Britain to cut its force in Iraq by half

Britain to Cut Its Force in Iraq by Half By JANE PERLEZ LONDON, Oct. 8 — Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the House of Commons on Monday that the number of British troops in Iraq would be reduced by half, to 2,500, by next spring, and he left open the strong possibility that all British soldiers would leave Iraq by the end of 2008. Mr. Brown said the reductions were possible because of the progress made in training Iraq security forces. He described the situation in Basra, the southern Iraqi city where the British troops are based, as “calmer.” In his formal statement to Parliament, Mr. Brown said that a decision would be made in the spring as to how long that reduced force of 2,500 would remain in Iraq. At a briefing at the Foreign Office after Mr. Brown’s statement, a senior British official, speaking of that reduced force, said that “there was no guarantee they will be there beyond the end of 2008.” The Bush administration has made clear that the bulk of American troops will remain in Iraq at least until the end of President Bush’s term, and Mr. Bush has spoken of a military commitment extending beyond his administration. Thus, the British intentions announced on Monday would make it likely that British soldiers, sent by former Prime Minister Tony Blair as a strong commitment to the war in Iraq, would leave well before American soldiers do. In his response to Mr. Brown in Parliament, the leader of the opposition Conservative party, David Cameron, seemed to sum up Mr. Brown’s statement, saying, “Now the troops are coming home.” In explaining his rationale, Mr. Brown told the Parliament: “The Iraqis are now able to take responsibility for the security themselves.” He described a two-phase process of handing over responsibility for security in Basra Province, where the British have been based since the start of the war. The process starts with British forces training and mentoring Iraqi security forces, securing supply routes to the Iranian border and providing backup to local security forces when needed. In the second phase, starting in the spring of 2008, British troops will retain a more limited ability to intervene by force, Mr. Brown said. Troop levels will decline in stages, from the approximately 5,000 now in Basra Province to 4,500 and then to 4,000. Levels will fall to 2,500 by spring, Mr. Brown said. During the session in Parliament, thousands of antiwar demonstrators clogged the streets outside chanting slogans and carrying banners calling for the return of all British soldiers from Iraq. At the Foreign Office briefing, the senior British official said that the troop reductions had been discussed in detail with the American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus. “It is a number with which General Petraeus is content,” the official said. The 2,500 British forces remaining after next spring will be stationed at the Basra Air Station, and they will be involved almost entirely in preparing trainers for two divisions of Iraqi soldiers, the official said. About 500 more British troops, serving support roles to those in Iraq, would be based in a neighboring country, the official said, and he indicated that Kuwait was the most likely location. In determining how much to reduce British force levels in Iraq, Mr. Brown has had to deal with three constituencies: the British electorate, with whom the Iraq war is unpopular; the British Army, whose commanders have complained about the Iraq deployment stretching the military too far; and the White House. Mr. Brown’s announcement effectively means that all British troops will be out of Iraq by the end of 2008, said Toby Dodge, a senior fellow at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London and a specialist in Iraq affairs. He said that Mr. Brown wanted “British troops out of Basra by the British election,” which is likely to be held in 2009. The reduced numbers were also welcomed by the British army commanders, he said. Despite the statements by the British that the Pentagon was satisfied, Mr. Dodge said he believed that the White House was “deeply uneasy” over the decision. He cited remarks by Gen. Jack Keane, an architect of the American troop increase this year, who has expressed frustration at the disengagement of British forces in Basra. In his statement to Parliament, Mr. Brown also sought to defuse an outcry over the future of Iraqi civilians at special risk of attack because they worked with the British troops. Iraqis who had worked alongside the British for more than 12 months would be eligible for aid and emigration to other countries, possibly including Britain, he said. At a news conference at 10 Downing Street before his Commons statement, Mr. Brown was bombarded with questions about why he had allowed speculation about an early election to boil and then backed away from calling a poll. "Yes, I did consider holding an election,” Mr. Brown said. “Yes, I looked at it.” But in the end, he said, he followed his "first instinct" to take more time to show voters his vision for the country, particularly in housing, education and health. Mr. Brown insisted that opinion surveys had not influenced his decision. "I happen to believe we would win at any time," he said. Some surveys published in the British press over the weekend showed that the Conservative Party had made inroads into swing seats now held by the Labor Party. A plan to by the Conservatives to cut the inheritance tax, announced at their annual conference last week, had special appeal in those seats, the surveys showed. The British news media reported today that Mr. Brown would probably have won a November election but the current majority of over 60 seats would most likely have shrunk substantially. The surveys showed the electorate to be volatile after both the Labor Party and the Conservative Party held their conferences, and after the surprisingly successful conference speech of Mr. Cameron, the Conservative leader. Mr. Brown said today that an election was "not likely" in 2008. He must call one by 2010.

Iraqi authorities want Blackwater out..

By STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers 46 minutes ago Iraqi authorities want the U.S. government to sever all contracts in Iraq with Blackwater USA within six months and pay $8 million in compensation to each of the families of 17 people killed when the firm's guards sprayed a traffic circle with heavy machine gun fire last month. The demands — part of an Iraqi government report examined by The Associated Press — also called on U.S. authorities to hand over the Blackwater security agents involved in the Sept. 16 shootings to face possible trial in Iraqi courts. The tone of the Iraqi report appears to signal further strains between the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the White House over the deaths in Nisoor Square — which have prompted a series of U.S. and Iraqi probes and raised questions over the use of private security contractors to guard U.S. diplomats and other officials. Al-Maliki ordered the investigation by his defense minister and other top security and police officials on Sept. 22. The findings — which were translated from Arabic by AP — mark the most definitive Iraqi positions and contentions about the shootings last month. The report also highlights the differences in death tolls and accounts that have complicated efforts to piece together the chain of events as one Blackwater-protected convoy raced back toward Baghdad's Green Zone after a nearby bombing, while a second back-up team in four gun trucks sped into the square as a back-up team. The Iraqi investigation — first outlined Thursday by The Associated Press — charges the four Blackwater vehicles called to the square began shooting without provocation. Blackwater contends its employees came under fire first. The government, at the conclusion of its investigation, said 17 Iraqis died. Initial reports put the toll at 11. It said the compensation — totaling $136 million — was so high "because Blackwater uses employees who disrespect the rights of Iraqi citizens even though they are guests in this country." The U.S. military pays compensation money to the families of civilians killed in battles or to cover property damage, but at far lower amounts. The United States has not made conclusive findings about the shooting, though there are multiple investigations under way and Congress has opened inquiries into the role of private security contractors. Last week, the FBI took over a State Department investigation, raising the prospect that it could be referred to the Justice Department for prosecution. The Iraqi government report said its courts were to proper venue in which to bring charges. It said Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq expired on June 2, 2006, meaning it had no immunity from prosecution under Iraqi laws set down after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The government report also challenged the claim that a decree in June 2004 by then-Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer granted Blackwater immunity from legal action in incidents such as the one in Nisoor Square. The report said the Blackwater guards could be charged under a criminal code from 1969. U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said the diplomatic mission would have no comment on the report. Iraq's Interior Ministry spokesman, Abdul-Karim Khalaf, said the document was in American hands. The report found that Blackwater guards also had killed 21 Iraqi civilians and wounded 27 in previous shootings since it took over security for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad after the U.S. invasion. The Iraqi government did not say whether it would try to prosecute in those cases. The State Department has counted 56 shooting incidents involving Blackwater guards in Iraq this year. All were being reviewed as part of the comprehensive inquiry ordered by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

