How The Bush Administration Supported The Troops

If you look around, you can still see some of those colorful "Support Our Troops" magnets that some put on their cars.

Too bad the Bush Administration didn't support the troops like they expected the rest of us to.

Case in point: Water.

The CBS reported:

Stories of short supplies for American forces in Iraq, such as inadequate body armor or unshielded Hummers, have been around since the war began. CBS affiliate KHOU-TV in Houston has discovered that some soldiers were forced to ration water, perhaps as little as 2-3 liters per day, because there was never enough.

According to the report, the Army recommended 15 liters of water per day could be lost in the desert heat and these guys got as little as 2, maybe three liters.

Good thing was that it wasn't widespread:

While many soldiers have said they had adequate access to water, and even Gatorade, KHOU found that the differing experiences seemed to have a great deal to do with when and where a soldier was deployed in Iraq, and their assignment.

Here's KHOU's report.

So early in the war, some of the boots on the ground had some harsh choices:

Army Staff Sgt. Dustin Robey told KHOU correspondent Jeremy Rogalski that soldiers would throw up or pass out from dehydration.

Chronic dehydration can lead to such problems as kidney stones, urinary infection, rectal afflictions and skin problems, and can have long-term health problems, including kidney injury.

Robey said in 2003 his company would run out of water on missions, forcing them to improvise, like drinking water from whatever taps they found.

Unfortunately, the often-untreated Iraqi water can cause intestinal illnesses. Robey said 50 to 60 members of his company got dysentery.

Hmm...dysentery or dehydration.

Any idea who was in charge of water over there in Bush's war? That's right:

The water was supposed to be processed by Houston-based company KBR.

Ah...the one-time Halliburton subsidiary, KBR. The same KBR responsible for all the dirty water and bad electrical work.

But:

KBR told KHOU that a Department of Defense Inspector General's report has concluded "KBR has (since) satisfied applicable water standards," adding that "the DoD has not found any illness which it attributes to water in Iraq."

Looks like they've fixed things. Tell that to Robey:

He says he's passed hundreds of kidney stones since returning form Iraq, and because of his condition the Army forced him to retire. His family is now facing foreclosure.

Another great moment for the Bush legacy.

Going Galt! (maybe next week)

Pandagon notes that even the blogger for Going John Galt hasn't managed to get around to going galt. These guys are just like Texas -- secede already!

And, their post gives me an excuse to put up a graphic that I did back in March but never got around to using here. I give you Going Galt! magazine:


(Click for larger image)
.

John Yoo, Torture Enabler, Inquirer Columnist

And, according to mediamatters, a bad one.

In his latest column, Yoo comes out swinging with a baseball metaphor but strikes out with an old GOP talking point:

In 2007, candidate Obama declared that his judges would "recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African American or gay or disabled or old." When he announced Souter's retirement, the president stated he would nominate "someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives." Empathy is "an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."

In his 2005 confirmation hearings, Roberts compared judges to neutral umpires in a baseball game. Sen. Obama did not vote to confirm Roberts or Alito, but now proposes to appoint a Great Empathizer who will call balls and strikes with a strike zone that depends on the sex, race, and social and economic background of the players. Nothing could be more damaging to the fairness of the game, or to the idea of a rule of law that is blind to the identity of the parties before it.

Empathy has a proper place in other areas of life, such as medicine or charitable work. And the law does take account of a party's identity when necessary - in deciding whether someone has suffered racial or gender discrimination, for example. But judges should not apply these rules differently in individual cases because of the skin color, or sex, or religion of the plaintiff or defendant.

We've seen this argument before. It, of course, ignores what President Obama actually said:

I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.

But mediamatters has more:

But Yoo was not nearly as negative about demonstrations of empathy by a judge when he described the reasoning behind the judicial decisions of Justice Clarence Thomas, for whom Yoo clerked. To the contrary, in a review of Thomas' 2007 memoir, My Grandfather's Son (HarperCollins) -- in which Yoo praised Thomas' "unique, powerful intellect" and commitment to "the principle that the Constitution today means what the Framers thought it meant" -- Yoo touted the unique perspective that he said Thomas brings to the bench. Yoo wrote that Thomas "is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals who take potshots at him" and argued that Thomas' work on the court has been influenced by his understanding of the less fortunate acquired through personal experience.

John Yoo, torture enabler, bad columnist, and now hypocrite.

Late Night Music Post: "Hey, Miss California"

From the singer/songwriter of Hey Paul Krugman comes Hey, Miss California:



(h/t to firedoglake/La Figa)
.

