Did you hear that Obama hates the troops?

Oh, it must be true! This time, we have a Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter of Bagram Airbase who claims that Obama refused to meet with wounded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Dude - that would make Obama a total douche!

Wait? What's that? Capt. Porter now admits that it was a total lie? Dude - that would make Porter the douche for sending it out in the first place! Woah!

Big salute to Capt. Porter of Utah currently stationed in Afghanistan - today's douche bag of the day!

You stupid media reporter bitch

This morning, I didn't feel well, so I decided not to go to church. I turn on MSNBC, and they have people talking about the recent Obama trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, and McCain's whining about it.

Then, I see this:

Stupid blond bitch: You know, now that Senator McCain has said that he supports the US leaving in 16 months as long as ground conditions agree, and Obama saying he supports the US troops leaving as long as ground conditions are good, it's like they're adopting the other's positions.

No, you stupid dye job blond bitch. And yes, she's a bitch. If it had been a guy talking, I'd call him a shithead. Let's go over the last 6 months in politics, hm?

Month 1:
Obama: The war in Iraq was a stupid, stupid mistake. It serves us no purpose. Instead, let's actually go fight the terrorists who reside in Afghanistan, and if necessary Pakistan.
McCain: We need to stay in Iraq for up to 100 years! We must win! If we leave without winning, then people will see we're not winners!

Month 2:
Obama: We will be careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. But mark my words: We're leaving Iraq. Oh, and if we had intelligence on where bin Laden is, and Pakistan didn't want to act on it, you bet we'd drop a bomb on him whether Pakistan liked it or not.
McCain: Obama is so naive! Threatening to bomb our allies!
(One week later.)
Bush administration: We bombed a location in Pakistan because we couldn't trust the Pakistan military, since every time we tell them where bin Laden's forces are, those same forces move as if someone told them.

Month 3:
Obama: I spoke out against the war in Iraq from the beginning. I voted to support the troops, but I don't want to give a blank check to Bush. And if I'm elected President, we're going to leave Iraq.
McCain: No way! We're totally staying in Iraq forever! Besides, what if the Iraqi's start making nice with the *real* enemy, Iran!
Iraq: Hey, we love Iran! Big kisses, iraqi leader!

Month 4:
Obama: Yes, as I've said before, I'd meet with leaders of any nation without conditions. That doesn't mean we agree to do anything, doesn't mean we'll accept their position. But we shouldn't be afraid to negotiate.
McCain: How stupid! Can you imagine what would happen if we negotiated with our enemies before they did what we wanted? It would be foolhardy!
North Korea: Hey, we're giving up the nukes. We had great negotiations with the US, and they gave us enough carrots and sticks to make it worthwhile.

Month 5:
Obama: Yes, I would listen to the generals on the ground and refine the plans for withdrawal as needed.
McCain: Flip flopper! Flip flopper! I said I'd always stay until we won! Obama said he'd leave no matter what, but now he's saying he might actually use logic and reason to make it successful! Flip floopppppeeeeerrrr!

Month 6:
Obama: Hey, I'm back in Iraq!
President of Iraq: Hi, Obama. Guess what - I love your plan to get all of the US troops out in 16 months. It's awesome!
McCain: He didn't really say that!
President of Iraq: Yeah I did.
McCain: Well, he's just being a politician. He's overestimated his forces before. He doesn't know what he really wants.
President of Iraq: We want you guys out.
McCain: Well, we'll get out - once we win! So it could be in 16 months, maybe later.

And this stupid, ignorant, blond moron can't tell the difference between them? This is the same shit that happened in 2000:

Media: Duhh, we can't tell the difference between Al Gore and George Bush. They're pretty much the same, right?
Public: Well, OK.
Vote comes down to 300 people in Florida.

What bullshit is this. I don't know if the corporate media needs a horse race in politics for ratings, or if they're really composed of moronic shouting shitheads and stupid bitches too busy with their heads up their asses to come out and smell reality.

I support McCain's bid against genocide

Yesterday, Senator Obama visited Isreal, where he reminded people that "never again" should we allow genocide on such a huge level.

Which sparked the McCain campaign to issue a statement:

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces," said Obama, "then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now."

The message was fairly explicit: Obama's commitment to stopping future Holocausts is in doubt. Asked for clarification, McCain aide Michael Goldfarb responded:

"Today he says 'never again.' A year ago stopping genocide wasn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces in Iraq. Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent?"

Now, anyone else would say that Goldfarb is being an asshole. After all, Obama was talking about a specific reason people were saying we couldn't leave Iraq for 100 years - the possible genocide. Obama was making a logical argument: if that reasoning is true, then why don't we have troops elsewhere? Proving that the genocide argument is ridiculous.

But I'm standing with the McCain campaign on this one. They obviously understand that we *should* be sending troops into Darfur and the Congo and other areas, like North Korea where mass starvation exists.

