HorsesAss.Org

This video (via The Agitator) thoroughly documents John McCain’s long trail of cluelessness when it comes to Iraq.

Now that we know that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki supports Obama’s troop withdrawal timetable, it’s pretty clear which of the two major candidates is more in tune with what’s happening in the region. McCain continues to claim that the surge has worked, but that’s taking a very loose definition of “worked.” If the surge worked, the Iraqi leaders would have made political breakthroughs that would have allowed the Iraqis to begin shouldering the load of providing security. That hasn’t happened. And in fact, the occupation continues to cost us more and more money the longer we’re there. If the goal here is to make Iraq self-sufficient, the surge did the opposite of that. It got us further entrenched in a country where the populace has been demanding we scale back our presence for several years now.

McCain is stuck now, asking the American people for their vote just as the evidence of his spectacularly poor understanding of Iraq is being laid out in front of him. Here’s an interview he did back in 2004 at the Council on Foreign Relations:

PETERSON: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it’s a hypothetical, but it’s at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

PETERSON: A second and final question from me. As you know—

McCAIN: By the way, could I— if we do it right, that’s not going to happen, but we will be there militarily for a long, long, long time.

Obviously, we didn’t do it right. The decision to invade Iraq was based upon the willingness of those in the Bush Administration to believe what they wanted to believe, rather than to objectively look at the situation and take a rational course of action. But anyone with half a brain knew this by 2004. Somehow John McCain did not. He continued to believe even then that we’d never get to a situation where an elected Iraqi government would be asking us to leave.

We’ve already suffered through two terms with a President that clueless. We can’t afford another.

It looks like I may have to spend half my day reading and writing on opinion pieces in today’s Seattle Times, where Danny Westneat once again pisses me off, while Ron Sims and Greg Nickels prepare to piss on each other. But first, I’d likely to briefly comment on medical marijuana, an issue on which HA and Times editorial columnist Bruce Ramsey appear to be in total, if rare agreement.

Ramsey tells of the suffering of medical marijuana patients, both physically and legally, at the hands of our criminal justice system, before laying out a simple thesis in defense of their plight:

I relate Hiatt’s story partly because I believe in letting these folks alone, but partly also because I had an aunt who was in sharp pain from a pinched nerve. Her doctor prescribed an opiate, which handled the pain but messed up her mind and her gut.

My aunt was the most un-stoned person I ever knew, but she told me she would have taken marijuana, or anything else, if it had killed the pain, and to hell with the government. I would be no different.

Personally, I find libertarianism a simplistic, naive and unworkable political prescription when pursued in an ideologically rigid and overly broad manner, but I respect those like Ramsey who apply its philosophy consistently. If I can grow a plant in my backyard that eases the pain of a chronic illness, at no cost to society or impact on my neighbors, then like Ramsey I say to hell with a government that would interfere with my right to seek the medical treatment that works best for me.

Those on the right who claim to embrace individual freedom, yet continue to blindly support our tragic war on drugs beyond all reason, well… you’re all a bunch of goddamn hypocrites. And those on the left who quietly acknowledge the abject failure of our nation’s drug policies, yet refuse to stake any political capital on changing them, well… you’re all a bunch of cowards. As for those of you in the middle, who are conflicted on this issue, who fear (or know first hand) the often tragic impact of drug addiction on your own family, I urge you to put all the fear mongering and drug bust bravado aside, and start to think about this as the public health issue it really is… a context in which one neighbor’s medical marijuana use has about as much impact on your own well being as another neighbor’s gay marriage.

So kudos to Ramsey for speaking out on this issue. If only he could drag his colleagues on the ed board to pursue this issue with the same sort of vigor they reserve for things like repealing the estate tax, perhaps we might make some progress.

Goldy was joined in political punditry by a diverse panel: Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, initiative specialist Laura McClintock of McClintock Consulting, the newest Seattle Weekly online contributor (and former Sound Politics front-pager) Don Ward, and Eat the State, KEXP and occasional HorsesAss contributor Geov Parrish.

The conversation begins with a Netroots Nation debriefing. Goldy observes that Darcy Burner was welcomed to Austin as a veritable rock star. Do voters in the eighth notice? Should they? The topic turns to Tim Eyman, his so-called anti-congestion initiative, and the media’s failures to scrutinize his initiatives and claims.

The panel then takes a bite out of Attorney General Rob McKenna. Are his PSAs being used as a campaign tool in violation of the law? Are the words followed up by actions? The podcast closes with a round of speculations about vice presidential running mates.

