If you haven't been watching Rachel Maddow's stellar reporting on Afghanistan, get thee to The Maddow Blog and watch the clips there. Her remarkable reports are worth every second of the time you spend to watch.

This is the first time I've seen a journalist really try to get beyond the basics of the Afghan war and into the details of what our military is actually doing, what they hope to accomplish, and how they're going about accomplishing it. Rachel Maddow is hardly a hawk, so part of the remarkable quality of her reporting is seeing her come to an understanding that much of what's being done involves helping people, not killing them.

This clearly doesn't fit the story they want to tell on The Today Show. Watch the video as Rachel is questioned about the July deadline and the supposed "delayed Kandahar strategy."

Maddow's answers are clear: You're not going to see a war movie in Kandahar, and the deadline is an absolute necessity to keep pressure on the Afghan government to get in line and work to get the people they govern on board. But watch Ann Curry try to get her to get all rah-rah about combat and the deadline.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (715)

PLAYS: (3604)

Embed

(h/ Heather)

Tom Tancredo stormed off the set of the Ed Show when he was debating health care with Markos Moulitsas. Poor baby.

It all started when Tancredo started trash-talking the Veterans Administration, at which point Markos brought up his chickenhawk past. He got angry and tried the standard conservative whine, realized he was better quitting while he was behind, and then stormed off. The truth hurts, right Tom?

As a Republican student activist, Tancredo spoke out in favor of the Vietnam War. After graduating from the University of Northern Colorado in June 1969, he became eligible to serve in Vietnam. Tancredo said he went for his physical, telling doctors he'd been treated for depression, and eventually got a "1-Y" deferment.

Too many of these cowards discuss our troops when they themselves refused to serve when they had the chance. Here's Jed Lewison:

A few minutes ago on The Ed Show, Tom Tancredo tried to make the case against government health care by claiming that the Veterans Administration is unpopular with U.S. military veterans. The only problem for him was that he was up against Markos...who is one of those veterans, unlike Tancredo, a pro-Vietnam War chickenhawk who got a 1-Y deferment.

When Markos pointed out that Tancredo was (a) wrong about the Veterans Administration and (b) not qualified to speak for veterans, Tancredo exploded in anger, demanding an apology. Markos did not oblige, and Tancredo stormed off the set.

Funny, too, how the most thin-skinned of the wingnuts are the same people most prone to making vicious, uncivil, frequently racist and xenophobic remarks. Tancredo, after all, is a guy who claimed the National Council of La Raza was just like the Ku Klux Klan, and called Sonia Sotomayor a racist, and told the people of Brownsville, Texas, that they should build the border fence on the northern side of their city.

And then goes whimpering and whining off the stage when he gets a clean shot to the gut with hard facts. There's a street name for that, but this is a family blog.

Paul Krugman explains why we can't settle for stabilizing the economy, and says unless there's a bigger economic stimulus package, high unemployment is here to stay for a long, long time:

The effects of the stimulus will build over time — it’s still likely to create or save a total of around three million jobs — but its peak impact on the growth of G.D.P. (as opposed to its level) is already behind us. Solid growth will continue only if private spending takes up the baton as the effect of the stimulus fades. And so far there’s no sign that this is happening.

So the government needs to do much more. Unfortunately, the political prospects for further action aren’t good.

What I keep hearing from Washington is one of two arguments: either (1) the stimulus has failed, unemployment is still rising, so we shouldn’t do any more, or (2) the stimulus has succeeded, G.D.P. is growing, so we don’t need to do any more. The truth, which is that the stimulus was too little of a good thing — that it helped, but it wasn’t big enough — seems to be too complicated for an era of sound-bite politics.

But can we afford to do more? We can’t afford not to.

High unemployment doesn’t just punish the economy today; it punishes the future, too. In the face of a depressed economy, businesses have slashed investment spending — both spending on plant and equipment and “intangible” investments in such things as product development and worker training. This will hurt the economy’s potential for years to come.

Deficit hawks like to complain that today’s young people will end up having to pay higher taxes to service the debt we’re running up right now. But anyone who really cared about the prospects of young Americans would be pushing for much more job creation, since the burden of high unemployment falls disproportionately on young workers — and those who enter the work force in years of high unemployment suffer permanent career damage, never catching up with those who graduated in better times.