In fact, I fully expect Senator McCain, based on his campaign's obvious feelings regarding genocide, that the McCain campaign will announce that they fully support President Clinton's efforts in Bosnia to top the genocide of the Albanians. That, upon taking office in the White House, "President McCain" will order 300,000 troops to the Congo, another 200,000 to Darfur, and another 1,000,000 troops to North Korea in order to stop the killing there.

Obviously, since the McCain campaign believes so strongly in stopping genocide, this is the only logical thing for them to do.

Senator McCain? We're all waiting.

Why does Morning Joe actually air?

I'm about to get dressed and leave for work, but I flipped to Morning Joe for a bit. 30 minutes ago, Scarborough was pounding on "The surge worked! The surge worked! Why can't Obama admit it!"

Now, Senator Obama's position is "extra troops helped, but between the Sunni Awakening (which started a year before the surge), the US paying off militia groups *not* to shoot at US troops, al Sadr's group having a cease fire with US troops (which has proven rather useful, sine al Sadr was able to get rid of terrorist groups in his territory)."

I turned back to Scarborough, and I hear this:

"Whether the Sunni Awakening started before or after the Surge, it's clear that the extra troops helped it happen, so therefore, it was a success."

No, Mr. Scarborough. I don't know why you have a 2 hour show where you get to pound people with your conservative viewpoint. Oh, I know - you profess that you don't have a dog in this race. And Bill O'Reilly claims to be a registered independent.

Then he asks one of the reporters touring with Senator Obama "Hey, what does the press core think of Obama's refusal to admit that the surge has worked?"

What does the press core think? I think the press core's job is to just report on what people say and do, not be commentators. Try it sometime, Mr. Scarborough. Might be useful.

You pounded the hell out of Reverend Wright for weeks, and now you're taking the McCain line and running with it. I flip to CNN - and they're reporting on the subprime lending crisis. You know - news.

Might want to try it some time.

Can I ask a serious question about the news?

I just flipped on MSNBC. They could be talking about the volatile oil market. How McCain changed his position on Afghanistan three times in one day - first we didn't need more troops in Afghanistan, then we need more Nato troops, then we need more of *both* troops - all this after Obama rolled out the same plan he rolled out in three months (take troops from Iraq, which is *not* where Osama bin Laden and the folks that actually killed Americans on 9-11 are, and put them in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden and the folks that killed Americans on 9-11 actually live).

What are they talking about this morning? The White House T-ball game, and how Obama goes to the gym 3 times in one day and "evidently, he never sweats. He must be doing evil at the gym instead of working out - his basketball teammates say he didn't sweat back in college! What's wrong with the man?"

The other day, when I turned on the TV, I saw Joe Scarborough say if his "Morning Joe" show acted like other cable news shows, he'd resign.

Please. Do so. And tell them to put on some fucking reporters on the show. I want to watch the news, I want to have real discussions about issues. Not some floofed up dandy haired assholes jibber jabbering while the country falls apart.

My #1 request for political reporting changes

I'm sick and tired of seeing "Senator Obama said John McCain said X", or "Senator McCain said that Senator Obama said Y".

All media organizations: I don't care what the candidates say what the other candidate said. You know why? Because they make shit up that isn't true! They say things like "Obama said he is going to raise taxes on all Americans" (when he didn't), or "McCain said he wants to eat babies" - when he didn't.

So news folks - no reporting on what the candidates said the other candidate said. You just report what the candidates themselves say and do, and leave the rest to up.

I don't mind that he's not an expert

McCain denies he said he wasn't an expert on the economy - when he did.

You know, I don't mind a candidate who admits "I'm weak on X issue." Nobody expects even the President to be an expert on everything.

After all, that's what you have advisers for. What we elect a President to do is have the wisdom to know - even in general enough terms - what the right and wrong thing are. Lowering taxes during a war? Bad. Raising taxes on essential needs? Bad. Spending money infrastructure? Good!

So with this good general knowledge, a President can work with experts in the field, know when they are being lied to and when they're being told the right things. They can look at history, and even if we don't expect them to memorize the last P/E rations of the top 5 companies, they have to at least know what is important to spend money on or not.

So I don't mind that McCain says "I'm not an expert on economics." I don't expect Obama to claim to be an expert on military tactics.

But I do get annoyed when someone tries to claim to be everything, or denies that they ever said they were weak on something. McCain's blunder here is the "Oh, I didn't say I was bad at that", when he did. We all admit it - and it would be OK if he just cowboyed up to that and said "But I have advisers A, B, and C that *do* know a lot, and here's why you can trust them - and why I do."

Of course, having Black and Graham as economic policy advisers, especially after Graham's financial screw ups have now lead to the energy and housing credit crisis doesn't inspire confidence. But neither does McCain claiming he's not an expert, then claiming he never said he wasn't, either.