Barnes: War in Iraq is ’so much more important’ than war in the ‘middle of nowhere’ Afghanistan.
Barnes: War in Iraq is ’so much more important’ than war in the ‘middle of nowhere’ Afghanistan.
On Fox News Sunday, Fred Barnes argued that war in Iraq is “so much more important” than the war in Afghanistan. Iraq is a “country in the heart of the Middle East, one of the most important countries there, an oil-producing country.” He added, “Compare that with there’s a Taliban offensive in southeastern Afghanistan. You talk about the middle of nowhere!” Watch it:
Barnes also inadvertently endorsed a “permanent” occupation in Iraq, but then quickly corrected himself to say “small American contingent.”
Bush receives ‘wooden box’ from staff for his birthday.
Today is President Bush’s 62nd birthday. The AP reports that White House staff celebrated the birthday aboard Air Force One, where they presented Bush with the gift of a “wooden box“:
The party for birthday on Sunday was informal; the gift was not. The staff presented him with a wooden box made from a giant oak tree that fell on the White House lawn in 2007. Some of the wood from the tree, planted by Benjamin Harrison’s daughter in 1892, had been sent to Texas to be fashioned into a box about 12-by-18 inches. They filled it with notes and cards from members of his senior staff.
Fred Barnes’s Advice To McCain: Revive Your Struggling Campaign By Using Gay-Bashing As A Wedge
Fred Barnes’s Advice To McCain: Revive Your Struggling Campaign By Using Gay-Bashing As A Wedge
Discussing Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) struggling campaign on Fox News Sunday today, Weekly Standard Executive Editor Fred Barnes argued that McCain “needs to pay attention to the right.” “Here’s what he needs to do, he needs to touch on some of the social issues which energize the right,” declared Barnes.
Barnes specifically said that McCain is “going to have use” gays in the military and gay marriage as wedge issues:
BARNES: In particular, gays in the military for one. We know Barack Obama is for allowing gays in the military, and Bill Clinton tried to do, but backed off. This is not a popular issue. Gay marriage is another one. These are both issues that I think McCain’s going to have to use. You can’t ignore the right. If he does, he’ll lose.
Watch it:
Barnes is advocating that McCain embrace the well-worn right-wing tactic of discriminating against the LGBT community for electoral gain. But he has his facts wrong when he claims that letting gay men and women serve in the military “is not a popular issue.”
Polling consistently finds that the public supports allowing openly-gay people to serve in the military. In fact, that support is growing even stronger with time:
The poll also finds less opposition to gays serving openly in the military and a greater public willingness to allow gays to adopt children. A 60% majority now favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, up from 52% in 1994, and 46% support gay adoption, up from 38% in 1999.
It wouldn’t be shocking if McCain takes Barnes advice, especially since his chief strategist, Charlie Black, has previously acknowledged the use of gay issues as a wedge. It’s “a game of margins” that “could make a difference,” Black told the New York Times in 2006.
America’s unhappy birthday.
As the nation celebrated its 232nd birthday, people across America were more worried about how much is “wrong right now.” The AP writes, “The nation’s psyche is battered and bruised, the sense of pessimism palpable.” An example in its report from the Optimist Club in Gilbert, AZ:
They use words such as “terrified,” “disgusted” and “scary” to describe what one calls “this mess” we Americans find ourselves in. … One member’s son is serving his second tour in Iraq. Another speaks of a daughter who’s lost her job in the mortgage industry and a son in construction whose salary was slashed. Still another mentions a friend who can barely afford gas.
Joanne Kontak, 60, an elementary school lunch aid inducted just this day as an Optimist, sums things up like this: “There’s just entirely too much wrong right now.”
Happy birthday, America? This year, we’re not so sure.
A May Washington Post-ABC News poll found that nearly “seven in 10 Americans are worried about maintaining their standard of living,” and a separate ABC poll showed economic anxiety at its “highest level on record since 1981.”
McCain adviser Charlie Black defended Helms’ racially-motivated ad.