64% of Americans see media as too conservative

Perception of conservative bias in media 64 percent higher since Sept. 2001 Nick JulianoPublished: Monday October 8, 2007 Near majority who see 'liberal' media unchanged compared to growth in conservative perception The number of Americans who see the media as too conservative has grown by 64 percent since September of 2001, while the larger proportion of those who see it as too liberal has stagnated over the same period, according to a new Gallup poll. About one in five respondents in a recent survey -- 18 percent -- see the media as being too conservative a 63.6 percent increase over the 11 percent who saw conservative bias six years ago, Gallup found. Perceptions of conservative bias have increased steadily since 2001 and were slightly higher last year, when 19 percent said the media favored the right wing. Nearly half of Americans see the media as being too liberal, but that measure in the survey released Monday did not move from the 45 percent who saw liberal bias in 2001. "The tendency on the part of Americans to perceive the news media as too liberal has been observed in each Gallup survey in which this question has been asked since 2001," writes Gallup pollster Frank Newport. "Still, if there is a perceptible trend, it is the finding that the 'too conservative' number has been climbing slightly throughout the decade." The liberal bias perception seems overwhelmingly fueled by Republicans, more than three in four of whom say the media is left-leaning, but Democrats are not as likely to see conservative bias in the media. In fact, slightly more independents (25 percent) than Democrats (22 percent) told pollsters the media is too conservative, although a 43 percent plurality of independents saw a liberal bias. A solid majority of Democrats (59 percent) found the media was "just right" in providing balanced political coverage, while about a third of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, said there was no bias in the media. Overall, more than half of Americans have little or no trust and confidence in the media's ability to fairly report the news, while just 9 percent say they give the media a "great deal" of trust. That finding is consistent with poll results over the last few years, but it marks a steep decline in Americans' trust in journalists since Pew began asking the question during and after the Watergate scandal. Faith in the media reached its zenith in June 1976, when 72 percent of Americans trusted the media. Conservative bloggers honed in on the perceptions of conservative bias, saying the poll results reflected the charge leveled by many on the right that the national press corps is in the pocket of the Democratic party. Several blogs harped on the unchanged liberal bias perception while discounting those who see too much conservativism and ignoring the increase in conservative perception. "Actually this is telling and a rebuke to the left-wing blabber mouths of the net such as Moveon.org, Media Matters, Daily Kos and others who drone on about 'conservative imbalance.' It should also be used as a proof that if there is a problem with unbalanced media then it’s on the left, not the right," writes a blogger at Macsmind. "As a PS, 'One in five', who think that there is too much 'conservative' in the media mix, the fact that it isn’t a huge number and it shows just how marginal their blabbering is." On the same day the report was released, several right-wing bloggers also jumped on what they saw as an unfair discrepancy between media reports of a decrease in troop deaths in Iraq last month. "So only report the enemy’s news, and not ours. It’s not like we need to have a more complete and balanced picture of what’s going on in Iraq, is it MSM?" wrote the Jawa Report. "Gotta get those anti-war Democrats into the White House, after all!" John Cole, writing at his blog Balloon Juice, compiled several conservative reactions to an interview aired on CNN Sunday in which Pentagon reporters discussed the complications in deciding how to play reports that troop deaths went down in September. "The drop in casualties was covered- what didn’t happen was that the press didn’t make all sorts of sweeping generalizations about the data," Cole wrote. "They acted, in other words, like a responsible press corps." He said he takes "with a grain of salt" the reports that conservatives distrust the media. "It is becoming clearer and clearer to me," he writes, "that 'too liberal' is, for many of these folks, code for 'they don’t tell me exactly what I want to hear.'"

a week in review

Week in review personal post.. Alright couple of things happen during this past week, one Rush is hid behind his bosses to prevent an Vote Vets ad to air on his radio show, two Bush veto children health insurance, three Think Progress releases another study regarding the control the right wing has over talk radio even though the places where Nazi talk is air the market doesn't support the Republicon party and four the prostitute right wing media are tripping over themselves defending Rush Limbaugh's "phoney soldiers" comment. I went over to chicken hawk right wing blogger Amy Proctor even that hack is using the talking point that Rush was referring to one fake soldier and I pointed out if you actually read the transcript and hear the non Rush doctor audio you hear Rush and the douche bag caller both saying the term "phoney soldiers" and conservatives it doesn't help your boy cause when he refers to Jack Murtha as phoney when Jack Murtha served 30 years in the armed forces. In short Clear Channel says Rush listeners can't stand to hear opposing views on his show because it confuses them, Bush gives the American public another reason to vote against the Republicons, Think progress is telling you how to help end the right's grip on talk radio and the whores of the conservatives media are tripping over themselves defending Rush comments attacking Iraqi vets that don't believe in the mission. All in all it's been another black eye week for the Republicons and their mouth pieces in the media.

