Congresswoman Rosa Delauro, along with 40 other lawmakers, sent the following letter to the Pentagon’s Inspector General in response to the New York Time's article on April 20 that fully revieled the propaganda program of the Pentagon. It's a quite long article but well worth reading. The major news networks have been hush hush on this so I applaud the lawmakers for demanding an investigation. Earlier this week, Sen Russ Feingold sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office to determine the legality of this abuse of power.

May 2, 2008

 

The Honorable Claude M. Kicklighter

Inspector General

U.S. Department of Defense

The Pentagon

Washington , DC 20301

 

Dear Inspector General Kicklighter:

            We write to express our deep concern over an extremely troubling report recently published in The New York Times detailing a high-level, well thought out and extensive program within the Department of Defense to use military analysts to generate positive news coverage of the war in Iraq, conditions at the Guantánamo Bay detention center and other activities associated with the Global War on Terror. We believe that this unethical, and potentially illegal, propaganda campaign aimed at deliberately misleading the American public should have been disclosed long ago by your office, and not by a newspaper that needed to resort to suing the DoD for the information.

According to the report, in the earliest days of the Bush Administration, former Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Torie Clarke began to build a network of “key influentials” that could generate support for then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s priorities and achieve what she called “information dominance.”  In 2002, Ms. Clarke allegedly made a decision to make these “key influentials,” former military officers often with impressive military backgrounds, the main focus of the department’s public relations push to make the case to go to war.  Responding to an interest from the White House, Ms. Clarke’s staff wrote summaries describing these analysts’ backgrounds, business affiliations and positions on the war. 

At it’s peak, the Times reports that this behind the scenes network included more than 75 retired military analysts who were being briefed, often by high-level officials in a “powerfully seductive environment” (analysts reportedly met 18 times with Mr. Rumsfeld).  The analysts then parroted the administration’s talking points on major television news programs and 24-hour cable news outlets, as well as over the radio and through op-ed articles or quotes in magazines, websites and newspapers.  According to the article, internal Pentagon documents describe these military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”  Along with making the case for invading Iraq, these “themes and messages” included repudiating claims that U.S. troops were dying because of inadequate body armor, pushing back on reports of detainee mistreatment at the Guantánamo Bay prison facility and, according to Lawrence Di Rita, a former top aide to Mr. Rumsfeld, counteracting “the increasingly negative view of the war” that came with the rise of the insurgency.  The DoD is even reported to have hired a private contractor to monitor and track the public comments of their military analyst surrogates.  As one of them put it, this was “psyops on steroids.” 

While we are deeply disturbed by the Pentagon’s taxpayer funded propaganda campaign, we find it equally troubling that the Pentagon used high-level access to DoD contracting officials as an enticement for these analysts to report the Bush Administration’s talking points on the war in Iraq .  The military analysts involved in the Pentagon network reportedly represent more than 150 military contractors competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by the Global War on Terror.  These analysts were granted special access to the high ranking civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding should be spent.  Such access gave the companies they represent a clear competitive advantage and may have created a culture in which analysts felt they needed to serve as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain military contracts for the companies they represent. 

            Your office is directly responsible for eliminating waste, fraud and abuse at the Department of Defense.  Moreover, your mission includes promoting integrity and serving the public interest.  This appears to be a high-level, well orchestrated program that was put in place that we presume your office is aware of.  We therefore request your response to the following questions:

1)   When did your office first become aware of this program and did you investigate the matter?  If you did open an investigation please provide us with your report.  If not, please explain why? 

2)   In every fiscal year since this program’s inception, Section 8001 of the yearly Defense Appropriations bills signed into law has made clear that “No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by the Congress.”  Do you believe that the activities conducted through this program are in violation of that law or any other?  If not, given that this program certainly cost money and was not authorized by Congress, please explain. 

3)   Do you believe that a situation in which individuals representing military contractors obtain unrivaled access to key senior officials and carry out the wishes of those officials creates an environment that is ripe for waste, fraud and abuse? 

4)   Your office includes a unit specifically charged with investigating senior officials.  Along with Mr. Rumsfeld and Ms. Clarke, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace and then Director of Operations for the Joint Chiefs James T. Conway were allegedly involved in the program.  High-level officials outside of DoD were also reportedly involved, including Vice President Dick Cheney, and perhaps others inside the DoD as well.  Has your office investigated any senior level DoD officials?  If so, please provide your findings?  If not, please explain why? 

5)   Has your office investigated whether any contract awards were compromised or tainted as a result of the special access granted to the military analysts?

6)   We understand that in the aftermath of The New York Times story and facing criticism from Congress, Robert Hastings, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs determined the program should be suspended indefinitely pending an internal review.  Can you please confirm whether your office is conducting this internal review and if so whether you believe the program should be permanently terminated and whether any similar programs in the future should be banned? 

When the Department of Defense misleads the American people by having them believe that they are listening to the views of objective military analysts when in fact these individuals are simply replaying DoD talking points, the department is clearly betraying the public trust.  Moreover, when these analysts are simultaneously representing defense contractors, the apparent conflict of interest can easily lead to fraud and abuse.  We find this deeply troubling, and expect you will share our deep concern.   

We thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rosa DeLauro

Earl Blumenauer

Lois Capps

Joe Courtney

Susan Davis

Anna Eshoo

Chaka Fattah

Barney Frank

Raúl Grijalva

Maurice Hinchey

Mazie Hirono

Paul Hodes

Michael Honda

Darlene Hooley

Jesse Jackson Jr.

Steve Kagen

Patrick Kennedy

Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrck

Dennis Kucinich

John Larson

Nita M. Lowey

Carolyn Maloney

Ed Markey

Betty McCollum

Jim McDermott

Jim McGovern

Chris Murphy

Dave Obey

Bill Pascrell

Ed Pastor

Tim Ryan

Jose Serrano

Louise Slaughter

John Olver

Jan Schakowsky

Pete Stark

Betty Sutton

John Tierney

Mark Udall

Robert Wexler

John Yarmuth

John McCain says that Barack Obama is insensitive to poor people and out of touch on economic issues. That's a pretty audacious statement coming from a guy that voted against covering children yet strolled through the Miami Children’s Hospital with the following promise.

Hmmmm. Interesting. He seems to be  for children's coverage after he was against it. Let's not forget that this is the same John McCain that voted for the abolishment of a federal minimum wage  just last year([H.R. 2, Vote #23, 1/24/07; Vote #24, 1/24/07; Vote #25, 1/25/07; Vote #37, 1/31/07; Vote #39, 1/31/07; Vote #42, 1/31/07; S. 2766, Vote #179, 6/21/06; S. 256, Vote #26, 3/7/05)
McCain also called Connecting the Minimum Wage Debate to Senate Pay Raises ‘A Clever Ploy.
This guy that's "so connected" and "sensitive" to the poor, voted against protecting workers’ overtime pay from Bush administration rules that threaten the overtime rights of 6 million workers. [S. 1637, Vote #79, 5/4/04].
 McCain voted against tabling a proposal to allow building contractors to pay workers less than the Davis-Bacon Act’s prevailing wage rules. [S. 2019, Vote #118, 5/18/94; H.R. 5132, Vote #105, 5/21/92; H.R. 2916, Vote #181, 9/19/89].
How does voting to eliminate The Family Medical Leave Act  [S. Amdt. 16, S. 5, Vote #7, 2/4/93; H.R. 1, Vote #11, 2/4/93] possibly connect with the poor?



