Slime Runs Rampant

I personally have no care in the world if Chuck Hagel is confirmed or not.  I think after yesterday's hearing, in which he stumbled a couple times, there's a good chance Republicans will filibuster his confirmation.  If they do, I don't think it will score them any points.  If anything it will reinforce their obstructionist label.  And reinforce them as the Party of NO and of sore losers.

What I find compelling in the whole process is watching the GOP tar and feather one of their own.  And to watch Democrats now embrace a man they once hated. Hagel is a Republican who very recently opposed gays openly serving in the military and women having combat roles.  Both are priorities of the modern Democratic caucus yet they can't get them enough of Chuck Hagel.  It all just reinforces my belief that Washington is full of slime balls 

Hillary Wins

This week's testimony by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sums up everything that is out of touch with the Republican Party.

To better understand what is going on and why Hillary's presence was so demanded by Republicans you have to step back from reality for a moment and enter into a make-believe world where everything is a conspiracy.  Truly that is why Republicans think Benghazi is so important.

They believe the administration convened a huge cover up about the events of the attack on the American embassy that left 4 dead.  They believe the administration was negligent by ignoring intelligence warnings leading up to the attack; and that the administration tried to downplay the attack by claiming it was just a random protest turned violent.  For this, the GOP and Fox News viewers think Hillary should be fired, Obama should be impeached and we should immediately start governing the way Republicans want or face annihilation.

But history, factual history, paints a very different story of what is really prompting the GOP to appear to care.

Now what possibly could cause Republicans not to care when over 30 people were killed at American embassies and consulates over a 6-year period?  Oh that's right, George W. Bush was the Decider and everything was perfect in the world. Republicans were governing as fiscal conservatives by running up a trillion dollar deficit and doubling the federal debt.  They were busy trying to privatize Social Security, growing government to huge levels and bailing out mega-wealthy CEO's with trillions in tax payer money.

But now that those good ol' days are gone, they want everyone to believe they care.  And their Fox News minions and Facebook conspiracy theorists are more than happy to go along with the charade.

The Good Ol' Days

Eric Boehlert reaches back to the sacred dark pits of ancient history and remembers what is was like when criticizing a sitting War President, during time of war, on foreign policy issues was frowned upon by the MSM and the hacks at Fox News.

I'd like to add my own little throwback to antiquity.  I fondly remember a time when criticizing the president only aided our enemies and to do so was "anti-American." Gosh, it almost seems just like yesterday that dissent was un-patriotic.  I guess things have really CHANGED.

The William McRaven Quote No One Mentions

Remember how the Navy Seal raid that killed Osama bin Laden was all thanks to George Bush?  I mean, I'm sure you've watched Fox News and listened to hate radio and heard that the entire raid was because of the proud leadership of George W. Bush, surely you have right?

• Here Republican nut job Donald Trump goes on Fox News and questions Obama's leadership.
• Here uber patriot Sean Hannity on Fox News saying that bin Laden was dead thanks to George Bush.
• Here uber patriot Sean Hannity on Fox News saying Obama didn't want to catch bin Laden.
• Here Rick Santorum tells Fox News viewers that Obama was merely following through with Bush's policy.
• Here the Republican Candidate for President questions Obama's leadership on the raid.

Remember everything good in this country is because of George Bush and the GOP.  But what did Admiral William McRaven who was in charge of Joint Special Operations Command and the Navy Seal raid have to say about the president's leadership and decision-making?

About Obama, without a question to prompt him, he waxes lyrical and at length. The planning and decision-making for the bin Laden raid, he volunteers, "was really everything the American public would expect from their national leadership."


"The President was at all times presidential," he says. "I would contend he was the smartest guy in the room. He had leadership skills we'd expect from a guy who had 35 years in the military."

That doesn't sound at all like the caricature the GOP is trying to paint does it?  Of course Sean Hannity, Donald Trump, Mittens Romney and no one else at Fox News had anything to do with the daring raid at all.  They simply are in charge of dispersing propaganda from their comfy armchair that is used to distort reality.  To hear them talk, though, they know all about it.  And their only assertion is of course always negative for President Obama. Their words and actions are the very thing they would have called treason had it been done to President Bush. 