Great post from Dem underground

Truth 2 Power Journal Why do Rush, Fox News and the Right-Wing Hate our Troops? Posted by Vyan in General Discussion: PoliticsThu Oct 04th 2007, 04:36 AM When 380 tons of high explosives disappeared from U.S. custody following the fall of Baghdad - they blamed the troops. ("Lazy", "Incompetent"?)When the Abu Ghraib torture story broke - they blamed the troops. ("Bad apples on the night shift")When one soldier complained to Donald Rumseld about "Hillbilly Armor" they said he was being manipulated by the media to ask the question.And now after General Eaton has stated that "Conservatives are the worst thing to ever happen to the military", Gen. Sanchez stated that "This War is Lost", CBS has fired Gen. Batiste for criticizing the Iraq War all of the Right-Wing is racing the Rush Limbaugh's defense now that he's been accused of saying veterans who criticize the Iraq War are "phony soldiers."It's long past time we put this question to them directly.Why do Rush, Fox and the Right-Wing Hate our Troops?It's not like this is news to anyone that's been paying attention, but the blatantness of it has become truly stunning.Rush Limbaugh is now claiming that he's the victim of a smear campaign, that when he said "Phony Soldiers" (not singular, plural - not soldier - soldierS) he wasn't talking about people like General Eaton, or General Batiste or General Sanchez or General Shinseki or General Zinni - or the 20 retired Generals who've all come out an opposed the surge and our overall strategy in Iraq (not to mention Admiral Fallon the current head of Centcom) - no, he wasn't talking about any of them. Nah. Don't be silly.When he said this.... CALLER 2: What's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.He didn't mean, y'know, what he said.You didn't hear or read what you just thought you heard. It's just an illusion. A phantasm. A poltergeist playing tricks on your mind.Rush meant something else entirely, and you're a fool if you don't know it. Fox News says so. Rush originally used this term, "phony soldiers," when he was talking about a guy named Jesse MacBeth. Jesse MacBeth never served in Iraq, says Rush. He claimed to have a Purple Heart; he didn't. This guy was propped up by the left, because he opposes the Iraq war, as some sort of hero, as a talking-points guy, this Jesse MacBeth was, and Rush Limbaugh was making the point that this guy was basically a "phony soldier," and he was trying to say that sometimes people on the left use "phony soldiers" like this to make their points.So this Jesse MacBeth guy who literally isn't a soldier and has been convited of fraud is what Limbaugh meant. See, no problem.Some Soldiers do be phony.So why is it that Limbaugh didn't mention this Jesse guy until almost 2 minutes later?I guess that caller just knew what Rush was going to be thinking in another 1 minute and 50 seconds. Makes perfect sense.You see, real soldiers - unlike the "phony ones" like Jesse who've never really worn a uniform - are proud of their service. CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --So it's not like you might have one of these "phony soldiers" who might have actually served is it? Never happen.Ummmm.. how about John Murtha? LIMBAUGH: You shouldn't hold your breath because there's no standard to hold me to, in the sense that you're -- I never said what you think I said, Congressman Pallone, Congresswoman Schakowsky , Sen. Kerry , or any of the rest of you in the drive-by media. I was talking about a genuine phony soldier. And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?So Murtha's apparently a "phony soldier" because he believes that some of our soldiers in Iraq killed innocent civilians at Haditha? (Mirroring false claims made by MacBeth) But Rush - Everyone Believes That because that's what happened. (via Time) But one morning last November, some members of Kilo Company apparently didn't attempt to distinguish between enemies and innocents. Instead, they seem to have gone on the worst rampage by U.S. service members in the Iraq war, killing as many as 24 civilians in cold blood.Blackwater deja vu anyone?Others who felt that way? How about General Batiste. I, however, see a direct link between Haditha, the national embarrassment of Abu Ghraib, going on four years now of uncontrollable chaos in Iraq, with the bad judgment, poor decisions of our secretary of defense back in late 2003 and 2004.Note that Batiste isn't blaming the troops here, he's blaming the leadership, of which he was a member. Just as John Kerry didn't blame the troops either back in 1971, he blamed the leadership and John Murtha didn't blame the troops, he blamed the... oh you get it already.Murtha's big issue with Haditha besides the massacre itself was actually the cover-up of that massacre by leaders at the Pentagon. MURTHA: I can only tell you this, Charles. This is what the Marine Corps told me at the highest level. The Commandant of the Marine Corps was in my office just last week, so you know, I know there was a cover-up someplace. They knew about this a few days afterwards and there’s no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story. I can understand why, but that doesn’t excuse it. Something like this has to be brought out to the public, and the people have to be punished.GIBSON: The commandant told you that this was a case of murder?MURTHA: Charlie, don’t mince words here. The commandant said it was a very serious incident. He was not going to tell me it was murder, but everything looked to him just like it looks to me. He didn’t say that in so many words, but he told me exactly what happened.So yeah, Murtha's deserves to be associated with a liar and petty crook who tried to rip off the VA - but Rush wasn't like calling him a "Phony" or anything. Except like when he was.And it's not like Rush has ever called other servicemen phonies or anything. It's not like he's ever said that about John Kerr... oops. (Reading From Washington Post article by Richard Cohen) "...during the campaign, the Republican ticket and its allies in the Swift Boat Veterans movement managed to paint Kerry as a quivering liar. The character attack was so bold, so outrageous, that it of course worked."Rush: No, it worked because it was true! The guy's a fraud! He's a total phony, and people were able to see it!Ok, so the only "phonies" are MacBeth, Scott Thomas, John Murtha and John Kerry.That's not so bad, right? None of them actually served in IRAQ. It's not like anyone has taken up Rush's mantle and used it against troops who've actually served in the current war or anything. Anyone except Melanie Morgan that is. A number of, of, soldiers who are fake, or who are embellishers, or who are posers. Who go out there, or soldiers like Jon Soltz from VoteVet.org who go out there and use their far left, anti-America agenda. Political agenda to undermine the real mission of our troops, our heros who are out there.Thanks Melanie, you've really made Rush's point that he was only talking about Jesse MacBeth (and Scott Thomas, and John Murtha and John Kerry - and via proxy - Jon Soltz).Then there's Tucker Carlson who said in response to an op-ed by 7 members of the 82nd Airborne who criticized the war... Carlson: How the hell to know, (if the vast majority of Iraqis want the U.S. in their country?)Well, gee, I don't know maybe they got the hint after a few dozen IED attacks. And maybe that view was somewhat reenforced after two more of them were killed in action.But nevermind them, let's get back to the real victim here. Poor Rush.It's all been so unfair to Rush, I mean he's be so taken out of context that's why he's had to re-edit his own transcript to remove the comments just to make sure that's his real (edited) comments are properly understood.And then when Capt. Jon Soltz of VoteVets got a might bit peeved with Limbaugh and launched an ad campaign against his comments...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKM_NsTswco Rush of course accused Brian McGough, the wounded soldier featured in the ad, of being used as a suicide bomb-thrower. This is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said and then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into.So tastefully stated, considering that particular vet was wounded by an actual suicide bomber. And who might that person who "armed this valiant soldier with lies" be?Might it perhaps be Iraq War Vet Capt. Jon Soltz?Time and time again, people like Rush, Morgan and Tucker demean exactly what it is our troops are fighting for - protecting our freedom. Our freedom to think for ourselves and speak our minds openly while their corporate overloads quiet look the other way, like Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays says he refuses to condemn Rush for his comments although Senator Webb, Senator Reid, Senator Harkin, Rep. Pallone, Rep. Udall and General Wesley Clark have.After that big MoveOn kerfuffle about not "insulting the troops" not one single Republican Senator has signed on to the Reid Letter to Clear Channel against Limbaugh's comments. NOT ONE. Y'know with Rush being so misunderstood all all...Since Rudy Guinliani thought it was perfectly fine to attack Hilliary Clinton for Not Attacking Move On, clearly they must think it's perfectly ok to accuse soldiers of being fake and phony liars (especially if they happen to support Democrats or simply oppose Republican positions or gasp - oppose our current war strategy). I mean c'mon, Democrats are "traitors" by definition right? Just ask Ann Coulter.We can't like, have soldiers who think for themselves! How can we properly implement a Myanmar-styled military junta under the guise of a never-ending state of perpetual emergency and suppress all dissent and opposition to the current regime that way?In their world the "real soldiers" are the ones willing to used as cannon fodder in a failed war, using a failed strategy with no questions asked. They fight without proper gear, in unarmed vehicles, have to drink contaminated water and then if they happen to be wounded instead of killed - have to live in rat infested squalor while government contractors from KBR to Blackwater cash-in to the tune of Billions.They're nothing more than Sheeple ready for the slaughter.In the real world, real soldiers who are certainly willing to fight and die for our rights when required, like those 20 Generals, like Jack Murtha, John Kerry, those seven members of the 82nd Airborne, Jon Soltz, Brian McGough and literally a million others have absolutely every right to question why their being asked to make these sacrifices, and every right - no, a RESPONSIBLITY - to say so when they think that we're going the wrong way.And that's exactly why the right-wing hates our troops. Because all of them just might not be the unthinking lemming zombie jack-booted neo-facists that they might dream for......some of them, those willing to speak Truth to Power, are True American Heroes.Vyan

Republicon contenders back Health insurance veto

G.O.P. Contenders Endorse Health Insurance Veto By PATRICK HEALY The four leading Republican presidential candidates have aligned themselves with President Bush’s veto on Wednesday of an expanded health insurance program for children, once again testing the political risk of appearing in lock step with a president who has low approval ratings and some critics of the veto within their party. It is yet another issue — like the Iraq war, North Korea’s nuclear program and the management of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina — where the Republican contenders are treading delicately as they gauge how to position themselves with an unpopular president on contentious issues. While all four are defending the veto, some in full-throated language, the candidates are at the same time forgoing praise of Mr. Bush’s judgment on the issue or of his leadership in general. The candidates’ embrace of the veto puts them in closer step with Mr. Bush, however, than they have been on some other major issues; former Gov. Mitt Romney, for instance, has warned the United States against becoming overly trusting of North Korea’s promise to dismantle its nuclear program. Some of the Republicans have also avoided sounding as optimistic as Mr. Bush about Iraq’s future. And Senator John McCain of Arizona, among others, has assailed the administration’s competence on both Iraq strategy and the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. As for the children’s insurance veto, the candidates, in aligning with Mr. Bush, are mindful of the concerns of fiscal conservatives that expanding the program could result in huge future costs. Unlike with Iraq or Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Bush’s capacity to be a drag on the candidates’ fortunes is smaller on the insurance veto, Republican analysts say, because the veto is not especially unpopular with Republican primary voters. They are the current target audience for the candidates, according to their campaign advisers, so the electoral gamble of supporting the veto — if not Mr. Bush — is relatively modest at this point. “I don’t think the candidates can run with the president, and on the president’s positions, over the long haul because eventually they will trip you up,” said Rich Galen, a Republican consultant who is advising Fred D. Thompson, one of the leading candidates. Mr. Thompson has been strongly defending the veto. “You need to decide where you are on any given issue — not necessarily where the president is — and go from there,” Mr. Galen said. “Democrats can say this is a Bush veto or a Bush position, but Republicans don’t even mention that because it doesn’t make sense to talk that way to Republican primary voters right now.” Even so, for the last two days, the veto has put the Republican contenders in the cross hairs of Democratic fire aimed at Mr. Bush. Congressional Democrats, as well as some senior Republicans, have criticized the president for killing a bill that would cover four million more children. Senator John McCain, campaigning in South Carolina yesterday, demonstrated the balancing act for the Republicans by saying that he supported the veto, yet also favored an expansion of the insurance program, at least philosophically. "I certainly would favor an increase, but I think that a $35 billion increase which is funded by a bogus proposal which is a, quote, one dollar increase tax on cigarettes and somewhere around 2012 it basically disappears is not an unfunded liability I think we ought to lay on the next generation,” Mr. McCain said. The president’s veto came as the Republican candidates have been trying to appeal to the Republican base and their fiscal concerns during the nominating process, and it comes as conservatives have become increasingly critical of increases in government spending. Indeed, Mr. Bush himself has been leading a charge to reclaim the mantle of a fiscal conservative, not only to help frame his legacy but also to assist Republicans in their effort to draw a clear contrast with the proposed tax and spending increases of the leading Democratic candidates. The Democrats were quick to seize on the veto of the bipartisan bill to portray Mr. Bush and his allies as “heartless,” in the words of the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. The Democrats have also highlighted fissures among Republicans over the veto, some of which complicate the situation for the presidential aspirants even further. For instance, one of the Republican supporters of the bill is Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a popular leader in a state that holds the first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses in January. Mr. Grassley has had measured criticism for Mr. Bush, and some Iowa newspapers have closely covered the battle over the bill. Several of the presidential candidates have courted Mr. Grassley in turn; it is too soon to say if their support for the veto will draw his ire or create problems with voters there. In discussing the veto, the candidates have focused largely on what they see as drawbacks in the insurance program, rather than trying to rally behind President Bush or criticize the supporters of the bill. In an interview yesterday on New Hampshire radio, former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani framed the insurance program itself as a “typical Democratic, Clinton kind of thing” that substitutes government solutions for private section options. “Half to two-thirds of the children that they’re going to take care of already have private insurance,” Mr. Giuliani said. “They’re going to move them to the government. It is not just a beginning, it’s a big step in the direction of government-controlled medicine.” Mr. Romney told a New Hampshire audience yesterday that the proposed expansion was wasteful duplication. “Can you imagine doing something like that in your enterprise, saying we want to get a new customer, so we’re going to lower the price to get this new account by 10 percent but then we’re going to go to all of our old customers and all give them 10 percent off too?” Mr. Romney said.

