Rudy's Twelve Commandments, er, Commitments

Rudy Giuliani has released a grocery list of things he claims he will be able to do if he were to become President. Giuliani's commandments, er, commitments are in bold text. They are as follows :


"I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists' War on Us."

Does that mean bombing the hell out of all Muslim nations? You know, fight them before they even get a chance to fight us?

"I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation."

How does Giuliani propose he carries this massive feat off? 200 foot high fences and laser precision missiles on the border? Does Giuliani have a task force mounted that is going to knock on every door in America and identify every non-citizen? Didn't think so.

"I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending."

I guess you better get rid of all the politicians and lobbyist then.

"I will cut taxes and reform the tax code."

Translation : I will give the rich more tax cuts, find ways to make the poor pay more. I will put less money into health care and welfare.

"I will impose accountability on Washington."

Ah, buddy, the minute you enter the White House the accountability of Washington will hit rock bottom.

"I will lead America towards energy independence."

Really? That sounds odd coming from the guy who's firm has a very oil rich client, Hugo Chavez.

"I will give Americans more control over, and access to, health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions."

"Portable free market solutions?" Hmm. Sounds like a capitalist solution. A solution that pumps money into the health care systems pockets without actually improving the quality of care patients.

"I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children."

How? How does Socrates here think he is going to "increase adoptions, decrease abortions"? Birthing bribes? Adoption bribes? Common... Giuliani is only talking about adoption because he is pro-abortion and trying to avoid that subject.

"I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges."

Whatever, stay away from my legal system, serpentine one. Just step back and put the judges down Giuliani. I don't think your friend Tony Soprano over there will do a very keen job of reforming the legal system.

"I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters."

Every community? Yeah right superman. Aren't you the guy who like put emergency response IN the world trade centers? Yeah... You can't even keep us safe from the thief's, rapist and murders in every community, let alone the terrorist. There is no such thing as 100% secure.

"I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents."

I don't have much to say about this one except that I know it's not the truth. Sounds good, and that is the point, Giuliani will never actually do any of these things, even if he is elected.

"I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world."

Globalism baby! Say yes to American dominion! Never mind that is part of the reason other people hate us! Everyone in the world has to drink Coke and eat Hershey Bars and be wasteful otherwise they must not be happy, right? Seriously, how is Giuliani going to strengthen our reputation? Giuliani is pro Iraq War, pro stirring up tensions in the Middle East. How would another Bush strengthen our reputation?

"And I am Superman and I can make everything all better, including the weather."

Well, I just made that one up.

Back down to earth, Giuliani has composed this political poetry and some people will actually buy it. These people will think "boy, this Giuliani guy really has a plan for America" when in reality anyone can say these kinds of things to get elected.

Notice that the first three "commitments" are Conservative red meat, Giuliani is trying to position himself as strong on security, immigration and fiscal responsibility because Conservatives find everything else about the man utterly repulsive, and I can't say I blame them.

Furthermore, if I hear too many "commitments" from a single politician I grow suspicious. After all, there are only so many commitments a single politician can fulfill, the more they make the more they break, and that saying goes for Democrats and Republicans.

Rudy Giuliani can't possibly carry out all of these commitments, even if he wanted to, which I sincerely doubt.

But the Rudester realizes there is a whole constituency of voters who actual believe this kind of unrealistic dribble. Undecided voters are the easiest people in America to hoodwink and Giuliani is taking full advantage of this fact.

Rudy Giuliani suddenly gets security expert status because his city was attacked on 9/11? The guy who couldn't keep New York safe from terrorist is supposed to keep the entire country safe from terrorist? Common, you have got to be kidding me.

To make a long post short(er) no one should believe in a grocery list of commitments coming from any politician, specifically if that politician has a history of flip flopping on social issues.

I can grab some index cards and scribble something meaningful on them that I think will entice most Americans to like and trust in me, but then I would be lowering myself to the level of lying, or at the very least exaggerating what my capabilities or intentions actually are, just like Rudiani did.

Hopefully Americans are not the brain-dead fear drones they were in 2004. Hopefully they realize that what Rudy Giuliani is proclaiming about his abilities to secure America is far fetched in the light of the fact that his city was attacked by Islamic extremist in 2001 after it should have had some foresight, after all it had already been attacked in 1993.

Rudy Giuliani's self proclaimed security and emergency expertise doesn't match up very well with his true record and earning the scorn of the largest and most trusted Firefighters Union in the US after 9/11 doesn't say so much about Giuliani's real credentials, if you know what I mean.

Tell Rudy Giuliani to quit capitalizing off from 9/11, it was the worst day in recent history, and to politicians who try to elevate themselves because of that day - shame on you.

CNN And The Republican Debate

First I noticed that CNN held the Republican debate in the same format as the Democratic debate, asking each candidate to give their names first and to say a little something about themselves.

