Straight Talk Express' moral compass points to Bill Ayers

Well it looks like the moral compass has been lost for the McCain straight talk express. Back in 2000, McCain was the victim of the Bush robo calls that inferred that he was the father of an illegitimate black child. McCain called these "hate calls" and vowed to never use such tactics.

Fast forward to 2008, McCain is behind in his White House run and as such has broken his promise to forgo robo calls.

Here is the text of the type of call McCain is currently running:

"You need to know Barack Obama has worked closely with Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans."

On Fox News, John McCain defended these calls stating they are accurate. On that point, McCain is right. Barack Obama has worked with Bill Ayers. Obama severed on an anti-poverty committee with the Mr. Ayers, along with several other prominent Chicago citizens. It is also true that Bill Ayers bombed the U.S. Capitol, the pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans. What it is not true is that Barack Obama helped Bill Ayers with those bombings.

However, the McCain ad leaves that impression.

That would be like saying:

"You need to know that during the height of the Vietnam war John McCain was in close contact with the North Vietnamese, enemy communists who fought U.S. armed forces, bombed our bases and killed Americans."

This statement is also technically correct. Was John McCain in close contact with North Vietnam during the war? Yes. Did North Vietnam fight U.S. armed forces, bomb our bases and kill Americans? Yes. Yet here is the important question, did John McCain support and aid the North Vietnamese war efforts. Absolutely not. However, someone ignorant of Senator McCain's record as a prisoner of war might draw a different conclusion.

Here's hoping McCain soon finds his compass, otherwise it looks like the express will remain in the ditch for the rest of the campaign.

What Scott Believes

Scott McClellan, former White House spokesman, is expected to release a tell all book next week. However, exerts have been leaked to the public and among the bombshell revelations, Scotty claims the White House was run in constant campaign mode, in denial regarding Hurricane Katrina and "surprise" trumped up the case for war in Iraq.

Former White House counsel Dan Bartlett states that McClellan betrayed the president's trust and asks "What did he really believe when he was serving as press secretary?"

Hmmm. . . Let's think about this.

Perhaps while press secretary Scotty believed America shouldn't go to war based on lies.

Or perhaps Scotty believed the Bush administration should worry more about disaster victims rather than its image.

Or maybe, just maybe Scotty finally realized as an American citizen ones true loyalty lies with the Constitution and the American public rather than an incompetent, wannabe emperor.

Update!

Not to let Scotty off the hook entirely, although its nice that he is finally listening to his conscience and telling the truth, his smack down of the failings of "liberal press" isn't entirely justified. While its true the mainstream media was complacent at best, a cheerleader at worst in the run up to the war, for Scotty to claim that a press corps that asked the right questions might have prevented the disaster is ridiculous.

First, its almost as if Scotty is stating that the administration would only tell the American public about issues related to media questions. Call it quaint but the federal government works for the public. If Scotty had information relevant to the sound workings of the government, he should have volunteered this information without question.

Next, many reporters did try to push McClellan on difficult subjects. Many, like Helen Thomas were smacked down. In fact, the White House went so far as to bring in fake reporters to lob Scotty soft ball questions, when press conferences got to heated.

Remember this guy?

Why Does Bush hate the troops?

President Bush is set to veto a Defense spending bill. The bill includes a pay raise for soldiers and money for veteran health care.

One question. Why does President Bush and the other republiCON lawmakers who voted against the bill hate the troops so much?

Iraq Exploding with Success

During the revolutionary war, America defined victory as independence from British tyranny. The civil war it was preservation of the union and destruction of the institution of slavery. Crushing fascist dreams of world domination was the goal in World War II.

Today, American war success isn't defined by grand goals such as independence, preserving the union, or crushing Nazi plans. Rather, President Bush says it's "not no violence" in Iraq. What? Not no violence is what America has spent precious lives, billions of dollars and our national prestige fighting for in Iraq these past four years.

If "not no violence" is now the measure of success, it appears we've arrived at our Iraqi equivalent of Yorktown, Appomattox, Berlin or Tokyo in just the past couple of days. Evidence of our victory can be found here, here, here, here, also here, and this one too, oh yeah and here.

Odd, victory doesn't seem so sweet.

Bushies to America: Do as I say!

This past week, the Senate passed a $122 billion Iraq War spending bill. In most years, a multi billion war appropriation would have republicans wetting their pants with joy. However, this bill contains a provision requiring the withdrawal of most U.S. forces by March of 2008. This has our fearless leader incensed. We expect there to be no strings on our on-the-ground personnel he says. The basic gist of the argument is that people in the field have a better understanding of problems and a greater appreciation for how best to solve them. While this logic overlooks the fact that Congress does have Constitutional oversight authority over the executive branch, it does have some validity. People closer to the problems, often know best how to solve them.

However, the no strings requirement doesn't seem to apply to state side civil servants. Nor does the bar on meddling in local decisions pertain to Bush administration politicos. In fact, Bush lackeys not only second guess the professional judgement of "on-the-ground" federal personnel, they appear empowered to overturn decisions that conflict with the Bush admin's questionable world view. Case in point, Julie A. MacDonald, a political hack in the Interior department repeatedly altered the scientific field reports of professional land managers to the detriment of endangered species. Ms. MacDonald made these changes despite the fact that she has no, repeat that NO formal education in natural sciences. In other words, she lacks any qualification to second guess the judgement of wildlife managers. But according to the administration this is totally hunky dory.

In a nutshell, Bushies think Congress' Constitutional oversight of local managers is bad, while meddling by political appointees in the work of stateside local managers is good. Go figure.

What Would Bush Have Done?

On Fox News Sunday, William Kristol of the Weekly Standard asserted that a Democratic resolution opposing the President's escalation in Iraq would be like Democrats passing a resolution opposing further action in Europe right after the D-Day invasion. Kristol simply ignores the countless Republicans who are likely to support this resolution as well. However putting this aside, it's odd Kristol would want to compare Iraq to WWII given the United States defeated much stronger enemies in less time than the current war in Iraq.

Thankfully Roosevelt, rather than Bush, was in command during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or the United States might have been bogged down in a war with Mexico.

Lincoln Rolling in his Grave

Recently, conservative mouthpieces such as Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard and Michael Goodwin of the New York Daily News have begun comparing George Bush to Abraham Lincoln. What a joke! The differences between our first Republican President and the current one are like night and day.

First, Mr. Lincoln’s war, unlike Bush’s incursion into Iraq, was forced upon him. Next, Mr. Lincoln’s policies were designed to hold the union together during a time of national crisis. By comparison Mr. Bush’s plans during an equally trying time appear to be tearing the nation apart. Third, Mr. Lincoln served and fought in our nation’s military. During Vietnam, Mr. Bush got a cozy deployment in the states. Finally, Mr. Lincoln was often referred to as “Honest” Abe. It is unlikely many would hang that nickname upon Mr. Bush and his administration.

Other than being Republicans, there is little these two Presidents share in common and it is doubtful Mr. Lincoln would appreciate the comparison.