On April 15, McCain gave an interesting speech at Carnegie Mellon University proclaiming:

“I propose that the federal government suspend all taxes on gasoline now paid by the American people — from Memorial Day to Labor Day of this year. The effect will be an immediate economic stimulus…. Because the cost of gas affects the price of food, packaging, and just about everything else, these immediate steps will help to spread relief across the American economy.”

Just 2 days later, John has a new perspective on his gas tax break theory:

“I think psychologically, a lot of our problems today are psychological — confidence, trust, uncertainty about our economic future, ability to keep our own home. [A gas-tax holiday] might give ‘em a little psychological boost. Let’s have some straight talk: it’s not a huge amount of money…. A little psychological boost. That’s what I think [a gas-tax holiday] would help.”

So, Sen McCain, is it “an immediate economic stimulus,” or a slogan to rid us of our “psychological” problems? You seem to be saying that as long as you can trick us into thinking you're doing something substantial that we will benefit from, everything will be okay. Quite frankly Sen McCain, we've had 7 years of sloganomics and soundites and are quite tired, as well as broke from them. I'm hopping that the voters have caught on that appeasing the peasants no longer wins elections. I think you saw that in November of 06. I think you'll see it again in 08. The mess your party got us into, and that you promote, will take more than sugar pills to get us out of.

Nancy Pelosi sent President Bush a letter today on gas prices.

The Honorable George W. Bush
The President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As we celebrate Earth Day, the price of a gallon of regular gasoline has reached a record $3.51 – 23 percent more than this time last year and 138 percent more than January 2001. Historic gas prices now far exceed those during the 1981 energy crisis.

Americans are paying too high a price at the pump for energy policies that have placed subsidies for Big Oil ahead of sensible investments in clean, renewable energy resources that can heat and cool our homes, fuel our cars, and spark a green jobs revolution. In addition to energy costs, rising food prices, high health care costs, the growing housing crisis and rising unemployment are hurting American families and business, and weakening our economy.

Mr. President, we have worked together to enact the first increase in fuel economy standards for cars and trucks in 32 years, dramatically boosting efficiency standards for buildings, lighting, and appliances, and investing in homegrown biofuels. I respectfully ask you again to work with the Congress to allow the Justice Department to pursue oil cartel price-fixing, allow the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to investigate and punish price gougers, end taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil and invest those funds in renewable American energy. Lastly, your Administration must use the authority given to it by the Congress to end market manipulation. We cannot wait to act in the face of these prices increases.

I respectfully ask that you work with the Congress to get the following pieces of legislation, which have already passed the House, to your desk for your signature:

The No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act - H.R. 2264

This legislation enables the Department of Justice to take legal action against foreign nations for participating in oil cartels that drive up oil prices globally and in the United States. It does so by exempting OPEC and other nations from the provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act when acting in a commercial capacity; by making clear that the so-called “Act of State” doctrine does not prevent courts from ruling on antitrust charges brought against foreign governments; and by authorizing the Department of Justice to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts against cartel members. This bill passed the House 345-72. You have threatened to veto this legislation.

The Energy Price Gouging Act – H.R. 1252

This legislation will reduce the burden of rising gas prices on American families, providing immediate relief to consumers by giving the FTC the authority to investigate and punish those who artificially inflate the price of energy. It ensures the federal government has the tools it needs to adequately respond to energy emergencies and prohibit price gouging – with a priority on refineries and big oil companies. This bill passed the House by 284-141. You have threatened to veto this legislation.

Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 - H.R. 5351

With Exxon Mobil posting a record-breaking $40 billion in profits last year, it is unnecessary for taxpayers to subsidize Big Oil. This bill will end unnecessary subsidies to Big Oil companies and invest in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency. It will extend and expand tax incentives for renewable electricity, energy and fuel, as well as for plug-in hybrid cars, and energy efficient homes, buildings, and appliances. These provisions are critical to creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. And the preservation of existing jobs relies on them too: a recent study showed that allowing the renewable energy incentives to expire would lead to about 116,000 jobs being lost in the wind and solar industries through the end of 2009. This bill passed 236-182. You have threatened to veto this legislation.

Market Manipulation Provisions in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

Lastly, the bill we worked on together, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, made it unlawful for any person to take manipulative action or report false information on the wholesale price of gasoline or petroleum and required the Federal Trade Commission to enforce and punish those found guilty of such actions. It is imperative that the FTC act now to crack down on these abusive practices.

Your support for these efforts is all the more critical as your Administration has failed to persuade OPEC to increase their oil production to bring down prices, despite your considerable influence with OPEC nations.

The New Direction Congress is providing forward-looking leadership that will fuel America’s energy future, save Americans’ money, create good jobs, improve our national security, and preserve our planet for our children. This critical issue needs Presidential leadership and I urge you to please join us to address the skyrocketing price at the pump.

best regards,

NANCY PELOSI
Speaker of the House

 

At The Wonk Room, Elizabeth Edwards responds to John McCain's claim that she took a "cheap shot" at him.

Elizabeth Edwards On Health Care: ‘This Is Not A Cheap Shot; It Is Potentially Life And Death’»

The Wonk Room's guest blogger is Elizabeth Edwards, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and wife of former Presidential candidate John Edwards.

John McCain accused me of taking a “cheap shot” on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” yesterday for noting that people with preexisting conditions, such as he and I have, would not be able to get health care under his plan –- and that he perhaps was not as sensitive to this problem as he should be since he has been in government health care his whole life.

Sen. McCain noted that he was not receiving government health care for the six years he was in captivity. That is true. But it has nothing to do with my point — which is that the problem with Sen. McCain’s health care plan is not how it affects us –- but how it affects the tens of millions of Americans with preexisting conditions who, unlike Sen. McCain and myself, do not have the resources to pay for quality health care.

That is not a cheap shot, it is a potentially life and death question for tens of million of Americans. And it is a question Sen. McCain must address.

McCain’s health care plan is centered around the idea that we’d be better off if more Americans bought health coverage on their own, rather than receiving it through a job or government program. But maybe since he has never purchased insurance in the individual market, he does not know the challenge it presents for Americans with preexisting conditions.

A recent study showed that nearly nine out of every ten people seeking individual coverage on the private insurance market never got it. Insurers will disqualify you for just taking certain medicines because of the possibility of future costs, including common drugs as Lipitor, Zocor, Nexium, and Advair. People who have had cancer are denied coverage and those who get cancer run the risk of simply being dropped by their insurer for any excuse that can be found. And insurers make it a practice to deny coverage to individuals in high risk occupations, such as firefighting, lumber work, telecom installation, and pretty much anything more risky than working in an office.

McCain opposes universal health care because he claims it represents a “big government takeover and mandates.” But yesterday, he said he would help cover people with preexisting conditions by creating a “special Medicaid trust fund.”

A “special Medicaid trust fund”? Talk about a big government takeover. Tens of millions of Americans have preexisting conditions. If he is going to expand Medicaid to cover Americans with preexisting conditions, he is talking about a massive, massive increase in the Medicaid program. He says he opposes more government involvement in health care, but his idea really would be government-run health care.