So you could tell the Democrats were caught off guard with the simple question, so all most of them manage to get out is "I'm Senator so and so from such a place". They were not able to craft a charismatic introduction because they had no prior warning that such an trivial exercise was coming.

But the Republicans were able to go second, as they were able to do during the MSNBC debate so they had plenty of time to craft a charismatic introduction. I'm not implying a conspiracy was afoot, I just see now that going second in the debate can have it's advantages.


This debate is inescapably boring and it's like listening to my grandfather tell me why his outdated beliefs make him qualified to be President of the United States.

Not only is the debate boring and grandfatherly - Wolf Blitzer is a terrible moderator and is so stiff I think he might crack if he smiles. I would have mentioned this the other night when the Democrats debated but I didn't want to sound like I was stating this "just because..."


So, Mitt Romney reminds me of a used car salesman, a good looking one who is smooth enough that you just might purchase that fairly rusty pinto because he sounds like he genuinely cares about getting you into an affordable vehicle.

Rudy Giuliani, this is the guy everyone knows wouldn't even be in the room had it not been for the terrible events on 9/11 and the media's willingness to portray Giuliani as "America's Mayor".

But here Giuliani is and he licks his lips constantly and squints his eyes too much, it reminds me of a snake. When he does that it looks like he is trying to give the appearance of thinking but it actually just looks like a grimace. The man is also very excitable and jerky in movement and I don't like that either.

John McCain, how do I count the ways I loath thee? I used to love you so much, back when you seemed honest, but you blew that long ago and I have moved onto new lovers...

At one point during the debate Johnny boy goes on and on and on and on and on about immigration, as if he believes he is the only one there to discuss it. The other candidates begin to grow impatient, I just grow bored.

Tancredo comes off as a little xenophobic when he stated that he thinks that the United States should limit legal immigration even more.

There was a guy named Tommy Thompson who had interesting hair but didn't seem to have anything interesting to say.

Senator Brownback didn't say anything that caught my ear but his loud pea green tie caught my eye in a not so good way.

Ron Paul sounds like a Democrat when he talks about the Iraq War, but don't be fooled - he is an enemy to Liberals.

Oh, and my favorite ~ Mike Huckabee shows he knows more about you than you do by stating that there are only two types of people : Those who believe God created us and those who believe it was "an accident". In other words Huckabee is saying that if you believe in evolution that you can't believe in God and vice versa. Huckabee is a perfect example of a person who cannot reconcile faith and logic, God and science.

Huckabee's broad generalization : You don't believe in God if you believe in evolution - anger intelligent people, because there are many of us who have reconciled faith and logic and find it very easy and quite comfortable to believe in God and understand evolution at the same time.

It was ironic that when Giuliani spoke about abortion lightning struck, but it is the season of spring in New Hampshire and the coming storm had been well anticipated. So the incident is nothing more than an ironic coincidence. But I am quite sure that isn't stopping some Conservatives from claiming the lighting was "divine intervention". Snort.

With all that said I didn't feel any of the candidates offered any kind of solutions to the multiple problems they kept bringing up, furthermore I don't want my country being ruled by anyone who thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.

If you want your kid believing the world is flat and that every time something bad happens God is "punishing" them then that is your choice, but don't try brainwashing my kid and take away his/her potential for truth and knowledge...

I don't think any of the Republican candidates even live in the same reality as the average American and that's quite a disadvantage in a world disenchanted with conservatism.

Most of the candidates were asked how they would feel about the war if in the magic month of September General Petraeus did not deliver a gleaming report proclaiming progress in Iraq.

Naturally the candidates tried to dodge this question and start rambling on about security threats and yes even 9/11. Umm, but the question was... Ah, never mind...

At this point in the debate I don't understand why the Republican candidates don't just go on stage and blurt this out :

"9/11 was bad.

Commie Liberals suck and they hope that terrorist blow you up.

9/11

Did I mention that Democrats hate America? Well, they do, they hate America like you wouldn't believe..

The terrorist will likely kill your children if we don't stay in Iraq forever.

9/11

Democrats are baby killers.

9/11

If elected I promise to do something about all the Muslims, flag burners and gays who are destroying America.

9/11

Since we can't believe in evolution and God I say the best decision would be to totally do away with science.

9/11

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a terror dome that is hidden in the Potomac River and he is plotting to kill the Jews...with Hitler! So I say, bomb the hell out of Iran!

9/11

We should give more tax cuts to the rich because we all know the one thing rich people need is more money.

9/11

I hate social programs, I don't like helping poor people. I think if God loves you then you are born power or the money to buy power.

9/11

I don't believe big oil should be regulated and kept from robbing you at the pump, they just need to build more refineries!!

I hate campaign finance reform. Politicians should be able to take as much money and gifts as they want to and no one should question their integrity or allegiance. We can't live on $150,000 a year! Who will shine our shoes?!?