Things That Make You Go Ewwww

Philadelphia Inquirer hires John "Torture Architect" Yoo as a columnist

Arlen Specter hires Joe Lieberman's fundraiser

Gay soldier forced to beg Obama not to fire him
.

A picture is worth a thousand words...so why use the worst one?

I know that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette endorsed Pittsburgh City Councilor Patrick Dowd for mayor, but I have to wonder again why they print such terribly unflattering photos of him?

I'm sure that this photograph...


accurately represents how Dowd looked for a split second or so (it's not like I think they rock the Photoshop like me -- or the NYT), but I'm certain that the photo was one out of many which were taken that they had to choose from.

So why pick the one that makes him look like he was screaming at the top of his lungs (or made me feel like I was a doctor holding a tongue depressor)?

If I was a voter who wasn't paying much attention to the mayoral race up until this point and I saw this picture it might sway me against Dowd or at the very least not make me want to find out more about him.

And, it's a shame because the issue is real:

The back-and-forth started with Mr. Dowd standing across the street from the Grant Street Transportation Center, with its unfinished Lamar Advertising electronic billboard. His campaign staff brought a cardboard check for $101,000 -- the approximate amount of post-resignation payments and benefits that former Urban Redevelopment Authority Executive Director Pat Ford is getting as part of an agreement that bars him and city officials from disparaging each other.

"That's hush money!" Mr. Dowd shouted, as his neck reddened and passers-by stopped to listen. "That's a sign of corruption. That's unacceptable in this city."

That arrangement stemmed from winter 2008 revelations that the city -- with guidance from Mr. Ford -- let Lamar have a permit and a no-bid contract to put a 19-by-58-foot sign on the center. When Mr. Ford confirmed that he'd received Christmas gifts from a Lamar executive, a State Ethics Commission review ensued, Mr. Ford accused the administration of a "culture of deception and corruption," and the two sides reached the settlement that Mr. Dowd brandished yesterday

This isn't the first time that the P-G has used what had to have been the least flattering picture taken to illustrate an article. Remember this one which made the very tall Dowd look like a dwarf?


Granted that Dowd was animated -- even passionate -- when speaking about the billboard issue, but judge for yourself if the first photograph above really represents the press conference he held:




(h/t to The Pittsburgh Comet for the video.)
.

Following the money

While blogger Bram Reichbaum asks where Lil Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's campaign dollars are being spent (as I did here) and even ties Ravenstahl to disgraced former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, I say if you've really been paying attention, it's obvious where the bucks are going -- Rogaine and Hair Club for Men don't pay for themselves!* -- and if Lukey doesn't, uh, stay on top of things he could end up looking like this:


And, then he might not be Pittsburgh's favorite grandson anymore...


* After all, it wouldn't be the first time he spent campaign dollars on his appearance.
.

For the Teabaggers

From Crooks and Liars and my inbox:


.

The IG Report On The CIA's Torture

The Washington Post reported yesterday about an Inspecter General's classified report regarding the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques torture.:

According to excerpts included in those memos, the inspector general's report concluded that interrogators initially used harsh techniques against some detainees who were not withholding information. Officials familiar with its contents said it also concluded that some of the techniques appeared to violate the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by the United States in 1994.

I know the usual retort: But Admiral Blair said torture worked! Setting aside the obvious fact that whether it worked it's still illegal, the Post reported:

According to excerpts included in those memos, the inspector general's report concluded that interrogators initially used harsh techniques against some detainees who were not withholding information. Officials familiar with its contents said it also concluded that some of the techniques appeared to violate the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by the United States in 1994.

Although some useful information was produced, the report concluded that "it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks," according to the Justice Department's declassified summary of it. The threat of such an imminent attack was cited by the department as an element in its 2002 and later written authorization for using harsh techniques.

They tortured who were not withholding information? So either they got all the information they could from them and then tortured them further or there was no information to be had - but tortured them anyway. Nice.

Sam Stein at HuffingtonPost writes:

A CIA inspector general's report from May 2004 that is set to be declassified by the Obama White House will almost certainly disprove claims that waterboarding was only used in controlled circumstances with effective results.

And then:

But there is no need to wait for the report's declassification. Information from its pages was already made public in the footnotes of the Office of Legal Counsel memos written by Steven Bradbury in 2005 and released by the current administration less than one month ago.

And the footnote:

"The difference was in the manner in which the detainee's breathing was obstructed," read the footnote, citing the IG report. "At the SERE school and in the DoJ opinion, the subject's airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contrast, the Agency interrogator... applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee's mouth and nose."

