The Truth About the SURGE!

I've avoided this topic long enough, mostly because it's been beaten to death on the Bill Manders show (hell, they're re-running his Friday show on this topic today), but I couldn't resist once I saw his headline.

RGJ: Cheney Lashes Out at Harry Reid

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada on Tuesday of pursuing a defeatest strategy in Iraq to win votes in the next election -- a charge Reid said did not warrant a response.

The two sparred hours after President Bush said he will veto the latest war spending bill taking shape in Congress, which includes a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.

Cheney, after attending the weekly Republican policy lunch on Capitol Hill, lashed out at Reid.

"Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics," Cheney said. "Sen. Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election.

"It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage," Cheney said.

Reid, D-Nev., dismissed Cheney's remarks later to reporters, but not before getting in his own dig at the vice president.

"I'm not going to get into a name calling match with the administration's chief attack dog," Reid said.

That last line killed me. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, but you have to admit that calling someone a name whilst saying that you don't want to enter a name-calling match is funny, even if Cheney is the administration's attack dog. If I were Harry Reid, I would've put a sarcastic spin on a term of esteem, such as "I'm not going to get into a name calling match with the always dignified, never unintelligent Vice President."

Cheney's assessment of the War on Iraq giving the Democrats seats in the next election is actually quite accurate, but also quite obvious. The Democrats don't really have to do anything to gain seats in the next election. But is political gain the main reason why Sen. Reid even uttered the words "the war is lost" in succession?

No. He said them because it's the truth, and as I always say, the truth has a liberal bias.

The truth is that Iraq has gotten really deadly, not just for Iraqis, but our soldiers as well. Larry Johnson, who "worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism" (so he knows a thing or two about terrorism and war), wrote on his blog last Wednesday that 364 Iraqis were killed between April 15th and April 18th (source). Yesterday he wrote that 9 American soldiers were killed and 20 more were injured "in a suicide car bombing against a patrol base northeast of the capital in Diyala province" (source, quoting an AP article). Read those articles and tell me that the SURGE! is going well.

Some people (including Manders) say that we liberals want the SURGE! to fail. We already know that it will fail, because this isn't the first SURGE!. Oh no, there've been other SURGE!s over the past 3 years. Does "Operation Together Forward" ring a bell? It should, because that was when we SURGE!d into Iraq between July and October 2006 (source). You know how Bush says that he listens to "the generals on the ground?" Well, he didn't listen to Major General William Caldwell, who said that Operation Together Forward "[did not meet] our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence" (source). So even the generals on the ground didn't think that that SURGE! worked.

Further SURGE!s can be documented in the Brookings Institute's Iraq Index (PDF link). The table in question is on page 23, titled "Coalition Troop Strength in Iraq since May 2003," and that table was taken from tens of articles and statistical compilations. This table shows numerous other SURGE!s, such as the SURGE! that happened between September and November 2005 (22,000 additional troops with no long-term benefits), or the between November 2004 and February 2005 (12,000 additional troops with no long-term benefits), or even the SURGE! between January and May 2004 that happened during troop rotations (7,000 troops reduction followed by a 20,000 troop addition with no long-term benefits).

So the right-wingers won't tell you that there have actually been nearly as many troop SURGE!s as there have been Rocky movies. The only reason why this is news is because the Democrats are now in power, and President Bush isn't used to not getting his way. This story has spread throughout the Right Wing Talking Points Network, hitting just about every major conservative talk show in the country. I'm surprised that a petition hasn't been created to try and recall Reid. There sure has been enough talk of it on right-wing websites. That's just like the typical conservative: all talk and no walk.

It is in this vein that I urge you to call Senator Reid and tell him that you support his views. It's great Americans like him that will help get our troops out of a civil war in Iraq and actually working to capture the real bad guy from 9/11. Does anyone remember a guy named Osama bin Laden?