So Easy For a Chickenhawk to Say

When I read Mittens' comment that even Jimmy Carter would have ordered the raid to kill bin Laden, I immediately thought the same thing as Greg Sargent.

The rub is that in a sense, Carter did give “that order,” as Romney puts it. In April of 1980, Carter ordered the launch of an American military operation designed to rescue Americans held hostage in Tehran. The mission went horribly awry, of course, killing eight American service-men — a disaster that played a major role in ending Carter’s presidency.

The purpose of Romney's answer was not to demonstrate just how tough of a decision it was for the administration, but to render the simplicity of the decision by inferring even the tree hugging diplomacy-loving Carter would have ordered it.  Sad at every level.

Like Sargent mentions, this ignores the fact that the bin Laden raid was built upon the 1980 Tehran raid that failed miserably. We learned from history. Amazing I know. The Obama administration knew enough about the failed 1980 raid that it ordered backup gunships just in case everything went wrong like it did for Carter.  President Obama, in making his order to go after bin Laden, had to have had the Tehran raid staring at him with excruciating realness.

All of this, however, fails to even touch upon the fact that Carter is not the weakling the GOP tries to portray him, which was the exact intention of Romney's comment. Carter is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, Annapolis Maryland-- one of the finest military academies in all the world. Unlike tough guy Ronald Reagan who lived in liberal Hollywood all throughout WWII and made movies, Carter served his country by fighting in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. After the war, Carter remained in the Navy and served in the nuclear submarine program.  Hardly the job for an appeaser.

It's possible Mitt Romney knows nothing about Carter's background or anything at all about the 1980 raid, which thankfully President Obama did. But comments inferring emasculating conditions against people who actually served their country in time of war from a guy who fled to a palace in France during Vietnam isn't something the American public should take lightly.

Hits Them Where It Hurts

Of all the crazy lies and denialism Republicans make-up to justify their Fantasy World, their insistence President Obama deserves no credit for killing bin Laden is second only to their insistence that the president wanted bin Laden kept alive but was overruled by the military. Super Tough Guy Patriot Sean Hannity makes the case for why Republicans not only live in a Fantasy World but rely on complete lies to justify their ideology.

“They’ve got a foreign policy that shows a lot of weakness,” Hannity said. “I know the President will say they got bin Laden, putting that aside.” 

“And the public gives him credit for that,” Luntz interjected. 

A reluctant Hannity replied, “But it wouldn’t have happened if he had his way, and I think that could be proven as well on tapes.”

The fact bin Laden was killed at the order of President Obama, a Democratic president elected with the most votes in the history of America, hits a raw nerve with Republicans. In their world, only Republicans and people who support Republicans are tough, manly and strong enough to kill the most wanted man in the world. Only war-cheerleaders who constantly chest thump invasion after invasion and who routinely label Democrats as panty waists are serious enough-- and love America enough-- to administer foreign policy and seek revenge for 9/11.

Anything that deviates from such ideology is a conspiracy only meant at destroying America. That's why Hannity alludes to "tapes" proving Obama didn't want bin Laden killed.  It's a right wing baked conspiracy theory that allows them to exist in an alternative universe.  Republicans believe that the president ordered the military to stand down and the military vetoed it and successfully took out bin Laden.  It was only after the successful operation did Obama take credit.  Because, as we all know, had it not been successful he would have thrown the military under the bus and ordered them all executed for treason.  I'm not making this stuff up either. This is mainstream Republican thinking.  This is their every day conversations.  They not only believe, they beat off to it.

Why do they do it?  Why must they concoct complete lies against their country?  I haven't read a better explanation in years than Simon Malory's:

The death of Bin Laden has proven to be an intractable problem for a conservative commentariat that relies upon facile and outdated stereotypes of the opposition. Say what you will about the Obama administration's expanded use of drone warfare and targeted assassinations, but it certainly does not comport with the flower-child caricature that has served as a foil for talk radio tough guys. And the death of the world's most prominent anti-American terrorist is not easily explained away.

Kim Jong Il Dead

The 69-year-old "dear leader" of the reclusive communist state died of a heart attack on Saturday, state news outlets reported Monday. The ruling Worker's Party proclaimed his youngest son, Kim Jong Un, "the great successor," indicating he would assume his father's post.

