Ah the hypocrisy of the Republican and right spin machine.  After General Clark's comment and then Representative Jim Webb's interview on Countdown, they're up in arms, claiming that there's a smear attack against McCain's service record.  Oh good, freaking grief, where is the shovel?

First off, I had seen both the Clark and Webb interview and neither one had anything disparaging to say about McCain's service record, in fact, they lauded him as a hero.  Yet of course, they have to find something to spin against the Democratic party, and this one seems to be the one that may just draw the ire of the American citizens, right?  I'm still looking for my shovel because it's getting deep from the fake indignation.

Here's a question from someone who saw the antics from the Bush "surrogate" team in South Carolina in the 2000 Republican Primaries to the Republican spin machine wanting to spin this in McCain's favor...

I'm really curious which members of the House Kossacks have the most respect for. Please post your selections and rationale for your choice, particularly if you vote "Other".

The list below, of course, is only a small number of the great liberal Democrats we have serving us. You may have a particular admiration for your own representative. Those listed below are the ones who I perceived as having a potent combination of strong liberal tendencies and a dynamic, noticeable personality.

With that said, have at it.

To no-one's surprise, in their Congressional testimony Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus blamed Iran for violence in Iraq, and cited Iran as the latest reason why we can't withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq until some indefinite time in the future, based on some unspecified criteria of undefined success. Of course, it was Iran, not the Bush Administration, that brokered the recent cease-fire in Basra, but that doesn't fit the Administration's script.

But while the Bush Administration continues to beat the drums of conflict with Iran, a bipartisan group of House Members has a different idea: implement the unanimous, bipartisan recommendations of the Congressionally-appointed Iraq Study Group, and engage in serious regional diplomacy - including Iran and Syria - to help achieve political resolution to Iraq's conflicts, and to help the US get out.

Republican Wayne Gilchrest, co-chair of the Congressional Dialogue Caucus, is the sponsor of H. Con. Res. 321, which calls for serious regional diplomacy.

It has become "big news" that Clinton cannot win the nomination without winning the popular vote.

Article here

Although this is true, lets take a look at this and discuss.

When following the news this past week, many will have considered it to be the Barack Obama campaign’s worst week yet.  Between the Wright controversy and the corresponding drop in poll position, Murtha’s endorsement and the lingering Edwards endorsement of Clinton on the Leno show there was a building narrative that Barack Obama’s candidacy was going south.  Edwards's endorsement is likely the most coveted of the former Democratic candidates and many see for one reason or another going to Clinton.  Murtha’s endorsement ended a drought of superdelegates for her and coming in the middle of the Wright news arc might have signaled the oncoming flood for Clinton.  It seemed that every poll was showing a drop for Barack Obama against Hillary and McCain which was being played heavily by the Clinton campaign as evidence of her greater elect ability.

I was a bit surprised to see so much activity here over the announcement of Rep. John Murtha's (PA-12) endorsement of Hillary Clinton.  I'm not sure if it's the lack of Hillary endorsements recently, disappointment over his choice, or some other factor.  I've posted several thoughts in the comments of the original diary, but thought I could kind of pull things together in my own (and my debut!) diary to see if I could give my view on exactly what kind of impact this has on the race.  Thoughts after the jump...

Hillary Clinton has ended a recent drought in picking up new superdelegates by snagging the support of former Marine and vocal Iraq War critic, Congressman John Murtha. Murtha spoke favorably about both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama's plans for removing troops from Iraq, but gave the edge to Clinton on the experience issue.

But Murtha said Clinton's experience gave her an edge.

"Her experience and careful consideration of these issues convinced me that she is best qualified to lead our nation and to bring credibility back to the White House."

It doesn't seem that there has been much effect from endorsements in this election cycle, but getting the support of a well-known Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania can't hurt at this point.

Many of us are starting to prepare our 2007 taxes, but how many of us know what our tax dollars are actually paying for? FCNL calculates that 43 cents of every dollar {PDF} you'll pay in taxes go to pay for current and past military activities.

War Is Not the Answer!

Especially WARS Of CHOICE!

And I wish I could have been at the Center for Strategic and International Studies last week.

From the report written about the speach, Murtha and the Cost of the War,  Rep. John P. Murtha gave, any doubters were no more when they left!

I am 45 years old.  I was but 6 years old when Hubert Humphrey ran for president of the United States in 1968.  It is one of my earliest political memories of any sort, but only in that hazy, part-here, part-somewhere else way that is one's faded memories from childhood.  My dad, now retired, was a labor union activist--at that time living in Western Pennsylvania--and he worked 50-60 hours a week at Krogers grocery store stocking shelves.  Because he worked nightshift, during the day, he would sleep, but then much of the remainder of his waking hours before heading back to work the next shift was devoted to the union and aiding the union's political efforts.

