Will Paddy Apologize?

For a long, long time, PaddyMac has been advocating for waterboarding anyone and everyone. It must be the latent sadistic side of him or something.

His arguments include that it is effective and necessary.

Paddy is obviously full of Blarney. The Washington Post has a story on a report finding that Donald Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration folks had a direct hand in implementing and trying to legalize torture. The report goes on to say (emphasis mine):

"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," the report states. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."

The report is the most direct refutation to date of the administration's rationale for using aggressive interrogation tactics -- that inflicting humiliation and pain on detainees was legal and effective, and helped protect the country. The 25-member panel, without one dissent among the 12 Republican members, declared the opposite to be true.

The administration's policies and the resulting controversies, the panel concluded, "damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority."

Note to Paddy: Feel free to give us a mea culpa whenever you're ready. You can even send the advance copy to your echo chamber while you're at it.

H/T to James Rowen.

McIlheran Beats Same Broken War Drum

In today's version of what's left of the newspaper, McIlheran has a column trying to argue that McCain was right about the Iraq War.

Unfortunately for PaddyMac, but not surprisingly, his whole argument is based on false premises.

He repeatedly states that the Iraq War was solely about deposing Saddam from power. Nothing could be further from the truth. But to admit to the truth would be against PaddyMac's very own nature.

But there are some real doozies in Paddy's column, that almost defy belief that someone would have the audacity to write something like this and actually put their name to it. For example (emphasis mine):

Osama bin Laden did. In 2001, he said how inspiring our failure in Somalia was: "We found they had no power worthy of mention," he told al-Jazeera. Obama likes to point out that al-Qaida wasn't in Iraq until we overthrew Hussein. But that is irrelevant now: The question is whether, once they've arrived, the U.S. skedaddles.

Ol' Paddy says that it's now irrelevant that Bush, and his squawking followers, lied to get us in an unjust war? He says that one of their main talking points, of having to fight al Qaeda, is now not important? That the truth doesn't matter anymore? Well, I'm sure in Patrick's world, it never has mattered much.

But the real kicker is at the end of Paddy's tour of untruths:

The question, then, will not be whether to start a war, and the president won't get to make it in the consequence-free circumstances of the Illinois legislature. The question will be how the war will end.

Sorry, Paddy, but whether to start a war matters a helluva lot more. Statesmanship and diplomacy can be used to avert another unnecessary and unjust war. These are skills that McCain is woefully devoid of. Preventing a false war also eliminates altogether worrying about trying to interpret who won the war, as that it never happened.

I guess that McIlheran just couldn't figure it out for himself. He's too busy beating his broken drum.

He Keeps Trying, He Keeps Failing

A couple, three days ago, I pointed out how McIlheran misses the mark with a post on whether the surge worked. I simply highlighted how it should be irrelevant, because we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place.

Later that same day, McIlheran puts up a long, winding post in an effort to justify that we needed to be in Iraq because Saddam was such a bad man. Now, old Paddy is absolutely correct in asserting that Saddam was a bad man. He was responsible for the murder of thousands and thousands of people.

What Paddy doesn't tell us is that Saddam's evil nature was not why Bush chose to invade Iraq. In fact, that did not become the reason until long after the invasion and the capture of Saddam.

The original reason was that he had nuclear weapons. When that was proven to be a lie, it was weapons of mass destruction. Oops, another lie. After trying a few more on for size before discarding them, the Bush administration, and his backers, like McIlheran and Sykes, settled for the bad man line.