My questions is: why is he doing this? If he is so concerned about expanding government’s role in health care, why doesn’t he just tell the insurance industry that they have to cover people with preexisting conditions? Why is he more concerned about protecting the insurance industry –- an industry which, by the way, his corporate tax cut plan gives a $1.9 billion tax cut to –- than the tens of millions Americans with preexisting conditions?

McCain’s advisors still can’t say how this special Medicare trust fund will work. I gather we will find that out when Senator McCain gives a speech on health care later this month. Rest assured, I will be paying attention.

 Watch the video here.

The Youtube above pretty well sums up my thoughts about last nights debate, if you want to call it that.

Below, it appears that Obama's telling Hillary what he thinks in sign language at Raleigh today. I look forward to hearing his comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From The Gavel today:

On Senator McCain’s Economic Speech

April 15th, 2008 by Speaker Pelosi

I understand that as a critic of this ongoing and endless war on fear, I can be a tad bias at times. It just becomes so hard to give any credibility to the Bush regime when they continue to spew outright lies, insult our intelligence with distortions, and replace rationale debate with both nonsense and arrogance.



It's no wonder why the President's ratings continue to fall.

Dear Senator Mitch McConnell,
Below you'll find a copy of a letter your office sent to me. I'm not sure why you would think that I'm interested in your canned propaganda but just so there's no confusion in the future, I am not. I would prefer that someone of your character, not inform me of the "truth" of anything. Contrary to your version of said truth, the real truth is that most Americans want an end to your ongoing war on fear. Even Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told President Bush yesterday that he “disagrees” with Gen Petraeus’s recommendations and wants our troops out. This is something that you and those you blindly follow in the White House not only refuse to acknowledge, but even dismiss with such contempt as "So?" or even from your own admission, that the losses are OK since they volunteered anyway.

How dare you infest my mailbox with your propaganda. Yes Senator McConnell, I well remember the moveon ads. I also remember Colin Powell sell us your war on fear, only to digress later in shame. So, please don't spew your "silence the mindless sheep" tactics towards me. As we showed in November of 06, we're no longer buying it.

In closing, I don't recall that we've ever been on a first name bases. If you noticed, I addressed you in a proper manner as well as President Bush. Accordingly, I think I too deserve that same respect, particularly when receiving unsolicited spam mail from your office. Thank you in advance for promptly removing my name from your files.

Sincerely,

Mr. Andy



On Mon, 4/7/08, Senator Mitch McConnell <newsletter@teammitch.com> wrote:
From: Senator Mitch McConnell <newsletter@teammitch.com>
Subject: Thank You General Petraeus
To: "Andy Mills" <andy42302@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, April 7, 2008, 2:08 PM

Andy, This week General David Petraeus will report to Congress on the recent progress in Iraq.  When General Petraeus reported to Washington to testify before Congress six months ago, he was the victim of personal and vicious attacks by ultra-liberal groups like MoveOn.org.  You will remember that MoveOn took out a full-page ad in the New York Times calling General Petraeus a traitor.  General David Petraeus is a four-star General who has served our nation for more than thirty years.  Right now he is leading our brave men and women serving in Iraq.  Like all our servicemembers fighting in the war against terrorism, General Petraeus' service deserves our gratitude, not condemnation. The truth is most Americans do not approve of MoveOn.org's actions, nor do they support MoveOn's radical positions on many issues.  So this time as he testifies before Congress, we want General Petraeus and the troops he leads to know we stand with them. Please join me in thanking General Petraeus for his service.  Visit this page to sign a special thank you card today. Sincerely, Mitch McConnell Senate Republican Leader P.S. Please forward this message to others who would like to join us in thanking General Petraeus and the troops.

Paid for by McConnell Senate Committee 2008

Mitch McConnell for U.S. Senate 2008, PO Box 1496, Louisville, KY 40201-9899

You just gotta love Crooks and Liars. I saw the Phil Donahue/Hannity post there and it really brings the the Congressional Petraeus and Cocker Senate hearings into perspective.



This was Phil a few years back.

As the debate on the War On Fear goes on, there's a fact that's becoming disturbingly obvious. It's obvious that the military has no clue as to what it's doing, no clue as to how to correct that, and has absolutely no interest in changing. The Bush regime, that never admits a mistake, claims success when violence is up, claims it when violence is down, and claims it again when it's back up. The only thing that ever changes is the sound bite slogans of "stay the course". Now, we have a new slogan called the "pause". In the Bush world of delusion, where up is down, down is up, mission accomplished means we're not done, and last throes means there's plenty more, it only makes sense that the word "pause" means to just keep doing what we've been doing. And, what we've been doing is aimlessly wondering around Iraq well knowing that we can never resolve the invented problem that the White House created. They do know however that leaving will create a disaster and turn Iraq into a hotbed of middle east chaos. They also know that the U.S cannot sustain an ongoing presence there and that the American people will not tolerate it. So, the only logical thing to do is to stay the course (or, pause) until the next president takes office. That next president will have no choice but to withdraw and face the consequences. The Republicans will then look at the Democrats and can say "told you so".

Yesterday, Gen. David H. Petraeus admitted;
"We haven't turned any corners. We haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel."


Sen George Voinovich “bin Laden is saying “we’re kinda bankrupting this country”


Not much has changed since Petraeus admitted that he didn't know if fighting in Iraq was making us safer.


Petraeus and Crocker admit that Pakistan and Afghanistan is a greater Al Qaeda threat than Iraq.


Sen Barbara Boxer wants to know why nothing has changed and why aren't we asking Iraqis to step up.

Today, John Kerry spoke of John McCain's infamous statement of "being in Iraq for 100 years". The McCain camp has argued that the statement was correct based on our prolonged involvement in Japan, Germany, and Korea---without the bloodshed. What they've failed to do is to explain how we are suppose to achieve this nonviolent status. Kerry gets it right. Here's a transcript:

"FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST CHRIS WALLACE: Joining us now to discuss Iraq and presidential politics is Senator John Kerry. He's on the campaign trail for Senator Barack Obama, and he comes to us from Philadelphia.

Senator, let's start with the question I asked Senator McCain about Barack Obama's fitness to be president. Take a look, if you will — back when you were running in 2003, here's what you had to say about experience. "The presidency is not the place for on-the-job training on national security and foreign affairs issues."

Question: Why was experience important then and it isn't now?

SEN. JOHN KERRY, D-MASS.: Well, it's judgment, judgment and experience, and I think Barack Obama comes with — look, he has more experience in foreign policy than George Bush, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton had when they became president, Chris.

Number two, judgment is the critical element here. I mean, John McCain — I just listened to him. John McCain has been wrong. He said that he said it would be long and tough in Iraq. In fact, in '03, John McCain said the war would be brief and the oil would pay for it. He was wrong.

Last month he said that Muqtada al-Sadr was losing his influence. He was wrong.

In January he said Basra is not a problem. He was wrong.

In fact, on the 100 years war issue, John McCain is being disingenuous, because what he said in that interview was as long as there is no violence — which indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of Iraq itself.

Our own national intelligence people tell us it is the American presence that is attracting jihadists and creating violence. So if he's talking about being there for 40 years, 100 years, he's talking about attracting more and more terrorists and not paying attention to the larger challenges.

WALLACE: Well, wait a minute, Senator Kerry. I mean, on the question of the 100 years — and you campaigned for president in 2004. I never heard you say, "Let's get all of our troops out of South Korea," where they've been for half a century.