Even the claim that we’ll have to pay for stimulus spending now with higher taxes later is mostly wrong. Spending more on recovery will lead to a stronger economy, both now and in the future — and a stronger economy means more government revenue. Stimulus spending probably doesn’t pay for itself, but its true cost, even in a narrow fiscal sense, is only a fraction of the headline number.

O.K., I know I’m being impractical: major economic programs can’t pass Congress without the support of relatively conservative Democrats, and these Democrats have been telling reporters that they have lost their appetite for stimulus.

But I hope their stomachs start rumbling soon. We now know that stimulus works, but we aren’t doing nearly enough of it. For the sake of today’s unemployed, and for the sake of the nation’s future, we need to do much more.

DOWNLOADS: (1514)

PLAYS: (4518)

Embed

We've wondered how long it would be before John Ziegler -- Sarah Palin's favorite braying jackass and America's least favorite bachelor -- would turn his loudmouth schtick on members of his own side who fail to live up to his worshipful worshipfulness of Sarah Palin.

Sure, he's good for a Glenn Beck episode or two, but sooner or later he was going to be dealing with conservatives who have a somewhat less-than-adulatory view of Palin.

So he attended this past weekend's Western Conservative Political Action Conference in Los Angeles with the express purpose of trying to interview David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union, which oversees the National CPAC gathering every year. Ziegler was actually a sponsor at this year's Western CPAC, where he set up a booth to hawk his "how the media screwed Sarah" video that no one either believes or wants to waste the time watching.

When he sat down with Keene, though, he went into his usual attack-mode schtick (the only person I've ever seen him interview who he didn't treat like this was Palin), and finally pushed Keene over the edge when he basically asked him why he was corrupt. Keene got up and tried to walk away, but Ziegler pursued him through the hallways, still haranguing. At one point, Keene tells him he'd like to hit him, but won't.

Finally, Keene told Ziegler exactly what everyone who's ever watched him is forced to conclude:

Keene: You're a scumbag.

Ziegler: I'm a scumbag?

[Chases Keene through another doorway]

Ziegler: Why won't you answer the question?

Keene: Because you're an a--hole. Got that? An a--hole.

Ziegler: I'm an a--hole?

Keene: Yes, you are. Now, go.

Ah, comedy gold. Especially when he tries to explain himself:

"I often get accused of being one of those who only craves personal attention and has less than pure motives."

"This entire episode has greatly furthered my already strongly held belief that the vast majority of the conservative 'movement' is 'led' by fakes, flakes, freaks, frauds, phonies and sell outs who are far more interested in protecting their own little thiefdoms than promoting the cause."

Hahahahaha.

[Via Digby.]

I always ask teabaggers when I run into them, how any federal deficit has hurt them personally? They can't respond to that. They have no answer except to cry "socialism."

Sure, it's much better to have a surplus like Clinton did, but these same deficit hawks were quite happy when the Bush tax cuts came down and the rich got richer and the economy collapsed. But I ask again: How has deficit spending hurt you?

Long term debt is nothing to sneeze at, but when we're talking about reforming health care for America, who really cares if it's $700 billion for 10 years or $1 trillion or $1.5 trillion? (By the way, I love the way the press never tells America what it would cost per year because then the figure doesn't sound so bad. They make it appear that the cost is $700 or 900 billion a year.)

Go ask a teabagger about costs and see what they say. What will it matter in the long run? We can figure out how to pay for it. Even FDR was hampered by these deficit hawks when he brought the country out of the Great Depression, and now these deficit hawks almost put us back into a Depression because they were so deficit crazy.

The deficit hawk is code for keeping the rich---rich. And then finding ways to keep their money pouring in.

Digby has a great post up today about costs:

The Peterson Foundation is ready with the news. They released a report (pdf) on the Kennedy Bill today...

{}

The fact is that if all these benefits were actually realized, the country would be far, far better off, both financially and otherwise. Nobody expects that spending will go down, merely that the growth in spending will be less. Therefore, if the government finds itself having to pay out all that money in health care benefits, this healthier, more prosperous nation can surely afford to levy the necessary taxes to pay for it, right?

