No Scrotums, Please, We're Republicans
It always seems to be two steps forward, one step back in this country. Here I was so relieved that there was no mass right-wing hysteria created when Prince did Shadow Puppet Porn with his guitar at the Superbowl (maybe we’ve matured since the Janet Jackson moment, I thought), only to pick up the paper this morning to learn that the word “scrotum” is too dirty for 10 year old school children. Librarians in a number of states are refusing to order the book, a Newberry Award winner, because of the presence of the word “scrotum.” Gosh, I hope they don’t have to decide on a biography of Tom Vilsack….
By the way, the book is called The Higher Power of Lucky, by Susan Patron. And speaking of books, which I see is Number 20 on the Amazon list, thanks, no doubt, to the controversy.
Don't tell me you still haven't bought Naked Republicans, a Full-Frontal Exposure of Right-wing Hypocrisy and Greed.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Monday, February 12, 2007
JUST SAY IT, HILLARY
Hillary Clinton is a very smart woman, and her husband remains one of the canniest political analysts ever. So I have to believe they will soon dump the strategy of refusing to admit her Iraq war vote was a mistake. All over New Hampshire this weekend she was asked to renounce her vote, but she wouldn’t do it. If she had, it would be a one day story before the press moved on to something else. Instead, the refusal is itself becoming a big part of the campaign story, and that ain’t good.
Check out the headlines from her weekend in New Hampshire:
In the Washington Post: “Clinton Parries Iraq Question in N.H.”
The New York Times: “In New Hampshire, Clinton Owns Up to her Vote on Iraq” (and today’s front page NYT: “For Clinton and Obama, Different Tests on Iraq”). And here on HuffingtonPost: “Clinton Dodges Iraq Questions, says Bush Incompetent”
“Clinton Cheered in NH: Some war Foes Skeptical” on Politico.com.
NBC Nightly News described it as “The question that won’t go away.” And Terry McAuliffe, former DNC chairman and Hillary Clinton adviser, on CNN’s Late Edition Sunday, spent about half the interview defending her decision not to acknowledge her vote was a mistake.
Saturday a voter named Roger Tilton from Nashua New Hampshire challenged her this way:
"I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a mistake," Tilton said. "I, and I think a lot of other primary voters -- until we hear you say it, we're not going to hear all the other great things you are saying."
Her answer? “Well, I have said, and I will repeat it, that knowing what I know now, I would never have voted for it.”
Now the question is why? Why allow yourself to be dogged by this question, one that is easy to handle and could then be put aside. In a front page NY Times story today Clinton adviser Mark Penn suggests that the term “mistake” should be reserved for Bush. Okay, then find a different way to say it. It's not going away.
Over at Talking Points Memo, they’ve posted Hillary’s full pre-war vote speech. As you’ll see, she did not vote for a pre-emptive war, as she has pointed out frequently while campaigning. Of course you’ll also see that she was a hawk, and you’ll see that in the final paragraphs, her thinking bears a certain resemblence to Bush/Cheney’s when it comes to conflating 9/11 with Saddam:
"And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."
--SENATE SPEECH Oct 10 2002
It seems the Clinton strategists are thinking ahead to the general election, calculating she has be more centrist to win independents. (Why they feel that way I don’t know, since Independents voted Democratic and anti-war in 2006). But even with her big lead in name recognition and money, it’s difficult to see how she, or any Democrat, is going to get the nomination without being a full throated, anti-war candidate. Senator Clinton is being pulled left by Edwards and Obama (and the other anti-war candidates) and maybe she thinks she’s gone far enough.
She hasn’t. Democrats who’ve been anti-war since day one remember that when Hillary was busy earning her national security cred as a tough, hawkish freshman Democrat, she was pretty sure of her facts about Iraq.
Here’s what she told Code Pink in March 2003, before the war:
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm". "I have absolutely no belief he will. I have to say this is something I've followed for more than a decade."
That was then. Now, to say, “I have taken responsibility for my vote. The mistake was by this President who misled the Congress,” isn’t going to cut it.
Yes, Bush did lie and mislead Congress. But 23 of your Senate colleagues were not taken in by the deceptions; they voted against the war. What does it mean to “take responsibility” for your vote, anyway? You were misled, and it was a mistake to trust the President to use war as a last resort. Oh, and you're sorry.
Just say it, will ya?
It's not too late to buy Naked Republicans, A Full-Frontal Exposure of Right-wing Hypocrisy and Greed.
Hillary Clinton is a very smart woman, and her husband remains one of the canniest political analysts ever. So I have to believe they will soon dump the strategy of refusing to admit her Iraq war vote was a mistake. All over New Hampshire this weekend she was asked to renounce her vote, but she wouldn’t do it. If she had, it would be a one day story before the press moved on to something else. Instead, the refusal is itself becoming a big part of the campaign story, and that ain’t good.
Check out the headlines from her weekend in New Hampshire:
In the Washington Post: “Clinton Parries Iraq Question in N.H.”
The New York Times: “In New Hampshire, Clinton Owns Up to her Vote on Iraq” (and today’s front page NYT: “For Clinton and Obama, Different Tests on Iraq”). And here on HuffingtonPost: “Clinton Dodges Iraq Questions, says Bush Incompetent”
“Clinton Cheered in NH: Some war Foes Skeptical” on Politico.com.