KERRY: Well, absolutely not, but...

WALLACE: Let me just ask — I never heard you say, "Let's pull our troops out of Germany," where they've been for more than half a century.

That was the model he was talking about there, not 100 years of war.

KERRY: Absolutely I disagree, Chris, and if you go back and look at what he said on the Charlie Rose show four months ago, he was asked by Charlie Rose — he put it in the context of no casualties.

And he said, "Well, do you think you can you do that in Iraq?" And John McCain said, "No, you can't do it in Iraq because of the culture and religion." He got it right then. He's getting it wrong now.

The point is that you have, you know, a John McCain who really has shown, I think, a misunderstanding of where the real center of the War on Terror is. He has adopted the Bush policy with respect to the War on Terror, which is a mistake with respect to how we're prosecuting it in Iraq.

And he has ignored what we need to be doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as has the Bush administration.

WALLACE: Senator, if I may, I think you're conflating two different interviews. When he talked about the 100 years, he was talking specifically in a town hall meeting in New Hampshire where they said, "You know, we might be there 50 years." He said, "Maybe 100 years."

KERRY: Chris...

WALLACE: And then — if I may — and then specifically talked about the South Korea model and the...

KERRY: Yes, I know that, Chris.

WALLACE: ... German model. But let me ask you, if I may...

KERRY: But no, no, no, no, no, don't — Chris...

WALLACE: Let me ask you...

KERRY: Chris...

WALLACE: Then you can answer any question you want.

KERRY: All right.

WALLACE: Back in 2004, you spoke very differently about John McCain. You considered him as a possible vice presidential running mate.

In May of 2004, you said that McCain was your first choice to be secretary of defense, and that's at a time when we had already been in Iraq for more than a year, sir.

KERRY: No, I didn't say that, and I...

WALLACE: You didn't say which, sir?

KERRY: I didn't say that he was my first choice. I said he was somebody...

WALLACE: Well, it was a quote from May 2004.

KERRY: But let me be very clear about John McCain in 2004. John McCain in 2004 was a Senator John McCain who had opposed the Bush tax cuts, who had indicated at that point in time a very different attitude on any number of subjects from global climate change to how you treat the powerful in Washington.

Nomination John McCain is a different person. He is now supporting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

He voted against the bankruptcy bill — in other words — I mean, for it. He took the position of the most powerful interests against the average American.

He votes against the minimum wage, repeatedly again.

I think you have a very different John McCain. But come back...

WALLACE: But on the war in Iraq, sir, there wasn't a different John McCain. And in 2004...

KERRY: There was not a John McCain...

WALLACE: ... if I may, he had been supporting the Iraq war. He was one of the biggest supporters. Of course, you had voted for it as well. And you were talking about him as being a member of a Kerry administration.

KERRY: No, I — we had a conversation about whether or not to explore the issue. We never got to the full exploration, Chris, number one.

Number two, let's be very clear about this 100 years. Again, the model in Japan and in Korea is a model where they have adopted a full democracy and where they have none of the insurgency, Al Qaeda, jihadists, religious extremism, that you have in Iraq.

John McCain himself four months ago — please go back and read the interview — said in answer to Charlie Rose, "No, I don't envision it being possible to stay that period of time in Iraq, and we will withdraw," he said, because of the religious and cultural component.

So you have a different John McCain today when he talks about 100 years or a million years.

Now, the bigger issue — and this is where Barack Obama has shown the judgment to be president juxtaposed to John McCain. Barack Obama understands that the policies of John McCain and George Bush are not making America safer.

The fact is that Iran is more powerful. Iraq is in chaos fundamentally, a dysfunctional government. You have Afghanistan where the Taliban is resurging. You have Pakistan which is fragile.

You haven't yet succeeded in dealing with the nuclear weapons of North Korea. You still have Al Qaeda reconstituted...

WALLACE: Senator?

KERRY: ... Hamas more powerful, Hezbollah...

WALLACE: Senator, can I get back to one of my questions?

KERRY: Yes, but, Chris, this is your question.

WALLACE: Well, no, it really — I think we've gone off the track at this point.

A few days ago, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said this about John McCain, and let's put it up on the screen. He called him "a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years."

You complain about Republican attacks on you back in 2004. What do you think of Howard Dean calling McCain a blatant opportunist?

KERRY: Well, I honestly don't know what he was referring to or where that comes from. I'm not going to sit here — I mean, the key issue here...

WALLACE: Do you think he's a blatant opportunist?

KERRY: No. Look, I think John McCain has taken positions in the course of trying to win the Republican nomination, whether it's the reversal and flip-flop on the intolerance with respect to Jerry Falwell and others, or whether it is the Bush tax cuts flip-flop, or whether it is this flip-flop now on the issue of Iraq, or whether it is, you know, global climate change, where he has not yet signed on to Joe Lieberman and John Warner's bill.

There is a clear indication of a Nomination John McCain versus the Senator John McCain.

WALLACE: Well, Senator, I mean, with all due respect, I mean, every politician, frankly, including you, have been accused of flip- flops over the years.

KERRY: Yes, but my...

WALLACE: But if I may, do you think that John McCain was an opportunist when he was supporting the troop surge when no one else in the Congress was supporting the troop surge?

KERRY: No, I don't believe that.

WALLACE: Do you think John McCain was an opportunist when he refused to take early release from a North Vietnamese prison camp because he was the son of an admiral, because he said he was going to stay there for years, as long as all the other Americans did?

KERRY: Chris, please. I think you almost insult my intelligence and my values and those of every American. Nobody ever would insinuate that John McCain is anything but a hero for his activities in the prison camp...

WALLACE: Well, Howard Dean called him a blatant opportunist.

KERRY: Well, I think he's referring to what's happened in this period of time, I assume, with respect to the nomination. I mean, I just referred to several major reversals. Now, you know, come back to what you just said about me, et cetera.

You know, the one reversal that the Republicans tried to play with was my vote against an amendment that I had voted for because I wanted to pay for the war. That was a vote of principle.

When the Senate refused to pay for the war and the Senate refused to demand a plan from the administration, out of principle I said, "I'm not going to vote for that." That was not a flip-flop. That was a vote of principle.

Now, you'll have to explain to me how voting for the Bush tax cuts after you vote against them is not a change, a fundamental change, of principle.

WALLACE: Senator, if I may, we're running out of time and I want to ask you about new events.

General Petraeus is coming to testify before Congress this week. A new National Intelligence Estimate indicates the troop surge has brought not victory, but some success both on the military and on the political side.

Shouldn't Petraeus be allowed to finish the troop drawdown in July, then have a pause to see how things happen, before deciding whether to pull out any more troops?

KERRY: Well, I think he's going to — obviously, there aren't the votes in the Senate not to do that, so he's going to be allowed to do that, Chris. That's not the issue.

But the issue is really what I was focusing on earlier about this huge difference between Barack Obama and John McCain and the security of our country. It's not a political issue. It's a real issue.

The fact is America is less safe today because of the policies that have been pursued by this administration. John McCain supports the policy that our own intelligence agency tells us is attracting more jihadists, creating more terrorists, and diverting us from the real focus in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Barack Obama understands that. John McCain apparently does not.

And his policy wants to continue with a bogged down America in Iraq rather than change the dynamic. Barack Obama has said we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. And he knows we have to change the dynamic, deal with Iran, deal with Syria, create real diplomacy.