Another thing that McIlheran willfully fails to mention is the fact that Saddam was able to gain his power and the WMDs that he did once have. Reagan and his cronies gave them to him in the 80's, when Reagan was using Saddam to go after Iran. You might even recognize one of the guys that gave him the WMDs before deciding it maybe wasn't such a good idea after all:

Good Words, Wrong Man

Patrick McIlheran had a column in Wednesday's paper touting the surge and how it made Iraq safe for Senator Barack Obama to visit there. I won't get into whether or not the surge worked (it seems it just moved the enemy from one spot to another, but didn't get rid of them). But I would like to highlight the last paragraph of Paddy's column (emphasis mine):

Not that McCain should expect gratitude, which is for monuments, not elections. But that events have proved one candidate so right and the other so spectacularly wrong tells us something about their respective ability to judge what to do in the next crisis. That really is an issue worth voting on.

This passage struck me as being ironic, coming from McIlheran. Even while McIlheran was touting the supposed effectiveness of the surge, he was missing the key point to the whole thing.

There would have been no need of a surge, if there was no al Qaeda in Iraq. And there would have been no al Qaeda in Iraq, if our country hadn't bought into the false bill of goods that Bush, McCain and squawkers like McIlheran was selling.

But it was Obama, not McCain, that saw the folly of going into Iraq, which was contained, and ignoring the real enemy, bin Laden, who was holed up in Afghanistan.

So, let us review again what McIlheran wrote:

But that events have proved one candidate so right and the other so spectacularly wrong tells us something about their respective ability to judge what to do in the next crisis. That really is an issue worth voting on.

I am sure Obama would thank McIlheran for the vote of confidence.

I Wonder How Sykes Will Twist This

As we all know, Charlie Sykes has issues with reality, especially when it doesn't conform with his view of the world.

One of the most recent displays was the way he tried to spin Michael Mathias' writings in this hack job regarding the way that the U.S. Army was glorifying war in order to recruit kids.

Today, Michael has put up two posts that concern Iraq.

In the first one, Michael has a link and cites some text from Think Progress, including these paragraphs:

“If bin Laden takes over and becomes king of Saudi Arabia, he’d turn off the tap,” said Roger Diwan, a managing director of the Petroleum Finance Company, a consulting firm in Washington. “He said at one point that he wants oil to be $144 a barrel” — about six times what it sells for now.

Bin Laden didn’t have to become king of Saudi Arabia to achieve his goal; in fact, Bush’s policies delivered it for him. The Bush administration’s catastrophic decision to invade Iraq, sink the nation into debt to pay for that war, and consequently, weaken the dollar have all caused oil prices to soar astronomically.

So, how's that war going for us, Charlie?

In the second post, Michael connects us to a much more somber and tragic story:

PINEHURST, N.C. A former Army medic made famous by a photograph that showed him carrying an injured Iraqi boy during the first week of the war has died of an apparent overdose, police said.

Joseph Patrick Dwyer died last week at a hospital in Pinehurst, according to the Boles Funeral Home. He was 31.

[...]

His mother said the military could have done more to help with post-traumatic stress. "He just couldn't get over the war," Maureen Dwyer said. "He just couldn't do it. Just wasn't Joseph. Joseph never came home."

His wife, Matina, said: "He was just never the same when he came back, because of all the things he saw. ... He tried to seek treatment, but it didn’t work."

Hey, Charlie, tell us again how glorious this f-ing war is again.

Ah, but knowing Sykes, he will probably just ignore this sad story. He can't let reality get in the way of spreading his propaganda.

Knock on Woodheads

The woodwork is bursting regarding the Virtual War display and Charlie Syke's post. Here are some comments left at Charlie's place.

From Dianne Emmerich:

It's interesting that the peaceniks are so concerned about this "violence" and Summerfest panders to them, but neither are concerned about the hundreds of people that are overserved and leave the festival drunk on their arses only to get into a car and become lethal weapons on the ride home or to the next bar. Summerfest will get no more patronage from me.

Good idea. Uncaring liberal voices everywhere, let's all unite and ban the serving of beer at Summerfest. Sheesh.

From María Negrón Piñero:

As a very religious, very patriotic, very Puertorrican, very American, very conservative person I have only one comment: How sad! Let us remember the song “…I am proud to be an American…” and stand by those who defend us, our rights, our freedom, our peace, our lives and even the oppressed from other counties. God bless America, our arm forces and all of us!!!