Reno Office: (775) 686-5750
Carson City Office: (775) 882-7343
Las Vegas Office: (702) 388-5020
Congressional Office: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) (Nevadans only); (202) 224-3542

~ Deep Blue

Update (11:22 PM PDT): JWH over at The Blog Formerly Known as "No Gibbons" has the Reid quote listed above as "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating" in his latest post. This quoting comes from the New York Times. I am going to keep my quote as-is because the RGJ article still states it as above, although this alternate quote (additional quote?) is just as funny.

America All Bushed Out

Former President George H.W. Bush says that the American people may be experiencing "Bush fatigue," or at least that's what he said on Larry King Live.

Video:
Larry King Interview on CNN

CNN Political Ticker:
Bush Sr.: 'Bush fatigue' may be setting in

These comments were a response to Mitt Romney stating his admiration of Jeb Bush, saying that if his last name weren't Bush, Jeb would be the front-runner in the GOP primary. Bush 41 agrees and reveals that this is why Jeb is staying out of the '08 Republican presidential nomination race, but that "he's got a future" in politics. Hopefully that future is relegated to a position as a talking head on Fox News.

Finally, Bush 41 realizes that the country has the same thing that the left has had since Bush v. Gore was decided in 2000. We are sick and tired of Bush's failed policies, we are weary of W's ill-informed and out-of-touch rhetoric, and we are working to set things right.

It is in the same Bush fatigue vein that I have trouble supporting Hillary Clinton. I don't want to look back in 2024 and realize that the past 5 presidents were Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, with Chelsea as the '24 Democratic front-runner. That's why I am, at this point in time, a Barack Obama supporter. Quite frankly, it's too early to tell on either side of the aisle on who the nominee would be. Even Bush 41 doesn't have a favorite on either side.

I have no dog in that hunt, but three good men are leading and there are some others too. Anyway I can't talk bad about the Democrats. It's very, very early, but it's comfortable to be on the sidelines.

In this recent rash of political parties pushing up their primaries almost into this year, I too feel good on the sidelines, just watching events unfold. It opens up the possibility for a Bill Clinton-esque dark horse candidate that will lead the Dems to victory in '08. Yeah yeah, it's a long shot, but I still have my fingers crossed.

~ Deep Blue

John Edwards' Expensive Haircut

Sigh...

AP via The Boston Globe: Edwards' Haircuts Cost a Pretty Penny

Looking pretty is costing John Edwards' presidential campaign a lot of pennies. The Democrat's campaign committee picked up the tab for two haircuts at $400 each by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva of Beverly Hills, Calif., according to a financial report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

FEC records show Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H., which is described on its Web site as "a unique boutique for the mind, body and face" that caters mostly to women.

A spokeswoman for Edwards' campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

What pisses me off the most about this is that it goes against Edwards' small-town common man image. A small-town common man would get his hair cut at SuperCuts or a local haircut place, not a "hair salon." Way to connect to Middle America, John.

This story is tailor-made for the right-wing. They'll say, "He pays $1275 for 4 haircuts, just like he has that expensive house in North Carolina." Also notice what the first two words of the article are: Looking pretty. Is this author channeling Ann Coulter or something? She sure sounds like she's playing into the "John Edwards is a girlie-man" conservative stereotype.

The right-wing blogs should be picking up on this now, because the story only broke on the AP an hour or so ago. It'll be interesting to hear what they have to say. I better head over to Free Republic.

I (and other progressives like myself) want a Democratic common man (or woman) to lead the way, but many of these Democrats are not it. Hillary Clinton is always schmoozing with Hollywood, and now John Edwards has joined the fray with his celebrity stylist haircuts. I like Edwards' policies, but this incident shows that he's not focusing on that image enough. I also like Barack Obama because it sounds like he is connecting with us common folk. While he raised $24 million, just under Hillary's $25 mil, the FEC records showed that he received money from twice as many donors as Hillary, and more than Hillary and Edwards combined.