9/11

But I hate welfare and don't feel people who make less than $10,000 a year should be helped.

9/11

It doesn't bother me to reduce or eliminate funding for programs that inoculate children or put them threw preschool. It does bother me to increase spending for prescription drugs for seniors though.

9/11"

Now my last few paragraphs may sound like an extreme generalization of Republicans, but if you look between the lines this is really what many of them are saying, they just find an eloquent way to describe it so it doesn't sound offensive but in fact sounds reasonable.

Yawn. These guys suck, for lack of better words...

I sure hope America can see that.

One thing I can say is : after the Democratic Debate there was a lot of buzz around it, today there is not much about what the Republicans had to say, I almost feel like I am the only one who watched the Republicans Debate, and I even went to (tortured scream) Townhall.Com.

No one on the Left or in the Middle seem to really care about what the Republicans had to say, and even the Right seems to be focusing their giddy hopes on Fred Thompson, the guy who doesn't like to work hard, hehe.

Well, if things continue on this path I would say the path to a Democratic White House is definitely looking good for the Democrats.

But the Democrats can still screw it up for themselves. I don't think the Republicans can destroy it for the Democrats, but I think the Democrats could destroy it for themselves if they don't maintain the correct balance.

Republicans To Debate On CNN Tonight

Tonight the Republicans will face off in their debate on CNN, having two days to brush up on their talking points and to create rebuttals from statements made by the Democrats the Republicans should be ready for battle.

The actor who wants to be President, Fred Thompson has decided to skip out on the event. This is not a surprising development considering a former colleague of Thompson indicated that "he didn't like to work real hard" and a veteran lobbyist said "He was viewed as a lazy son of gun who would say at two in the afternoon, 'I'm done.' Can you name one major piece of legislation he authored? I can't." Sounds like Fred Thomspon is too lazy to be President.

However tonight the spotlight will be on Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney, three choices the GOP base is not exactly thrilled with, so watching the sport of Conservatives try to out-Reagan Ronald Reagan ought to be interesting.

So, the other day I prepared some questions for the Democrats, today I prepare some questions for the Republicans.

Question for Mitt Romney :
What kind of terrible person names their child "Tag"? Hahaha, no, here's the real question :

Who is Mitt Romney, really? Explain to me how you reconcile your very Liberal past in which you claimed you were "far left" of Kennedy to social Conservatives. One can say they "saw the light" but how do you plan on convincing Conservative voters you will not just flip back to the other side when it becomes convenient to do so?

Question for Rudolf Giuliani :

As mayor of New York you witnessed the terrorist attacks of 9/11. You built on your role as a savior of the city and as "America's mayor." Your now campaigning as a hero in the aftermath of 9/11 - yet the firefighters union has spoken out publicly against you, saying you hampered search and rescue efforts. Why should Americans continue to see you as a hero in the aftermath of 9/11 when the real hero's of that day claim you hurt their efforts?

Question for John McCain :

Months ago you took a trip to Baghdad in which you claimed real progress was being made and that westerners could walk freely on the streets of Baghdad. To illustrate your point you went to a Baghdad marketplace surrounded by 100 soldiers and four helicopters. Your marketplace trip drew a lot of criticism, many said if Baghdad was as safe as you were claiming it was that there would be no need for such kind of protection.

Although you have been a big supporter of President Bush's policy in Iraq you have stated that you do not see a "Plan B" if the troop buildup in Iraq does not succeed.

Why should the voters trust you to lead their country when you have given inaccurate descriptions of security in Iraq and admitted openly that you had no "Plan B" for Iraq?

My next question for McCain would be "how do you go from calling Jerry Falwell an extremist to being a close friend of his?"

Will I watch the Republican debate? Maybe. I know if I don't I will miss out on a lot of "gotcha" moments that the media is too blind or complicit to notice.

One final question : 600 journalist converged on New Hampshire to cover the Democratic debate, how many journalist will be covering the Republican debate? Also, I wonder who, the Democrats or the Republicans, will have the larger viewing audience?

Democrats Debate On CNN, It Starts To Get Interesting

Tonight CNN hosted a Democratic debate in New Hampshire, and Democrats got a little more defensive than in the past, some of the cordial niceties of the last debate abandoned.

Number three in the Democratic polls John Edwards confronted Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on their late "No" vote for Iraq spending bill, claiming they showed a lack of leadership by waiting until the last minute to cast their vote.

Edwards appears ready to fight with Democrats to prove his "worth", which may or may not be good decision this early in the race.

Perhaps John Edwards energy would have been better spent confronting Biden for not only his "Yes" vote on the spending bill but also on Biden agreeing to attend a FOX/CBC debate.

But that's silly because John Edwards knows Biden is not a threat, but Hillary and Obama are and that's why he confronted them.