One Step Closer to Ending Bush's Endless War Program

I've been critical of President Obama's foreign policy almost from the get-go.  I wanted him to end the war in Iraq the day after his inauguration.  The war is a disastrous foreign policy blunder left over from the previous administration and it needed to end as soon as possible.  I also wanted him to end the war in Afghanistan.  It too was a disaster foreign policy blunder left over from the previous administration.  I saw no reason to continue our hapless efforts.  The president instead escalated the war in Afghanistan, killed bin Laden and has had huge success at tracking down and defeating al Qaeda.  He brought the fight to those responsible for 9/11 and he has succeeded.

This doesn't mean my criticism has been misplaced.  I still think the best thing would have been to end both wars two years ago, bring our troops home, save hundreds of billions and start focusing on restoring America.  I don't regret my stance at all.

Today, though, it appears that finally President Obama is bringing an end to Bush's Endless War program.  By the end of the month there will be just a few hundred troops left in that country.  We'll still be spending lots of money in foreign aid, but not near as much as we are right now nor did when we were merely managing chaos in that country.  So despite my two yeas of critical attitudes toward Obama's foreign policy, I am glad to see that finally Iraq will be over.  The war in Afghanistan is in much better shape than when Obama took over in January of 2009.  The president deserves credit for ending Iraq, refocusing our efforts on bin Laden, killing bin Laden, and making Afghanistan front and center on the war for those responsible for 9/11.

Quickies

• When Newt Gingrich-- this week's GOP version of "Not Romney"-- says people should be drug tested before they are allowed to "receive any kind of federal aid," he's not referring to the fat cat bankers that received over $7 trillion of federal aid; or to the rich corporate bosses whose companies receive billions in tax breaks every year, or to the farmers who receive millions in subsidies to not work.  No Gingrich wouldn't dare suggest those people be held to higher standards.  He's only referring to poor people and those who don't vote Republican.

• Fox News' latest fear mongering race baiting lies?  President Obama Plans To Abandon White Working Class.  The president himself is half-white.  His daughters are 1/4 white.  He was raised by an entirely white family, attended the elitist of white schools, was a member of an entirely white U.S. Senate and now occupies the position previously held by 43 all white men.  He's more white than me.  Why in the world this stupid meme entirely created by Fox News is still going around is proof of just how corrupt that network is.

• Glenn Greenwald highlights an interesting point from Gen. Wesley Clark.  It was the intent of the neocons during the Bush administration to attack and destroy 7 Middle Eastern countries: "...we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."  Iraq? Check.  Syria? In the process or regime change.  Lebanon?  Not yet.  Libya?  Check.  Somalia?  In the process of regime change.  Iran?  Proxy fighting is always good.

• Meanwhile in Iraq, that beacon of Bush's Liberation Policy of Freedom, 19 people were blown to smithereens in the street today.

• Remember when it was okay for the president to sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages?  Oh yeah, it's all down the memory hole now.  Well, except this week marks 25 years since President Reagan openly admitted to selling some weapons to Iran but only to arm good mullahs.  Could you imagine if Bill Clinton had secretly sold weapons to Iran?  Or if he had openly funded, aided and armed bin Laden's holy war in Afghanistan?  Or if he had openly supported, funded and sold weapons to Saddam Hussein the field day the right wing would be having.  Could you imagine it?  Reagan did all three things.  But we are never to mention any of it again.  If we do, we are only to mention it in the context that Reagan did all those things because he loved America and did it to make us stronger.

Quickies-- GOP Debate Edition

Just flipping through channels watching tonight's GOP debate is like watching an episode of Jerry Springer.  I just keep waiting to see who will say the stupidest thing next.

