Red State Video: Should Hillary Drop Out?

Win Without War Launches National Campaign To Stop Congressional War Funding

Joint Chiefs: Change Course, Start Draft Or Lose Army

Nicole Belle, Crooks and Liars. From VetVoice:

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, Army Vice Chief of Staff General Richard Cody sternly rebuked all those who’ve been blowing sunshine and spreading baseless happy talk for five years with regard to the war in Iraq. And he was blunt–blunter than I’ve ever heard him before–about the crisis facing the Army. He even went so far as to hint at the “D-word” in his prepared remarks:

Today’s Army is out of balance. The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies . . . Current operational requirements for forces and insufficient time between deployments require a focus on counterinsurgency training and equipping to the detriment of preparedness for the full range of military missions.

Given the current theater demand for Army forces, we are unable to provide a sustainable tempo of deployments for our Soldiers and Families. Soldiers, Families, support systems, and equipment are stretched and stressed by the demands of lengthy and repeated deployments, with insufficient recovery time. Equipment used repeatedly in harsh environments is wearing out more rapidly than programmed. Army support systems, designed for the pre-9/11 peacetime Army, are straining under the accumulation of stress from six years at war. Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it.

And then he added the kicker:

If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the All-Volunteer Force and degrades the Army’s ability to make a timely response to other contingencies.

Anyone with a lick of sense (which clearly does not include anyone in the Bush administration) has known that the military is stretched to the breaking point. But this is not what the White House nor the RNC wants to hear during an election year. Will they listen to the generals now?

LSB: Why start listening to them now? This White House will find another like Gen. Betrayus to say whatever they need him to say till they ride out of town. Congrats, Gen. Cody, for not blowing smoke!

Countdown: Yoo Torture Memo Is More Evidence Of Impeachable Crimes

Logan Murphy, Crooks and Liars: The now-infamous John Yoo torture memo, which states that torture isn’t really torture unless it kills the suspect, and that President Bush’s wartime authority trumps torture law, is creating quite a firestorm. Constitutional professor Jonathan Turley joined Keith Olbermann on Thursday’s Countdown where he once again repeats his claim that President Bush broke the law and that the Democrats were afraid to pursue charges because they know it would trigger impeachment hearings and that scares them to death.

Turley:”…It’s really amazing, Congress, including the Democrats, have avoided any type of investigation into torture because they do not want to deal with the fact that the president ordered war crimes. But, evidence keeps on coming out. The only thing we don’t have is a group picture with a detainee attached to electrical wires.”

LSB: PLEEEASE stop talking about impeachable offenses by this administration! Ain't gonna happen, my friends. Despite overwhelming evidence, this Congress has neither the balls nor the time between vacations/running for office to pursue our Criminal-in-Chief or his traitorous goons. I would love to see the war crimes division in The Hague bring this bum to trial, but that's just my own personal fantasy!

John Amato, Crooks and Liars: John Yoo should be in handcuffs as I write this post. Froomkin kind of says it all:

The Justice Department memo released yesterday is a key link in the chain of evidence connecting the monstrous abuse of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison
and elsewhere straight to the White House.

President Bush has described the torture and murder of prisoners by U.S. military personnel as the work of an aberrant few. But this 2003 memo opened the door to precisely the kinds of abuse so horrifically chronicled in the Abu Ghraib photographs.

And the memo’s author — John Yoo, then a deputy in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — was a longtime ally and notoriously pliant scribe for the radical legal views of Vice President Cheney and his chief enforcer, David S. Addington. Yoo’s memo is a historic document. It is the ultimate expression of Cheney’s belief that anything the president or his designates do — no matter how illegal, barbaric or un-American — is justifiable in the name of national self-defense.
It is also an example of how enabling zealots to disregard the rule of law and the customary boundaries of human conduct leads to madness.

Jon Stewart slams FOX News for “Obama Watch” clock

SilentPatriot, Crooks and Liars: Jon Stewart rips on FOX News’ Chris Wallace for starting an “Obama Watch” clock — complete with “24″-like sound effects and ticker — that tracks how long it’s been since Obama promised he would appear on FOX News Sunday. Tweety catches flack too for some of the mindless questions he asked the Senator during Wednesday’s Hardball College Tour.

I wonder who posted about the Obama Watch a few weeks ago?

(Click the pic for the vid.)

Mukasey plays fast and loose

Steve Benen, Crooks and Liars: About a week ago, Attorney General Michael Mukasey was talking up the Bush administration’s surveillance efforts, and raised a few eyebrows when he got choked up while discussing 9/11 and telecom immunity.

But as my friend Sarabeth explained to me yesterday, it was the comments right before Mukasey got emotional that are probably the most important.

Officials “shouldn’t need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that’s the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that’s the call that we didn’t know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn’t know precisely where it went.”

At that point in his answer, Mr. Mukasey grimaced, swallowed hard, and seemed to tear up as he reflected on the weaknesses in America’s anti-terrorism strategy prior to the 2001 attacks. “We got three thousand. . . . We’ve got three thousand people who went to work that day and didn’t come home to show for that,” he said, struggling to maintain his composure.