Rush at it again now lying he didn't compare Iraqi vet to a suicide bomber

On the October 4 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh asserted that he "didn't call" wounded Iraq veteran Brian McGough "a suicide bomber" on his October 2 show and said he was "grateful" for McGough's service. McGough appeared in an ad released by VoteVets denouncing Limbaugh's September 26 characterization of service members who support troop withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers." In the ad, McGough says to Limbaugh, "Until you have the guts to call me a 'phony soldier' to my face, stop telling lies about my service." As Media Matters for America documented, Limbaugh said on October 2: "[T]his is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into." From Limbaugh's October 2 radio show: LIMBAUGH: VoteVets.org has -- they describe themselves as an organization comprised of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns who oppose current policy in Iraq. They've put together a TV ad that takes aim at me. This ad's going to run on Fox News, on CNN, it's going to run on WMAL radio in Washington, $60,000 ad buy that's going to run, I think, on our local West Palm Beach station down here. And there's a man identified as Brian McCoff -- McGough -- it's M-C-G-O-U-G-H, I'm not sure how he pronounces it, McGo, McGuff -- I haven't watched the ad. He discusses his service in Iraq, the wounds he suffered there, and he says to me in this ad, "Until you have the guts to call me a 'phony soldier' to my face, stop telling lies about my service." You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into. This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him. They're not hurting me, they're betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he's saying, in which case it's just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned. After several media outlets noted his comments about McGough, writing that Limbaugh compared McGough to a suicide bomber, Limbaugh revisited those remarks on his October 4 show. After replaying his October 2 comments he said: "I called him a hero. The other reference is to where the drive-by media runs in, blows things up, creates all these messes, and then heads on down the road to create another one. I called him a suicide bomber -- you see how this works. I didn't call anybody who legitimately serves a 'phony soldier.' I didn't call this guy a suicide bomber." The Los Angeles Times reported on October 4: Limbaugh responded on air Tuesday, comparing McGough metaphorically to a suicide bomber. He said the ad was "a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into."( then what in the world are you comparing him to if that's not a suicide bomber Rush you fat lying sack of right wing dog crap) Similarly, The New York Times reported October 3: The advertisement, to be pushed with a modest $60,000 buy, is scheduled to be broadcast Wednesday on national cable news channels, with a radio version in certain markets during Mr. Limbaugh's show. In it, a wounded veteran chastises Mr. Limbaugh. On Tuesday, Mr. Limbaugh compared the veteran to a suicide bomber, saying the advocacy group had strapped "lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into," according to a transcript distributed by Media Matters. ABCNews.com reported October 3: Limbaugh publicly denounced the VoteVets.org ad, likening the Iraq War veteran featured in the ad to a suicide bomber. "This is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into," Limbaugh said Tuesday on his radio program. Limbaugh has said that his "phony soldier" comments were referring only to one soldier recently convicted of lying about his service. The radio talk show host has also attacked Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., a retired Marine colonel and opponent of the Iraq War. "I was not talking about anti-war, active duty troops," Limbaugh insisted. However the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters disputed Limbaugh's claim that his "phony soldiers" comment was taken out of context, pointing to the transcript as proof that the reference came two minutes before discussion of the discredited man. "After referring to troops who disagree with him about Iraq as phony soldiers, he's gone on to compare one of our Purple Heart veterans from the war in Iraq to a suicide bomber," said Karl Frisch, spokesperson for Media Matters. "It's time for him to stop digging the hole and start being accountable." In an October 3 article, FoxNews.com said: Limbaugh decried the ad by the group that he linked to MoveOn.org, figuratively saying VoteVets is treating McGough like a suicide bomber. "This is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said and then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into. This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him, they aren't hurting me they are betraying this soldier," Limbaugh said. From the October 4 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: Let's go to the audio sound bites, shall we? Let's -- we have a montage of this morning and last night. We have Joe Scarbourough of MSNBC, John Roberts of CNN, Willie Geist, MSNBC, somebody else on MSNBC, and Norah O'Donnell all talking -- you know, this poor guy Brian McGough of VoteVets.org, he's running around saying that I called him a suicide bomber yesterday on this program. And of course, he says it, there's no questioning it, and here's the montage of the drive-bys reacting to it. Sit tight, Dawn -- Dawn's about to explode in there. She came in today, walked in -- "I am never going to watch or listen to Geraldo again after last night, and I am never" -- Alan Colmes -- just, you know, chill, chill. Everything's under control here. It's going our way. Here's the montage: [begin audio clip] JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC: We're going to hear for the next five days how Rush Limbaugh called this guy a suicide bomber. JOHN ROBERTS, CNN: Limbaugh called this guy a suicide bomber. WILLIE GEIST, MSNBC: Metaphor to say he was like a suicide bomber. KEITH OLBERMANN, MSNBC: Comparing that soldier to a suicide bomber. NORAH O'DONNELL, MSNBC: Essentially comparing him to a suicide bomber. [end audio clip] LIMBAUGH: All right, anybody care what I actually said about this? Would you like to hear what I actually said? This was Tuesday on the program, and I was talking about the ad that they are running. [begin audio clip] LIMBAUGH: You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into. This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him. They're not hurting me, they're betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he's saying, in which case it's just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned. [end audio clip] LIMBAUGH: I called him a hero. I called him a hero. The other reference is to where the drive-by media runs in, blows things up, creates all these messes, and then heads on down the road to create another one. I called him a suicide bomber -- you see how this works. I didn't call anybody who legitimately serves a "phony soldier." I didn't call this guy a suicide bomber. That's out there -- I called him a suicide bomber. [laughter] Here's McGough. He was on MSNBC last night talking about the fact that I called him a suicide bomber. McGOUGH [audio clip]: My reaction is disgust, how someone can sit in that chair and say that I am a car bomber, or excuse me, a suicide bomber, is disgusting. I've seen the aftereffects of a suicide bomb. I've had friends that were hurt in suicide bombs. It makes me mad down to a place where I can't even think to describe. It's just repugnant. LIMBAUGH: And -- it's not just repugnant. It's very sad. Brian, let me -- let me try this again. Mr. McGough, I admire you for your service. I admire anyone and everyone who volunteers to serve in the United States military in this country, always have. I'm grateful to you for your service, and that, Brian, is an unqualified thank you, whether or not you support the war, or the surge, President Bush, or not.

Bush approval hits new low, Is that possible?