• Never to disappoint in her complete idiocy, Michelle Bachmann claims Iran has threatened to nuke Israel.  There's just one thing wrong with that.  Iran has never threatened to nuke any country.
• Herman Cain's reasoning behind why we need to have a tougher more macho manly policy against Iran is because Iran has a lot of mountains.
• Bachmann says terrorists shouldn't be read their Miranda Rights.  "They don't have rights," she claims.  Of course the Constitution says otherwise.
• Rick Perry says we need a new Monroe Doctrine to protect Iran from getting into South America.  No I'm not making this up.
• Yes these people really are running for President of the United States of America.  It's scary to think that one of them will actually get about 47% of the vote next year.
• As Think Progress notes, almost the entire debate supposedly structured around foreign policy has been put into the hands of the right wing American Enterprise Institute and the right wing Heritage Foundation-- two of the top neocon think tanks that delivered us the war in Iraq and who routinely call for the continuation of Bush's Endless Program.  In other words, people who have absolutely no track record of ever being right about foreign policy are dictating the debate.  Wheeee!!

From the little bit I've watched tonight one thing is really certain, Republicans want Americans to live in constant fear. We should fear Muslims, terrorists, Iran, the ACLU and anyone who disagrees with the GOP. A world of fear protected by people who only vote Republican is what they want. We had 8 years of that with George W. Bush. That's given us 10 solid years of war, an economy in the dumps, a trillion dollar deficit and a trillion dollar bailout of Wall St. We can't go back to that. No one wants it.

The Least Controversial Thing Ron Paul Has Said

Republican Ron Paul has some crazy ideas and theories no doubt about it.  He thinks there is no separation of church and state.  He thinks there is a war being waged on Christmas.  He thinks the Founding Fathers created a Christian nation.  And he thinks marriage should be Constitutionally defined as between a man and a woman, to name a few.  His continued remarks that American foreign policy contributed to the 9/11 attacks certainly aren't some of them, however.

(CNN) - Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul reiterated his controversial stance Sunday that some policies of the United States contributed to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Anyone with no foreign policy experience whatsoever can tell you our two-edged sword of American hegemony helped facilitate the anger behind the motivation that inspires 9/11-style attacks.  Heck terrorist groups themselves explicitly state to anyone that will listen the number one factor behind their anger is our policies toward the Arab world.  Our Endless War campaign, which is finally coming to an end, did more to inspire terrorism against America than anything else.  Saying they hate us merely because we exist isn't true.  Ron Paul is right about this.

Of all the crazy things Ron Paul says, this shouldn't be one of them.

Qaddafi Dead

Supposedly he's dead.  Now what?

Go F' Yourself Cheney

One of the most unpopular men in American history, who can't get enough Glorious War on his Fox News teevee set, and who co-presided over one of the most despicable and lawless administrations since Richard Nixon, says President Obama should apologize to the Bushies.

"I think it was a very good strike. I think it was justified," Cheney told CNN's Candy Crowley on "State of the Union." But "I'm waiting for the administration to go back and correct something they said two years ago when they criticized us for 'overreacting' to the events of 9/11."

The Obama administration has "clearly ... moved in the direction of taking robust action when they feel it is justified," Cheney said.

Not that there's any chance in the world the current president will apologize to George Bush or anyone who worked for him, it's clear Cheney still has no grasp of reality.

Like Steve Benen notes, President Obama never said in his Cairo Speech the Bushies overreacted to 9/11.  No where in the speech can you even find that word.  While we are focusing on facts, if invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 isn't "overreacting" then what is?

Let's also be clear, too, on the second part of Cheney's complaint that Obama has "clearly...moved in the direction of taking robust action when they feel it is justified."  OF COURSE THEY HAVE.  But let's be clear, President Obama took "robust action" on al Qaeda, the people responsible for 9/11, and not a man and a country that had nothing to do with it.

Obama has been robust at Bush's failures.  He's tracked down and killed bin Laden.  He put the focus back onto the people responsible for attacking us.  And he's been quite successful at all of it.  Way more successful than I ever thought he would be.

By all means, if the president is going to be robust then be robust competently.  Forgetting about bin Laden and his organization and turning your attention to Iraq is not robust action.  It's criminal stupidity.

The Bush administration is criticized precisely because they took robust action on the wrong people.  Had Bush not invaded Iraq and sent America into a downward spiral, then criticism for his other activities would have been on the same level of as what the current president is receiving.  But invading Iraq did more than just make Cheney and George W. even richer.  It opened them up to criticism on everything, robust or not.

Reasons Libya is Not Iraq

Juan Cole has a list of ten reasons why Libya 2011 is not Iraq 2003. I probably agree with everything except number 10.

10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.

