Oh my god. Just finished having to hear NPR provide the Bush Administration with a custom made propaganda piece.

Noah Adams was the server of this tripe.

ugh. to the jump

I've just about had it up to here with Chris Matthews's arrogant dismissals of Ed Schultz.  Tonight Ed (when he was able to get a word in) stated this:  "George Bush is an idiot".  

Matthews took offense.  He finished the segment by pretending to be above it all.  Give me a break, Mr. I Love to Rant.

I am not a international political expert by no means. I was an Infantry Staff Sergeant in the Army from 1973 - 1982 and then served in the Army National Guard from 1988 to 1992 and served in Desert Storm. So I am just an average American, I a moderate Democrat, I believe in a strong military, having a well prepared military as a deterrent not as an offensive weapon as the Bush/Cheney team did.

It was supposed to keep the Russians, the Chinese etc from starting WW3, so why have we now become involved in comparing 3rd world countries to Hitler and Nazism? Has the Ayotollahs in Iran died and left Ahmadinejad in charge, he does not control the Kuds force, nor the decision to start a war, the Religious leaders in that country do, they fund Hamas and Hezbollah, not the President of Iran.

So in all the hubbub about Bush's answer to Mike Allen's golfing question in the Politico interview, a lot of attention has been paid to Bush's tone-deaf answer.  And why not?  It reveals Bush to be a shallow narcissist who thinks giving up golf is somehow somehow a symbol of his solidarity with the suffering of American troops and their families.  And of course, it later turns out that A/ he probably really gave up golf because of his bad knee and a request from the Secret Service, and B/ he went golfing less than three months after supposedly giving it up anyhow.  Prime comedy right there.  But in focusing on Bush's hilariously inept answer, are we missing the added comedy inherent in the question?

My Kwanjanim used to say "Empty can rattle."  He would point to his head as he said this.  Everyone in class knew the converse of this was that a full can was quiet.  Or a full head.

Yesterday I was driving to work and Bush came on the radio.  I actually broke the volume knob of my car stereo switching him off.  That's how much I can't stand hearing his voice.  So I missed hearing the emptiest can that's ever occupied the White House emit what I sincerely hope is one of his last major rattles.  He's been lambasted on the Daily Show and in all manner of lefty blogs regarding his remarks about Obama and appeasement.  Right wing nutjobs have come screaming out of the woodwork to pounce on this latest pinheaded talking point.  Some of them even got served by another mostly empty can, Chris Matthews.

According to the Washington Times (yuk) of March 29, 1996 (can't link it because I got it off of Lexis-Nexus), an interesting sideshow occured in the presidential election campaign. It involved chickens, John McCain, Bill Clinton, and diplomacy.

John McCain had his feathers ruffled over nothing- but he said one truth he should have remembered yesterday.

Hans von Spakovsky, Bush's embattled nominee for the Federal Election Commission, has withdrawn his name from consideration.

This just broke over the AP SFGate

Bush "reluctantly accepted" von Spakovsky's request, the White House said.

It's sad to say that this can't even be called "stunning hypocrisy," because hypocrisy has become par for the course for John McCain.

From last month, McCain's reaction to former President Carter's plan to meet with Hamas:

It is a grave and dangerous mistake for an American leader to meet with a terrorist organization like Hamas...The very idea that a former President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief would meet with a terrorist organization demands a clear stance from all presidential candidates. Refusing to take a stand, as Senator Obama has done, is not the strong leadership we need today. If Senator Obama is not decisive enough to condemn former President Carter, how can he be strong enough to deal with the threat they pose to America and to our allies?

...and during a conference call with conservative bloggers:

I think that the people should understand that I will be Hamas’s worst nightmare.

I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.

But two years ago, during an interview with James Rubin, was this exchange:

Q:  Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

MCCAIN:  They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.

It seems that McCain has shelved that "new reality" on dealing with Hamas in the interest of furthering a chosen line of attack against Barack Obama.   Unprincipled and hypocritical, and of course, completely in line with his goal of carrying out George Bush's third term.  And in fact, following Bush's attack yesterday on Obama as an "appeaser," McCain took the opportunity to expand on Bush's remarks:

And the belief that somehow communications and positions and willingness to sit down and have serious negotiations need to be done in a face to face fashion as Senator Obama wants to do, which then enhances the prestige of a nation that's a sponsor of terrorists and is directly responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans, I think is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation's security.

