The Blue State

Bush: "I've got God's shoulder to cry on"

In the new book Dead Certain, President Bush told author Robert Draper that he often cries to God:

I've got God's shoulder to cry on. And I cry a lot, Bush told John Draper, author of  Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush. I do a lot of crying in this job. I'll bet I've shed more tears than you can count, as president. I'll shed some tomorrow.

CanWest News Service said Draper interviewed Bush six times for the book.

Bush told Draper he would never be able to make decision on war if he was still drinking. Exercise helps. And I think prayer helps, he said. I wouldn't be president if I kept drinking. You can get sloppy, can't make decisions. It clouds your reason, absolutely.

This is not the first time Bush has touted his relationship with God.  In 2003, Bush told Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas that God told him to attack Iraq:

"According to Abbas,Bush said: 'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, andthen he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I amdetermined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me Iwill act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focuson them.'"

He must worship a different God than I.

GOP lawmaker threatens two of his constituents

Like a growing number of politicians these days, Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) is unable to tolerate his opposition.  After a couple wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper criticizing Lamborn for receiving contributions from the gambling industry, the lawmaker left two messages on their home answering machine.  In one of the messages, Lamborn said there would be "consequences":

In his messages, Lamborn said he wantedto appeal to the couple as "brothers and sisters in Christ" andimplored them to call him back to discuss their "blatantly false"letter.

"We felt very threatened and intimidated, and quitefrankly, scared," Anna Bartha said. "It was just not anything we wouldever anticipate an elected official would pursue or a way that anelected official would conduct himself."

When asked whether his messages were threatening,Lamborn said: "No, that is ridiculous. My hope, I failed, but I hadhoped to meet with them privately and confidentially because lying is aserious matter. "

When asked what he meant when he said there would be"consequences," Lamborn said: "When someone tells a lie, it just hasbad consequences."

Three days after leaving the messages onthe Barthas' voice mail, Lam born wrote an open letter to Greg Garcia,chair of the El Paso County Republicans, asking him to investigate.

It's really a stretch to call the threatening phone calls appropriate.  Lamborn knows a lot about stretches -- like earlier this month when he proclaimed, "If we want to win this war, we can."

Interestingly enough, the two people Lamborn threatened were registered Republicans.  The husband is employed by James Dobson's Focus on the Family.

NYT incorrectly reported protesters at military funerals were "anti-war activists"

Astonishingly, this was the second instance in which the New York Times falsely labeled members of the ultra right-wing Westboro Baptist Church, who protest at military funerals, as anti-war activists, when they are actually 'anti-gay activists'.  This time it was done at the expense of Barack Obama.  Editor and Publisher was all over this story:

New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleney took a decidedly wrong turn inreferring to one statement.

Zeleney wrote that Obama "said it was wrong foranti-war activists to protest at military funerals, declaring: ‘Itneeds to stop'."

The quote at the end was accurate but nowhere didObama refer to the protesters as "anti-war activists." In fact, theprotesters who have caused much outrage have been anti-gay activists.

As E&P explained, the New York Times apologized last year after doing the exact same thing:

Last year, on June 17, the Times ran a correction after an op-ed also referred to antiwar protesters at funerals:
"AnOp-Ed article on Monday, about demonstrations at military funerals,hospitals and memorial services, incorrectly described the protestersat the military funerals discussed in the article. In some cases, theprotesters were members of an anti-gay group, not people opposed to theIraq war; in others, the families of the dead service members wereunable to determine the affiliation of the protesters."

If you got it wrong, then pay attention next time so it never happens again.  No progressive would be cold enough to protest at a military funeral.  The New York Times needs to apologize once again for being so careless.

Even the State Department thinks Tom Tancredo is "absolutely crazy"

GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo created a lot of buzz in 2005 for saying that the United States should consider bombing Muslim holy sites if the US was attacked with nuclear weapons:

“Well, what if you said something like - if this happens in the UnitedStates, and we determine that it is the result of extremist,fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites,”Tancredo answered.

When the media brought the issue up again a few days ago, Tancredo went even further:

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on thishomeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holysites in Mecca and Medina,” the GOP presidential candidate said. “Thatis the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doingwhat they would otherwise do. If I am wrong fine, tell me, and I wouldbe happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent oryou will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have tobe negative consequences for the actions they take. That’s the mostnegative I can think of.”

Problem: Mecca and Medina are holy sites not only for Muslim extremists, but for all Muslims.  The worldwide Muslim population is approximately 1.61 billion.  Does Tancredo really feel like creating one billion more US enemies with one click of the button?