Approval of Bush, Congress Hits New LowBy ALAN FRAM WASHINGTON (AP) - Public approval for President Bush and Congress has sunk to the lowest levels ever recorded in The Associated Press-Ipsos poll. Only 31 percent said they approve of the job Bush is doing, according to the survey released on Thursday. His lowest previous approval in the survey was 32 percent - a virtual tie with the new reading - recorded several times, most recently in June. Only 69 percent of Republicans voiced approval of Bush, about where he has been in recent months but still an anemic showing for a president within his own party. That included only 29 percent from the GOP who said they strongly approve of the job he is doing. Underlining the widespread political polarization sparked by the Iraq war and other issues, just 7 percent of Democrats and 19 percent of independents gave positive marks to Bush's work. With the war dragging on and fears of recession at home, the poll showed public discontent with Bush on issues across the board. A record low 34 percent said they approved of his handling of the economy, which has been battered by a major credit crunch and a feeble housing market. His prior low in the poll in that area was 37 percent. Bush also hit a new low with 31 percent approving of his work on domestic issues like health care, just below June's 32 percent. The poll was taken as the president was about to veto a measure adding $35 billion to children's health coverage. Twenty-nine percent approved of how Bush is handling Iraq, a slight dip from last month's 33 percent and virtually even with the record-low of 27 percent last December. Bush last month approved a plan to gradually reduce the number of troops in Iraq from more than 160,000 to just above the 130,000 who were there when this year's force build up began. On foreign affairs and terrorism, 36 percent approved, just below September's 40 percent measure and about tied with the 35 percent low point he hit in December. Congress' job performance was approved by just 22 percent, continuing a steady decline in the public's assessment since Democrats took over in January. Unable to force Bush to wind down the Iraq war, just a quarter of Democrats gave a thumbs-up to Congress' work, compared to a fifth of Republicans and independents. Congress' lowest approval reading in the poll had been 24 percent, recorded most recently in July. AP-Ipsos polling began in December 2003. President Truman's approval ratings of 23 percent in both 1951 and 1952 were the lowest ever recorded by the Gallup Poll. Congress' Gallup Poll low was 18 percent in 1992. The AP-Ipsos poll was conducted from Oct. 1-3 and involved telephone interviews with 1,005 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Craig vows to serve out term

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Idaho Sen. Larry Craig defiantly vowed to serve out his term in office on Thursday despite losing a court attempt to rescind his guilty plea in a men's room sex sting. "I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively," Craig said in a written statement certain to disappoint fellow Republicans who have long urged him to step down. Craig had earlier announced he would resign his seat by Sept. 30, but had wavered when he went to court in hopes of withdrawing his plea. The third-term lawmaker issued his statement not long after Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter relayed word he has selected a replacement for Craig in the event of a resignation.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. WASHINGTON (AP) — Idaho Sen. Larry Craig defiantly vowed to serve out his term in office on Thursday despite losing a court attempt to rescind his guilty plea in a men's room sex sting. "I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively," Craig said in a written statement certain to disappoint fellow Republicans who have long urged him to step down.

Limbaugh's cowardly smear

Limbaugh’s Cowardly Smear by Joe Conason Published: October 2, 2007 Tags: Opinion, Politics, Rush Limbaugh This article was published in the October 8, 2007, edition of The New York Observer. The controversy over what Rush Limbaugh meant when he uttered the phrase “phony soldiers” last week isn’t just another broadcast sideshow. As the political power of conservatism declines, the symbolic authority of figures such as Mr. Limbaugh is likewise shrinking. That is why he backs away from his own words, rips them from context by selectively editing his program’s transcript and insists he didn’t demean soldiers and veterans who dissent from the Bush White House war policy—as he and his fellow partisans have done so many times before. This revealing episode began on Sept. 26 during a conversation between Mr. Limbaugh and “Mike,” a caller who identified himself as an active-duty soldier and supporter of the Iraq war, who warned against the consequences of withdrawing U.S. troops as urged by a previous caller “because Iraq itself would collapse and we’d have to go right back over there within a year or so.” At that point the host interjected, “There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. They can’t even—if—the next guy that calls here, I’m gonna ask him: Why should we pull—what is the imperative for pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out? They can’t—I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, ‘Well, we just gotta bring the troops home. Save the—keep the troops safe,’ or whatever. It’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.” Replied Mike, “No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.” That was when Mr. Limbaugh said: “The phony soldiers.” Two days later, under heavy critical fire for using those words to describe critics of the war who have served in uniform, he claimed to be the victim of a “smear.” He served up a neatly trimmed transcript of the Sept. 26 program, which cut more than a minute and a half of yakking to make it seem as if his “phony soldiers” reference was intended solely for an antiwar activist who had allegedly masqueraded as an Army Ranger after washing out of basic training. That falsified transcript has provided fodder for Mr. Limbaugh’s defenders, a motley assortment of bloggers, Fox News personalities, and a Republican congressman from Georgia who has actually introduced a resolution commending the radio blowhard. Not content with insulting the troops, the Limbaugh clones seem to think any soldier who examines the transcript will be too dumb to figure out how they have tampered with it. It is equally telling that both Mr. Limbaugh and his defenders change the original phrase “phony soldiers” and say “phony soldier” instead—because the plural belies his alibi and makes his nasty intention so plain. Today he whines because Media Matters for America, the progressive watchdog group, caught and publicized his slur. But he cannot escape what the audio proves he said. Only in a media environment where conservatives have long felt exempt from serious scrutiny would Mr. Limbaugh still feel free to mock the military service of those who disagree with him. He is, after all, a certified chickenhawk who cheered on the Vietnam War as it ground up tens of thousands of young Americans, but saw no reason why he should serve. His local draft board in Cape Girardeau, Mo., a town where his family enjoyed great political influence, granted him a 1-Y deferment after he dropped out of college and forfeited his student deferment. Explaining how he escaped the draft, he has cited both a “bad knee” and a cyst on his backside that supposedly rendered him medically unfit for service. Despite that undistinguished record, however, he has never hesitated to denigrate the service and patriotism of Senator John Kerry, former Senator Tom Daschle and other Democrats who volunteered to wear the nation’s uniform. He called Mr. Daschle “Hanoi Tom,” and he spent many hours repeating the “Swift boat” lies when Mr. Kerry ran for president in 2004. And now he insinuates that the troops and vets who question this war are “phony soldiers.” No doubt what really worries Mr. Limbaugh and his right-wing comrades is that more and more of those who bravely serve America abroad, from foot soldiers to flag officers, have begun to voice their anger at the reckless and dishonest policies that have cost them and their comrades so dearly. Leaders of Vote Vets, a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organized in support of smarter military and security policy, have angrily challenged Mr. Limbaugh to repeat his slur to their faces—something he is most unlikely to do. Thanks to all the veterans with the courage to speak out—no matter what their affiliation or opinion—it is no longer so easy for the Limbaugh crowd to claim that the military and the flag as their exclusive property. That illegitimate seizure of everyone’s patriotic heritage is coming to an ignominious end.

Ann Coulter says Fox "News" isn't conservative

Filed by David Edwards and Muriel Kane When Ann Coulter appeared on Joe Scarborough's show on MSBNBC on Wednesday to promote her new book, Scarborough posed her a series of questions designed to elicit her trademark outrageous responses. MediaMatters has been hammering NBC hard this week over regularly providing Coulter with a forum to sell her books. On Monday, they charged that "in the weeks following the release of her last book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism ... Coulter made numerous appearances on MSNBC, CNBC, and their parent network, NBC, where she unleashed a stream of attacks on the widows of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." On Tuesday, MediaMatters added that "the discussion of her book on Today marks at least Coulter's 195th appearance on an NBC-operated channel [since 1997], even though several NBC hosts and anchors -- including Tonight Show host Jay Leno, Today co-host Matt Lauer, and Nightly News anchor Brian Williams -- have expressed disapproval of Coulter's 'harsh' and 'nasty' statements." Perhaps because of overexposure, Coulter's responses to Scarborough appeared relatively tepid and low on the outrageousness meter. When asked about Bill O'Reilly, she replied, "This is so hard for me, because there is no way he would defend me if the shoe were on the other foot." She added, however, that she believed O'Reilly's remarks about eating in a black restaurant were "obvious" rather than racist. When Scarborough asked her why government spending continues to increase despite the presence of many conservatives in Congress, Coulter blamed it on the voters wanting "bread and circuses," on "the rash experiment with the 19th Amendment," which gave women the right to vote, and on a lack of public faith in capitalism. Coulter said of Rudy Giuliani that despite his weakness on issues dear to conservatives he still might be nominated because "he seems just crazy enough to bomb Iran. That could carry him through." Coulter also insisted that Fox News "isn't really a conservative station. What it is is a debate station. What you see is a conservative debating a liberal, whereas on many other stations you often have lots of liberals making similar but slightly differently nuanced points." However, she also implied that Fox might be considered conservative after all, saying, "It's just something conservatives like to do. Argue." In this related article, Raw Story reports on additional Coulter-related controversies.