And Edwards wonders why he's trailing in the polls and donations. Oh well, at least he reported them, right?

I really want a Democrat to win (surprise surprise), and so I want to help them win. Four haircuts totaling $1275 is not the way to go.

~ Deep Blue

Deep Blue on Thom Hartmann

Just wanted to let you all know that I got on the Thom Hartmann program today, towards the tail-end of the second hour of his show, to talk about the Manders incident. He thought that it was great, saying "Good on ya, Deep Blue!" after I quickly recapped my experience to him. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to mention that I stopped him short of his expected path: Bashing Al Gore (probably also jabbing him about global warning) and illegal immigration in conjunction with Democratic policies. Nor was I able to mention that I wrote about it in my blog.

It was great talking with him, and I hope that I get on again in the future for another reason.

Maybe I should start pestering Manders and Michael Lafferty of the RN&R and any other right-winger who peddles in lies.

~ Deep Blue

Manders on Social Security = Wrong!

Sorry for the lack of posts...my job's been a killer lately.

So I got a little bit of a pleasant surprise as I was wending my way home yesterday. I was listening to Bill Manders on KOH rant about God knows what (probably something to do with illegal immegration or Nancy Pelosi's Syria trip, two of his favorite topic as of late), and all of a sudden he switches gears. He says that he is about to read something that will either "light up the phone boards" or make the lines go silent, as in something that either everyone or no one knows. So I perked up my ears and took a listen.

Then he began reading something I heard before. On liberal talk. Where they debunked everything line by line thanks to a well-researched Snopes article (link).

What did he read? Social Security talking points.

He asked for people to give the answer to a program that originally:

1. Was completely voluntary
2. Participants would only pay 1% of the first $1400 of income
3. Monies invested would be tax-deductible, and
4. Annuity payments would not be taxed as income.

I had to call. To be fair, I didn't hear those last two (or know if those last two were even spoken) because I was dialing and talking to the call screener about my answer. I didn't want to give out my real name (though I toyed with "Blue"), so I gave the first name I could think of: Roy, after Roy Rogers. I was put on hold.

Whilst on hold, I heard that Manders pick up another person's line, a guy by the name of Steve. Steve correctly stated that it was Social Security that Manders was talking about. Since the Social Security list came out of a spam e-mail, I have a feeling that's where he heard it. The whole e-mail is full of anti-Democrat lies that have been well documented and debunked, so I was confident that I could set them straight if I got on the air.

I have to tell you before I continue: It's easier to scream at a radio host when you're not on the phone with him. Also, some of the wording may not be the same as how it actually happened, but the spirit is the same. I didn't tape it (I wish I had) and don't have a transcript. If you do, my e-mail's to the right.

Anyway, I was listening to Steve's exchange with Manders, who asked the caller about which president took Social Security from the independent fund and put it in the General fund. He didn't know, so Manders said "Let's see if Roy knows."

Showtime.

He asked me the same question, and I said that I too did not know. (The correct answer is no president, because the money has not been moved since the program's inception in 1939, but I honestly didn't know off-hand.) He asked me what I wanted to talk about, and I responded that I was going to answer "Social Security" as my answer but that he talked to Steve first. He then had both of us stay on, as sort of a competition to see who knew the talking points more. The killer for me: He called us "smart guys." Oh Manders, if you only knew...

He then moved down the line and asked us a question that I did know the answer to: I don't remember at this point in time, but I know it began with "Which political party..." Steve answered "The Democrats." Manders then asked me, and I said, "Well, I would say the Democrats, but the problem is that it would be a lie that was debunked on Snopes.com."

Manders was taken aback for a quick second but kept going. "It's all a lie, huh." I said something to the effect of "Yeah, it originated from a spam e-mail going around." He said that in fact he had compiled all of these "facts" (my air quotes). Not knowing how to react, I said, "Oh, I though you got those from an e-mail because the $1400 thing tipped me off."