Even Condoleezza Rice's State Department called the idea "crazy":

Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN’sElise Labott that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and“absolutely crazy.”

Still, the Tancredo Campaign is standing by what their boss said:

“This shows that we mean business,” said Bay Buchanan, a seniorTancredo adviser. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that. Buthe is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just ameans to deter them from attacking us.”

Dear lord!  You plan to deter terrorism with nukes?  Since when was this the Cold War?  If Bill Richardson is the ultimate diplomat among the candidates, Tancredo is the polar opposite.

Bush's Assault on 5th Amendment -- the Quiet Executive order

Executive order 1701, announced on July 17th, raises a series of constitutional questions.  First, here is the purpose of the executive order, as explained by President Bush in a letter he sent to Congress:

I hereby report that I haveissued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined tohave committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act oracts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening thepeace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or underminingefforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraqor to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.

But even as the conservative website WorldNetDaily reports, this could violate the fifth amendment in the Bill of Rights:

This new executive orderempowering the federal government to freeze the assets of people whothreaten Iraq's stability and its government is so broad it could beapplied to any domestic opponent of the Iraq war who has assets in theU.S., charges a former Reagan administration official.

The most striking part of the executive order is in Section 1(i)(B).  The US government can arrest and seize the assets of people that "undermine" the Iraq war.  Read this:

(B)  undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction andpolitical reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to theIraqi people;

In other words, if you protest the war, you decrease the likelihood that Congress will maintain funding for Iraqi reconstruction -- a tactic now made illegal by this executive order.

And it even gets worse.  In addition to not being able to protest the war, it is illegal to knowingly evade or avoid the order (Sec. 2 (a)).   Also, you cannot give  "funds, goods, or services" to anyone in violation of this order (Sec. 1 (B)(iii)(b)).

If you are as outraged as we all are about this executive order, please email your U.S. Representative and Senators.  Tell them to investigate it and pass a resolution that deems this illegal.  President Bush's assault on our constitution has gone too far, and it's time to get involved and take action.

Lies and Hypocrisy

On Monday's (7/16) O'Reilly Factor Wild Willy set his gears into motion and went on a tear against Jet Blue for "advocating" far left radicalhate.

"What do you think of someone who says the following: 'The world wouldbe better off without him.' That came after Tony Snow announced his cancer hadreturned. Or this: 'The Pope is a primate' ... 'evangelicals are nut cases' ...and some attacks against coalition forces in Iraq are legitimate. All of thosethoughts were posted on a vicious far-left web site called the DailyKos, one ofthe worst examples of hatred America has to offer. That web site is having aconvention in Chicago, and only one major company has stepped up as a sponsor -JetBlue, the airline that melted down this winter. We contacted JetBlue to askwhy it would sponsor a hateful web site. There was no answer, so we sentproducer Jesse Watters to see JetBlue CEO David Barger, who said there is 'noalignment' between the business and politics, and JetBlue customers will 'drawtheir own conclusion.' It is beyond belief that a company like JetBlue wouldsponsor hate mongers like the DailyKos. There comes a time when Americanconsumers have to take a stand and this is one of those times. This isn't anideological issue - if a company was sponsoring a David Duke convention we'd dothe same story. Hate is hate, no matter where it comes from."

-Firstof all, what O'Reilly is referring to are comments left by visitors, nota "post" by The Daily Kos (asJane Hall points out in video). Jane Hall is probably one of the few reasonably fair & balanced commentators on FNC.

O'Reilly did a follow up segment onThursday's show (7/19) 'JetBlue Changes Course'

"Earlier this week we confronted JetBlue CEODave Barger about his airline's sponsoring a conference held by the hate-filledweb site 'Daily Kos.' The hate this web site traffics in rivals KKK and Naziweb sites. Well, today the CEO sent us a statement saying 'we've asked tohave our name removed from their website to avoid confusion.' The mistakeJetBlue made was hooking up with haters. Any corporation or politician whoassociates with character assassins and/or defamers with will be scrutinized. Anumber of Democratic politicians are set to speak at the Kos convention, andwe'll report on that next week. Unfortunately, some Americans do wallow in hate,so an Internet site can do some business peddling that garbage, and there are afew radio and TV performers who make a living smearing people as well. Butcorporations and powerful people must understand their responsibility to rejectthe haters and not support them in any way. That's what JetBlue missed, but weare really glad they have re-thought the situation."