The reason the surge has been successful is partly because of the increase of our troops, who are superb, but also because Muqtada al- Sadr declared a truce and because, as you said yourself to John McCain, the Sunnis decided they were better off working with the Americans.

That is not an equation for long-term success in Iraq.

WALLACE: Senator Kerry, we're going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you so much for a very spirited interview.

KERRY: Well, they always are.

WALLACE: And please come back, sir.

KERRY: Thank you very much.

The White House is telling us that the surge is going well and they're backing it up with, uh, their word. They've decided to classify the NIE and instead of providing documentation, to just tell us that all is going well. Perhaps they think we should follow Brittney Spear's mindset; "Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens". I think and hope that the people have out lived their blond moments.

From the Crooksandliars blog I present the following: 

The surge is working, so sayeth the latest NIE.  

Or at least, that’s what the White House says it says.  Unfortunately, since the White House refuses to declassify it, they’re just expecting us to take their word for it (and we all know how well that’s worked out for us in the past).  The Congressional Democrats have issued a strongly worded letter to express their dissatisfaction.  (Ironically, Russ Feingold has issued a strongly worded letter to the Congressional Democrats, asking to think for once about not enabling Bush’s plan). 

Rachel Maddow, doing a fantastic job of subbing for Keith Olbermann on Friday’s Countdown (c’mon MSNBC, get with the program already–Rachel did better on her first appearance than Joe Scarborough, David Gregory and Tucker Carlson in all their appearances put together) speaks to VoteVets Jon Soltz about the politicization and incomplete picture of what’s happening in Iraq that the White House is trying to paint in preparation for Gen. Petraeus’s testimony next week.

MADDOW:  And in a democracy, the idea is that when a democracy goes to war, the citizenry is informed about why and how it’s going and what the point is.  Jon, do you expect that the testimony from Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker is going to be substantive and frank, or are you expecting White House P.R.?

SOLTZ:  Well, obviously it’s White House P.R., because it is Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker.  Now that’s not to say they’re going to lie, they’re two very honorable men who deserve Americans’ respect.  But this is not about a couple of streets in Baghdad, this is not about troops and tactics. The question for Democrats next week and organizations like ours, and VoteVets, is we’re going to broaden this debate. The fact of the matter is that Adm. Fallon retired because he was being undermined by a direct channel that the Iraq commander had to the White House. And so the fact of the matter is that Adm. Fallon, who was concerned about Afghanistan you know, had to retire.  So where is the Centcom commander?  Where is the Secretary of Defense?  Where is the Chief of Staff for the Army, Gen. Casey, to say the Army can’t hack this, this troop deployment any more?  So they’re giving you a very limited scope and that limited scope will be honest, but we’re not…they’re not going to tell you that George Bush and John McCain have our country in a policy of retreat and people who served in the military, we’re tired of it.

 

The U.S. lost 80,000 jobs in March and 81% now think the economy is on the wrong track. In the meantime, President Bush ignores Congress and the people by using his authority to bypass over 30 laws and regulations to snub his nose at legislation to finish building almost 700 miles of fence along the Mexican boarder while the U.S.A. has the most people drawing unemployment since 2005. We are seeing  Wall Street socialism for folks like Bear Sterns with a disregard for the workers while Ben Bernanke finally concedes the "R" word.

As of yesterday, there were 4009 dead from the President's War on Fear and we're hearing that less than half of 28 contracts to manufacture body armor for Army soldiers were completed without the gear ever going through an initial test. Another KRB employee reports being raped and was “told to keep quiet" about the incident by a KBR supervisor and warned that if she spoke up, she would be “in danger.” KRB is not held accountable for for any illegal actions and employees are not allowed to sue. The now-infamous John Yoo torture memo, discloses that the Bush regime lied about torture being done a "select few". How many lowly privates are serving time for simply following orders? This week, Jonathon Turley, a Constitutional professor told Keith Olbermann:

"It’s really amazing, Congress, including the Democrats, have avoided any type of investigation into torture because they do not want to deal with the fact that the president ordered war crimes. But, evidence keeps on coming out. The only thing we don’t have is a group picture with a detainee attached to electrical wires"  

It should be obvious that the Bush years and that of the 109th Republican lead Congress has been a hay day for the rich at the expense of the less than rich. It seems to go further than simply legislating for the wealthy and tax breaks but has seemed to have become a blatant snub towards anyone that's not of an extremely wealthy caliber.

We all heard President Bush state to his rich friends:  "This is an impressive crowd of the haves and have mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."

It's hard to dismiss Mitch McConnell speaking of the dead soldiers. It's as if Bush had open the door for Republicans to express their contempt towards the lower class struggling to get ahead.

“Unfortunately, most of our friends on the other isle are having a hard time admitting things are getting better; some days I almost think the critics of this war don't want us to win. Nobody is happy about losing lives but remember these are not draftees, these are full-time professional soldiers."

Once again, we hear from the White house as Dick Chaney responds to the overwhelming public opposition to the war with "So?".

And yet this week,as if it's just okay for anyone of this class, we hear from another Republican publicly spewing his contempt for those that have committed themselves to his protection. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) referred to a gaurd as a “two-bit security guard“  simply for following orders by not allowing the Congressman into the gym without proper identification. This is becoming the norm for this arrogant Republican party. McHenry made the following statements at a public appearance:

"We spent the night in the Green Zone, in the poolhouse of one of Saddam’s palaces. A little weird, I got to be honest with you. But I felt safe. And so in the morning, I got up early — not that I make this a great habit — but I went to the gym because I just couldn’t sleep and everything else. Well, sure enough, the guard wouldn’t let me in. Said I didn’t have the correct credentials.

It’s 5:00 in the morning. I haven’t had sleep. I was not very happy with this two-bit security guard. So you know, I said, “I want to see your supervisor.” Thirty minutes later, the supervisor wasn’t happy with me, they escort me back to my room. It happens. I guess I didn’t need to work out anyway."

 

The following is written by Gleen Greenwell and crossposted from Crooks and Liars and Salon.com.
There's also an excellent article at Firedoglake by Jane Hamsher .

My new book -- Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics -- is available for online ordering now. It will be available in book stores beginning April 15. Ordering now can help increase visibility for the book and its arguments.

Writing a book enables a much different type of analysis and discussion than the type one is able to pursue in a daily column or blog. The day-to-day focus here is typically on a discrete event -- the latest act of government lawlessness, Congressional complicity, media deceit or pundit propaganda. A book is a more deliberative process. It therefore allows one to take several steps back and think about the underlying causes of those events, identify what they have in common, and consider ways they can be changed.

From the time I began blogging in October, 2005, I've written about many different topics, but almost all have a similar undercurrent: the Limbaugh/Kristol/Fox-News right-wing faction that controls the Republican Party and has dominated our political life for the last 15 years, and the multiple ways that our political institutions -- and particularly the Drudgified establishment press -- enable them. Marketing packages aside, this book is about them; how they function; the weakness-driven bloodthirstiness, dishonesty and sleaze which defines them; the indispensable eagerness of the establishment media to be used by them; and what can be done by those opposed to them to change all of that.

