founding fathers did not intend for the president to trample on freedoms and rights, invade privacy, strip away liberties in the name of security, etc. In fact, they wrote the Constitution to guarantee that such attempts to over-reach by the president -- and thus become king-like -- would be strictly forbidden.

But what's another stretched truth for this current embarrassment in the White House? Is there any reason for him to suddenly start being factually correct?

Great piece in Slate written by Iraq war vet Phillip Carter.

Some segments:

[Speaking of the O'Hanlon and Pollack op-ed] They go on to describe the myriad ways the surge is succeeding on the security front. But in emphasizing this aspect of current operations, they downplay the more critical questions relating to political progress and the ability of Iraq's national government to actually govern. Security is not an end in itself. It is just one component, albeit an important one, of a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy. Unless it is paired with a successful political strategy that consolidates military gains and translates increased security into support from the Iraqi people, these security improvements will, over time, be irrelevant.
<..>
Truth is elusive in Iraq; it always remains just out of focus. In Iraq you can find evidence on the ground to support just about any conclusion you choose; most visitors arrive, see what they want to see, and go home believing even more strongly in the positions they held before they landed in Iraq. It takes months—perhaps even years—to gain the depth and perspective on Iraq necessary to develop a reasonably objective and balanced understanding of events there. Neither O'Hanlon and Pollack nor conservative scholars like Fred Kagan, the intellectual architect of the current surge, spend nearly enough time in Iraq to understand its shifting, uncertain realities.
<..>
O'Hanlon and Pollack admit that "victory" is probably no longer attainable—only some "sustainable stability" that might allow Iraq to keep itself together when U.S. forces eventually depart. But this reveals the fatal flaw in their argument. The lid will remain on the Iraq pot only as long as we are willing to commit to our current troop levels. Reducing troop levels from the current 160,000 to 60,000 or 80,000, and/or transitioning to an "adviser model," will allow the situation to deteriorate out of control, as it did in 2005 when U.S. forces drew down and pulled back from most Iraqi cities.
<..>
So, what are we to do? Sadly, as professor Andrew Bacevich writes in this week's New Republic (subscription required), we may be past the point where good deeds can save Iraq:

[T]his much is certain: The moment when Americans might have persuaded Iraqis to embrace them as liberators has long since passed. We have failed to make good on too many promises. In our heavy-handed efforts to root out insurgents, we have too frequently mistaken the innocent for the guilty. However inadvertently, we have killed and maimed too many civilians. Sadly, in places like Abu Ghraib and Haditha, we have committed too many crimes. We have just plain screwed up too many times.

If it is true that victory, or anything close to it, lies beyond our reach, we can no longer justify the cost of persevering in Iraq. It is time to begin the long march home. (bold added)

Carter does what many are not doing: face the ugly truths, but then concede to the only rational course of action given the circumstances. He fully recognizes that a withdrawal could result in chaos, but nonetheless he ultimately endorses that we must begin our exit.

Carter emphasizes a key point, that political progress is just as important as military progress. Without advances being made politically, any advances made militarily could be for naught.

Mark Lynch echoes these thoughts.

The point is that the Bush administration itself argues that its new strategy should be judged by the political process, not at the military level. By its own standards it has clearly failed....The administration and its supporters sold the surge on the premise that it would pay its dividends at the level of national Iraqi politics. It hasn't. The Sunnis have left the government, none of the political benchmarks have been met, and they won't be since the Parliament has adjourned until September.

Yes, in case you missed it, the Sunni political bloc decided to quit or pull out of the "national unity" government -- a huge setback. Meanwhile, last night Cheney said to Larry King that we were making "significant progress" in Iraq. Earth to Dick....

The question now is what will they try to shift our attention to next to buy more time?

Are we to conclude that despite the many known problems of e-voting machines, which seemingly more often than not disfavor Dems over Republicans, Democratic senators are so confident they'll trounce Republicans next year that they're willing to give up the fight to have these machines produce a paper audit trail...??

On occasion, I read the latest column from Steve Forbes just to get a glimpse of what it may have been like if he were elected president (recall way back when, he did run). His ideas are often, shall I say, out there.

His latest, a proposed solution to our health care problems: go overseas to get your surgery ("medical tourism"). Yes, hop a plane and fly to one of many "top-tier" hospitals to get your bone marrow transplant or open-heart surgery -- at a discount! Oh, and while there and recovering, venture out and take in the sights! See, it's win-win.

Forbes says this could "solve" our health care crisis. As bad as GW is, aren't you glad this guy ain't sitting in the White House?

Exhibit #483 proving Cheney lives in a far away, parallel universe:

Cheney also defended embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, saying that Gonzales "has testified truthfully" before Congress and has performed well as head of the Justice Department.

"I'm a big fan of Al's," Cheney said in the radio interview. "...I think Al has done a good job under difficult circumstances. The debate between he and the Senate is something they're going to have to resolve. But I think he has testified truthfully."

Is Gonzo about to be gone-zo? Jonathan Alter was on Olbermann's Countdown tonight and he believes it's just a matter of days before Gonzales is forced to leave. One reason for this belief is both he and Keith noticed that Fox News on Sunday could not find one Republican to go on air and defend the AG, not one -- a sure sign to them that he's toast. I believe the implication is not so much that nary a politician wishes to be seen on TV defending Gonzo (after all, it is Fox so the viewers would likely cheer such bellying-up), but rather word is probably out in certain circles in Washington that he's a goner so why waste time looking like a fool.

We can only hope this belief is true, yet congressional Democrats should not back off pressure. Our highest-ranking law officer in the land appears to be a serial liar/perjurer. No Republican will dare defend him -- but that doesn't deter The Decider. Gosh darn it, Bush still believes in his buddy from Texas. But then he must to avoid a sh*t-storm of investigations.

Dems should not give up on their pursuit until Gonzo is finally gone. Bush may bet they'll grow weary and frustrated, agreeing to move onto other matters. DON'T! KEEP UP THE STEADY RESISTANCE. With every appearance before Congress, Gonzo comes off worse and gets further into hot water.

In fact, congressional Dems should do to Gonzo what he and Bush approved for Gitmo: torture, here in the form of continuous hearings and moves to investigate. Even if GW continues to defy, all of this is being recorded for the history books, another entry in a truly horrific legacy.

Paul Krugman believes he's figured out why Bush opposes helping to insure millions of children.

Now, why should Mr. Bush fear that insuring uninsured children would lead to a further “federalization” of health care, even though nothing like that is actually in either the Senate plan or the House plan? It’s not because he thinks the plans wouldn’t work. It’s because he’s afraid that they would. That is, he fears that voters, having seen how the government can help children, would ask why it can’t do the same for adults.

And there you have the core of Mr. Bush’s philosophy. He wants the public to believe that government is always the problem, never the solution. But it’s hard to convince people that government is always bad when they see it doing good things. So his philosophy says that the government must be prevented from solving problems, even if it can. In fact, the more good a proposed government program would do, the more fiercely it must be opposed.

Makes sense, esp. given what we know about these guys.

However, I think the chance remains that Bush is uncaring enough to simply not give a rat's ass about these kids and thus he figures why bother doing something "liberal" or "progressive" in their name?

Guess how many hours of electricity a Baghdad resident could depend on per day? Eight hours? Five? Try one or two! And the surge is supposed to be improving matters over there?

Look at the chart, it's getting worse not better.