That was it. I was done. He said "Nice talkin' to you," and I said, "No problem."

There were many things that I should have said. I should've told him that I heard the same talking points two days ago on the Thom Hartmann show on Air America. I should've told the listeners that the truth is out there. I should have said my blog name, or at least something more intelligent than "no problem," but that was that. I turned off my cell and continued listening.

Not surprisingly, Steve "won" the debate. However, I believe that this debate ended prematurely. Manders was going to go on down the line, spouting falsehoods all the way. I bet he would've gone down to Al Gore causing the taxation of Social Security annuities in 1993 (they were taxed at 50% in 1983, a joint effort from President Reagan and the Democratically-controlled Congress; the 1993 effort made that 85%). He then would've mentioned his personal favorite, given his propensity to talking about immigrants every other show: Jimmy Carter and the Democrats started giving annuity payments to immigrants who never would've paid a dime into the system. Which would've segued into a tirade about the Democrats and immigration, sliding into the topic of illegal immigrants and the Millennium Scholarship, his topic on today's show.

But he didn't get that far. I cut him short, and he wasn't interested in having someone steal his thunder. He just said, "Yeah, Social Security is not what it was intended to be," without a second thought to "Roy". I just wish I had a print-out of the Snopes page in front of me, where I could've quoted part of the Social Security Act.

Oh well, too many coulda-woulda-shoulda's. Time to focus on the future. I'm going to call Thom Hartmann on AAR tomorrow to tell him about my experience. To the rest of you, keep on the lookout for right-wingers spouting the same lies about Social Security. I provided the debunking link above, but here it is again: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp.

~ Deep Blue a.k.a. "Roy"

Elizabeth Edwards' Cancer Returns

John Edwards announced that his wife's cancer has returned, but that he will not be suspending his 2008 presidential campaign bid after discussing it with Elizabeth (source).

The cancer was found in a cracked rib over the past few days. This isn't Elizabeth's first bout with cancer, receiving treatment for breast cancer in 2004 during the Kerry Campaign.

Not to be hindered by this latest setback, Edwards says that he will still run. "You can go cower in the corner and hide or you can go out there and stand up for what you believe in," he said. "We have no intentions of cowering in the corner" (same source as above).

Good for him. The decision to continue to run for president is a family decision, and it reinforces the great family values that this country stands for. I wish that more people in both parties would be more like him, although I've noticed that more of those people come from the left. I really wish the best for the two of them and their family.

That being said, I can't wait to hear what the right-wingers are gonna say about him. Will Ann "Succubus" Coulter say Edwards is a "faggot" for not stepping down? What will Rush say? What will Manders say?

I think I'm gonna have to go into Right-Wing Radio World and find out. (Why do I always feel so dirty when I say that?)

~ Deep Blue

Edit: Rush Limbaugh is hinting on his radio show at 9:52 AM PDT that the Edwards campaign will be testing the waters to see if there's a "bump" from this story, almost insinuating that Edwards revealed it to help his campaign as opposed to showing actual concern. His response to people calling him callous? "That's politics." No, Rush, that's sickening.

Further Edit: The Freepers are out in force echoing Rush about Edwards exploiting his wife's illness (link). There are a couple that sympathize, and some even say that Edwards was being very genuine, but most decide to make one-lines calling him every name under the sun for having the audacity to continue running (a joint decision between John and Elizabeth, remember) in the face of this terrible announcement. Thank you, sick predictable right-wingers, for proving my point. This is the reason while I will never become a conservative.

Furtherer Edit: Apparently I wasn't the only one on the left who caught Rush Limbaugh's comment about Edwards using his wife's illness as a boost to his campaign. Not only was this talked about on Air America by Stacy Taylor (filling in for Randi Rhodes) for the first two hours of his show, but also MSNBC's Countdown's Keith Olbermann named El Rushbo the Worst Person in the World for the stunt. Of course Rush won't apologize. After all, "that's politics."

Watch the clip here.