I thought Barack Obama came off very well, his answers seemed well thought out and insightful, showing that his lack of experience is not an indicator of a lack of intelligence or competence.

Even Hillary Clinton gained a few points with me tonight. Not only did she look smashing she stayed on point and appeared much more relaxed than she did in the MSNBC debate.

However, Clinton did come off as a little presumptuous to me when she said "When I become President" rather than "if America elects/chooses me as the next President". But as pointed out to me by a commenter on DailyKos, that is confidence and it is important for candidates to appear certain that they are the next best candidate.

CNN was wise to start the debate on Iraq, security and the War on Terror because these are the issues that Americans are most concerned about today.

"Everybody supports the troops." Obama said, "The best way to support the troops is not to impose a military solution to a political problem in Iraq."

John Edwards touched base on the recent perceived weakness of the newly Democratic Congress when he proclaimed that it is "critical for Congress to stand firm" and that Congress has a "mandate" from the American people to end the war. Indeed.

Hillary didn't speak for all but she spoke for me when she stated "This is George Bush's war, he is responsible for it."

Although Democrats failed to stop George Bush from launching a war on Iraq there is no doubt in my mind that this is George Bush's war, and it is most likely a continuation of his fathers war. It is through and through George Bush's war.

"We are trying to end the war" stated Clinton, even though she plans for troops in Iraq for years to come. Clinton said the United States needs to "put pressure on the Iraqi government" and take away aid when the Iraqi's don't follow threw.

Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut states that Iraq is civil war and that America is "less secure, more vulnerable".

Wolf Blitzer moves on over to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who is outspoken about the genocide in Darfur and asks Richardson what if an Iraq pullout leads to genocide.

Richardson states that he believed that there is a civil war in Iraq, reminding the audience that seven Americans died in Iraq today.

Richardson claims he would deauthorize the war, and leave no residual forces, but lets it slip that he would keep troops in Kuwait.

Kucinich steps in saying that the Iraq war has been based on lies and that "no money would end the war, stop the funding. Let's end the war."

Boisterous Joe Biden stated "Your going to end the war when you have a Democratic president." He also claimed that "The only one who has emboldened the enemy is the President."

Hillary later noted that President Bush had no intention of letting the UN inspectors finish looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and that she believed that the troops did their job, they searched for WMD, and took down Saddam.

Perhaps trying to balance his earlier confrontation Edwards stated that "Obama deserves credit for being right about war from the beginning"

Edwards could not have been more right when he noted that "We have to reestablish trust between the American people and the President."

But which of these candidates to trust the most? All the top tier candidates seem very desirable and competent to do the job and after six years of Bush rule hearing the Democrats and their common sense was a breath of fresh air.

Though I am pleased with the debate I believe Progressives need to keep putting pressure on the Democrats to do the right thing.

My Questions For The Democrats

Tonight is the Democratic Debate on CNN, which promises to be the first debate to "take questions from the voters".

Well, I am a voter and I have some questions.

1) Some people feel the United States image and popularity has been damaged by not only the wars in the Middle East but also by the United States close and one sided relationship with Israel. Do you agree or disagree with this assertion?

2) What is your opinion about lobbying groups and how much influence do you feel they should have on our government?

3) Democrats have campaigned primarily on an antiwar platform but have Democrats reached any consensus on how to end the Iraq War? [To this question I know the answer is "no" so I follow up with the next question]

4) How do Democrats plan on getting the United States out of Iraq if there is no agreement among them on how or when to do it?

5) Democratic candidates have identified themselves to be against the Iraq War, but when push came to shove the majority of Democrats caved in and allowed the president to have his way on the Iraq spending bill. How are voters to be sure if Democratic candidates have true intentions of ending the war, or if it is just the Democratic candidates intentions of using antiwar sentiments to get elected?

6) If indeed your plan is to draw down the Iraq War when would this draw down begin and when could Americans and Iraqi's expect to see all US troops gone by?

7) What are your feelings about permanent bases in Iraq and the Middle East?

8) If elected what are your plans regarding torture and Guantanamo Bay?

9) What do you plan to do about Democrats who endorse torture, like Senator Bill Nelson from Florida?

10) If the Democrats are not strong enough to take on the GOP and hold George W. Bush accountable then why should Americans be convinced the Democrats are strong enough to take on our enemies?

11) If elected, what step would you take to repair America's image and relationships around the world?

12) Illegal immigration and a bill that resembles amnesty. How is this good for the American people?

13) During George W. Bush's presidency America built up a huge debt with China. What would you plan be to reduce and eliminate this debt?

14) Millions of Americans are uninsured and under-insured, how would you address this growing problem?

15) Young people are worried about the future, they see a world sinking deeper into disparity and violence. College education becomes more expensive every year, making it impossible for many young Americans to get an education. They are then told that the social security they have paid into their whole lives may not even be there when they need it. Jobs for under-trained and undereducated people are often given to illegal immigrants, making it seem impossible to get ahead in many situations. America is facing serious problems, it's young people are becoming disenfranchised with the entire system. What makes you feel you are capable not only to address these problems, but fix these problems?