All of the radical and reprehensible events of the last eight years -- the commencement and endless prosecution of an indescribably disastrous war, the accelerated dismantling of our Constitutional framework, the creation of a lawless Surveillance State and a virtually omnipotent President, the legitimization of truly grotesque torture and detention regimes, the complete corruption of our political discourse -- have individuals and a political movement behind them, causing all of that to happen. They have cultivated the ability to manipulate media behavior, largely as a result of a media eager to help. But what they do not have is popular support for virtually anything they are doing. And yet they continue to win elections.

How and why that happens -- the deceitful electoral tactics and manipulative personality-based myths the Right has perfected and continuously deploys to win elections, and the ways in which our slothful, vapid and complicit establishment press propagates those myths -- is the principal subject of this book. And understanding and exposing that right-wing/media partnership is a necessary precondition for weakening it.

The central paradox of our political life is that the right-wing faction that continues to dominate our political institutions and win elections embraces fringe beliefs which have little popular support. That's why their overarching objective is to remove substantive considerations from our political debates -- the more consequential the issue, the less establishment media attention it receives, the less real public debate there is over it. Instead, our elections are determined by the barren, petty personality-based distractions and mindless chatter that define the lowly Drudgian Freak Show, where our political life now almost exclusively resides.

The Right has perfected the art of creating mythical cults of personality around their leaders. They are strong, courageous, honor-bound, protective, morally upstanding salt-of-the earth Everyman-warriors -- contemptuous of elitist prerogatives, and oozing traditional masculine virtues and cultural normalcy. As important, if not more so, is the corresponding character demonization of liberals, Democrats and a growing group of miscellaneous right-wing opponents -- those weak, subversive, conniving, appeasing, gender-confused, elitist freaks, whose men are as effeminate and cowardly as their women are angry, threatening and emasculating.

These election-determinant themes are not merely petty and completely removed from what actually matters. That would be bad enough. Far worse is that they are complete fabrications. Virtually the entire leadership of the right-wing GOP is the complete opposite of these cartoon icons they are held out to be. Their lives are almost completely devoid of the virtues in which they are packaged. After all, their leaders are Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol and the whole slew of tough guy pundits from Fox News and National Review, cheering on wars while imputing to themselves the courage and virtue of those they endlessly send off to fight and prancing around as moral guardians and defenders of individual freedom while, in reality, living lives that rapidly destroy those very values.

These are the same tactics that have been used again and again -- from the era when Ronald Reagan was transformed into the wholesome, horse-riding, freedom-defending cowboy to the current incarnation, George W. Bush, dressed up in ranch hats and fighter pilot costumes and transformed into the swaggering, brush-clearing warrior. And one Democrat after the next -- Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry -- was swiftly turned into the same, now-familiar loser archetype: the overly earnest, sniveling, dishonest, elitist, subversive weakling, who bore political journalists and provided an easy target for their adolescent derision.

Circumstances have coalesced perfectly to ensure -- in the absence of any change in the public discussion -- that the 2008 election is going to be dominated by these dynamics more than ever before. The media's unbridled, uncritical worship for John McCain The Man exceeds anything one can recall, far beyond even that of the canonized Ronald Reagan and the Conquering 2003 War Hero George W. Bush. And transforming the election into a petty, media-led Freak Show referendum on "character" -- and keeping actual issues as far away as possible from the election -- is more vital than ever for Republican success.

Their party brand has been destroyed by one of the most unpopular administrations in American history and one of the most despised wars ever. The American economy is as weak and precarious as it has been in decades. And their nominee is inextricably tied to all of the policies that have eroded our national strength on every level and made Americans dislike and distrust their government more than ever before. Even McCain supporter David Brooks recently acknowledged:

The Republican Party is more unpopular than at any point in the past 40 years. Democrats have a 50 to 36 party identification advantage, the widest in a generation. The general public prefers Democratic approaches on health care, corruption, the economy, and Iraq by double-digit margins.

In a minimally rational world, a Republican presidential candidate like John McCain who has enabled all of that would have no chance. But -- in the absence of anything changing the way this works -- the establishment press will remove those considerations from its election coverage and the GOP's exploitation of bottom-feeding personality-based psychological, cultural and gender themes will predominate. In 2008, the GOP will dedicate itself single-mindedly to these same personality-based, manipulative electoral tactics because that is their only hope for winning.

There simply cannot be any greater priority than preventing a John McCain Presidency, one which would empower the same faction and continue the same policies that have been slowly though inexorably destroying this country, its institutions and political values. Understanding and neutralizing these tactics and the enabling media behavior is a prerequisite for preventing that.

In the very near future, the Democratic Party Primary War will be over. When that happens, the joint right-wing/media monster will begin in earnest deploying sleazy sideshows to render toxic the character of the nominee -- way beyond what they've already been doing -- while further venerating John McCain and his political comrades, from Joe Lieberman to Lindsey Graham. Allowing that to fester unchallenged will cause it to take root and make it very difficult to undermine. As Rachel Maddow recently observed:

I feel like I've become kind of a semi-pro listener to the news, where I‘m always listening for Democratic candidates and even their surrogates to say John McCain. Every time I hear them say it, a little bell goes off in my mind, because that's what I think Democrats -- anybody who has an interest in John McCain not becoming president, whether or not you support Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Ralph Nader or anybody else in the race, Mike Gravel as the Libertarian -- if you want John McCain to not win, you have to start hitting him now, because the default position of the press toward John McCain is so positive that unless other candidates are actively and specifically going after him all the time, his free ride takes him right to the White House.

Many liberals, Democrats and other opponents of this right-wing faction have been squeamish in the past about engaging these low-life Freak Show tactics, thinking that they can remain above them and they will go away. That has to stop, otherwise -- like all unchallenged attacks -- they will continue to thrive with ease. Defensive, petulant objections to these tactics are woefully insufficient.

An aggressive campaign to demonstrate how absurd and destructive are these right-wing leaders, how deceitful is the media's personality-based glorification of them, is absolutely necessary. The Right's militarism, authoritarianism, and moral preening are reflective of and are grounded in sickly weakness, not upstanding strength, and that case can be easily made if there is an effort to make it.

That's the objective of this book -- to put these right-wing leaders under that same microscope and to apply the same standards to them -- the ones used successfully by them and their media allies to mock and destroy the personality and character of their opponents in order to win elections. Having the Right subjected to those same standards, and examining the media's central role in this process, is what is virtually never heard in the establishment press. A book about these themes which ends up succeeding and being widely read can force those arguments into the wider public discourse, which is where they need to be in order to be truly effective.

It's interesting that when military Generals are advancing their careers, they march lockstep to whatever rational for war the White house proposes. Once they retire, their opinions become more rational, realistic, and seem to make sense. We saw this with the  former secretary of state Colin Powell when he helped sell the War On Fear, only to digress later in shame. We also see this in Republican leaders and even more so, once their careers wind down.

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, will not seek reelection. He spoke the other day on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. I found the interview interesting.

Wolf:  "All right. I just want to read one quote from the book because it's a powerful quote. And get your explanation. "So why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called neoconservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence that took America into this war of choice. They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terror attack ever on American soil." But the words "arrogance" and "incompetence" jumped out at me. Do you want to elaborate what you meant by writing those words?"