I got all weepy-eyed just reading that. Sniff, can't we all just get along?

And finally from Amy P.:

I would like to know - for you peace groups and lefty bloggers out there - if war is "not the answer", is there nothing in your lives worth fighting for? Not your freedoms? Not your loved ones? Not your homes, your jobs, your lives? If that's the case, it speaks VOLUMES about how sad and pathetic the anti-war position is. "War is not the answer"? It depends on the question...and in the case of Islamic facism, Nazism, Communism war *is* the only way to ensure our peace and freedom.

Nazism?

In any case, you left out another question ... what about illegal wars? And another: What about fighting the erosion of personal liberties and rights? How about: Not wanting to expose our childrens to virtual violence.

And finally, a number of commenters got all bent out of shape because the video game Grand Theft Auto can be played at Summerfest. Way to stand up for your rights.

The Tolerant Right

Our very own Xoff sent a letter to the editor at the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal. Surprisingly, they published it:

Withdraw from Iraq

What is it that George Bush and John McCain fear about setting a timeline and getting U.S. troops out of Iraq - that we will have blood on our hands?

We already do. Four thousand Americans dead, 30,000 more wounded. Countless thousands of lives permanently shattered. Perhaps a million Iraqis dead; we don't even try to count. Four million others forced to flee their homes.

There will be no "victory" in Iraq. Withdrawing our troops will be a victory for sanity and rational behavior and a defeat for aggression justified by lies.

Yes, we need a timeline for getting out of Iraq - and the shorter the better.

Bill Christofferson
Milwaukee

Unfortunately, Bill had a less than warm reception from some of those on the right. He tells us the story here.

But remember, it's the left that is full of hate, or so we're told.

Sykes Promotes Disobedience Among The Armed Services

In a matter related to the previous post, Sykes, as well as almost every right wing blogger in the cheddarsphere, has put up some link or another to this video.

The video shows a young woman, who served in Iraq, issuing the same challenge that McCain did. The video is sponsored by a PAC named Vets For Freedom, which is basically Swiftboaters Version 2.o.

The young lady tells of all the progress allegedly made in Iraq, which raises the question: If things are so bloody wonderful, why would there be an issue of getting our troops out of there?
And if things aren't all that good, then why are they trying to say it is. They've put themselves in their own Catch-22.

Not only that, but the young lady is identified has having been in Iraq for 16 months, but no where does it say she is out of the service. Either way, it flies in the face of the orders of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who warned service personnel not to get involved in the politicking game:

“The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times and in all ways,” wrote the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation’s highest-ranking officer. “It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.”

By promoting this video, isn't Sykes and the others exploiting this young woman, and advocating for her to disobey an order? Can we send them to Gitmo for some waterboarding, as they are against America? After all, they keep telling us it's no problem to be there or go through that. Just don't ask McSamePain. He doesn't know what he thinks on the subject.

He Might Have A Point

McIlheran wrote that the "last time America screwed an ally, bad things happened:

So when the Communists launched a post-Americans attack on South Vietnam, Congress did nothing but yank out the rug. Some 65,000 South Vietnamese were murdered by the invading northerners, some 250,000 died in re-education camps, uncounted thousands more died trying to flee by sea, and the slaughter in Cambodia, with a toll in the millions, became a byword for genocide. This was the result of Congress' domestic politics.

And, Herman notes, the North's victory encouraged Marxist regimes in Africa, the Americas and Afghanistan. It also convinced the Ayatollah Khomeini that America would do nothing to stop him from imposing theocracy on Iran. We're paying the price for that yet.

For the unfamiliar, McIlheran tends to forgive Republicans everything and Democrats, nothing. Even if it's the Republicans fault. Which made me think of two friendships that the Reagan administration made, and the results of when they screwed them over:

Mission Accomplished

Five years ago today, Bush gave did his infamous stunt of landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln and giving his "Mission Accomplished" speech.