McCain adviser Charlie Black defended Helms’ racially-motivated ad.
As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, the late-Sen. Jesse Helms’ ran an ad in his 1990 Senate campaign that preyed on people’s fears about affirmative action. The Politico reports that Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) senior adviser Charlie Black, who was advising Helms at the time, strongly defended the ad. When asked if there was anything improper about the ad on the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, Black said, “Of course not.” “Do you approve of that ad, Charlie,” a guest pressed. Black responded, “I advised Jesse Helms to do what he’s always done.” “[T]here is nothing racial about the campaign,” Black added.
Long-term unemployment rises.
The WSJ reports, “In another sign of the harsh toll being exacted by the economic downturn, the number of Americans unemployed for six months or more has risen sharply over the past year and is likely to increase even more.” According to new Labor Department data, the number of people unemployed for at least 26 weeks has risen to 1.6 million — up 37% in the past year.
FLASHBACK: Ten Years Ago, Bin Laden Demanded Barrel Of Oil Should Cost $144
FLASHBACK: Ten Years Ago, Bin Laden Demanded Barrel Of Oil Should Cost $144
In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden — the terrorist organizer of 9/11 who still roams free — listed as one of his many grievances against the U.S. that Americans “have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims” by purchasing oil from Persian Gulf countries at low prices. The real price of a barrel of oil should be $144, bin Laden demanded.
Ten years ago today, the price of a barrel of oil was just $11. Heading into this holiday weekend, the price of a barrel of oil rested at $144 — a thirteen-fold increase.
One month after 9/11, the New York Times wrote of possible “nightmare” scenarios that would deliver bin Laden’s goal. Neela Banerjee warned that among the “misguided decisions” that would put oil supplies at risk would be “that the United States attacks Iraq.” The Times included this quote in its story:
“If bin Laden takes over and becomes king of Saudi Arabia, he’d turn off the tap,” said Roger Diwan, a managing director of the Petroleum Finance Company, a consulting firm in Washington. “He said at one point that he wants oil to be $144 a barrel” — about six times what it sells for now.
Bin Laden didn’t have to become king of Saudi Arabia to achieve his goal; in fact, Bush’s policies delivered it for him. The Bush administration’s catastrophic decision to invade Iraq, sink the nation into debt to pay for that war, and consequently, weaken the dollar have all caused oil prices to soar astronomically.
Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last May, Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, reminded Congress about bin Laden’s goal:
[A]bout ten years ago, Osama bin Laden stated that his target price for oil is $144 a barrel and that the American people, who allegedly robbed the Muslim people of their oil, owe each Muslim man, woman, and child $30,000 in back payments. At the time, $144 a barrel seemed farfetched to most. […]
I would like to impress upon this Committee that $144 a barrel oil will be perceived as a victory for the Jihadist movement and a reaffirmation that the economic warfare component of its campaign against the West is a resounding success. There is no need to elaborate on the implications of such a victory in terms of loss of U.S. prestige and our ability to prevail in the Long War of the 21st century.
Indeed, ten years later, a mission accomplished for bin Laden.
(HT: Reddit user homeworld)
Large crowds of Iraqi Shiites gather to protest security agreement with U.S.
Large crowds of Iraqi Shiites gather to protest security agreement with U.S.
American and Iraqi officials are no longer optimistic that a long-term security agreement will soon be reached because “negotiations are complicated by political currents in both countries.” AFP reports that “large crowds of Shiites” gathered yesterday to denounce the security pact that the Iraqi government is debating:
“No, no to colonization! Out, out you occupier!” the crowd shouted in the centre of Sadr City where fierce battles raged in March and April between Shiite militants and US forces in which hundreds of people were killed. […]
In the central town of Kufa, protesters chanted anti-US and anti-Israel slogans. “No to America! No to Israel! We reject signing the agreement with the occupation,” shouted devotees.
In the city of Karbala, an aide of revered Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani urged Baghdad to refrain from signing a deal that would compromise national interests.