Coulter Claims Obama Lead In Polls Helps Terrorist

Of course Ann Coulter, the self described polemicist never mentions any facts to support her conspiracy theory.

Because facts are a pesky nuisance, developed by Liberals to make Conservatives look bad. That is, when Conservatives aren't busy making themselves look bad.

Coulter claimed that Newsweek was "doing more push polling for al-Qaida," during an interview with Geraldo Rivera on "At Large" because a recent Newsweek poll showed Democrat Barack Obama leading top Republican presidential hopefuls.

Coulter also indicated that she thought Newsweek would make up the poll with about as much earnest as a four year old insists there is a Santa Clause.

The hidden meaning behind Coulters statement is painfully transparent :

Conservatives fear Barack Obama, perhaps sensing he will be more difficult to defeat than Hillary Clinton. Obama's got the kind of appeal that could bring the young voters out in record masses and he offers the kind of hope many other adults are seeking after several years of Bush disparity.

It's not easy to come up with real dirt on Barack Obama, so smearing him and associating his name with terrorism (Obama-Osama) will have to do if your a Conservative. Playing up the fear of terrorism "the folks at home" feel is now a time honored technique among Conservatives.

For instance, when Keith Ellison - a Democrat who is Muslim - was elected to the House of Representatives a number of Conservatives attacked his nomination calling it a victory for the Jihadist.

Where in reality Ellison's election went unnoticed and uncelebrated by extremist. Islamic extremist are anti-Democracy and attack any other extremist groups who seem even slightly inclined to participate in a Democracy.

The attacks against Ellison that are now being leveled against Obama are just another tactic of the right wing to intimidate and mislead the Americans and make them fear their Democratic choice.

I used to be offended by Ann Coulter and all these other loose cannon Conservatives before I realized how deprived their minds were of any logical thinking and I thought what a sad place that must be. So then I began to feel sorry for them, but then I just realized how dangerous they were and stopped feeling sorry for them.

Ann Coulter in particular has the money to prove she can plagiarize a paragraph and distort the facts to sell a book that will appeal to a very strange demographic that has to be composed of white supremacist and perhaps even a few Uncle Ruckus characters.

By now it's obvious, Ann Coulter will say anything to get on TV and is working extra hard to stretch her fifteen minutes of fame into twenty. So the only real question would be : Is Ann virile enough to pull it off?

Republican Rhetoric Center For A Brainwashed America

I made the following picture over a year ago for giggles. It's still true, maybe even more so than it was a year ago.
The "Vote Republican, Your Life May Depend On It" seems especially relevant in light of Rudy Giuliani's recent comments.

Why Republicans Are Fighting An Uphill Battle In '08

Pity the Republicans, their base is so radical that when they appeal to their base they appal the rest of Americans.

The Republican base is the 28-30% of ideological neoconservative Americans who still support an unpopular war and an unpopular President. The base also has many other defining characteristics that will not be discussed today because war is the issue at hand.

Republican politicians [specifically this time around] are desperate to pander to their base and believe that pandering to their base is the only way to be elected.

The only problem with that notion is when your base is far outside the mainstream there is no way to appeal to the base and the majority of American voters, which are desperately needed to be elected.

On one hand you have John McCain who supports the recent troop surge that most Americans were opposed to and still defends going to war with Iraq although there were not any WMD's or 9/11 connection.

John McCain used to be favored by a number of Moderate and Independent voters before he started keeping company with radical Jerry Falwell, after admitting him to be an extremist.

McCain lost even more credibility with the independent minded when he gave out misleading information regarding the security of Iraq and then made a photo op trip to Baghdad to try to give the illusion of security in Baghdad. His misinformation was quickly noted by correspondents on the ground in Iraq as being "beyond ludicrous."

McCain didn't help himself either when he admitted that he sees no "plan b" for Iraq if the troop surge does not work.

McCain's latest incidents include singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys hit "Barbara Ann" and then deciding to use the "Barbara Ann" song at events.

McCain also flubbed when he "joked" to Jon Stewart that he had a present for him — an IED that he could place under his desk.

Leaving some to wonder that perhaps someone who cannot give honest assessments about the Iraq War and has no "plan b" for it, who takes lightly the possibility of having to bomb Iran and makes jokes about Improvised Explosive Devices should not be the next President of the United States.

On the other hand you have Rudy Giuliani, America's so called mayor. Giuliani can't get it right with the Conservatives he needs to pander to because he has been married three times and is just not Conservative enough for the real neocons, even though he advocates war.

Since Giuliani is having a hard time convincing the hardliners that he is a true neocon he has recently begun invoking the spirit of Ronald Reagan (the hero of the right) and referencing to his "leadership" after 9/11, even though Giuliani was slammed by the International Association of Fire Fighters, which is nation's largest firefighters union.