When John McCain said that he was "fine" with staying in Iraq for 100 years, he proved that he doesn't have the judgement to be the Commander in Chief, and with his hypocritical attacks on Barack Obama over Hamas, he proves that he doesn't have the character either.

Obama is right about Bush, and he can further make the point that Bush has strengthened Al Qaida in Iraq.

This morning on NPR, there was a story about how the US military is releasing Iraqi detainees for many reasons. One of which is that the detention camps were becoming training grounds for Insurgents.

Iraqi detention camps served as Al Qaida training

I still remember voting for bush in 2000.  He seemed more resolute than Al Gore and Gore just seemed to be ridiculously the politician on it all.  Plus i was sick of clinton/gore.  as a moderate, i thought the country needed a change.  

Someone with greater knowledge of history and more free time can do a better job than I of anaylzing Bush's identification with Winston Churchill. (W. keeps a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office and has visited the war rooms he used during the Blitz.)

Churchill's grandson, Nicholas Soames, debunked some of Bush's fantasy in 2002, during the run-up to the Iraq war. (Source: BBC.)His main points were that Churchill had a much greater understanding of the importance of alliances and public support than Bush does, and that Churchill was conscious of the strategic impact of his dedcisions.

Obama hits back:

WATERTOWN, South Dakota (Reuters) - Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama said on Friday President George W. Bush's "failed policies" had strengthened U.S. enemies like Iran and Hamas.

Responding to Bush's comment on Thursday that those who want to talk to Iran were like Nazi appeasers before the Second World War, Obama accused Bush of "exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided the country and that alienates us from the world."

Obama did a terrific job of tying the albatross of Bush around the neck of McCain:

"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I'm happy to have any time, any place, and that is a debate that I will win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for," Obama said in a campaign speech in South Dakota.

View it:

The Democratic Party is Changing for the Better.

It's taken me a bit of time to come to this conclusion.  I've carefully considered the issue of post nomination Party Reconciliation and whether or not we may need to a Shotgun Marriage to repair the wounds that have been gouged into the Democratic Party by this Primary Season.

But I've finally realized we don't need to break out the spackle, silly putty and super glue in order to re-stitch the Democratic party back together.  With Barack Obama's candidacy we ourselves are Becoming the Change that we need.

Hillary Clinton is a fine candidate, and a fine politician - but she is shown herself to clearly be a politician of the past with her use of divide and conquer, fear-mongering, crush and smear tactics.

It's time we moved away from that kind of politics, and that kind of country.  It's time we embraced the future - and that future is President Barack Obama.

His town hall is streaming on CNN.com.  He's about to go into details about it now.

Comments are below the fold, but you can watch it yourself.

As always, we know that George W. Bush doesn't know the first thing about sacrifice, being the selfish, cowardly little nitwit that he has been all his life.  His latest pathetic attempt to demonstrate how he has made a personal sacrifice in giving up golf, has been refuted by none other than his father, former President George Bush.  Video and further commentary below the fold:

Yesterday George Bush used the 60th anniversary of the birth of Israel to attack Barack Obama, suggesting that he was an appeaser on par with Hitler apologists:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Democrats, including Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton,  roundly condemned Bush's remarks and the White House responded:

Q:  ...This is being seen in some quarters as a slam on Senator Obama. Is this in any way directed at Senator Obama?

MS. PERINO:  It is not. And I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that President Bush thinks we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you -- that is not always true and it is not true in this case.

But according to CNN:

The president did not name Sen. Barack Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged to CNN that the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party.

So, CNN, what's it going to be?  You have allowed unnamed White House sources to weigh in on this story, while the White House is publicly disputing your report.  Will you challenge this double message? Are you an independent news organization, or are you a mouthpiece for putting out messages that the White House doesn't have the guts to do themselves?  

(Cross posted from Docudharma)

If we were wise and brave we would have taken down this President a long time ago.

Is an earnest desire for peace a foolish delusion?  George Bush thinks so...and who could know more about foolish delusions?

George Bush's political life has been dominated by inveigling the public, obfuscating the truth and lying about his record.  However, he has been clear and honest with us about one thing: he wants us to be in Iraq forever.  Due to a idiocy and ignorace, hubris and blind faith, or a perverse internationalist form of sadism George Bush is determined to keep US troops under siege in Iraq at any cost. He ignores all the costs to our national reputation, his own reputation, our national treasury, human life, and the survival of his own party.

And that makes the Bush Administration very dangerous.