Medical personnel at the detention facility protested the use of the waterboard in that form, stressing that "there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used by the psychologist/interrogators was either efficacious or medically safe.'"

The interesting part of all this is something Talkingpointsmemo has published.

This goes way beyond strange bedfellows. But it looks like Dick Cheney has emerged as the single most forceful proponent of a full investigation of the Bush administration's torture policies.

In an interview on CBS's Face The Nation yesterday, the ex-veep claimed, as he has before, that the Obama administration's rejection of torture has made us less safe. But he also went further ever in repeatedly arguing -- contra congressional Republicans -- that we need to look back at the details of the torture program before moving forward.

And he wants memos released and:

Cheney even told Schieffer that he'd "talk to" congressional investigators about the program, adding: " I wouldn't be out here today if I didn't feel comfortable talking about what we're doing publicly."

Ok. Fine. Let's have the discussion at least. Or as TPM says:

Listen To Dick Cheney: Investigate Torture.

It has the added bonus of being the law.

Trib Editorial Echo Chamber Is At It Again

Every Monday Richard Mellon Scaife's Editorial Board over there at his Tribune-Review publishes something it calls "Media Monday." The page describes itself as:

[S]ome of the latest outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes from or about the liberal media, courtesy of the Media Research Center...

I know we've touched on this before, but the Media Research Center is also partially owned by Richard Mellon Scaife, through the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which he controls.

Nice how that's nice and circular, isn't it?

Anyway, today they join the conservative smear campaign against Judge Sonia Sotomayer, possible Supreme Court nominee. Here's what they write:

Some "centrist":

ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "I would say the leading candidate (for the Supreme Court), if there is one, is Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She's on the federal appeals court, Second U.S. Court of Appeals. She would be not only a woman, but the first Hispanic on the court. She's built up a strong centrist record on the court."

Judge Sotomayor's 2005 comments at Duke University: "Court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know ... I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't make law. I know (laughter from the crowd). Okay. I know. I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it (More laughter). I'm, you know -- OK (Sotomayor laughs)."

Sounds pretty damning, doesn't it?

Until, of course, you look at the context. Which, if Scaife's editorial board even bothered to look, they choose not to tell you - the reading public. Not that they'd want stupid things like facts get in the way of a good smear.

Mediamatters.org is on this one. 4 Days ago, on the 7th of May, they published this debunking smackdown of a similar Fox "News" story (and so I am surprised that Scaife's board didn't just move on to complaining about Wanda Sykes or Obama's Dijon mustard).

Their summary:

Fox News host Jane Skinner asserted that Judge Sonia Sotomayor "is coming under some fire for making some comments that were recorded on tape a while back, saying that it's her job, really, to make policy from the bench." In fact, Sotomayor did not say "it's her job" as a federal circuit court judge to "make policy from the bench."

In the piece, Mediamatters prints out the whole paragraph from which the MRC (and therefore the Scaife's board) takes its snippet. In it she's responding to a question about the difference between being a clerk at a District Court and the Court of appeals. Here's where they take their snippet:

The saw is that if you're going into academia, you're going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is -- court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK.

And here is her explanation of that. It's the very next sentence, by the way:

Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating -- its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you're on the district court, you're looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you're always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. [emphasis added.]

Oh, so that's what she meant by "policy."

To read the Scaife screed, you'd've thought she meant that the Court of Appeals just made stuff up.

And I bet that's what the Trib's Editorial Board wants you to think.

Sestak Straw Poll

Did you know an organization called the Progressive Campaign Change Committee has a straw poll out?

Politico.com has the story:

A liberal political group, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, went live Wednesday with an online straw poll designed to gauge progressive support for a Democratic primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter.

More specifically, the effort is aimed at determining the depth of Netroots support for Rep. Joe Sestak, the two-term Democrat who hasn’t ruled out running against Specter.

Some background:

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which is devoted to electing progressive candidates to office, plans to announce the results of the unscientific survey Monday — perhaps providing a signal to Sestak as to how much support he can expect from the online liberal grass roots.

Adam Green, a co-founder of the five-month-old organization, said that his group’s goal was to “call the question on a primary in general and whether Sestak’s the candidate in particular.”

“Our hope is that this will have an impact on the political environment in which Joe Sestak makes his decision and in which the larger political world makes their evaluation,” Green said. “If it turns out that it’s 50-50, that would be very informative. If it’s 90-10 in favor of Sestak, that would be very informative too.”

The committee has teamed up with prominent liberal blogs, including Daily Kos, as well as local Pennsylvania political Web sites to circulate the poll. Voting ends at 10 a.m. on Monday, and users can track ongoing results on the poll’s site.

