House Joins In: The House of Representatives' reprehensive political move to split the Democrats by putting for a bastardization of Rep. Murtha's (long term war hawk and veteran basically called a coward by the hack who just won the recess election in Ohio) proposal to pull out from Iraq. Per the LAT:
Murtha's resolution Thursday called for a rapid "reaction force" to remain in the region and for diplomacy to be accelerated to achieve stability in Iraq. He also said the withdrawal should begin only when it could be accomplished safely. ... The measure Hunter introduced said simply that "the sense of the House" was that troop deployment in Iraq should be "terminated immediately."
Thus, even Murtha voted against the nonbinding resolution, and only three people voted for the darn thing. Rep. Hunter was the one who said the detainees in Gitmo have gourmet fare. So you know his mentality. Shill in chief had this to say:
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, in South Korea where President Bush was attending a Pacific Rim trade meeting, said in a statement that Congress had "in strong, bipartisan fashion rejected the call to cut and run."
No shame at all, hmm? After (or as) the bid failed, the House Republicans were all supportive of Murtha. Disgusting display.
---
President Bush in a public statement boiled things down pretty well: criticism/disagreement is okay but deliberately misleading the American public is not. Of course, he claimed the Democrats was doing the latter by accusing him of it, but that still hits the nail on the head: let's put aside the tiredly debated "lie" word and use the more "no doubt" word "mislead." Ah, how the word's multi-meanings so easily apply here. The immediate concern was shown by Clinton's counterattack (yeah, you're welcome for my disaster work, George) respecting the use of the Clinton Administration's words against the Democrats now. Yes, Saddam was dangerous (more so in the late 1990s) ... no, war was not the solution. This sort of thing is like saying my rumblings that Bush is a lousy president, a danger, and maybe impeachment worthy means I want him removed by any means necessary. You know, if one wants to use cheap tactics and wrongful syllogisms.
I put aside that Bush is not really serious about criticism being acceptable. I want to connect this to another matter. Mike Malloy is the evening (10-1) host of Air America, someone's whose hatred of George Bush ("the Bush crime family," the "cackling killer" etc.) makes my distaste for the man look like being a member of his fan club. Malloy's rantings, surely understandable given his subject, do get tiring after awhile, including his "there is nothing acceptable about these people" line. It's like if one wants to say he is not the spawn of Satan, you are part of the problem. Malloy also raises now and again the idea (put aside the hows and implications) that Bush was somehow behind 9/11.
He referenced recently, later admitting the guy is a bit of a kook, someone who was on Tucker Carlson's show. The guy is some professor from Brigham Young University (an atheist sort, why Malloy would trust someone from a religious institution founded on the belief that the lost tribes of Israel came to America and left sacred tablets here is unclear) and argues the towers fell because of charges places inside ... the planes were a sort of diversion. The terrorists apparently patsies ("it looks like maybe the Muslims weren't to blame" ... but they had to be in on it somehow, right? I know ... logic is silly in this context), or something (my local paper derided giving the guy a forum, but since people believe this stuff, it's good to air it out ... though Carlson is not the best way to do it, perhaps).
I hate this sort of crap, but you know what, if your government lies and misleads you, it breeds. So, who are we to blame? Hint: largely the people who we expect more from ... see my Murrow quote from a few posts ago. This is why Malloy "hates these people," and why I see why. It is not just a simple ideological difference, though ideology does factor in to their nihilism. It is the simple fraud of the whole thing -- another one of my pet peeves. Philosophical differences, even those based on what I believe as wrong premises, is one thing. This is quite another. This is why I do not respect conservative and other sorts who do not see the rot here -- the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. If that is your baseline, do not talk to me about morals and ethics. You have none. And, if that isn't important to you, we are truly in separate universes.
But, the Frists, DeLays, Reeds (Ralph Reed ... when the epistles spoke of false prophets, they had him in mind), and the rest are not the only problem. The other problem, though some (Lindsey Graham's disgusting move aside) are starting to see the light ever so slowly, is that too many are staying silent or too quiet. This is why "Republicans" (include Lieberman and his fellow travelers, if you like) as a whole are targeted as a class by the critics. A habeas stripping move ... no matter how many reports of abuse and torture is released ... is supported by nearly all the Republicans, except the likes of Arlen "I still have some ethics" Specter. Have you no shame?
Rhetorical question. Anyway, is Cheney really our second in command? It was really before my time, but when one aches for the days of Spiro Agnew, we are in deep trouble.*
---
* Talking about conspiracy theories, lol, one knowledgeable source suggests Graham's actions are his way of angling for Cheney's job when the gruff one retires for "health" reasons. Since promoting mistreatment is a pet issue for Cheney, this is conceivable, though Graham's habit of sounding reasonable one minute, doing something ridiculous the next is of long standing. After all, he was one of the impeachment managers -- even if he opposed one of the "lesser" charges.