DOWNLOADS: (107)

PLAYS: (802)

Embed

A Republican congressman who served in Iraq and Afghanistan on Sunday looked back at the Iraq war and declared that it was a "just and noble war."

During an interview on CNN, host Candy Crowley asked Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR) for his views on the war 10 years after the U.S. invaded.

"The Iraq war noble and just war," the Arkansas Republican declared. "I would say it was worth it, but it's also a little too soon to tell because there's nothing ever certain in human affairs."

"But if you look at the accomplishments of our troops in Iraq, they deposed an evil tyrant who was an aggressive international dictator," Cotton continued. "He'd invaded across two boundaries. He had demonstrated the ability and the will to use weapons of mass destruction. He was believed by every Western government -- including senior high-ranking officials in President Obama's cabinet right now -- to be developing new weapons, who was in violation of numerous United Nations resolutions."

"But under those conditions, I think as I said, it was a just and noble war."

Many in Congress, however, now look back at the Iraq war as a mistake because President George W. Bush's administration used false information about weapons of mass destruction as a "pretext" to invade.

"You remember World War II, Korea, all the major wars of this nation," Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said recently. "This is one that slips into the background, and people are comfortable with it slipping into the background. I think the legacy of this is always going to be that it was a mistake, that it was pre-emptive, that it wasn't based on real information, and that the whole struggle could have been handled differently."

This has to be one of the most disgusting things I've watched in a long time. If anyone was wondering what network out there might be worse than the hacks on Fox over this "fiscal cliff" fearmongering, I think you just got your answer -- CNBC.

Anchor Accuses Top House Progressive Of Tanking Markets By Appearing On CNBC:

At around 3:30 PM Eastern Tuesday, CNBC anchor Michelle Caruso-Cabrera noted a sell-off in the stock market, an entirely unremarkable occurrence in the course of the financial network’s daily coverage. But what separated this particular sell-off from others, according to Caruso-Cabrera, was that it could be traced directly to the appearance of one of the House’s top progressives on her show.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) tanked the market, she said, by refusing to budge on his contention that Medicare cuts should be off the table in negotiations surrounding the so-called fiscal cliff. Democrats accused the anchor of trying to “shame” them into cutting entitlement cuts by directly blaming Grijalva’s words for the market’s decline.

Grijalva, co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, appeared on CNBC to talk about the debt talks and his view that it was unfair to talk about Medicare and other entitlement programs when Republicans remain publicly unwilling to significantly increase government revenues.

Caruso-Cabrera said Grijalva’s words were literally hurting the economy in real time. It’s something that’s happened before when members of Congress appear on the air, she added.

“Representative? You know what, as we’re talking the market is selling off once again,” she told Grijalva. “Every time members of Congress come on, and I’ve got to tell you sir, I think you’re contributing to the fears that we’re going off the fiscal cliff because it doesn’t sound like there’s any compromise in what you’re saying. Do you care that markets are selling off dramatically when it looks like you guys can’t come to a deal?”

As the interview ended, Caruso-Cabrera noted that the market had gone down “80 points” on the day at that point. Read on...

Update: Here's more from Digby: And they don't even have to be virgins.

DOWNLOADS: (887)

PLAYS: (632)

Embed

Chris Matthews proves once again that he never gets tired of the sound of his own voice. While he's correct that the topic of immigration has been used as a political punching bag by a whole lot of people who are happy with the status quo as long as the fear mongering wins them votes, I don't see how some national ID card that he's pushing for here is going to solve the problem of people being taken advantage of for cheap labor.

The unions Tweety loves to bash and did so again here want to make sure those immigrants aren't being used as slave labor by allowing them to organize. Matthews would rather paint them as part of the problem while he runs his mouth.

Transcript via Lexis Nexis.

MATTHEWS: Well, let’s get back what I think the heart of the issue. And I think we might all agree. The issue’s illegal immigration and how you look at it, politically, culturally, socially, in terms of human sympathy.

Mr. King, Congressman King, wouldn’t a guy or man, a woman or a young guy, whatever, still try to get into America if they thought there was a job here, even if they couldn’t have their kid born here and become an American? Wouldn’t there still be that great draw of a job in America? Isn’t that why people come from?

And if you outlaw the job hiring, the illegal hiring, wouldn’t that be a better way to stop illegal immigration, stop the illegal hiring?

KING: Well, Chris, I’m for doing all things to put an end to illegal immigration in the United States.

MATTHEWS: But we don’t do that. But that’s the main reason people come here.

KING: And this is one of them.

MATTHEWS: No. The main reason people come to the United States is to get a job. And business will not allow us to have a simple I.D. system, where people coming into the country can be checked out by an employer.

If you want somebody to cut your lawn, you say, can I see your card, a simple card, so you’re not breaking the law and that person is not breaking the law? Why don`t we have a simple system like that? I don’t understand it. You can’t get served in this country if you’re not 21 years old. You have to show an I.D. card.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (551)

PLAYS: (1666)

Embed

Sam Stein at Huffington Post captured these surprisingly frank assessments yesterday of the (dysfunctional) U.S. Senate from three progressive congressmen. Tom Perriello of Virginia (speaking via Skype) was especially blunt.

The entire exchange (about 10 minutes) is well worth watching as well. Here's the recorded video of the panel.

I've added some video to further capture the moment.

A trio of progressive House members took direct aim at their colleagues in the Senate on Saturday, declaring that the upper chamber "sucks," has a "toxic effect" on the legislative process, and would cost House Democrats seats in the 2010 election.

...

"They say the senate has a luxury of time, six-year cycles for elections," said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus. "But these last 18 months have, in memory, have not only been the most frustrating but the inertia created in the Senate is what is jeopardizing Democrats and progressives' opportunities in the midterms. It is not our lack of action. It has been their lack of action."

"I think [we] feel a frustration because my constituents don't necessarily distinguish between the House and the Senate," said Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). "And so when they see something not getting done they are not really tolerant of my argument which is, 'Well it passed the House.' That doesn't really wash. They hold us all accountable for the failure of these issues moving forward. I personally think the 60-vote requirement in the United States Senate is a bastardization of the United States constitution."

"It sucks," said Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), "and I mean it literally. It sucks the energy out of the room and it sucks the urgency out of what we do... The lack of urgency from the Senate on these jobs bill is soul-crushing."