“If the government signs the deal it has to preserve the interests of the people, not compromise sovereignty and not permit Iraq to be used as a base for attacks on neighboring countries,” said Sheikh Abdul al-Mahdi al-Karbalae.
Rohrabacher: Bush ’should stay home’ during GOP convention.
Rohrabacher: Bush ’should stay home’ during GOP convention.
President Bush will speak on the Republican convention’s opening night in St. Paul, MN. The New York Times reports that while details were still being worked out, a joint McCain/Bush appearance is “highly unlikely.” One GOP representative, however, said that a better plan would involve Bush staying home:
“I don’t think there are a lot of people who want to see him at the convention,” said Mr. Rohrabacher, who is especially irked with Mr. Bush for his stance on immigration. He said the president “should stay home from the Republican convention, and everybody would be better off.”
Rising costs cancel 4th of July celebrations.
The rising costs of imported fireworks, local budget crunches, “high fuel and transportation costs,” and the tight economy have canceled fireworks shows across the country.
What you may not see tonight:
Condoleezza Rice: ‘I Am Proud Of The Decision’ To Invade Iraq
Condoleezza Rice: ‘I Am Proud Of The Decision’ To Invade Iraq
In an interview last March with Bloomberg’s Judy Woodruff, the late conservative scholar William F. Buckley said President Bush’s legacy would be judged purely on Iraq. He stressed, “It’s important that we acknowledge in the inner councils of state that it (the war) has failed, so that we should look for opportunities to cope with that failure.”
In an interview with Bloomberg TV yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was unable to acknowledge the failure of Iraq. Woodruff presented Buckley’s argument to Rice that Bush’s legacy will be Iraq. “That’s just fine,” said Rice.
“We tend to forget very quickly what Saddam Hussein meant. … In the post 9/11 environment, you couldn’t let a threat to international peace and stability like that remain.” She added:
Yes, it’s been very, very tough. But I know that great historical events go through difficult phases and often emerge with the world left for the better. And I am proud of the decision of this administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein. I am proud of the liberation of 25 million Iraqis.
Watch it:
Rice tends to forget what she thought of Iraq prior to 9/11. In July 2001, Rice said on CNN: “In terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” (See the video.)
John Edwards to debate Karl Rove in Buffalo.
The Buffalo News reports that former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards will debate Karl Rove on Sept. 26 on the campus of the University of Buffalo as part of the school’s Distinguished Speakers Series. In the midst of the U.S. attorney scandal, Edwards called on President Bush to “fire Karl Rove.” When Rove announced he was resigning from the White House, Edwards released a statement that simply read “Goodbye, good riddance.”
Former Sen. Jesse Helms passes away.
Jesse Helms, a North Carolina Republican known as “Senator No,” died today at the age of 86. Helms left the Senate in 2003 after serving five terms. The Heritage Foundation credits Helms with establishing “the conservative movement and became a powerful voice for free markets and free people.” During his political career, Helms “became a symbol of a particular brand of uncompromising, racially tinged social conservatism.” In his 1990 campaign for the Senate, Helms defeated the former African-American mayor of Charlotte, Harvey Gantt, with the help of this ad that preyed on people’s fears about affirmative action:
“It dealt with people’s worst fears,” Gantt later said of the ad. “In one sense, we thought the ad was political genius. In the other sense, we couldn’t believe that someone in 1990 would run an ad like that.”
UPDATE: Fox News phoned former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) for his reaction to Helms’ passing. “He had a philosophy, had principles he believed in, and he stood and fought for them,” Lott said, adding that he admired that Helms accomplished his work without being “mean-spirited and disrespectful.” Lott added:
Senator Helms did it by sometimes supporting things that surprised people. But if you looked at it, if you looked at his faith and principles he believed in, it made sense.
Watch it:
UPDATE II: Steve Benen highlights David Broder’s analysis of Helms’ legacy.
Chertoff Ignored EPA’s Warnings In Order To Build Bush’s Border Fence
Chertoff Ignored EPA’s Warnings In Order To Build Bush’s Border Fence
In April, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) waived at least 30 key environmental laws and regulations it claimed were impeding the completion of 670 miles of border fence. Environmental groups subsequently protested the decision.