Here's the poll.

Race For The Cure

My lovely wife is at today's Race For The Cure in Oakland.

Local TV news is reporting on the TV that there are 30,000 expected to be there.

UPDATE: Some local coverage

• KDKA
• WTAE

Post-Gazette Makes Its Mayoral Endorsement

Today:

With its shrinking population, impending contract negotiations with city unions and growing pension and debt problems, Pittsburgh doesn't have time to wait for Mr. Ravenstahl, 29, of Summer Hill, to gradually evolve toward more sound positions. The city needs a stronger, forward-looking mayor who can move Pittsburgh ahead now.

And finally:

The Post-Gazette endorses Patrick Dowd for the Democratic nomination for mayor on May 19.

Meanwhile In Texas...

CNN is reporting:


From Thinkprogress:

CNN reports that Texas hospitals are charging women who have been raped thousands of dollars for their rape kits that are collected by police as part of their investigations. According to CNN, Texas’s crime victim compensation fund consistently has a surplus and could likely cover these expenses.

Weren't they thinking of seceding?

There's more from Click2Houston.com:

Attorney General's spokesman Jerry Strickland said the crime victim fund is enforcing strict guidelines imposed by the legislature as to which bills are paid and which victims are sent a denial notice.

Otherwise, he said that fund could become "insolvent.

"He said state law is clear that crime victims must exhaust all other potential funding sources, such as local police or their own health insurance.

"The legislature set it up that way," said Strickland.

And then:

Health care workers and rape crisis counselors told Local 2 Investigates that victims have come forward with denial letters for varying reasons, such as police listing the case as inactive, paperwork being filed incorrectly, or expenses falling into the wrong category.

Young, the advocate at Houston Area Women's Center said, "They're not dotting the Is and crossing the Ts to make sure that the person who was victimized does not have to re-live it six months later because they get a bill."

Who does this?

The President's Weekly Address

The text can be found here.

Senator Specter's Cancer Cure Website

Adam Green at the dailykos is reporting:

Arlen Specter's campaign has quietly changed his "Specter for the Cure" website after initially denying it was a scandal.

And he's got the screen shots to prove it.

For those not following the story, Eric Heyl had a column in yesterday's Tribune-Review that began with:

So desperately does Arlen Specter crave your cash that he is willing to be deplorably disingenuous to obtain it.

He apparently is willing to risk offending anyone who has suffered from cancer, autism, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's or diabetes.

Those are the illnesses and conditions specifically mentioned in a new Web site the Pennsylvania Demopublican has launched, ostensibly to help vanquish various diseases.

In reality, the site exists exclusively to bankroll Specter's continued mischief in Washington. All of the contributions will be directed to his re-election campaign.

But the site isn't called Shekels for Specter.

It's called Specter for the Cure.

This is a classic bait-and-switch scheme.

Don't believe me?

Visit the site (www.specterforthecure.com) and decide for yourself.

And it basically goes down hill from there.

While the right side of the local media was livid (And yes, Fred. I mean YOU!) but the story also got picked up at one of the leading lefty national blogs, talkingpointsmemo. Take a look:

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA)--two time survivor of Hodgkins disease--is no stranger to cancer, cancer awareness, and cancer research funding. But he's using his hard earned credibility as a national spokesperson on the issue to fight the disease in a roundabout way.

He's touting--and raising money from--a website called specterforthecure.com, which he describes as "a bold new initiative to reform our government's medical research efforts, cut red tape and unstrangle the hope for accelerated cures."

But the money he's raising isn't funding research grants, or advocacy, or treatment for patients who can't afford it. It's funding the Senate re-election campaign of one Arlen Specter.

I took a look at the new version of Arlen's website (Specterforthecure 2.0?) and the first major change I see is the addition of this text top of the first page:

In 2010, Arlen Specter will seek re-election to the United States Senate. With his unsurpassed record of support for medical research, helping to return Senator Specter to the Senate is a powerful statement on behalf of those suffering with disease. The purpose of this web site is to encourage support for Senator Specter's mission to improve America's health by helping assure Senator Specter's re-election.

I my humble opinion, this whole thing has been a HUGE blunder from Arlen's staff. I can't yet attribute it to outright corruption (though I won't stand in the way of anyone who does - yet) and at this point I'll wait with Hanlon's Razor in hand:

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

But I could be wrong.