The Right wing domination of talk radio and how to end it

REPORT: The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It The Center for American Progress and Free Press today released the first-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the political make-up of talk radio in the United States. It confirms that talk radio, one of the most widely used media formats in America, is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives. The new report — entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” — raises serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public radio airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans. While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, right-wing talk reigns supreme on America’s airwaves. Some key findings: – In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive. – Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk — 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk. – 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive. Two common myths are frequently offered to explain the imbalance of talk radio: 1) the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (which required broadcasters to devote airtime to contrasting views), and 2) simple consumer demand. Each of these fails to adequately explain the root cause of the problem. The report explains: Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management. […] Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest. Along with other ideas, the report recommends that national radio ownership not be allowed to exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations, and local ownership should not exceed more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market. Read the full report here.

MCL comment:

I look at the chart places where the Republicans have no base of support political yet conservative talk radio has the edge in those markets, how is that possible? It's not about liberal talk can't cut the muster it's about ownership.

Coulter: If we took away women's right to vote

Coulter: If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about Dems Ron Brynaert Published: Wednesday October 3, 2007 In an interview with the New York Observer, conservative commentator, frequent Fox guest, and alleged plagiarist Ann Coulter left this choice quote, which the Observer highlighted as "On women:" COULTER: If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and 'We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?' Coulter has her own voting woes, left unmentioned in the interview, which is intended to promote her latest book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans." In 2006, Coulter allegedly violated Florida law by voting in the wrong precinct. The short version, according to The Brad Blog, which has closely followed the ongoing story: "She committed third-degree voter fraud in Palm Beach County when she lied on her registration. Period. Dead to rights. She also lied on her driver's license down there (another third-degree felony) and knowingly voted at the wrong precinct (first degree misdemeanor). Again, all dead to rights. The link above offers all the proof any attorney with balls bigger than Coulter's would need. And here's her fraudulent Voter Registration form to boot." According to Brad blog, "an FBI agent interceded inappropriately in the case to claim she was being 'stalked,'" but that an early August report in the Palm Beach Post said that the Florida Election Commission was still investigating. "The Coulter voting saga is now known as FEC Case No. 07-211. The investigator assigned, Tallahassee's Margie Wade, wouldn't confirm she caught the case; FEC complaints are supposed to be confidential," Jose Lambiet wrote for the Florida paper. "Still, Page Two is told Coulter already has been notified she's under investigation." As noted last November by RAW STORY (article link) after the midterm elections, Republican officials boasted that their "highly sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation" in the final hours would keep Congress in their control. But at least two "notorious" and high profile party members didn't do enough to aid the cause, a Florida newspaper revealed. "Mark Foley, the former U.S. congressman in rehab for alcohol and sex-related problems, didn't send an absentee ballot request to the St. Lucie County elections office," Jose Lambiet wrote for the Palm Beach Post. "Conservative pundit Ann Coulter, accused of voting in the wrong precinct earlier this year, didn't cast her ballot, contributing further to the demise of the GOP in Congress." "No 'I Voted' stickers for them," Lambiet added. The gossip column in Wednesday's NY Daily News relates, in further Coulter-related news, "Meanwhile, Media Matters, the liberal watchdog group that forced Don Imus off the air, challenged NBC to explain why it "continues to provide Coulter with an open forum." The group's action was prompted by "Today's" Monday interview of Coulter by Meredith Viera — after Matt Lauer, Brian Williams and Jay Leno all criticized Coulter's 9/11 widow comments. Said an NBC exec: 'Regardless of what you think of Ann Coulter, she's a compelling interview."

Bush vetoes child health insurance plan

Bush vetoes child health insurance plan By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 37 minutes ago President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance. It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number. Democrats unleashed a stream of harsh rhetoric, as they geared up for a battle to both improve their chances of winning a veto override and score political points against Republicans who oppose the expansion. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried Bush's action as a "heartless veto." "Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America." Democratic congressional leaders said they may put off the override attempt for as long as two weeks to maximize pressure on Republican House members whose votes will be critical. "We remain committed to making SCHIP into law — with or without the president's support," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., referring to the full name of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The White House sought little attention for Bush's action, with the president casting his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage. He defended it later Wednesday during a budget speech in Lancaster, Pa., addressing a welcoming audience organized by the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry in GOP-friendly Pennsylvania Dutch country. "Poor kids first," Bush said. "Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system." But he seemed eager to avert a full-scale showdown over the difficult issue, offering that he is "more than willing" to negotiate with lawmakers "if they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children." The program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage. The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack. The president argued that the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far beyond its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He has proposed only a $5 billion increase in funding. After Bush's speech, White House counselor Ed Gillespie said the president's offer of more money meant more than the $5 billion extra, but he wasn't specific about how much more. Democrats deny Bush's charge that their plan is a move toward socialized medicine that short-changes the poor, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, over 6 million are under 18 years old. That's over 9 percent of all children. Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate, enough to override Bush's veto. But in the House, supporters of the bill are about two dozen votes short of a successful override, despite sizable Republican support. A two-thirds majority in both chambers is needed. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Democrats were imploring 15 House Republicans to switch positions but had received no agreements so far. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was "absolutely confident" that the House would be able to sustain Bush's expected veto. Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Congress should be able to reach a compromise with Bush once he vetoes the bill. "We should not allow it to be expanded to higher and higher income levels, and to adults. This is about poor children," he said. "But we can work it out." It took Bush six years to veto his first bill, when he blocked expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells last summer. In May, he vetoed a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq. In June, he vetoed another bill to ease restraints on federally funded stem cell research. In the case of the health insurance program, the veto is a bit of a high-stakes gambit for Bush, pitting him against both the Democrats who have controlled both houses of Congress since January, but also many members of his own party and the public. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched radio ads Monday attacking eight GOP House members who voted against the bill and face potentially tough re-election campaigns next year. And Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said a coalition of liberal groups was staging more than 200 events throughout the nation on Thursday to highlight the issue. The group, which includes MoveOn.org, and several unions, also has a goal of more than 1 million contacts to Congress through calls, letters and e-mails demanding that lawmakers override Bush's veto. The coalition is spending $3 million to $5 million on the effort