Okay I don't necessarily disagree with it either. I'll just add Iraq didn't pose a credible threat to anyone except itself because of the very effective no-fly zone and the UN sanctions that had been in place for over 10 years. The result was a humanitarian catastrophe inside of Iraq. It left Iraq divided into three parts all largely non-self-sufficient for basic needs. The Kurdish north, which enjoyed a great deal of autonomy. The Saddam stronghold in the center. And a Shia south.

I say this because the UN authorization currently in place against Libya does about the same thing. The no-fly zone protects the north. While the rebels hold out mostly in the west. Where I assume if the whole country doesn't collapse, they will enjoy a great deal of autonomy much like the Kurds in Iraq. It's a perfect mess. And 10 years from now we'll have to repeat Libya just like we did Iraq.

More On Presidential Power

I hadn't realized this though I knew the number was high.  According to the Office of the President in 2001, throughout history the president has acted at least 125 times without prior authorization from Congress.

That was written in 2001.  Since then I'm sure the number is way higher.  The president has ordered military action in Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Kenya and the Republic of Georgia without any approval at all from Congress.  And now we have Libya.  Those are just the ones I know about and can recall off the top of my head.  I'm sure there are more.

At the end of the day, there isn't much Congress can do to stop a president from using military force.  And every president we've ever had has always maintained he doesn't have to get permission from Congress to do anything when it comes to military operations.  More recently, we've seen Congress is nearly powerless to halt ongoing wars as well.  We are still in Afghanistan almost ten years after invading.  Their only option is to stop paying for a war, which has never happened.

I don't agree with the president's decision to use force against Libya but I do agree he has the authority.

A Wise Man Once Said, Fool Me- You Can't Get Fooled Again

My inbox is overflowing with questions from readers about my support for our Glorious spreading of democracy to Libya. Because I don't have time to answer everyone I'll write my views and something of what you can call a reasoning here.

Right off the bat, I'll just say it. I don't support military involvement in Libya. There are any number of scenarios that could come from American intervention into what is currently a Libyan civil war. The worst of which would be something that resembles our Glorious triumphs in Iraq. The best, to me, that we can hope for is Gaddafi quits and decides to send his billions in oil money he has stashed away to us to help pay college expenses for every kid in America.  Anything in-between could plausibly happen too.

I was reading earlier that Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich wants President Obama impeached for ordering military action. I also read, too, that some Republicans are questioning the president's authority. I find all that as hogwash. The president, as granted by the War Powers Act, has every authority to order the military into action. Some say the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional, and it probably is, but it's never been ruled that way by the Supreme Court. Until it is struck down, it's valid.

My disagreement with military action in Libya has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, or any talking head telling me what to say or think. I oppose it because after 2003 when I cheered war with Iraq and I turned out to be dead wrong, I told myself that I would never blindly follow this country into war again. So here I am with a president I personally know leading us into war with a new Muslim Arab country. I could pretend my Bush-era opposition to military involvement into a country with a leader we don't like never happened just because I like our current president. Nah, I don't think so.

Instead I'm going to stick with a rule I set for myself some years ago.  Supporting war from my comfy armchair really isn't patriotic at all.  I'm sitting this one out y'all.

Makes Perfect Sense

The rebels in Libya we are now waging war to help, were also flooding into Iraq in 2006-2007 to fight against us.

Yeah I can't think of any reason why we shouldn't arm these guys and drop our Freedom Bombs to protect them.

McCain Hammers War President

Remember when it was anti-American to question the authority of a wartime president? Republicans don't.

Emperor Addresses Nation

Historians among us will note when the Emperor of Japan emerges a time of national tragedy has unfolded.

The first time the people of Japan ever heard their Emperor's voice was August 15th, 1945. The Dynasty has been in place since 660 B.C., so that's saying a lot.

Today marked the first time the Emperor addressed the nation via television following a national crisis. I probably can't stress enough how rare this is and how catastrophic the earthquake has been.

The President Got This One Right

Michael Cohen

At times I've been fairly critical of this president's handling of foreign policy, but credit must be given -- this Administration handled this situation about as deftly as possible. This was truly an American diplomatic tour de force.

Speaker Boehner:

"I think they've handled what is a very difficult situation about as well as it could be handled."