My guess is that they had the "specterforthecure.com" project humming along waiting to be released and then the Toomey poll happened and Arlen jumped parties and needed something to spark the newer more DNC-friendly Arlen Specter internet buzz. So they plugged website A into campaign B without answering all of the the "But how will this look?" questions. But that's just a guess. I have no information either way.

But the site? At the very least a stupid blunder.

The Indispensible Bob Mayo Does It Again

You have to go read his latest.

The Grant Street Embarrassment gets caught up in Super Bob's questions. Odd thing is, I don't think Luke even realizes he gets caught.

Looks like Bob (and Bob, can I call you "Bob"?) is probing the limits of Ravenstahl's position, vis a vis his by now debunked TV ad, that he took credit for lowering some city taxes when in fact he was legally mandated to do so.

The opener:

Q (Bob Mayo) : "What exactly is it -- that you apologized about something? What was the apology for?"

A (Mayor Ravenstahl) : "Well, what we'll do -- it was basically around, it was basically around the question of reducing taxes. The parking tax and the gross receipts tax. And the question was that we were suggesting that we were taking the entire credit for that. I said last night that the state clearly did help. And we'll actually adjust our ad today to say that we helped reduce the tax, rather than taking credit for it ourself. So, it was just a small, minor nuance, and something that we've taken care of in our campaign advertisement."

Apart from the content, I think the thing that most grates on my brain is Luke's use of pluralis maiestatis - (aka the Royal, Victorian or Editorial "We"). The use of the term "ourself" only solidifies the pluralis maiestatis.

Mark Twain once reportedly said:

Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we."

Luke must think rather highly of himself, uh, themself.

And someone should let them know that "small minor nuance" is a double redundancy (a redundant redundancy, if you will). Ever heard of any big nuances? Any major nuances? A "minor nuance" is redundant enough, but calling it "small" in addition is just, redundant again.

Go read Super Bob. You'll see the Grant Street Embarrassment say that in theory he's required to follow the law, he probably wouldn't have changed the ad and that they only changed it "in the interest of clarity."

Bob clarifies things, to be sure. Go find out how.

My bad!

And here I thought that Wingnuts had problems with condoms when it's actually certain condiments that give them agita.
.

MORE Bad News For The GOP

Joe "The Plumber" is leaving. The Party.

Non-Joe the Non-Plumber cause a bit of a stir with his now-infamous "queer" comments. He actually knows some friends who are actually gay but he'd never let these "queer" friends (and "queer is not a slur - it's in the dictionary" he said) near his actual kids.

Those kids are so lucky to have a dad like that, huh?

Well now, he's pissed. At the GOP. Time Magazine is reporting:

Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, tells TIME he's so outraged by GOP overspending, he's quitting the party — and he's the bull's-eye of its target audience.

What's the party of Limbaugh to do?

BREAKING - Ridge WON'T Run

A Statement from Ridge (from Pa2010):

WASHINGTON, May 7—Tom Ridge, the first U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security and former Governor of Pennsylvania, issued the following statement today on his decision not to seek the Republican nomination for Senate in his home state of Pennsylvania.

“After careful consideration and many conversations with friends and family and the leadership of my party, I have decided not to seek the Republican nomination for Senate.

“I am enormously grateful for the confidence my party expressed in me, the encouragement and kindness of my fellow citizens in Pennsylvania and the valuable counsel I received from so many of my party colleagues. The 2010 race has significant implications for my party, and that required thoughtful reflection. All of the above made my decision a difficult and deeply personal conclusion to reach. However, this process also impressed upon me how fortunate I am to have so many friends who volunteered to support my journey if I chose to take it and continue to offer their support after I conveyed to them this morning how I believe I can best serve my commonwealth, my party and my country.

“Public service has long played a significant role in my life. That service does not end here. There are causes to which I remain intensely committed, including my work on behalf of the disability community, our nation’s veterans, our national security and the GOP — the party I enthusiastically joined more than four decades ago.

“To those who believe that the Republican Party is facing challenges, they are right. To those who believe the Democratic Party is without its own difficulties, they are wrong. No one party has a monopoly on all of the answers. The more important view, in my mind, is that we remember, whether Republican or Democrat, we are foremost Americans. And as Americans, we have always overcome challenges when we put partisanship aside and solutions first.

“And so my desire and intention is to help my party craft solutions that both sides of the aisle can embrace. My hope is to raise the level of civility in public debate and raise the bar on outcomes that serve our citizens fully, fairly and equally. My belief is that those in my home state can best be served by the principles of limited government, less taxes, competent governance and shared responsibility. So I stand ready and excited to help my party and my country prevail as we continue to work to preserve and protect our strong, storied and much beloved nation.”