The AG’s argument seemed pretty straightforward: a terrorist suspect called the United States shortly before 9/11. If we’d known about that call in time, we might have been able to prevent the attacks. Therefore, it’s dangerous — indeed, it could be deadly — to subject the Bush administration to safeguards and oversight when it comes to surveillance.

There are two main problems with this. First, the argument is completely incoherent. Second, it’s almost certainly premised on a transparent falsehood. Glenn Greenwald took Mukasey’s procedural claims apart quite nicely.

Even under the “old” FISA, no warrants are required where the targeted person is outside the U.S. (Afghanistan) and calls into the U.S. Thus, if it’s really true, as Mukasey now claims, that the Bush administration knew about a Terrorist in an Afghan safe house making Terrorist-planning calls into the U.S., then they could have — and should have — eavesdropped on that call and didn’t need a warrant to do so. So why didn’t they? Mukasey’s new claim that FISA’s warrant requirements prevented discovery of the 9/11 attacks and caused the deaths of 3,000 Americans is disgusting and reckless, because it’s all based on the lie that FISA required a warrant for targeting the “Afghan safe house.” It just didn’t. Nor does the House FISA bill require individual warrants when targeting a non-U.S. person outside the U.S.

Independently, even if there had been a warrant requirement for that call — and there unquestionably was not — why didn’t the Bush administration obtain a FISA warrant to listen in on 9/11-planning calls from this “safe house”? Independently, why didn’t the administration invoke FISA’s 72-hour emergency warrantless window to listen in on those calls? If what Muskasey said this week is true — and that’s a big “if” — his revelation about this Afghan call that the administration knew about but didn’t intercept really amounts to one of the most potent indictments yet about the Bush administration’s failure to detect the plot in action. Contrary to his
false claims, FISA — for multiple reasons — did not prevent eavesdropping on that call.

Was there a 9/11-related call from a terrorist safe house to the U.S. before the attacks? Apparently not. No one has heard about this alleged call before now, including The 9/11 Commission, which makes no mention of this.

It’s probably because Mukasey made it up for dramatic effect, hoping that his audience would end up agreeing with the administration’s line on FISA and telecom immunity.

It’s what people who are losing an argument do — they make stuff up. Usually, we like to think the nation’s top law-enforcement official would be above this kind of stunt, but it’s helpful to know that Mukasey is, when push comes to shove, just part of the Bush gang.

(Maddow:”…Oh please, just let him have just been lying, because if he was telling the truth here, if there really was a call from a known al Qaeda safe house in Afghanistan to the United States before 9/11 which the Bush Administration did not tap and trace? That is huge news and we ought to get some answers about why we were left so unprotected and surprised on 9/11. Let’s hope that he was just making that up.”)

Colbert threatens to boycott Olympic boycott

SilentPatriot, Crooks and Liars: Colbert went off on all the goody-goodys out there who want to boycott the Olympics over the Chinese government’s violation of human rights. (Click pic for vid.)

Countdown: N.I.E. or L.I.E.?

Nicole Belle, Crooks and Liars: The surge is working, so sayeth the latest NIE.

Or at least, that’s what the White House says it says. Unfortunately, since the White House refuses to declassify it, they’re just expecting us to take their word for it (and we all know how well that’s worked out for us in the past). The Congressional Democrats have issued a strongly worded letter to express their dissatisfaction. (Ironically, Russ Feingold has issued a strongly worded letter to the Congressional Democrats, asking to think for once about not enabling Bush’s plan).

Rachel Maddow, doing a fantastic job of subbing for Keith Olbermann on Friday’s Countdown, speaks to VoteVets Jon Soltz about the politicization and incomplete picture of what’s happening in Iraq that the White House is trying to paint in preparation for Gen. Petraeus’s testimony next week. (Click pic for vid.)

MADDOW: And in a democracy, the idea is that when a democracy goes to war, the citizenry is informed about why and how it’s going and what the point is. Jon, do you expect that the testimony from Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker is going to be substantive and frank, or are you expecting White House P.R.?

SOLTZ: Well, obviously it’s White House P.R., because it is Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker. Now that’s not to say they’re going to lie, they’re two very honorable men who deserve Americans’ respect. But this is not about a couple of streets in Baghdad, this is not about troops and tactics. The question for Democrats next week and organizations like ours, and VoteVets, is we’re going to broaden this debate. The fact of the matter is that Adm. Fallon retired because he was being undermined by a direct channel that the Iraq commander had to the White House. And so the fact of the matter is that Adm. Fallon, who was concerned about Afghanistan you know, had to retire. So where is the Centcom commander? Where is the Secretary of Defense? Where is the Chief of Staff for the Army, Gen. Casey, to say the Army can’t hack this, this troop deployment any more? So they’re giving you a very limited scope and that limited scope will be honest, but we’re not…they’re not going to tell you that George Bush and John McCain have our country in a policy of retreat and people who served in the military, we’re tired of it.

Clinton's dramatic health care story is dramatic, but not true -- and the campaign never vetted it.

Joe Sudbay (DC), AmericaBlog.com: Okay, this is not good for the Clinton campaign. Not good at all. Clinton has been regularly telling a very sad and tragic health care story in her campaign stump speech that is not true.