The AP is reporting on the anniversary, and it shows that Bush still is unable to tell the truth:

"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said `mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. "And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year."

She said what is important now is "how the president would describe the fight today. It's been a very tough month in Iraq, but we are taking the fight to the enemy."

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, in the state capitol, a group of veterans, military families and state progressives gathered to point out the fallacies that is still being spewed by the White House. You can see a small blurb on it here.

Whallah! is proud to present some rare shots from that fateful day. The first is a shot of Bush giving the "Mission Accomplished" speech, but making sure he had an out:



Also, something that was not reported by the media was that Dick Cheney was with Bush on that day. Here is a photo of the two of them last was attained at great peril to life and limb:




I would also be remiss if I did not point out how Senator John McCain feels about that day:

Nostradamus He Ain't

McIlheran should probably avoid giving weather forecasts or the results of any sporting events, as that he is a lousy prognosticator.

The Mighty Brawler explains why McIlheran is no Nostradamus.

An Answer For McIlheran

McIlheran poses a question, which was stimulated by another conservative blogger (What? You thought McIlheran has original ideas of his own? It is too laugh!):

Freedom Eden wonders why, when George W. Bush says he prays a lot, it's enough to make Madeleine Albright freak about his "certainty," while when Barack Obama says he prays to Jesus every night, it's a whole different ball game.

Here's your answer, Patrick: It's probably because Obama won't use his God as an excuse to cause unjust wars that cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives.

McIlheran Takes A Quick Hit

No, it's not the kind of quick hit you're thinking of. The newest member of the Patrick McIlheran fan club makes an appearance in the letters to the editor in this morning's paper:

The news is more negative than positive

Patrick McIlheran's Quick Hit on Feb. 15 listed all the positive things that he thinks are happening in Iraq. Never mind that almost 4,000 Americans have been killed and more than 29,000 maimed since our disastrous and unnecessary invasion. And disregard that our current occupation is costing around $250 million per day, according to recent reports. But, hey, who's counting, since the good news is that our lucky kids and grandkids get to pay the bill?

McIlheran, like President Bush, is obviously a bright-eyed optimist and sees the glass as 1/8 full rather than 7/8 empty. The only thing lacking in his comments was a big mission accomplished sign like we saw on the deck of that carrier almost five years ago.

Edward Creamean Sr.
Pewaukee

Whallah! has not been able to confirm this as of this posting, but we do believe that McIlheran does have a "Mission Accomplished" banner in his cubicle at MSJ.

I Hope He Wore Gloves

The Brew City Brawler, a manly man if there ever was one, is not afraid of a little dirty work. To prove the point, he starts out a post parsing some inane claims from McIlheran with this understatement:

As the Brawler's buddy illusory Tenant has pointed out in a different context, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel conservative columnist Patrick McIlheran has an impressive ability to pack 50 pounds of offal in a 5 pound bag.

And so it goes with his "Quick Hit" on Friday, describing in glowing terms the stituation in Iraq.

You can read the rest of Brawler's analysis here.

Deceived By The Deceiving Deceived

McBride, oh how we missed her, is at it again, but in her true form. Here is her entire post:

Saddam, not Bush. Bush was deceived, not the deceiver.

To bad for McBride that reality is not on her side. It was Bush that had the intelligence reports that said that there were no WMDs, not Hussein. It was Bush who said that they knew exactly where the WMDs were even thought he couldn't find them, because they didn't exist. not Hussein.

In fact it wasn't Hussein, but Bush and his posse, that lied 935 times to get us into the war that shouldn't have been.

But why let facts get in the way? That would only cramp her style.