I had once viewed Giuliani as a real contender until recently because of his ability to siphon off Independent and Moderate voters still nostalgic for that courageous post 9/11 leader.

But Giuliani is driving a wedge between himself and the American people by pandering to neoconservatives by advocating an unpopular war and claiming only Republicans can keep America safe, especially if it is him. (wink, wink.) His mob ties aren't helping him either.

So there they are, the Republican front runners who can barely impress people in the same political party that make up their base.

So they have to try even harder to impress "the base" so it's essential to them to hammer extreme on the rhetoric which in turn only alienates them further from the rest of the voters who are a lot smarter and much less intimidated by threats and fear than they were a few years ago.

That's why the Republicans face an uphill battle in '08.

McCain Sees ‘No Plan B’ for Iraq War

“I have no Plan B,” [if the troop surge does not succeed in Iraq] Arizona Senator John McCain said in an interview with journalist from The New York Times.

No "Plan B"?

Isn't that one of the biggest problems with the war to begin with?

That invasion was planned without a "Plan B"?

The occupation was planned without a "Plan B" and now the surge is without a "Plan B".

Because we all know that the best way to win a war is to not to have a backup plan if your first plan does not succeed.

John McCain is a strong supporter of the war in Iraq and the recent troop surge and is running for President.

McCain has recently been ridiculed for giving out misleading information regarding the security of Iraq.

Senator McCain had asserted that “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today,” and that "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee."

Both statements of course, are untrue. Read McCain's April Fools Day Joke and McCain Lies To Media, Calls Media "Jerks" After Lies Are Exposed for more information regarding McCain's fairy tale vision of Baghdad.

McCain's April Fools Day Joke

Related : McCain Lies To Media, Calls Media "Jerks" After Lies Are Exposed

Once upon a time I believed that Arizona Senator John McCain was one of the few decent Republicans in this country. But once upon a time I also used to believe in Unicorns and Care Bears and the power of a good decoder ring.

You know John McCain. He's Mr. Strait Shooter, Mr. Strait Talk Express...

But lately, McCain's shooting and talking is no longer strait, but a little crooked.

When asked what "Plan B" was regarding the troop surge Condoleeza Rice replied "Plan B" was to make "Plan A" work. It seems now that Republicans and war supporters have resorted to "Plan C", lie your freaking ass off.

Last week McCain was ridiculed for saying “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today,” and "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee."

McCain's ridiculous assertions were obviously false and were quickly and hotly rebutted by CNN's Michael Ware.

“To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Sen. McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll.”

That's right, because there are not even any streets in Baghdad where an Iraqi can walk freely, so you might as well forget about an American doing it.

Ware also stated that “In the hour since Sen. McCain’s said this, I’ve spoken to military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly the general travels in a Humvee. There’s multiple Humvee around it, heavily armed.”

McCain looked like an ass, everyone was laughing at him. He sounded like a senile old fool trying to sell us snake-oil with the promise of eternal youth.

So now, to prove just how safe Baghdad really is on April Fools Day (of all days!) McCain went to a Baghdad market accompanied by 100 soldiers, 3 Black hawks and 2 Apache Gunships.

See how safe Baghdad is? You only need some odd 100 soldiers, 3 Black hawks and 2 Apache Gunships to be safe on the streets of Baghdad! Now, if only we had 100 soldiers, 3 Black hawks and 2 Apache Gunships for every Iraqi, imagine how safe Baghdad would be then!!

So, I think it's obvious. Senator McCain went into that Baghdad market with the intention of trying to prove that he had been correct in his assertion that it was safe to walk the streets in Baghdad.

What McCain really proved by his heavily armed visit was how just how unsafe it is in a Baghdad marketplace.

McCain illustrated perfectly just how dangerous the streets of Baghdad are when his intentions were to illustrate the exact opposite.

UPDATE : Think Progress reports that NBC Iraq correspondent Tom Aspell said this of McCain's marketplace visit :

“It looked as though the whole trip had been arranged by someone to get rid of the negative publicity about [McCain’s] remarks in the States earlier in the week.

"It seemed as though he’d come to Baghdad, made a point of going to a market, staging this kind of visit to the market, and it just seemed to backfire.” He remarked that this weekend’s deadly violence in Iraq “made the trip look rather foolish.”

McCain Lies To Media, Calls Media "Jerks" After Lies Are Exposed

The picture "strait talk" John McCain has been painting of Iraq is one of success and harmony.

A place where westerners can walk the streets safely and the commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq can travel around in an unarmed Humvee.

Sounds like "Mission Accomplished", right? The only problem with that scenario is that John McCain's claims about Iraq are completely false.