It'simportant to point out that O'Reilly (in his own words) "you have to policeyour site, we do"...so in essence they go through the messages or previewbefore posting the comments by the "Members" (the only way toparticipate in O'Reilly's message boards, or to listen to his Radio Factor is to pay for a premiummembershit). Censorship on a blog, message board, discussion forum orcomment section in my opinion is basically fear of opinion. O'Reilly's choice ofpointing out a far right radical hater is a pretty poor choice, Fred Phelps of the  WestboroBaptist Church and their website GodHates Fags isn't even taken seriously by most. Wild Bill could have chosen AnnCoulter, Glenn Beck,Michael Savage etc. as afar right hater site.

You may ask "why watch O'Reilly...it's a waste of time", well I look at it this way, if I had two children and one was self efficient, reliable and truthful, and one that was an evil dangerous lier, I would most likely keep my eye on the latter.

Another interesting point where the Daily Kos asks why O'Reilly doesn't go after AOL. Read the hate thats spewed on AOL's discussion boards HERE

Bill O'Reilly-Jane Hall Jet Blue

Bill O Bashing Jet Blue

Bill O does mention Jet Blue provided him with a list of things they do for the military, and he does post them on his site, however after listing six of the things they do, his last bullet point is "...and more" (and MORE?, well list them). No Spinning in a Fair and Balanced world? ...not Fox and certainly not O'Reilly.

(Video) Elizabeth Edwards and Ann Coulter go at it

Elizabeth Edwards confronted conservative columnist Ann Coulter over the phone today on Hardball.  The wife of John Edwards took offense to comments made by Coulter yesterday on Good Morning America.  Coulter said of Edwards, "I'll just wish he'd been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

Today, Elizabeth called in and asked for Ann to apologize on Hardball.  You might guess how that went:

EDWARDS: You're asking us to participate in a dialogue that is based on hatefulness and ugliness, instead of on the issues.  And I don't think that's serving them or this country very well.

{applause from audience}

MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Elizabeth Edwards.  So do you want to -- you have all the time in the world to respond.

COULTER: I think we've heard all we need to hear.  The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking.

This turned out to be a net-positive for both Elizabeth and Coulter.  Elizabeth stood up for her husband, and will obviously use this as a way to rally her supporters.  Coulter, as impolite as she always is, will probably include this exchange in her next column.

Elizabeth is right that the political tone in this country needs improvement.  In this exchange, she clearly came across as the more mature of the two -- that is an understatement.

The Unfair & Unblanced World of Journalism

With all the attention FNC is getting for their lack of reporting on the warin Iraq, and their commentators bashing the "left wing bias" forreporting too much time on Iraq, I give you this.

Journalism as described by Wikipedia.

Journalism is a discipline of gathering, writingand reportingnews, and morebroadly it includes the process of editingand presenting the newsarticles. Journalism applies to various media, including newspapers,magazines, radio,and television.

While under pressure to be the first to publish their stories, newsmedia organizations—each adhering to its own standards of accuracy,quality, and style—usually editand proofreadtheir reports prior to publication. Many news organizations claim proudtraditions of holding government officials and institutions accountable to thepublic, while media critics have raised questions about holding the press itselfaccountable. Readon...

'The OathThey Never Took' How journalists should behave and guidelines they shouldfollow: I sincerely wish the news businesswould once again recognize their obligation to their public and measure theirperformance by the standards they once enshrined--the oath they never took.

From the Fair & Balanced No Spin Zone desk of Bill O'Reilly:

"I don't mind being criticized with facts, but if you call me a racist ordishonest, I'm coming after you." Bill O'Reilly, to whom facts are likekryptonite, during a speech at the National Society of Newspaper Columnistsconference 6/22/07.

"That's enough. Miss Swanson, we'll bid you adieu." Bill O'Reillyto guest Robin Swanson as he cut her mic and camera, the O'Reilly Factor6/20/07.

"It's wrong for the media to beat up those with whom theydisagree." Here

 

'O'Reilly and Malkin fair and balanced week in review' (30 seconds on Iraq. Only because he was hammered by the media for dismissing the importance of the deaths of the Afghan children) (click ON video to watch in larger screen)

Lets face it, the unfair and balanced news that comes from the conservative right is pathetic (see last nights night owl clip...'Bill Kristol'. This war has been crumbling for years, and there are politicians and news media that are dropping from the support ranks of the war, but not fast enough.