Wes Clark wants Rush off Armed forces radio

Ex-NATO commander wants Rush off Armed Forces Radio 10/03/2007 @ 8:41 amFiled by David Edwards and Jason Rhyne Retired General Wesley Clark, a former contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, appeared on NBC's Today Show to discuss his campaign to convince Congress to remove conservative talker Rush Limbaugh's program from the Armed Forces Radio Network. During the interview, Today's Meredith Vieira wondered aloud why Clark didn't just brush off the controversial host like "an annoying gnat." Limbaugh has been heavily rebuked by Democrats and some veterans following his use of the phrase "phony soldiers" on the air in response to comments from a caller attacking troops who are critical of the war in Iraq. Today also provided an update on the latest in the intensifying war of words between Limbaugh and Democrats on Capitol Hill. The following video is from NBC's Today Show, broadcast on October 3, 2007. (story continues below) A request from 40 Senate Democrats asking for an apology from the Clear Channel corporation, which syndicates Limbaugh's broadcast, was rebuffed in a letter from the company's CEO, reported NBC's Norah O'Donnell. "Given Mr. Limbaugh's history of support for our soldiers," wrote the radio giant's Mark Mays, "it would be unfair for me to assume his statements were intended to personally indict combat soldiers simply because they didn't share his own beliefs regarding the war in Iraq. Asked by Vieira why he had taken such a "drastic step" in attempting to get Limbaugh thrown off of military radio, Gen. Clark, who is the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, said it was "because I think that his comments just cross the line." "I think there's a lot of people serving in Iraq, a lot of veterans who've served...in Iraq and Afghanistan who have thoughts about the war that aren't necessarily in agreement with President Bush," he continued. "That's their right as American citizens. It doesn't mean they weren't great soldiers." But Armed Forces Radio, which is funded by tax dollars, shouldn't be a place for criticism of troops or veterans, said Clark. "Now, I think that when it crosses the line and it's free speech, it's fine," he said, but emphasized that "when it crosses a line and it's put on and paid for by the US tax payer, I think that's another matter." On his website and in emails to supporters, Clark has also strongly condemned a Republican resolution submitted in the House which commends Limbaugh "for his ongoing public support of American troops." "Limbaugh's 'phony soldiers' comment should not be commended -- it should be condemned," the retired General writes at his site, although the text of the resolution does not specifically praise the talk show host for using the phrase. Limbaugh drew further criticism yesterday when used used a suicide bomber metaphor to describe one veteran's response to the "phony soldiers" remark in a television ad. “This is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran," Limbaugh said of Brian McGough, who received severe head wounds during a suicide explosion, according to reports. "Lying to him about what I said and then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into," Limbaugh continued. McGough fired back yesterday, calling the comments "more slander from the high and mighty sitting in his chair nursing the boils on his ass." "I'm sure there are some people who would ask you,"said Meredith Vieira in her interview with Clark, "why don't you just brush off these comments by Limbaugh like an annoying gnat instead of legitimizing them and bringing more attention to them?" In reponse, Gen. Clark said that he had criticized MoveOn.org's recent ad in the New York Times attacking Gen. Petraeus, and was applying the same standard in this case. "I think it has to apply on both sides of the political debate," he said. "I always hear politicians saying 'Gee, you know it's too bad. We're going to improve the quality of discourse in America.' Well here's a chance to do something." Soldiers are "over there putting themselves in harm's way," Clark added later, "and they deserve a little bit of respect."

Talk show host that defended Bill O'Reilly racist comments with more racist comments gets fired!!

WRKO talk show host John DePetro, show above on the air in June, was fire this morning. By Matt Viser and Andrea Estes, Globe Staff, and Andrew Ryan, Globe Correspondent WRKO Radio talk show host John DePetro was fired this morning after he made a derogatory remark Thursday about the sexual orientation and the weight of Green-Rainbow party gubernatorial candidate Grace Ross. "The comments were completely inappropriate, derogatory and will not be tolerated," said Jason Wolfe, a vice president at Entercom Boston, which owns WRKO, in a statement. "I met with our corporate staff last night after listening to the tapes, and we decided to terminate John at that meeting." DePetro told the Globe today said he was "stunned" by his firing and that he called Grace Ross to apologize for calling her a "fat lesbian." He explained that he was exasperated that Ross and independent Christy Mihos were eating up time during Wednesday's debate. Recalling his remarks on the radio, DePetro told his listeners that he wished someone would "tell the fat lesbian to shut up." "I didn't violate any laws. There was no obscene language," DePetro said Friday. "I know it's mean but she is technically obese and lives an alternative lifestyle. It's kind of mean. What if someone yelled about Kerry Healey being a spoiled white b---h or Mihos being an arrogant wealthy egomanic." DePetro apologized on the air after making the remark. Ross describes herself on her campaign website as "a white lesbian living in Worcester" and life-long activist for gay/lesbian civil rights and other "progressive causes." "I believe it was an offensive comment and a lot of people have been offended by it," Ross said in an interview with the Globe after a debate this morning in Dartmouth. "I don't personally feel that offended by it. I'm running for governor, and you have to have a somewhat thicker skin than that." In its statement, WRKO said it regretted the reference to Grace Ross. DePetro was suspended for two days in July for using a homosexual slur on his show to describe Matthew J. Amorello, who was chairman of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority at the time. Amorello is not gay. Wolfe said in his statement that he told DePetro, "that any further comments of this kind would be dealt with in a severe way." "I have no doubt that terminating John's employment was the right action to take," Wolfe said.