The Republican Senator from Arizona who wants to be President in 2008 is carrying such a large load of lies that one has to be surprised that the wheels on the "Strait Talk Express" have not blown out as a consequence.

It started on Monday when McCain claimed to radio host Bill Bennett “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today,”

The lie continued on Tuesday when McCain spewed out on CNN that "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee." McCain then claimed that those who said it was unsafe for Americans to leave the heavily fortified "Green Zone" were "giving the old line of three months ago."

Journalist Michael Ware, who has worked for both TIME and CNN and has been in Iraq for several years strongly disagrees.

Ware stated in response to McCain's claim that “To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Sen. McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll.”

Ware also stated that “In the hour since Sen. McCain’s said this, I’ve spoken to military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly the general travels in a Humvee. There’s multiple Humvee around it, heavily armed.”

Ware makes it quite clear that "Senator McCain is way off base on this one."

Watch the video below :



How dare McCain be so openly misleading about the conditions in Iraq? Is McCain that stupid, or does he think that the American people are that stupid?

This morning McCain was confronted by John Roberts of CNN with his fudging of the facts when Roberts stated “I checked with General Petraeus’s people overnight and they said he never goes out in anything less than an up-armored Humvee.”

Roberts also noted that a recent report by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey stated "no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat reporter could walk the streets of Baghdad without heavily armed protection.”

So not only has McCain's statements about Iraq been proven to be false by journalist Michael Ware, but also by former and current military officials.

But you know ole' strait talkin' McCain, he blundered “Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that.”

But McCain did say General Petraeus went out without protection, he said he went out in an "unarmed Humvee".

To top of his own audacity McCain also appeared on GOP friendly FOX News and stated that he sometimes lets “jerks from the media” on board his "Strait Talk Express" bus.

Nice talk from a guy who wants to be President of this country, who knowingly misleads those "jerks from the media" about the conditions in Iraq in order to try to gain temporary political points at home.

Welcome To America - We Are Junior Stalinist!

FOX is having a hard time being the odd man out. It's anchors are angry that Democrats did not want to participate in a one sided debate that would have been artfully spun to make Democrats look similar to demons.

As FOX licks it's wounds of rejection they are also lashing out at those who helped kill the debate : the Progressive Left.

MoveOn.Org and Daily Kos were singled out by FOX's Beltway Boys co-host Mort Kondracke.

“This tells you a lot about what Moveon.org, Daily Kos kind of left-wing liberals are all about. I mean they are not about free speech and free debate.” He added, “This is junior grade Stalinism on their part.”

"Junior grade Stalinism?" I bet old Morty got up awfully early in the morning to come up with that one. You want to know how I know that? Because you'd have to be pretty groggy, and pretty out if it - to believe some kind of propaganda like that.

Liberals (even us "Junior Stalinist) believe in the power of free speech and free debate. We also believe in the power of hate speech and spun debate, so please forgive us if we sit this one out.

As written in my last post, if FOX had wanted a fair and honest debate they should not have spent the weeks leading up to the debate filling their air time with baseless smears on Democrats, everyone in America is not as ignorant as FOX News would like them to be.

Hilariously Morty claims that “If Fox was embarrassingly right wing or something like that, it would be plain for all to see.”

When are they going to make a keyboard key that conveys hysterical laughter? I need it right now, because LOL or HAHA, just doesn't cut it this time.

IT IS PLAIN FOR EVERYONE (well, everyone with the Beta brain wave) TO SEE! How about FOX's fudged Bush polls? How about FOX's blatant right wing bias? That does not constitute as "embarrassingly right wing"? Hmm, never would have guessed...

If FOX were not "embarrassingly right wing" why would it constantly lash out at Liberals and Democrats and praise Republicans, even Republican criminals like Tom DeLay?

If FOX were not "embarrassingly right wing" then why would they constantly attack and refer to the allegedly Liberal media?

It is because FOX is "embarrassingly right wing". No one else can watch it without becoming sick to their stomach.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Conservative news sources, but FOX isn't even a Conservative new source, it is a right wing propaganda machine, and there is quite a difference.

Why Was The Fox News Debate Killed?

Democrats reacted with disbelief when the Nevada Democratic Party agreed to let FOX News host a Presidential debate, with no other co-sponsors.

This should come as no surprise. FOX News, after all has been the champion of running Conservative talking points and baseless smearing of Democrats for years now.

The blogosphere (this blog not included) erupted into protest, how could the Nevada Democrats be so blind? Were they that eager to be accepted by Conservatives who will loathe them no matter what, that they were willing to sacrifice their integrity by recognizing FOX News as a legitimate news source?

There may have been a time when FOX News was a legitimate news source, but for all of my adult life, it has not been, and only carries the type of parasites that are capable of offending Independents, Moderates and Democrats in this country.