Timeline of Idiocy

2003 - 'U.S.Military in Search of Arabic Translators' "Jennifer Ludden reports on the U.S. military's direneed for more translators who speak Arabic and other Middle Easternlanguages."

2005 - 'Army,Marines miss recruiting goals again, Morecash and appeals to parents, patriotism haven't reversed trend'"WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials say it's not a crisis, but it is a majorconcern — a battle here at home to win the hearts and minds of potential newrecruits."

2006 -' U.S.is recruiting misfits for army. Felons, racists, gang members fill in theranks' "After falling short ofits goals last year, military recruiting in 2006 has been marked by upbeatpronouncements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, claims of success bythe White House, and a spate of recent press reports touting the military'sachievement of its woman- and manpower goals."

2006 - DefenseSecretary Donald Rumsfeld: "As you know, you go to war withthe army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a latertime."

2006 - 'ArmyMeets Yearly Recruiting Goal'  "WASHINGTON - The Army isending its best recruiting year since 1997 and expecting similar success in2007, despite the weight of grim war news from Iraq, Army Secretary FrancisHarvey said."

2007 - 'ArmyMisses May Recruiting Goal' "With an array of special incentivesfor attracting recruits, the Army managed to recover from a 2005 recruitingslump, but the impact of the Iraq war and the strong domestic economy have madeit difficult to attract enlistees."

2007 - 'USArmy unable to afford translators, bomb-proof trucks' "GeneralPeter Schoomaker outlined an unfunded $10bn additional "wish list" ina memo to the congressional military committee" (included $13.3 MILLION forforeign languages translation.)

I think I found some clues where some of the problems lie, AND where GeneralShoomaker's money could have come from...

2007 - 'U.S. military continues todischarge gay Arab linguists, and Congress members seek hearing' "WASHINGTON:Lawmakers who say the military has kicked out 58 Arabic linguists because theywere gay want the Pentagon to explain how it can afford to let the valuablelanguage specialists go."

'Arabic Translator Firedfrom the Navy for Being Gay'

Since ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ became law, over 11,000 service membershave been discharged because of their sexuality.  The number of servicemembers who have left on their own volition, or have decided not tore-enlist because of this law is not documented. The government has spent over$363 million dollars in taxpayer money to implement this unfair legislation. Dozens of other countries, many of whom have fought side-by-side with oursoldiers, allow lesbians, gays and bisexuals to serve openly. Those are thefacts and they have nothing to do with a service members passion and skill toperform his duty.

So I pose this question to each and everyAmerican (civilian and military). Would you feel safer fighting side by sidewith an individual which is capable of telling you "they areyelling, watch out, the bad guys are over there...you should go theother way" OR would you rather be with someone that can tell you thestarting line-up of the NY Yankees?

I wonder how many hungry children (andadults) $363 million would feed? And as far as the argument "themilitary is no place for gays"...well we would probably have to go wayback to the very first army ever formed, then tell the first 10 soldiers"one of you is one of them and this is no place for you".

Ican't even believe that we are still having this conversation with the statethis world is in today.

I'd say this guy was qualified.

Lieberman favors military action against Iran

On CBS' Sunday news show Face the Nation, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told host Bob Schieffer that he would favor military force against Iran in retaliation for their involvement in Iraq:

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military actionagainst the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,"Lieberman told Bob Schieffer . "And to me, that would include astrike into... over the border into Iran, where we have good evidencethat they have a base at which they are training these people comingback into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

"I think you could probably do a lot of it from the air, but they can'tbelieve that they have immunity for training and equipping people tocome in and kill Americans," Lieberman said.

This is even more hard-line of a position than Condoleezza Rice's approach.  As I reported last month, there is an ongoing debate within the Bush cabinet over how to handle the Iranian situation.  Condoleezza Rice, her State Department and most other Bush cabinet officials favor diplomacy.  Dick Cheney and his allies favor aggressive coercion.  Lieberman appears to be backing the Cheney doctrine.

It might be nice to hear what Lieberman thinks would be the consequences of such military action against Iran.  I can think of a few:

• Wider Iranian involvement in Iraq.
• Reduced reputation in the international community.
• More defense spending in the long run.
• Oil at $85 a barrel.
• More hostility in Lebanon.
• Increased extremism in moderate states like Jordan.

Then again, maybe this is what Lieberman and Cheney want.  After all, the more Iranian aggression against U.S. interests, the more of an excuse they will have to keep the American public in a state of fear.  So this would work out well for them.