Border residents have sued DHS for “hoodwink[ing] landowners into waiving their property rights.”
The El Paso Times reported yesterday that the environmental impacts of the fence were so severe that even the Environmental Protection Agency criticized it, reportedly voicing “serious concerns about how barrier fencing would affect habitat, animals and communities.”
According to documents obtained by the Sierra Club, the EPA warned DHS about the severe implications of extending the border fence. One official rated the project in the Lower Rio Grande Valley as “EC-2, Environmental Concerns-Insufficient Information“:
The draft Environmental Impact Study contains insufficient information for an adequate review. Of particular concern to EPA is the potential for long-term adverse environmental and ecological habitat impacts in the study area.
The EPA reported to DHS several deleterious impacts of the fence which DHS did not adequately consider:
– No mention of “how the wall would impact water quality.”
– No discussion of the “fence’s potential impact on migratory species or impact to their home range, in particular, large mammal species (e.g., deer or carnivores) or birds.”
– Maps created by DHS show that “the fence could run straight through houses and backyards.”
– “The fence could also cut off farmers from prime farmland close to the water.”
The EPA urged the Border Patrol to “consider alternative locations for fence placement that will result in the least impacts.” Ultimately, however, Chertoff issued “the biggest use of legal waivers since the administration started building the fence.” “From the EPA’s comments, it was clear they weren’t going to get any kind of go ahead anytime soon,” the Sierra Club noted.
Ironically, when pushing for the construction of the border fence in 2007, Chertoff remarked, “Illegal migrants really degrade the environment.”
Perino Spins Administration Knowledge Of Bush Donor’s Oil Deal, Dismisses The Contacts As ‘Routine’
Perino Spins Administration Knowledge Of Bush Donor’s Oil Deal, Dismisses The Contacts As ‘Routine’
Yesterday, the House Oversight Committee released documents revealing that the Bush administration knew in advance that a major Bush donor’s oil company, Hunt Oil, was trying to sign a contract with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to develop oil fields in the Kurdish region of Iraq in 2007. At the time, the State Department claimed it had “actively warned Hunt Oil” against the deal and President Bush said he “knew nothing about the deal.”
In the White House press briefing today, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino tried to spin the dissonance between the administration’s 2007 public comments and the documents released yesterday:
QUESTION: Who in the White House was aware of the negotiations between the Hunt Oil Company and the Kurdistan government?
PERINO: As far as I know, I don’t know of anybody who was aware of it, as we had said before. But the State Department had said that they had been aware of it and they had raised questions about it, and that’s what they’re maintaining today. So I don’t know of anybody in the White House who was aware of it.
Watch it:
Perino’s description of what happened in Sept. 2007 is selective and misleading. According to the documents released by the Oversight Committee, it actually appears that “State Department officials raised no objections to the contract.”
Three days before the oil deal was signed, Hunt’s general manager informed the State Department’s Regional Reconstruction Team that “Hunt is expecting to sign an exploration contract.” According to the general manager, no State Department officials said Hunt should “not pursue” the contract:
There was no communication to me or in my presence made by any of the 9 state department officials with whom I met prior to 8 September that Hunt should not pursue our course of action leading to a contract. In fact there was ample opportunity to do so, but it did not happen.
Unprompted, Perino brought up Hunt Oil CEO Ray Hunt’s letter to the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, informing them that “he would be traveling overseas.” She dismissed it as “routine.”
But Perino neglected to mention that more than a month before he informed the board of his travel plans, he sent a separate letter “making clear his intentions to pursue oil exploration in Kurdistan.”
Transcript: Read the rest of this entry »
Former DOJ job applicant suing department for hiring bias.
Former DOJ job applicant suing department for hiring bias.