The NY Times has the article. The JedReport has video of Clinton telling the story again yesterday -- and it's not pretty. As Jed notes, "The level of detail with which Clinton tells this yarn is breathtaking." Today, the Clinton campaign admitted to CNN, "In this case, we did try, but were not able to fully vet it." What? How can that be? Seriously.

Since the Clinton campaign is talking to superdelegates about "electability," the superdelegates should ponder the narrative that is developing about Hillary Clinton's ability to tell the truth. It's not like she just relayed this health care story or just told the Tuzla story. Watch the videos. She was emphatic in both cases and went into great detail. Yet, neither are true. Now, I don't imagine the Republicans would make hay out of this pattern in the general election, do you?

Hillary Clinton thinks it's a major issue when a campaign adviser meets with a foreign government about a trade deal. Or she did last month anyway.

Last night, we learned from the Wall Street Journal that Mark Penn met with his client, the Colombian government, to strategize about a trade pact his client, Hillary Clinton, opposes.

Via Ben Smith, we learned that not too long ago, just last month actually, Clinton was pretty clear that a meeting between top campaign adviser and foreign governments should be a major issue:

Peering at the 50 or so reporters packed into a small hotel conference room here, she added: "I would ask you to look at this story and substitute my name for Sen. Obama’s name and see what you would do with this story ... Just ask yourself [what you would do] if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments."

Jed thinks the Penn-Colombia meeting "is a pretty remarkable act of hypocrisy" from the Clinton campaign. Jed is right. His latest video shows just how adamant Clinton was that this should be a major controversy:

So, are we dealing with yet another double standard from Hillary Clinton? And, keep in mind, Penn isn't just any campaign adviser. Penn is the ultimate Clinton campaign strategist. (I'm sure the Colombian government would never assume that hiring Mark Penn would get them access to Hillary Clinton. Perish the thought.)

UPDATE: Clinton hasn't fired Mark Penn, but Colombia did. The fallout continues from the meeting Mark Penn had with his client, the Colombian government, to discuss a trade pact that his client, Hillary Clinton, opposes. Although, now, the controversy surrounds the meeting Mark Penn had with his former client, the Colombian government, to discuss a trade pact that his client, Hillary Clinton, opposes.

While Hillary Clinton can't seem to quit Mark Penn, Colombia fired his ass today:

Mr. Penn on Friday apologized for meeting with the Colombians, calling it an “error in judgment.” The Colombian government said his reaction showed a “lack of respect.”

On Saturday, the Colombian government issued the following statement:

The Colombian Government announces its decision to terminate the contract with Burson Marteller. This firm conducts public relations and communications consulting services on behalf of Colombia in the United States for the approval of the Free Trade Agreement and the continuation of Plan Colombia.

Mr. Mark Penn, President and CEO of Burson Marsteller, reponded to claims by Union representatives who questioned his relationship with the Colombian Government by declaring that it was an “error in judgment” to meet with his client the Colombian Ambassador on March 31. The Colombian government considers this a lack of respect to Colombians, and finds this response unacceptable.

The firm was retained by the Colombian Embassy in Washington in March of 2007 based on its track record in the field of Public Relations.

Democrats call for economic aid package

Chris in Paris, AmericaBlog.com: And all McCain can say is "tax cuts and less regulation." Just as Bush ran on tax cuts and less regulation, McCain proves again that all he wants is a third Bush term. The same tax cuts and less regulation that got us in to this economic meltdown are the same tax cuts and less regulation that McCain thinks will cure all of our economic problems.

So to refresh everyone's memory, the GOP handed out luxurious tax cuts to the richest Americans and look how well that worked out for everyone else. Stagnating wages for most Americans along with increasing inflation and even less stability. The GOP followed the marching orders from their wealthy lobbyist friends on Wall Street to open up new financial markets without traditional regulations and safeguards and look how well that worked out for the rest of us.

To listen to McCain talk about the issue that will surely be at the top of everyones list in November is quite revealing. He admits he has no clue about economics and to regurgitate Phil Gramm talking points only shows how incapable he is to face the economic turmoil that we will face in the coming years. We tried this GOP experiment and it failed miserably for everyone outside of Big Oil and the corporate boardrooms.

Now, it's John McCain's turn. Where are his tax forms?

Joe Sudbay (DC), AmericaBlog.com: The DNC wants to know where McCain's tax returns are. So do we. Given McCain's utter contempt for campaign finance laws (he's breaking the law), we really need full disclosure.

Yesterday, CNN reported on McCain's access to lots of money from his second wife. Lots of money:

As heiress to her father's stake in Hensley & Co. of Phoenix, Cindy McCain is an executive whose worth may exceed $100 million. Her beer earnings have afforded the GOP presidential nominee a wealthy lifestyle with a private jet and vacation homes at his disposal, and her connections helped him launch his political career -- even if the millions remain in her name alone. Yet the arm's-length distance between McCain and his wife's assets also has helped shield him from conflict-of-interest problems.

Remember how the right wingers made Teresa Heinz Kerry (and her wealth) an issue in 2004? Remember that?