FOX has been host to countless "Obama-Osama" smears, run dozens of false and misleading banners on it's programs and has allowed and encouraged extremist to appear on their programming, and despite their claim -- is about as far from fair and balanced as Al-Manar TV is.

Democrats should have never agreed to do let FOX host a debate in the first place. FOX is not news for Moderates, Independents and Democrats, it is entertainment aimed at Conservatives.

FOX had no intentions of hosting a fair and balanced debate, it was their intention to try to spin the debate in favor of Conservatives, and you could have expected banners like "Why does Hillary Hate America?" or "Can America Accept Osama's Muslim Past?"

Anyone with even the slightest amount of observation skills knows that the FOX debate was a setup and a sham from the beginning. Nothing more than an opportunity for ultra unreasonable hate junkies like Bill O' Reilly and Sean Hannity to attack Democrats in a completely controlled environment. (FOX refused to let anyone else co-sponsor the event.)

Predictably, Conservative mouthpieces refuse to see the truth - that Democrats pulled out of the debate because FOX has repeatedly broadcast false or misleading information, not only regarding Democrats, but the War On Terror, the War in Iraq and the Bush Administration.

Conservative mouthpieces instead choose self denial, claiming that Democrats are afraid of the one sided spun debate.

But what really did FOX in was some of it's most recent comments, an alleged joke aimed at Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, who FOX anchors have repeatedly tried to smear as having some kind of association with terrorism.

"And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?" Roger Ailes, Fox President.

Like with most low blows Conservatives like to throw, they also like to claim whatever offensive remark they made was only a "joke".

Steve Young, blogging for Huffington Post is claiming that the joke that was made at Barack Obama's expense that insinuated Obama was a terrorist was actually a joke made at the expense of President Bush that had insinuated the President couldn't find terrorist.

WHAT?? Wait a minute... WHAT??

We are talking about the same FOX News right? The same FOX News that makes a living broadcasting servile flattery towards President Bush, is now insulting President Bush? Calling him dumb? I don't think so, give me a break.

Anyone who believes that must be ... some kind of Conservative living in denial or completely blind, and deaf.

THANKS TO STEVE YOUNG AND HIS VERY INFORMATIVE BLOG we now know for certain what sort of tactic and spin the Radical Red's are going to try to put on this one - from the mouth of the horse, or at least one of them. "Well, I wasn't calling Obama a terrorist, I was calling Bush an idiot. Jeez, I guess you can't please the Liberals either way, boo-hoo." and they will believe in that hogwash.

The fact of the matter is FOX News has a very well known tendency to demean anything that is Democratic, smear anyone who is Liberal or Independent from them and present a very slanted view of most news that could even be considered disinformation at times.

Democrats, in their eagerness to reach out to Conservatives tried to give FOX the benefit of the doubt and allow them to host a Presidential Debate, practicably FOX screwed that up.

It is no one's fault but FOX that FOX choose to continue to smear Barack Obama and the Democratic Party without basis, therefore it is no one's fault but FOX that the Democrats cancelled the debate.

It has nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with integrity.

Giuliani in '08?

Today Rudy Giuliani filed a "statement of candidacy" with the Federal Election Commission, signaling his intent to run for President in 2008.

Rudy Giuliani was the major of New York City when the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred. Because Giuliani stood on a lot of ruble and attended a lot of funerals and because Giuliani was a Republican he has become their "icon" of 9/11.

One cannot look at Rudy Giuliani without being forced to recall the tragic events of September 11, 2001, which is precisely why I would prefer to never see Rudy Giuliani again. It's not so much personal, I just don't like to linger around a grave site five years after the funeral is over.

Republicans embrace Giuliani because Giuliani evokes images of the 9/11 American hero and Republicans yearn for a return to "the good old days" immediately following 9/11 when their leadership, motives and decisions were not questioned in a frightening new world of terrorism, fear and justified revenge.

Giuliani is favorable for many Republicans because with the evocation of the post 9/11 mindset by one of it's Republican "hero's" helps to justify atrocities in Iraq and the Middle East with the "Remember 9/11" mantra.

While Giuliani may find challenges because of his abortion and gay rights stance, he may be able to nab some Democratic and Independent voters who would not vote for John McCain because his hawkish tendencies.

Because many Republicans still refuse to admit a failed agenda in the Middle East and are quickly losing support for that policy their wild card appears to be Rudy Giuliani, "Remember 9/11" because that is the reason we are fighting people in Iraq, why we want to fight people in Iran and why we don't help Palestine, etc. etc... And look, he's "moderate" too.

Why on earth would we want to look at Rudy Giuliani for four years? It's an honest question because haven't we spent the past five years hashing and rehashing 9/11?

Because tough guy Giuliani was a mayor in city that got attacked by terrorist suddenly he has credentials to be the President, during a time when the duty holds more responsibility than usual? That the man who led New York out of the dark days following 9/11 can lead us threw the dark days of Iraq?

Please say it isn't so.