Defending a racist comment with another racist comment

On the September 27 edition of MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams, while discussing Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's recent controversial comments about his visit to Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem, host Dan Abrams asked his guest John DePetro, a Rhode Island radio talk-show host: "John, look, you've been on the show and defended Bill O'Reilly before. Don't you wish that he would just be quiet and put this behind him?" After claiming that O'Reilly was "taken out of context," DePetro asserted: "It was a discussion on race and we're talking about Harlem. And by and large -- I lived in New York for years -- white people don't go to Harlem." He continued: "If Dan Abrams and John DePetro, Bill O'Reilly, some white guys are sitting around a table, and Dan Abrams said, 'Yeah, I was up in Harlem last night.' We would think you were either, a) looking for drugs, or, b) looking for a prostitute." Abrams responded by asserting: "That is so idiotic, John," to which DePetro replied: "It is not idiotic," later adding: "It's a primarily black restaurant. It is still a primarily black area." Later in the segment, after asserting that O'Reilly is "accusing the liberal media of having created this controversy wholesale as if somebody put him up to saying the things that he said about Sylvia," Air America host Rachel Maddow said: "But I have to say, Dan, I'm a little distracted. I wouldn't mind going back to hear more from John about how the only reason white people would go to Harlem is for prostitutes and drugs. I'm fascinated by that." DePetro responded by asserting: "Here's the Air America host who hates Bill O'Reilly, who would love to take him down, pretending that it wasn't taken out of context. ... People like you [are] trying to take him down and you can't deny that. You'd like to see him knocked off the air." Maddow then claimed, "I am indifferent to Bill O'Reilly. I don't watch his show. I don't particularly care," to which DePetro replied: "That's impossible." Republican strategist Joe Watkins then said: "Well, John, I just want to say that I hope and pray that white people go to Harlem, because it's a great place to live for Americans." DePetro responded: "They don't." The segment concluded with Abrams returning to his earlier claim that O'Reilly "is playing out his own unfortunate statement for ratings" and asking DePetro: "Let me get back to the issue. Even, John DePetro, you would agree with me, that it's disingenuous of O'Reilly to claim that he's doing this because he wants to hold the corrupt media responsible to help your life -- meaning the individuals out there, the folks. He's doing it to help their lives. John, you would agree with me, that is totally disingenuous." De Petro replied: "I hate to admit it -- yes, I would agree with you, Dan Abrams." From the September 27 edition of MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams: ABRAMS: My take: I listened to his entire hour. He's saying that they are trying to get ratings? And he's doing the topic every night on his TV and radio shows? In fact, he devoted almost the entire hour of the show tonight to the issue. Why? For ratings. Tonight, he had the gall to claim that media coverage of his comments is actually hurting African-Americans. Please. It's true, O'Reilly was trying to decry racism when he made the comments. His intent was not bad, but, in this case, his effort to do the right thing exposed him, or at least exposed how ignorant he seems to think his audience is. But most important now, he needs to stop blaming everyone else for his mess. He's now milking this story in an effort to play to those same people who he apparently believed would not know that you can go to an African-American restaurant and just have a nice meal. And he is playing out his own unfortunate statement for ratings. Radio talk show host John DePetro joins us, as well as Air America host Rachel Maddow, and Republican strategist Joe Watkins. All right, John, look, you've been on the show and defended Bill O'Reilly before. Don't you wish that he would just be quiet and put this behind him? DePETRO: No, Dan, I think he's doing the right thing. Number one: He's firing up his base of listeners. Polls show his listeners really weren't offended. And I think it is taken out of context. ABRAMS: No, I wouldn't think they would be, because basically what he was saying with those comments in the radio were, "My listeners apparently think that going to a black restaurant, people are going to be yelling, 'M-Fer, give me my iced tea.' " DePETRO: Dan, it goes beyond that. It was a discussion on race and we're talking about Harlem. And by and large -- I lived in New York for years -- white people don't go to Harlem. If Dan Abrams and John DePetro, Bill O'Reilly, some white guys are sitting around a table, and Dan Abrams said, "Yeah, I was up in Harlem last night." We would think you were either, a) looking for drugs, or, b) looking for a prostitute. ABRAMS: You know what? DePETRO: It was a discussion on race. ABRAMS: That is so idiotic, John. That is -- DePETRO: It is not idiotic. MADDOW: Wow. Wow. ABRAMS: I mean, it's idiotic, first of all, because you don't know about the rebirth of Harlem recently, first of all. And, second of all, I mean, this is the problem. DePETRO: How many white people were in the restaurant? ABRAMS: I didn't -- I wasn't there. But let me -- DePETRO: It's a primarily black restaurant. It is still a primarily black area. ABRAMS: All right, look. We have three white people and one black person on this, on this panel. And Joe Watkins -- WATKINS: That would be me. ABRAMS: Joe Watkins was with us talking about politics before. Joe Watkins, I'm now going to ask you about this race issue. You have been somewhat protective and defensive of O'Reilly on this publicly. But I've got to ask you - WATKINS: Yeah, I thought that Media Matters didn't do him right. I thought Media Matters [unintelligible]. ABRAMS: All right, forget about Media Matters for a minute. Shouldn't he just shut up about this? WATKINS: Well, I have to respect his business acumen. I mean, this is a very, very smart man [unintelligible] business. ABRAMS: He's playing it out for ratings, right? WATKINS: He's doing very, very well in the ratings. I wish that I was smart enough to have ratings like that. Maybe I'd have my own show. But that's what you want in television. You want people to watch and as long as there's controversy, something to talk about, then that's one way to get people to watch. ABRAMS: But he's making it sound, Joe, like he's doing -- let me let you listen to something he said on his radio program. This is number seven, where he's claiming why he's continuing to talk about this topic. Let's listen. O'REILLY [audio clip]: And I'm sorry if I'm boring some of you. I know you'd rather talk about other items, but I can't get across to you how important this is, and how my campaign to hold the corrupt media responsible is going to help your life. Because no longer will these smear merchants be allowed to get away with it. ABRAMS: He's doing it, Joe, because it's going to help your life. Right? WATKINS: Does that mean I get my own show? So I can be smeared on a regular basis? ABRAMS: I mean, come on. I mean, Rachel, that's the dishonesty here, because -- I mean, look, we've talked already about this issue of whether it was racist or not racist. I don't believe his intent was racist at all, but the bottom line is he's now accusing everyone else of doing it for ratings and he is now milking this for ratings. MADDOW: Right. And also he's accusing the liberal media of having created this controversy wholesale as if somebody put him up to saying the things that he said about Sylvia. But I have to say, Dan, I'm a little distracted. I wouldn't mind going back to hear more from John about how the only reason white people would go to Harlem is for prostitutes and drugs. I'm fascinated by that. [crosstalk] WATKINS: I know white people who go to Harlem. DePETRO: Look who's talking. Miss Air America -- WATKINS: I hope and pray that that's not the way white people think about Harlem. DePETRO: -- Miss Rachel Maddow -- WATKINS: Harlem's a great -- MADDOW: I think we should hear more about this. ABRAMS: Wait, wait, wait. Hang on one second. Hang on. Hang on. Wait, wait. Wait. DePETRO: -- with the condescending East Village -- ABRAMS: Let me -- wait, wait. Hang on. Let me let John -- let me let -- John -- DePETRO: Rachel, stop acting -- ABRAMS: John, I'm going to let you go and then I'm going hear from Joe. Go ahead, John. DePETRO: Here's the Air America host who hates Bill O'Reilly, who would love to take him down, pretending that it wasn't taken out of context. Miss East Village -- there is no way -- stop acting. You know what the discussion was on. It was on race, and there is a competitive nature to CNN and other liberal outlets -- forget CNN -- MADDOW: John -- DePETRO: -- people like you trying to take him down and you can't deny that. You'd like to see him knocked off the air. MADDOW: John, I have to tell you, I -- the difference between love is not -- the opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is indifference. I am indifferent to Bill O'Reilly. I don't watch his show. I don't particularly care. I do want to -- DePETRO: That's impossible. MADDOW: -- hear more from you -- but -- from you all -- DePETRO: Air America has had -- MADDOW: -- no, come on. DePETRO: -- a campaign against him. ABRAMS: All right, but -- MADDOW: Listen, I don't -- DePETRO: You're Al Franken without glasses, so -- ABRAMS: All right, all right. I don't want to have a debate -- I don't want to have a debate about Rachel's ratings. MADDOW: I want to know more about the hookers. ABRAMS: Yeah. All right, but, Joe, you wanted to make a comment -- WATKINS: I did. ABRAMS: -- about John's comments about Harlem. DePETRO: I'm sure you do. WATKINS: Well, John, I just want to say that I hope and pray that white people go to Harlem, because it's a great place to live for Americans -- Americans who happen to be black and other -- and I hope that the only reason -- DePETRO: They don't. WATKINS: Yeah, John? DePETRO: It's still predominantly a black area. WATKINS: It's a wonderful -- but the -- DePETRO: In the restaurant -- Bill O'Reilly described it -- he was the only white person there. So, it's -- WATKINS: I know that he was. But -- but, it's a great place -- DePETRO: So, I took it as -- WATKINS: -- to live for Americans who happen to be African-American and other. And there are a lot of white people who live in Harlem as well. It's a great place to -- DePETRO: Well, but, maybe -- WATKINS: -- experience a great rebirth. DePETRO: Maybe, the condescending liberal elite, like the Air America crowd, should think of moving there out of the East Village. ABRAMS: Well, I think that's where -- MADDOW: John -- ABRAMS: -- Bill Clinton took his office, right? MADDOW: John, it's like you're playing a character of yourself. DePETRO: Yes, he did, and made a strong statement about it. MADDOW: This is fair -- you are -- DePETRO: But he, Bill -- ABRAMS: All right, but let me -- MADDOW: You are God's gift to us understanding right-wing talk radio. DePETRO: Bill O'Reilly is not out -- ABRAMS: Let me get back to the issue. Even, John DePetro, you would agree with me, that it's disingenuous of O'Reilly to claim that he's doing this because he wants to hold the corrupt media responsible to help your life -- meaning the individuals out there, the folks. He's doing it to help their lives. John, you would agree with me, that is totally disingenuous. DePETRO: I hate to admit it -- yes, I would agree with you, Dan Abrams. ABRAMS: That's all what I get. Totally disingenuous. DePETRO: But I think he's doing the right thing by going after people that are attacking him and firing up his base and he continues his -- Dan, it's his campaign of I'm looking out for you. ABRAMS: All right, that's fine. He can do what he wants. I'm just saying don't be disingenuous about what you're doing here. Don't claim this is about some sort of effort to protect the folks against the corrupt media. He's defending himself. He said something he shouldn't have said. He's defending himself. It's not the end of the world. He wasn't intending to be racist, but he shouldn't have said it. It was a dumb thing to say. Just say that. All right. I've got to wrap. DePETRO: I think - Dan, I think some of the CNN crowd thought this was a Don Imus moment. And it's not. ABRAMS: Maybe. Maybe. All right. John DePetro, Joe Watkins, Rachel Maddow, thanks a lot. Appreciate it. DePETRO: Good to be with you, Dan. WATKINS: Thanks, Dan. MADDOW: Thanks, Dan. ABRAMS: Up next, we get a unique look at the man considered the most dangerous inmate in California. MLC comment: Dang DePetro forgot to add looking for fried chicken and watermelon, the shocking thing about John DePetro comment was he actually said it on national TV it's one thing thinking to yourself it's another saying it out loud. DePetro defending a racist comment made by Bill O'Reilly regarding the people inside Sylvia's restaurant with a even bigger racist comment referring to the people in Harlem as drug dealers and prostitutes. If I was Bill-O I tell Johnny DePetro don't defend me ever again