The show is 52:01, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_july_22_2008.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the Podcasting Liberally site.]

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. We begin at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E, but some of us will be there early for Dinner.

Tonight we will welcome back a contingent of Pacific Northwest bloggers from Netroot Nation and commend them for braving the 100 degree Texas heat and suffering for want of a proper caffè latte (or even a good cup of joe).

For tonight’s theme song, we’ll raise a toast and sing a ditty in honor of “not our fault” FEMA, with this Bob Dylan classic.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Yet another analyst has upgraded WA-08 to tossup status, this time the liberal, yet cautious, Swing State Project:

WA-08 (Reichert): Lean Republican to Tossup

Of all the vulnerable Republican incumbents this year, we feel compelled to acknowledge that Dave Reichert is the first to lose a clear edge over his opponent, Democrat Darcy Burner. Reichert’s incumbency is less potent than other vulnerable incumbents in the Lean R column given his short tenure. Furthermore, he hasn’t been addressing his fundraising as seriously as other similarly-situated Republicans, allowing Burner to build a $1.25 million to $916K cash-on-hand advantage. In a tilt-Dem district (D+2.3) in a state and region where Obama is showing some early strength over McCain, Reichert is standing on shaky ground.

Add to that the million dollars in TV time the DCCC has already reserved, combined with the NRCC’s catastrophic money disadvantage (only $6 million in the bank as of June 30th) and Reichert better turn in some surprising numbers over the next couple months if he wants to stay competitive.

We’re trying to get our comment threads back online, but our first attempt failed, as HA remains in the midst of a pretty massive DDoS attack. The easiest solution would be for the BIAW to just ask their colleagues in the Russian mob to call off the hit, but well, I’m not holding my breath.

It is likely no accident that this attack started the day after I broke the story on Doug Sutherland’s sexual harassment scandal, but ironically, rather than shutting me up, they’ve merely managed to shut up the many trolls who dominate my comment threads. Kinda funny really.

Anyway, bear with me until we find a solution or the bad guys get bored, or both.

UPDATE:
We’ve made another mod, and re-enabled comments again.  We’ll just have to wait and see if we’ve beaten the Russians.

UPDATE (Goldy):
Let me just say that it is more than a little grating to see the 1% property tax limit touted in Gov. Gregoire’s ad.  It’s terrible policy.  But if it helps her get reelected I suppose I’ll keep my mouth shut now that the damage is done.  Hell, it’s not like Rossi is any better on this issue.

Joel Connelly:

The voice and visage of Attorney General Rob McKenna are much in evidence of late on public service announcements in which McKenna warns about identity theft.

The state Democratic Party has mailed off a complaint to the Public Disclosure Commission, declaring that the corporate-sponsored ads give a backdoor boost to McKenna’s re-election.

“It is properly characterized as an ‘electioneering communication’ and a ‘contribution’ to Mr. McKenna’s campaign. It is therefore subject to the contribution limits and reporting requirements under the Public Disclosure Act,” state Democratic Chairman Dwight Pelz argues in the PDC filing.

The filing indicates that Comcast sponsored a McKenna TV ad on identity theft, the Boeing Employees Credit Union paid for a radio ad on assisting consumers, and the Century Council picked up an ad with McKenna warning about drinking and driving.

The Century Council is a coalition of alcoholic beverage distillers and distributors.

McKenna fired back Friday.

The ads “do not constitute electioneering,” he argued. McKenna said, for instance, that the Century Council approaches attorneys general across the country to appear in ads against underage drinking.

Back when David Goldstein was on the radio, I would listen to the ads while in the studio. McKenna was a regular on the PSA circuit. He’s done far more than any politician I’ve ever heard of. There should be rules about how many ads these guys can do, and how close they can be done to an election.

With a Sound Transit ballot measure looking more and more likely, Sound Transit Board Chair Greg Nickels fires a preemptive shot at the Master Of Asphalt, Kemper Freeman Jr.:

We know who is behind the curtain of the Eastside Transportation Association – the same people whose only answer to the problems of climate pollution and congestion are more freeways, more traffic, and more frustration. Under Sound Transit’s new proposal, light rail would be extended to Bellevue, as well as Lynnwood and Federal Way. Those who are lining up against this common-sense measure are stuck in their own personal Oz, a place where our most pressing challenges can be wished away by laying more asphalt. This November, we look forward to presenting our bus, commuter and light rail solution – a way forward that will cost the average driver the equivalent of one tank of gas a year. Because we know building a better future takes more than clicking your heels and hoping our gridlock will go away.