A recent Department of Justice inspector general report found that starting in 2002, DOJ officials illegally used “political or ideological” factors in its hiring practices, choosing conservative credentials “over more qualified candidates with liberal-sounding résumés” and weeding out “candidates for career positions whom they considered “leftists.’” The LA Times reports today that one of the former applicants, who had actually worked at the department, is suing:
[O]ne of the applicants rejected for a position is suing for $100,000 in damages. Sean Gerlich has filed a class action suit. Gerlich says he was rejected because of his liberal affiliations, which officials dug up through Internet searches. […]
Daniel Metcalfe, Gerlich’s attorney and a Washington College of Law professor at American University, says his client was upset at being turned down in 2006 because he had received good marks during his previous stint as a Justice summer intern. In fact, Metcalfe says, his client was a law clerk to an unidentified chief in one of the department’s 40 components.
Conservative columnist Tony Blankley questions the patriotism of environmentalists.
Conservative columnist Tony Blankley questions the patriotism of environmentalists.
In honor of the upcoming Fourth of July holiday, this morning on her radio show, Diane Rehm hosted a segment on patriotism in America and asked her guests to give their personal meaning of the term. Author and journalist Haynes Johnson stated, “I don’t like people who beat their chests and say they’re more patriotic than their fellow Americans.” But conservative columnist Tony Blankley disagreed, saying one person can be “more patriotic” than another and even suggested that environmentalists are not patriotic:
BLANKLEY: I would take it [to] another area where I think patriotism is slipping…people who have views on the environment may feel that they’re more loyal[] to the environmental principle than they do to American advancement. We see this very specifically on the question of the Kyoto treaty.
Listen here:
Transcript: Read the rest of this entry »
Dana Priest Mocks Liberals For Taking Seriously The Threat Of An Attack On Iran
Dana Priest Mocks Liberals For Taking Seriously The Threat Of An Attack On Iran
During a Washignton Post online chat today, war and intelligence correspondent Dana Priest ridiculed the idea that Bush might attack Iran before he leaves office, dismissing as “an accepted notion in liberal circles” that has “no foundation“:
“Going to war with Iran” has become an accepted notion in liberal circles and every kernel of news gets fanned by people who believe — with no foundation in my opinion — that it’s only a matter of time before Bush pulls the proverbial trigger.
Americans hardly need to “fan” “every kernel of news” to come to the conclusion that Bush might be gearing up for an attack — or at least encouraging its ally, Israel, to attack in its stead. After all, neocon allies of the Bush administration — not liberals — strive constantly to make it clear that an attack is still very much a possibility:
John Bolton: The Isrealies attacking Iran “during President Bush’s term makes a lot of sense.”
Bill Kristol: When asked if “there’s any chance” Bush will attack Iran, Kristol replied, “I don’t think it’s out of the question.”
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT): “I wish that this administration would specifically and clearly warn the Iranians that…unless they stop it, we’re going to take action. … They ought to believe that we’re going to hit those training camps.”
Daniel Pipes: Pipes said that the U.S. should tell Tehran to “watch out” for “an American attack,” adding, “Should the Democratic nominee win in November, President Bush will do something.”
Liz Cheney: “The time for diplomacy here is rapidly coming to an end.“
New reports indicate that the U.S. has already begun cross-border operations into Iran. Is it really so crazy for Americans to worry that Bush could launch a pre-emptive strike against a country that had not attacked us?
House Judiciary committee: Rove is not immune from testifying.
House Judiciary committee: Rove is not immune from testifying.
Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee received a letter from Karl Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin, stating that his client refuses to testify before a House subcommittee, despite a congressional subpoena. He reiterated his offer to have Rove appear for an off-the-record interview, not under oath, about the prosecution of formerly Alabama governor Don Siegelman only. In a response to Luskin, Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Linda Sanchez (D-CA) reject the offer:
We want to make clear that the Subcommittee will convene as scheduled and expects Mr. Rove to appear, and that a refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives.
Your letter states that Mr. Rove will not attend the hearing because he is “obligated” to disregard the subpoena as a result of the White House’s claim of immunity for former advisors. In fact, precisely the opposite is true. As a private party, Mr. Rove is “obligated” to comply with the subpoena issued to him and, at the very least, appear at the July 10 hearing.