More and more, President Bush's strategy in Iraq resembles an M.C. Escher illustration.  Like the hands drawing each other or the elegant depiction of stairways that cannot possibly meet, the military progress of the U.S. surge is producing an image of a future Iraq that, while glorious to behold, can never be built.  The very American alliances with Sunni tribal leaders that are reducing both sectarian violence and the threat from Al Qaeda also threaten to undermine the Shiite majority government in Baghdad.  And the "enduring" U.S. presence announced by President Bush this week may serve only to protect the Maliki government from its domestic enemies, not its friend and American foe Iran.  If anything, the surge may be making the prospect of Iraqi national reconciliation even more remote.

Cross-Posted from Hat Thief

We're all worried that the Democratic Congress will again capitulate to the man down the street with the 30% approval rating [a.k.a President Bush]. After all, they did so in May by significant margins.

And then we hear this today from Rep. John Murtha, Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

I think the ’surge’ is working, but that's only one element...That's because of the increase in troops.

After this, we'd expect that Speaker Pelosi is on the verge of capitulation. But CNN reports Pelosi won't Budge on Troop Pullback Dates

As reported by AP today:

Bush pushes Democrats to OK war funding
By Ben Feller, Associated Press Writer  |  November 29, 2007

WASHINGTON --President Bush sternly pressed Democrats to approve money to fund the Iraq war "without strings and without delay" before leaving town for the Christmas holidays, something congressional leaders have already indicated they will not do.

After more failed attempts to pass legislation ordering troops home from Iraq, Democrats have said they plan to sit on Bush's $196 billion request for war spending until next year.

Bush said this will push the Pentagon toward an accounting nightmare and affect the military's ability to do its job protecting the country.

"The American people expect us to work together to support our troops. That's what they want," Bush said Thursday after spending two hours meeting at the Pentagon with military leaders."

No, the American people want Congress to demonstrate the guts to take effective action which results in redeployment, since "supporting the troops" means redeploying the troops.

Just a quick heads-up on a breaking (I think) story.  Rep.  John Murtha said in a videoconference that he thinks the surge is working.  He goes on to say that the political situation is Iraq is still poor.
Just preparing y'all for the crowing from the right that will commence tomorrow.
 

3,875 soldiers dead and more than 28,000 wounded Americans, plus more than 1,000 private contractors killed and many more injured.

The costs of the invasion and occupation seem to have no end. This endless war was the result of a wrong turn. We've been stuck slogging through the results of the mistake for almost five years now.

I finally see a flickering light at the end of this long and dreary tunnel. It gives me hope. On this Thanksgiving, I want to give thanks to those holding that candle for us. Held up as a beacon by a few brave members of our Congress, the light at the end beckons us. So, let's dust ourselves off and walk in their direction. On the way, of course, we can talk more about how all this happened and what we can do to prevent it from ever happening again. C'mon, come with me....

http://congressnow.com/

http://congressnow.com/...

Looks like it just might be High Noon a-comin'.

The source, CongressNow, is a wonderful Congressional News service that through some finagling I'm getting for a free 2 week trial.  So you might not be able to link up.

I try not to put "breaking" in subject titles, because it looks so silly a few hours after you post one...

Diana Irey, the corrupt harpy who tried it last time, is busy keeping her snout in the smaller trough of her local office, so she's not going to run against Congressman John Murtha again in 2008.

John Russell, 45, a hawk on the war, is moving into the district to run on the Republican ticket:

http://www.centredaily.com/...

To add to skymutt's diary on the matter, Charles Riechers, the nominee for one of the top Air Force acquisition spots who was found dead in what Air Force officials are calling an apparent suicide (although law enforcement officials, interestingly, have not weighed in), might have been the subject of some investigative scrutiny after hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee a week or so ago:

On Thursday, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) criticized the deal during a hearing on the pending nominations of Pentagon officials. While questioning John Young Jr., the nominee for undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, Levin expressed concern about the Air Force arrangement.

...And I would like to know why:

The second-highest ranking member of the Air Force’s procurement office was found dead of an apparent suicide at his Virginia home Sunday, Air Force and police officials said today.

The official, Charles D. Riechers, 47, came under scrutiny by the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month after the Air Force arranged for him to be paid $13,400 a month by a private contractor, Commonwealth Research Institute, while he awaited review from the White House of his appointment as principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition. He was appointed to the job in January.

http://www.nytimes.com/...