Chuck: "Sure. I did write those words and I meant it and I still mean it, and I think it was arrogance and incompetence that put this country in such a hole around the world. Arrogance meaning they wouldn't listen to anyone. They didn't listen to our allies. Every major leader in the Middle East that I talked to, and I certainly know the President and others talked to before we invaded Iraq, warned the President, warned the Vice President, warned Secretary Powell not to do this. Even a number of senior Israeli officials warned them not to do it. Members of Congress asked questions, I was among one those, who said wait a minute, slow down, let the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency officials finish their job. Slow this train down. They wouldn't listen to anybody. It was just raw arrogance. Incompetence? I think it was incompetence, they wouldn't look at history, that part of the world. The complications the combustability, they didn't factor in the context of consequences for their actions to get us into a war. I quote Eisenhower in the book, he said this in the 1950s, that America should never put American troops in the Middle East. Don't get bogged down in that kind of a war. Other great leaders have said the same thing. and there was both, in my opinion, arrogance and incompetence that led us into this."

Below is the interview.

“It’s a number". That's what Tony Snow said speaking for the White house on June 2006 when American military casualties reached 2,500. Today, it's an additional 1500, bringing a total of 4000 U.S. soldiers dead and about 30,000 injured.

Today, others are saying:

Fairly early this morning, Barack Obama’s campaign released this statement.

“It is with great sadness that we have reached another grim milestone in Iraq, with at least 4,000 of our finest Americans having been killed. Each death is a tragedy, and we honor every fallen American and send our thoughts and prayers to their families. It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home, and finally pushing Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future.

“As we do, we must serve the memory of all who have died as well as they served our country, by providing support for their families, caring for our troops and veterans, and upholding the American values which our fallen heroes exemplified through their service.”

 Hillary Clinton’s campaign released this statement.

“Five years after the start of the war in Iraq, there have now been 4,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq. On this solemn day, we remember the sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform. We honor the tens of thousands more who have suffered wounds both visible and invisible, wounds that scar bodies and minds, and hearts as well. We honor the sacrifices of their families, a price paid in empty places at the dinner table, in the struggle to raise children alone, in the wrenching reversal of parents burying children.

“I recall the great honor of meeting many of our brave men and women who have served our country. In meeting them, I am always struck by how, no matter how great their suffering, no matter how grave their own injuries, they always say the same thing to me: “Promise that you’ll take care of my buddies. They’re still over there. Promise you’ll keep them safe.”

“I have looked those men and women in the eye. I have made that promise. And I intend to honor it by bringing a responsible end to this war, and bringing our troops home safely.

From House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

Today, we mourn America’s fallen heroes; the death of 4000 American soldiers is a grim reminder of the enormous cost of war in Iraq: the human cost. We honor those soldiers, America’s best and bravest who have paid the ultimate price, and pray for their families and loved ones.

With 4,000 American lives lost and thousands injured, many of them permanently, Americans are asking how much longer must our troops continue to sacrifice for the sake of an Iraqi government that is unwilling or unable to secure its own future.

Americans also understand that the cost of the war to our national security, military readiness and our reputation around the world is immense and that the threat to our economy – as the war in Iraq continues to take us deeper into debt – is unacceptable.

America wants a New Direction, not the continuation of the President’s plan for a 10-year, three trillion dollar war in Iraq.

From our beloved Vice President Dick Cheney, we get a slightly different answer than "So?"

"The president carries the biggest burden, obviously."

  It's disturbing that our Vice President wants us to think that the family's burden is secondary to that of Bush.

                                                                 He added:
"They volunteered"

This reminds me of Mitch McConnell's statement in December of 2007:

“Unfortunately, most of our friends on the other isle are having a hard time admitting things are getting better; some days I almost think the critics of this war don't want us to win. Nobody is happy about losing lives but remember these are not draftees, these are full-time professional soldiers."


As of 4:00 PM today, the John McCain folks have not made a statement or mentioned the 4000 dead.

And our fearless leader George Bush said:
 
 "I have vowed in the past, and I will vow so long as I'm President, to make sure those lives were not lost in vein..."


Ok, so if I'm to understand President Bush correctly, as well as John McCain being fine with 100 years of war, we keep slaughtering more young men to justify those slaughtered before them? I think it's a known fact that Bush has no clue or any interest in ending his war on fear. To keep killing our young and bleeding our nation simply to avenge the slaughter and waste that's already done is simply buying time to pass this atrocity on to the next guy. I just can't see electing someone that has the same objectives.

The Day of Connecticut isn't happy that they endorsed Joe Lieberman for U.S. Senate. They wrote an editorial today saying "Sen. Lieberman has been too busy burning bridges to build any" and " We didn't know this Sen Joe".

                                    

When The Day endorsed Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman for re-election in November 2006 it was supporting a candidate who demonstrated a history of pragmatic leadership and a willingness to seek bipartisan solutions.

We wonder what happened to that senator.

Sen. Lieberman's open-ended commitment to military involvement in Iraq comes as no surprise. The senator made it clear when running for re-election that was his position. Sen. Lieberman wants the United States military to remain in Iraq until the war is won, whatever that means. It conflicts with this newspaper's position that the time has come for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Despite that difference of opinion, The Day editorially backed the senator because of his experience, his willingness to put principle above politics, as demonstrated by his condemnation of former President Clinton following the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and his even-handed political approach.

But while Sen. Lieberman remains experienced, he is no longer even-handedly principled.

He seems to be taking delight in poking the leadership of the Democratic Party in the eye. After losing the Democratic primary for Senate in 2006, he had every right to petition his way on the ballot for an independent run. And his decision, after being re-elected, to continue breaking bread with the Democratic Party was a politically expedient decision for both the senator and the party.

With his vote the Democrats took control of the Senate and Sen. Lieberman became chairman of the influential Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. But this has proved a marriage of convenience with the couple sleeping in different rooms.

Sen. Lieberman was quick, and correct to criticize the left-wing group Moveon.org when it ran an attack newspaper advertisement aimed at Gen. David Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq. Yet he refused to end his association as an adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, or even utter a word of criticism, when a spin-off group it created ran a series of misleading TV attack ads aimed at Democratic congressmen, including Connecticut's own representatives, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy.

Last August when some Democrats in Congress criticized the slow progress of the Iraq government on issues of reform and military readiness, Sen. Lieberman criticized them for “retreating from the real enemies who threaten our vital national interests.” Like the attack advertisements aimed at the congressmen, the criticism unfairly labeled legitimate policy questions raised by Democrats as evidence of weakness on national security.

Meanwhile, the junior Connecticut senator is not only backing the Republican nominee for the presidency, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, but appears to be making a contest of trying to get into every photo and TV news video with him. Perhaps Sen. Lieberman is taking delight in needling the chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, his 2004 opponent for the presidency, whose leadership he once dismissed as a “ticket to nowhere.”

Rather than building the bridges The Day expected when it endorsed Sen. Lieberman, he appears busy burning bridges with the party of which he is allegedly still a member. Perhaps the senator is positioning himself for a top cabinet post in a McCain presidency. But if the Democrats prevail, and enlarge their control of the Senate, it is hard to imagine this Connecticut senator being welcomed back with open arms.

President Bush delivered his weekly radio address. Below is the text:

"Good morning. This weekend, families across America are coming together to celebrate Easter. This is the most important holiday in the Christian faith. And during this special and holy time each year, millions of Americans pause to remember a sacrifice that transcended the grave and redeemed the world.