In addition to the Siegelman matter, the committee has also asked Rove to testify on the politicization of the Justice Department, including the U.S. attorney scandal.
American Family Association Launches Boycott Against McDonald’s For ‘Promoting The Homosexual Agenda’
American Family Association Launches Boycott Against McDonald’s For ‘Promoting The Homosexual Agenda’
Today, the right-wing American Family Association (AFA) announced a boycott of McDonald’s. According to AFA, Ronald McDonald and his gang are part of giant gay agenda:
What the boycott of McDonald’s IS about
It is about McDonald’s, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars. McDonald’s has chosen not to remain neutral but to give the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.
AFA is upset at McDonald’s for refusing to condemn Vice President of Communications Richard Ellis’s decision to serve on the Board of Directors of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC). AFA President Donald Wildmon said the situation is “strange” because “it’s the family that McDonald’s appeals to — children’s playland, you know, all the little toys, all of that. And they are promoting a lifestyle that would utterly destroy the traditional family.”
So far, McDonald’s is holding strong, writing a letter to Wildmon on May 29 and rebuffing his attacks:
We treat our employees and our customers with respect and dignity, regardless of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation or other factors. We support our employees’ personal involvement in organizations of their choice.
Although AFA tries to make clear that it is NOT protesting McDonald’s “hiring homosexuals” or “homosexuals eating at McDonald’s,” as Good As You notes, “Whether it’s a direct attack on gay customer or employees or an attack on particular employees role in a pro-gay capacity, this situation is still about the company supporting diversity (something the AFA resists at every turn).”
AFA has a long history of silly, offensive boycotts against, among others, Wal-Mart (for selling “Brokeback Mountain” DVDs), Ford Motor Company (for advertising in gay-friendly publications), and the American Girl dolls (because the maker contributed to a youth organization that was pro-choice and supported the acceptance of lesbians). In 2005, it called off its unsuccessful nine-year boycott of Disney (for its “embrace of the homosexual lifestyle“).
McDonald’s should follow Disney’s lead and ignore the right-wing protests. After all, during the nine years AFA was boycotting Disney, the company saw record profits.
Right-wing radio talker Monica Crowley caught plagiarizing.
Right-wing radio talker Monica Crowley caught plagiarizing.
A few weeks ago, the site 23/6 made a parody of the “You Can’t Have Alex” MoveOn.org ad. The parody featured Laurie Kilmartin, who explained today, “We called it ‘John McCain, Meet William,’ with me as the mom and my son as ‘William.’” But on right-wing radio host Monica Crowley’s June 21 radio show, Crowley took credit for Kilmartin’s parody ad, claiming she made the ad to make fun of MoveOn.org:
She began tearing apart the MoveOn ad and she played our parody ad as she went to commercial, without crediting us. … When Monica came back from commercial, she played our parody again but this time she claimed she created it. “We put together a little spoof there of that MoveOn.org where the woman holds up her baby…”
As Kilmartin notes, this isn’t the first time Crowley has been caught “stealing.”
White House advisers: Bush ‘is being reduced to child’s play.’
White House advisers: Bush ‘is being reduced to child’s play.’
Some allies of President Bush are expressing frustration with how “the White House seems to be wasting Bush’s time on frivolous events” in the middle of an economic crisis, according to Political Bulletin:
“Look at the schedule for Monday,” says an outside Bush adviser. “A highlight of his day was witnessing a tee ball game. … He is being reduced to child’s play.” … There is growing concern among Bush allies that the Democrats will effectively portray the President and GOP candidate John McCain as out of touch.
(HT: Atrios)
Would McCain Eliminate Earmarks That Fund Drug Eradication In Colombia?
Would McCain Eliminate Earmarks That Fund Drug Eradication In Colombia?