Unintended Consequences Indeed

Sykes' hot read of the day is an excerpt from the authors of Freakonomics. Not a good omen there. The piece is a long, tortuous, circular path of reasoning in an attempt to make the American Disability Act look like it's bad for people with disabilities, or that the Endangered Species Act actually endangers animals it's meant to protect. The point was some anti-government, be aware of good intentions or something like that.

I was going to do a post about how it is the greed of people that caused these results and not the laws as he was trying to infer.

Then I thought about Bush's economics packages that was meant to stimulate the economy, but hurt it and hurt it bad. Then I remembered Bush's war on terrrorism, that actually increased terrorism.

Then I realized, I've got nothing. Sykes unintentionally got one right.

How Much Longer?

Patrick McIlheran and the rest of the local conservative punditry have been trying to tell us that we have been winning in Iraq for the past five years, even though they originally told us that it would be just a quick little jaunt.

Our own Brawler has a question for McIlheran about his claims. Namely:

As a supporter of the invasion (despite the admonitions of his pope) and the subsequent occupation, you owe an obligation to your readers to say, specifically. how long you think the U.S. should maintain a significant military presence in Iraq. I mean, if you're going to say people who want out just want to "Cut and run," you clearly need to define how long you think we should be there.

Or, at a minimum, is 20 years too long? Is 30 years too long?

Justifying the Unjustifiable

McIlheran is still trying to rationalize the war in Iraq. He cites the latest terrorist bombing that killed three children and three soldiers as proof that the invasion of Iraq is part of the war on terror.

This was a terrible act. That much goes without saying. I don't know of anyone that would disagree, except Reverend Phelps. What he fails to mention is that neither the soldiers nor the terrorists would have been there if Bush hadn't started this unjust war in the first place. All that he does manage to do is demonstrate another avoidable tragedy that didn't have to happen.

Words Of A Veteran

Today is the official observation of Veteran's Day. What better day than this to share the words of a veteran as he shares his views of the Iraq War.

They elected a new Democratic Congress last year, with a clear mandate to end the war. But the new Congress is as chicken-hearted as the president is bull-headed.

The author is Bill Christofferson, aka xoff, and you can read the rest here. I would give the words of a veteran more credence than those who have not, like most, if not all, of our local right-wing media.

And thank you, Bill, for your service. And thank you to all others who have served.

h/t Pundit Nation

How To Tell When You're Losing A Debate

PaddyMac started out with an foolish post trying to justify the use of waterboarding, claiming it wasn't really torture. Later, he puts up another post, quoting a couple of other bloggers expressing their opinions, as validation for his own incorrect thinking.

This morning, Mike Mathias, at Pundit Nation, confronts PaddyMac's erroneous assertions regarding the whole waterboarding issue.

This afternoon, we see PaddyMac trying to make a retort to Mr. Mathias's arguments. The key word her is trying. PaddyMac tries to say that Mr. Mathias is losing his argument by making "an allusion" comparing PaddyMac to a Nazi. This is the first sign that PaddyMac is losing, when he makes false statements to distract from the true argument. What Mr. Mathias did say was

Am I saying that McIlheran is Eichmann? No, but I think he needs to examine which other countries have allowed torture and determine if they have governments he thinks the US wants to be associated with historically.

As one can see, Mr. Mathias actually goes out of his way to make sure that no one, except for PaddyMac apparently, would make that inference.

And if one would look at the wording Paddy uses in his first post, compared to his rebuttal to Mr. Mathias, an observant reader would notice that PaddyMac has gone from defending waterboarding as justified to calling it "debatable". Backpedalling is another sign of losing your argument.

But all that aside, I find it sad that PaddyMac, and many others on the right, try to justify the use of torture by citing the violence and atrocities committed by the terrorists. I don't think I would want to use a terrorist as a role model for my behaviors or the actions of my country, but then again, I know that I am above that. Apparently they don't.

UPDATE: Mike Mathias (or in PaddyMacese, Matthias) corrects PaddyMac's false assertions, and notes Paddy's own little tribute to adding to the Nazi rhetoric.