"Easter is a holiday that beckons us homeward. This weekend is an occasion to reflect on the things that matter most in life: the love of family, the laughter of friends, and the peace that comes from being in the place you call home. Through good times and bad, these quiet mercies are sources of hope.

"On Easter, we hold in our hearts those who will be spending this holiday far from home -– our troops on the front lines. I deeply appreciate the sacrifices that they and their families are making. America is blessed with the world's greatest military, made up of men and women who fulfill their responsibilities with dignity, humility, and honor. Their dedication is an inspiration to our country and a cause for gratitude this Easter season.

"On Easter, we remember especially those who have given their lives for the cause of freedom. These brave individuals have lived out the words of the Gospel: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." And our Nation's fallen heroes live on in the memory of the Nation they helped defend.

"On Easter, we also honor Americans who give of themselves here at home. Each year, millions of Americans take time to feed the hungry and clothe the needy and care for the widow and the orphan. Many of them are moved to action by their faith in a loving God who gave His son so that sin would be forgiven. And in this season of renewal, millions across the world remember the gift that took away death's sting and opened the door to eternal life. Laura and I wish you all a happy Easter.

"Thank you for listening.''

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) responds to the President's radio address.

“Good morning. I’m Bob Menendez, United States Senator from New Jersey. This past Wednesday marked the beginning of the sixth year of the war in Iraq. That day, just like every other, Democrats and Republicans stood together in praise of our courageous men and women who have served and sacrificed throughout this long war. Thirty-thousand of them have been wounded, many gravely. Nearly 4,000 have lost their lives.

"Our troops represent the best America has to offer. They have answered every call and met every goal with a valor that will never be forgotten. When it comes to honoring and supporting our troops and their families, Democrats and Republicans stand as one.

"But when it comes to the decisions that got us into the war – and the flawed policies that keep us there – Democrats stand firmly apart from our Republican friends. In 2003, President Bush took us to war on the wings of a lie. With each passing year, we’ve heard the same false promises of victory, the same excuses for failures from the Iraqi government, and the same refusal from President Bush to admit his mistakes.

"Now, as this war enters its sixth year, the American people are still waiting to hear the straight talk we deserve. Instead of making more sweeping claims of victory, as he did this week, it’s time for the President to face the reality of the situation we’re in.

"President Bush should tell us the truth – that after thousands of lives lost and perhaps trillions of American taxpayer dollars, Iraq remains crippled by violence and corruption, still light years from building a stable government or a lasting peace.

"President Bush should tell us the truth – that the war in Iraq has severely depleted the resources and morale of our Armed Forces – prompting General Colin Powell to say that our military is, quote, ‘about broken.’

"The President should tell us the truth – that because of Iraq, we haven’t finished the job in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda is regrouping, and our hunt for America’s number one enemy – Osama bin Laden – has been compromised.”

"And the situation is no better here at home. The war hasn’t made us any safer, but it certainly has made us poorer. We’ve already spent more than $600 billion on a war that President Bush claimed would cost 1/10th that much. Instead of building barracks in Iraq, we could be helping millions of Americans avoid losing their homes to foreclosure. Instead of policing the streets of Baghdad, we could be investing in universal health care and a better education system. Instead of protecting oil fields in Basra, we could be funding renewable energy production to help stem the tide of global warming.

"When all is finally said and done, experts say the war is going to cost as much as $3 trillion or more. Where does that $3 trillion come from? It’s all borrowed from future generations. The legacy of our generation could be to leave our children and grandchildren with a safer, cleaner, more prosperous country. Instead, the war in Iraq will ensure that we leave future generations with trillions of dollars in debt.

"It has never been more important to change course. Every day, there is new evidence that our economic crisis is growing here at home. Families are losing their homes. Major financial institutions are collapsing. Working men and women are losing their jobs.

"Fixing our troubled economy should be our priority at home. Abroad, our priority should be preventing terrorism and strengthening our alliances – not continuing an ill-conceived war of choice with no end in sight. It’s time for a responsible new direction. We owe it to our courageous troops who are shouldering a heavy burden – and to all Americans who are paying a dear price for the war in Iraq.

"Many of us wish that the War in Iraq had never happened. It is tragic to think what might have been. But it’s not too late to believe in what we, as a nation, can become. This is Bob Menendez, United States Senator from New Jersey. Thanks very much for listening.”

Prior to the March 4, Rush Limbaugh was asking Republicans in Texas and Ohio to change parties in order to vote for Hillary in the Presidential primaries. His objective seemed to be to prolong the race with Hillary and Obama.  Rush told Laura Ingraham on Feb 29:

"I want Hillary to stay in this, Laura. This is too good a soap opera. We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically, and it's obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it and don't have the stomach for it, as you probably know."

The problem is that what the voters did in Ohio was a fifth-degree felony in that state, punishable with a $2,500 fine and six to 12 months in jail. That is because in order to change party affiliation in Ohio, voters have to fill out a form swearing allegiance to that party's principles "under penalty of election falsification."
It appears that Rush encouraged Republican voters  to falsify documents  in order to rig an election.  According to The  Cleveland Plain  Dealer, "One voter scribbled the following addendum to his pledge as a new Democrat: "For one day only."

FROM THE GAVEL

This is a pretty interesting letter article from The Gavel
and offers insight what's really going on in this war on fear.


Oversight Committee Questions Fraud Reporting Exemptions for Overseas Contractors

WASHINGTON, DC — Chairman Henry A. Waxman, Rep. Edolphus Towns, and Rep. Peter Welch sent the following letter to Secretary of Defense Gates, Attorney General Mukasey, National Aeronautics and Space (NASA) Administrator Griffin, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Nussle, and General Services Administration (GSA) Administrator Doan today. The text of the letter follows:

We are concerned about a proposed change to federal contracting rules that would exempt overseas contracts from a requirement that the contractor detect and prevent fraud and report it to the government. At a time when the United States is engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, conducting extensive redevelopment programs in both countries, and employing the services of an unprecedented number of private contractors, preventing fraud by contractors overseas should be a high priority. Instead, the exemption for contracts to be performed overseas appears to have been inserted in the rule late in the process and against the wishes of the Department of Justice, which raises serious questions as to why and how such a policy was developed.

On May 23, 2007, the Department of Justice (DOJ) requested that the Federal Acquisition Regulation be amended to “require contractors to establish and maintain internal controls to detect and prevent fraud in their contracts, and that they notify contracting officers without delay whenever they become aware of a contract overpayment or fraud, rather than wait for its discovery by the government.” DOJ believed such a rule was necessary because few government contractors voluntarily disclose suspected instances of fraud. DOJ proposed specific changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

In response, on November 14, 2007, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council published a proposed rule on “Contractor Compliance Program and Integrity Reporting.” This rule requires contractors to have a code of ethics and business conduct, to establish and maintain specific internal controls to detect and prevent improper conduct in connection with the award or performance of government contracts or subcontracts, and to notify contracting officers without delay whenever they become aware of violations of Federal criminal law with regard to such contracts or subcontracts. The proposed changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation closely track the DOJ proposal, with two primary substantive changes: the exemption for contracts to be performed overseas and a second exemption for contracts for commercial items.

On January 14, 2008, DOJ filed a comment on the proposed rule stating that “we do not agree with” the exemption for overseas contracts. According to DOJ,  "although these contracts may be performed outside the United States, the United States still is a party to these contracts and potentially a victim when overpayments are made or