I don't give a damn what this is going to cost in 2029. And nobody else should either because these projections are based on bullshit. Nobody can see that far into the future. If we can pay for it now, then we should do it now. And if it costs more down the line, then we will find a way to pay for it. This nonsensical obsession with deficits decades into the future is nothing more than a scam designed to keep the gravy train going for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else.

If these numbers are correct, then the fiscal scolds are going to have to argue that people today have to die so that wealthy people in 2029 don't have to pay higher taxes. It's that simple.

The president is also talking about having a deficit neutral bill, but he's being attacked for it by the usual suspects.

Halfway There: You supported our troops...more than I can say for these mommy men

State of the Day: M.L. King's Memorial

The Opinion Mill: The press is still looking for a ring to kiss

Radar Online: What's next for broke-wing war hawk Rummy?

American Prospect Online: Meet the Iran Enterprise Institute...its name might sound familiar

Mad Kane’s Political Madness: Haiku for a former "genius"

Christopher Dickey: Murtha is Right
If C&L were here of course, he would put up the video of Murtha putting Nora O'Donnell in her place -- and it was quite beautiful, you can see it here. I'm not the hawk that Murtha is, but that is a discussion for another day. The fact is he is right and what is more, most all of us, right and left know it. Those who say otherwise are either still practicing the "Tinkerbell" policy of clapping louder; or more concerned about the Republican fortunes (the spectator sport nature of politics) than they are the "troops" they claim to love. If more the GOP came around to Chuck Hegel's thinking, not too far off from Murtha's, they could cut their losses and take their hit now and hope to recover some by 2006. Of course they won't. Bush's inability to ever admit, let alone contemplate, error is going to sink them all. Christoper Dickey knows it and details why Murtha is right, but Bush will never admit it, in Newsweek. Posted by Attaturk

Mike's Blog Round Up

This one was rescued from the memory hole by Simbaud over at King of Zembla. Last February, following remarks which questioned the high mortality rate of journalists covering the GWOT, Eason Jordan resigned as head of CNN. As has been the case with legions of other perceived critics of the Monarchy, he and the network caved under BUSHCO pressure. Does the emerging story of the Preznit's desire to bomb Al-Jazeera mean Jordan can have his job back?

THE NEWS BLOG: Darth Cheney's first Iraq adventure.

Shakespeare's Sister: another Dem War Hawk bites the dust.

INTEL DUMP: U.S. v. Padilla -- a case tainted by torture

Fanatical Apathy: Designing Women. And Men
",0] ); D(["ce"]); D(["ms","1610a"] ); //-->INTEL DUMP: U.S. v. Padilla -- a case tainted by torture

Fanatical Apathy: Designing Women. And Men

Tom Mahoney stuck it to Neil Cavuto yesterday as he didn't go along with President Bush's idea that Iraq and WWII are similar in any way.

Download | play -small file

Download | play -QT

(loose transcript)

Mahoney: "When you try to compare any war to another, you can't do it ... this was supposed to be over a couple months ago." There's "no comparison to any part of World War II..There is no comparison to any part of WWII..."

Cavuto asked for his thoughts on Cindy Sheehan and Tom played the the chicken hawk card.

Mahoney: "Well, my thoughts (inaudible)in every service man, if you didn't participate, you shouldn't talk about it. If you didn't get out there with the men, don't take it second hand that we're winning. Be on the front line with the men. See what they think..."

Newshounds: "Cavuto wondered if Mahoney thought, "most of the men and women who are in Iraq right now are doing a noble thing and are doing the right thing?" Mahoney said, "No, I really don't." Cavuto, "Really!" Mahoney, "I'm against it." That should have been settled when we invaded the first time....read on"

Saddam's desperate offers to stave off war

Washington dismissed Iraq's peace feelers, including elections and weapons pledge, put forward via diplomatic channels and US hawk Perle.

In the few weeks before its fall, Iraq's Ba'athist regime made a series of increasingly desperate peace offers to Washington, promising to hold elections and even to allow US troops to search for banned weapons. But the advances were all rejected by the Bush administration, according to intermediaries involved in the talks...read on

When you read this article and listen to Perle talk (I'll have the video from Real Time with him a little later) It makes you want to throw up.