“Roads and Transit” was a much easier target, and Kemper’s radio ads raised the “tax” argument pretty effectively. But it’s 2008, and gas is even more expensive than it was last year. This time, voter turnout will be huge. This time, the “pro” campaign will be smaller, leaner, and tougher. This press release is just a first shot.

As you may have noticed, HA started experiencing technical difficulties almost the minute I stepped onto the plane to Austin. If I was paranoid, I might have thought it was exquisitely timed.

It turns out we were being assaulted by waves of spam comments, overwhelming our database server from time to time, an attack that escalated some time early this morning to eventually take down the entire server… web, email, DB and all. According to my hosting company HA was being hit with hundreds of comments a second, from multiple, rolling IPs. So they removed the WordPress file that handles comment posting, and everything seems to be functioning normally now.

That is, except for comments.

Right now, if you attempt to post a comment, you should be getting a blank screen. I’m working on a more elegant interim solution until we figure out a permanent one.

As for the motivation of the spammers, I can’t say whether it is political or not, but I’m not seeing similar reports of this happening at other WordPress blogs, except for Darryl’s Hominid Views. Hmm.

UPDATE:
I’ve just flipped a switch requiring you to log in as a registered user in order to post a comment. Of course, there is no registration enabled yet, so it’s merely a cosmetic change that prevents you from seeing a comment form that won’t work.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
My hosting company confirms HA is currently the target of a DDoS attack—”Distributed Denial of Service”—and offers no solution other than disabling comments and riding this out. If there are any server/Wordpress gurus out there with some advice, please feel free to drop me an email.

UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE:
My hosting company has clarified that HA is the only site it is serving currently being targeted by this DDoS attack, so I can only assume that Darryl and I have been specifically targeted via a weakness in WordPress. Cowards.

I haven’t seen the movie Walk Hard, but now that I know that Dan Bern wrote most of the songs, I’m gonna hafta.

When you’re the 419th 401st most powerful member of the House of Representatives, chances at the national limelight are few and far between. You must carefully weigh which, of the many pressing issues facing the body politic, you can expend your limited political capital advocating for. You don’t get many chances to shine; you gotta make ’em count.

So it’s sorta fascinating, in a gruesome car wreck kind of way, to see Rep. Dave Reichert (“Conscience Driven Independent™”-WA) in the pages of The Hill’s Congress Blog on Friday, taking a bold stance against the impeachment of President Bush:

As one of the nine Republicans crossing party lines yesterday on the vote moving Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee, I cast my vote not to hold hearings, but to move the bill off the House Floor so the House could focus on more important issues….

There are less than 30 legislative days left in the Congressional calendar. And this is what we are voting on? No wonder the country has lost faith in Congress. There are so many things that we need to take action on and impeachment votes that are guaranteed not to pass is not one of them.

Now, it’s pretty hard to argue with the assertion that members of the House of Representatives should, you know, do stuff. Although a reasonable observer might add that, with fewer than 30 legislative days left in his fourth year of Congressional service, Sheriff Dave has thus selected as good a time as any to start. Had he actually started to do anything.

Plus, to be sure, no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors the Bush cabal has committed — and they are undoubtably legion — genuine impeachment, based on a full accounting of those crimes, at this point isn’t even physically possible; Republicans and Democrats alike have so run the clock out on Bush’s second term without mounting any sort of serious investigation of their crimes that at this point none could be conducted in time. Politically, it’s preposterous to think it could or would happen anyway. Neither party’s leadership is interested in turning over that rock.

So why is Reichert wasting his time writing about it?

More to the point, why is Reichert wasting his miniscule influence defending a widely reviled administration he’s supposed to be independent of? (Except for fundraisers.) (And his voting record.) And why does he think it’s a waste of time to investigate some of the crimes that have helped create those crises (illegal wars, soaring energy costs, an economy crippled by deregulated and corrupt financial dealings) he’s failed to help address for four years?

And if crimes leading to multiple crises crippling the country aren’t worth tying up the House’s time, why did his party think impeachment over lying about a blow job was worth bringing Congress to a full stop for over a year?

You’d almost think Reichert was using a meaningless vote to try to score exactly the sort of cheap political points he was allegedly deploring, on behalf of an administration he is allegedly independent of. But then, that’s exactly the sort of expediency-driven political hackery we’ve come to expect from the Seattle Times’ favorite “moderate.”