On ABC’s Good Morning America, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) explained his recent trip to Colombia by noting his concern over “the continued flow of drugs from Colombia through Mexico into the United States.” “Drugs is a big, big problem in America,” said McCain. Watch it:
But as Politico’s Avi Zenilman points out, McCain’s dedication to fighting the “continued flow of drugs from Colombia” creates a “sticky problem” with his pledge to end earmarks as president.
The McCain campaign has previously pointed to the Congressional Research Service’s (CRS) definition of earmarks when explaining how it would cut $65 billion in earmarks from the federal budget. But as Center for American Progress Action Fund Senior Fellow Scott Lilly pointed out in April, CRS’s definition includes some foreign aid to countries like Israel and Colombia:
The answer is that there is very little that CRS counts as earmarks above and beyond those found by OMB or Taxpayers for Common Sense that McCain would want to be associated with cutting. Assistance for Israel is only the most obvious example. It is doubtful that McCain would choose to start his presidency by terminating drug eradication funds for Colombia, the long standing assistance program to Egypt and Jordan, or humanitarian aid to Haiti.
When pressed by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos about how his budget plans suggest he would cut aid for Israel, McCain said “Of course not. I’m not cutting aid to Israel.”
Is his position the same for Colombia’s drug eradication funds? If so, this is just another example of how McCain’s budget proposals are a “fantasy war on earmarks.”
Karl Rove gets simple facts wrong in his WSJ column.
Karl Rove gets simple facts wrong in his WSJ column.
In his Wall Street Journal column today, former Bush political guru and current informal McCain adviser Karl Rove criticizes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for using “his money advantage to launch the air war,” claiming that this “may not be as smart as it appears”:
Mr. Obama has used his money advantage to launch the air war. Starting June 20, Mr. Obama spent $4.3 million for 10 days of a televised, biographical ad covering 18 states. Mr. McCain countered on Monday with roughly $2.1 million for a week of ads in 11 states. Mr. Obama has now volleyed back, expanding his buy to 21 states for two additional weeks at a cost of $15 million – half for his original bio ad and half for a new ad on welfare reform.
But Rove’s analysis ignores the simple fact that it was actually Sen. John McCain who went on the air first. As the New York Post wrote on June 7th, McCain unveiled “the first major ad of the general-election campaign.” View the “launch of the air war” here.
I'm looking at all of these Robert and adding them up. I add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House. You may end up with a different math but you are entitled to your math and I'm entitled to THE math.
Giuliani Repeats Debunked Myth: China Is ‘Drilling For American Oil’ Off The Coast Of Cuba
Giuliani Repeats Debunked Myth: China Is ‘Drilling For American Oil’ Off The Coast Of Cuba
Last night on his CNN show, Glenn Beck hosted failed GOP presidential contender — and ardent supporter of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign — Rudy Giuliani. During the segment, Giuliani recycled the old thoroughly debunked GOP talking point that the U.S. needs to start drilling for off-shore oil because China is doing it off the coast of Cuba. But this time, Guiliani included a special twist in his argument — that China is taking “American oil“:
GIULIANI: And you look at — you look at Cuba … Cuba is going to allow China to drill for oil within 80 miles of Florida. And Florida had a 300-mile limit. So in essence, we have China drilling for American oil. […] An American company would do it much more carefully. It would be regulated better. We`ve got to open up all these other things.
Watch it:
Yesterday, the Washington Post’s Ben Pershing said the China/Cuba oil drilling claim is the GOP’s “myth that keeps on giving,” calling it “just too juicy not to repeat.” TPM has been keeping a fairly solid list of the large number of conservatives hyping the false story.
At a separate part of last night’s interview, Beck — a stringent global warming denier — tried to get Giuliani on board, asking: “You don’t buy into global warming, do you?” But Giuliani wouldn’t bite, responding, “Well, I do.” An astonished Beck quickly said, “Wait…do you believe that man is causing it?” Giuliani still wouldn’t take the bait: “I think there is more evidence that man is contributing it to than not.”
So it seems that while Giuliani actually believes that humans are causing global warming, his desire to keep drilling for more oil indicates that he has no interest in doing anything about it.