NBC Nightly News described it as “The question that won’t go away.” And Terry McAuliffe, former DNC chairman and Hillary Clinton adviser, on CNN’s Late Edition Sunday, spent about half the interview defending her decision not to acknowledge her vote was a mistake.
Saturday a voter named Roger Tilton from Nashua New Hampshire challenged her this way:
"I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a mistake," Tilton said. "I, and I think a lot of other primary voters -- until we hear you say it, we're not going to hear all the other great things you are saying."
Her answer? “Well, I have said, and I will repeat it, that knowing what I know now, I would never have voted for it.”
Now the question is why? Why allow yourself to be dogged by this question, one that is easy to handle and could then be put aside. In a front page NY Times story today Clinton adviser Mark Penn suggests that the term “mistake” should be reserved for Bush. Okay, then find a different way to say it. It's not going away.
Over at Talking Points Memo, they’ve posted Hillary’s full pre-war vote speech. As you’ll see, she did not vote for a pre-emptive war, as she has pointed out frequently while campaigning. Of course you’ll also see that she was a hawk, and you’ll see that in the final paragraphs, her thinking bears a certain resemblence to Bush/Cheney’s when it comes to conflating 9/11 with Saddam:
"And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."
--SENATE SPEECH Oct 10 2002
It seems the Clinton strategists are thinking ahead to the general election, calculating she has be more centrist to win independents. (Why they feel that way I don’t know, since Independents voted Democratic and anti-war in 2006). But even with her big lead in name recognition and money, it’s difficult to see how she, or any Democrat, is going to get the nomination without being a full throated, anti-war candidate. Senator Clinton is being pulled left by Edwards and Obama (and the other anti-war candidates) and maybe she thinks she’s gone far enough.
She hasn’t. Democrats who’ve been anti-war since day one remember that when Hillary was busy earning her national security cred as a tough, hawkish freshman Democrat, she was pretty sure of her facts about Iraq.
Here’s what she told Code Pink in March 2003, before the war:
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm". "I have absolutely no belief he will. I have to say this is something I've followed for more than a decade."
That was then. Now, to say, “I have taken responsibility for my vote. The mistake was by this President who misled the Congress,” isn’t going to cut it.
Yes, Bush did lie and mislead Congress. But 23 of your Senate colleagues were not taken in by the deceptions; they voted against the war. What does it mean to “take responsibility” for your vote, anyway? You were misled, and it was a mistake to trust the President to use war as a last resort. Oh, and you're sorry.
Just say it, will ya?
It's not too late to buy Naked Republicans, A Full-Frontal Exposure of Right-wing Hypocrisy and Greed.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
363 Tons (of dollars) And What Do You Get?
363 tons of cash were shipped to Iraq on wooden pallets just before the “hand over” of the government—that’s about 4 billion for those of you who don’t usually weigh your hundred dollar bills. This news was first revealed in the summer of 2005, but more details were provided yesterday in oversight hearings chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, who asked, “Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone?”
Paul Bremer, the guy who was the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority back when the Bush Administration thought the Mission Was Accomplished, told the committee that the Iraqi finance minister asked for the cash.
Almost nine billion of that money was never accounted for, you’ll be surprised to learn.
Hey, they were in the middle of a war, and there was no banking system, he said.
"I acknowledge that I made mistakes and that, with the benefit of hindsight, I would have made some decisions differently," Bremer said.
Ya think?
The timing of this vivid war story is especially bad, coming as it does on the heels of the President’s just submitted budget for 2008.
Oh, and guess who’ll be paying for Bush’s War?
If you guessed grannies, kids and the working poor, you’ve obviously been paying attention to how things work in the Bush Administration. Finally, the President is asking Americans to share the sacrifice for his war. Not all Americans, mind you—just the ones who are needy.
To pay for the Bush/Cheney war machine, and, of course, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, the President suggests cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, and that’s just for starters. Because our eyes glaze over at the word “budget” most of us can’t even imagine how to convert the numbers into real human costs, which, of course, the White House is counting on. But Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont breaks it down. (So did Diane Feinstein and others, by the way).
Eliminating the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which is a vital nutrition program primarily for low-income seniors but also serving mothers, infants and children across the country.
A $379 million cut to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps senior citizens and low income families pay for home heating.
A $100 million cut for Head Start, at a time when only about one-half of the children eligible for this program actually participate due to a lack of funding.. A complete elimination of the Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Program even though each and every year more people are diagnosed with TBI than those who suffer from breast cancer, HIV/AIDS, Spinal Cord Injury and Multiple Sclerosis combined.
A $310 million cut in the National Institutes of Health, including a big cut for the National Cancer Institute. A $172 million cut in elderly housing and a $115 million cut in housing for persons with disabilities.
Fortunately, with a Democratic majority, much of this is DOA.
Speaking of DOA, how about that Joe Lieberman (R-I-D Conn.) terror tax? As leader of the one man R-I-D Joe party, he proved that he can piss off both Republicans and Democrats at exactly the same time by proposing that Americans support the Bush war with a war on terrorism tax. (Doesn’t he know that to Republicans, every tax increase is like terrorism?) Good luck with your new friends, Joe.
Of course, I can't talk about numbers and Iraq without mentioning the numbers that matter most of all--3110 American soldiers killed, more than 22,800 wounded, and who even knows exactly how many Iraqis killed and wounded.
Some costs cannot be recouped, ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)