Magpie

Saturday, January 6, 2007

Gee, I wonder what Fox News thinks of the new Speaker of the House?

From Thursday's edition of Hannity & Colmes:

Fox News banner 'salutes' Nancy Pelosi

Really subtle, huh?

Via News Hounds.

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:43 AM | Get permalink

What escalation in Iraq?

That's the question you'd be asking yourself if all you were reading was the editorial pages of the major US newspapers.

As a critical turning point in America's role in the nearly four-year-old Iraq war nears, the editorial pages of the largest U.S. newspapers have been surprisingly — even, appallingly — silent on President Bush?s likely decision to send thousands of more troops to the country.

It follows a long pattern ... of the editorial pages strongly criticizing the conduct of the war without advocating a major change in direction. Now it comes at what appears to be a crucial point, with Democrats in Congress, overcoming their own timidity on the issue, finally emerging Friday with opposition to the buildup — setting up a possible battle royal in the days ahead.

Newspapers, at least in their editorials, have chosen to retreat to the sidelines so far. This comes even as hawkish conservatives such as Oliver North, and dozens of other op-ed contributors, have come out against the idea, and polls show that 11% or less of the public back the idea. That would seem to set the stage for editorials taking a strong stand, for or against.

So, editorialists and editorial page editors, when the f'n hell are you going to write some editorials against the escalation, hmmmm? When you might be able to help prevent it? Or later on, when the escalation has failed, and it's politically safe to criticize?

Via Editor and Publisher.

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:33 AM | Get permalink

Friday, January 5, 2007

The GOP defeat last November.

It came this close to being way bigger.

From CQPolitics.com, via Mary at the Left Coaster.

| | Posted by Magpie at 10:26 AM | Get permalink

The difference a day can make.

It was truly wonderful turning on the radio this morning and not hearing scary news about what the US Congress is up to.

And there certainly is a ring to the words 'Speaker Pelosi,' isn't there?

| | Posted by Magpie at 8:43 AM | Get permalink

Dubya's administration delivers another Iraq non-surprise.

Today's edition of the Progress Report contains this little tidbit:

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden (D-DE) said yesterday that he believes top officials in the Bush administration -- "maybe even including the vice president" -- have "privately concluded they have lost Iraq and are simply trying to postpone disaster so the next president will 'be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof,' in a chaotic withdrawal reminiscent of Vietnam."

Avoiding responsibility for their actions is what Dubya's administration has been about from the beginning, isn't it? 'It's Clinton's fault.' 'Nobody could have predicted that terrorists would have used airplanes as weapons.' Blah blah blah. If they keep pointing fingers elsewhere, Dubya's minions believe, nobody will notice how bad the White House is screwing things up.

Via Center for American Progress Action Fund.

| | Posted by Magpie at 8:31 AM | Get permalink

Thursday, January 4, 2007

For someone who isn't much of a reader ...

... Dubya is sure anxious to read the mail of anyone he chooses.

Slipping under the radar late last month, the prez added a signing statement to his approval of a postal service reform bill. In that statement, he asserts his right to order the opening of first class mail — without a warrant — any time he thinks circumstances warrant.

As is true of Dubya's illegal wiretapping, there is no evidence that the courts have refused to grant warrants to open mail when the feds have demonstrated a need to do so. Similarly, the 'right' that Dubya asserts in his signing statement is just as illegal as the wiretapping, and does just as much damage to what's left of Americans' right to privacy.

Via New York Daily News.

| | Posted by Magpie at 8:36 AM | Get permalink

Wednesday, January 3, 2007

Can we say 'escalation'?

NBC News is reporting that Dubya's administration plans to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq. This is, of course, only a couple of months after US voters clearly indicated that they wanted the occupation ended.

If anyone in the White House knew their history, they'd know that LBJ kept sending more troops to Vietnam, figuring that increasing the number of troops would make the war turn out better. They'd also know that the main result of LBJ's escalation was the deaths of thousands of US troops and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese troops and civilians — and that the Vietnamese won the war anyway.

Knowing all of this would involve reading history books, however, so I'm not expecting Dubya or any of his minions to figure this out and avoid a similar result in Iraq.

I'm torn between wanting to make a snide comment involving 'worst president ever' or one involving 'Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam.' This administration makes my brain hurt too much to decide.

| | Posted by Magpie at 9:10 AM | Get permalink