Where's Your Old Man?

I don’t have the time (nor the desire, truth be told) to fully catalogue and respond to the lies and distortions from Laura “Hit And Run” Bush yesterday when she visited our area to campaign for Mike Fitzpatrick (and receive the Pearl S. Buck Award? God, what the hell is that group thinking?), but I do want to highlight a couple of them in particular. Here’s the first one:

“In Afghanistan today, Americans are bringing women and girls maligned for years back into Afghan society.”

This link takes you to an article written by a lady referred to only as Zoya (probably out of fear of reprisal) from the group RAWA (the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan) in which she states the following:

The security situation in Afghanistan is critical. It is like a ticking bomb, and it is very possible that at any time a civil war will break out. Women and girls have been particularly affected by the insecurity. There are hundreds of attacks on teachers, students and schools across Afghanistan, with girls' schools being particularly hard hit. In most remote villages there are not even any signs of schools for girls. Hundreds of Afghan women have committed suicide due to these intense pressures and hopelessness. When the entire nation is living under the shadow of guns and warlordism, how can its women enjoy their basic freedoms?

The column gets more graphic from that point on, and I’ll leave that up to your own investigation.

And this is in keeping with the failed strategy (using the term loosely, I know) on the part of Bushco and the pliant Repug congress in prosecuting what is laughably called “the war on terror.”

This makes Laura Bush’s comments about the alleged freedom of women worse than mere propaganda; to be honest, it’s an insult to our intelligence (to say nothing of the sacrifice of the people in that country trying to live their lives in the midst of the murderous resurgence of the Taliban, in part due to the “cooperation” of our “friends” in Pakistan).

Also, Mrs. Bush stated that Mikey “is a champion of the men and women in the U.S. military.”

I’ll tell you what; read this post from Paul Rieckhoff of the Huffington Post in which he grades legislators based on their votes regarding veterans’ issues to find out if that’s true (I’ll save you the suspense – Mikey got a C minus).

Also, this letter to the editor appeared in the Courier Times today from Kevin Treiber, the Lower Makefield veterans coordinator of the Patrick Murphy for Congress campaign (if you don’t like his allegiance, fine; try arguing with him based on the merits of what he’s talking about instead).

I am deeply disappointed by Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick’s lack of integrity at his press conference staged in front of the American Legion in Newtown with several Iraq War veterans.

I am a member of the American Legion, and I am insulted that Fitzpatrick would use the American Legion as a backdrop for his event and stand by idly allowing Patrick Murphy’s honorable service to be questioned.

No leader, particularly an elected official, should ever allow disparaging comments about a soldier’s service. It’s un-American. This was a typical political stunt to keep voters from seeing the truth. The truth is that, according to the Disabled American Veterans, Fitzpatrick voted against five out of eight key votes over the past two years that would have benefited veterans.

The truth is that Congressman Fitzpatrick voted to cut the proposed increase in spending on veterans programs by $155 million. The truth is that Congressman Fitzpatrick voted against the interests of veterans, opposing an increase in funding military health care by $100 million. The truth is veterans are being turned away from the VA because they don’t qualify for health care.

The truth is we need someone who will take care of our military and veterans. The truth is we need Patrick Murphy.

Speaking of being deeply disappointed, I should point out yet again the ridiculously blatant double standard on the part of the Courier Times editorial board in publishing its campaign letters (though I suppose it’s my fault for actually having expectations of professional behavior on their part).

The newspaper has a stated policy of not allowing personal attacks to be printed. However, in recent weeks letter writer Richard Staedtler accused John Kerry of collaborating with the enemy and endangering our troops during the Vietnam War (which, beyond being merely stupid, is grounds for a lawsuit, truth be told), and today, letter writer Ed Monigan, in criticizing Bill Clinton’s recent visit to this area to campaign for Democratic candidates, said the former president “has the morals of a mangy dog" (I guess this was Monigan's attempt at being clever since Clinton used that term to describe the "swift boat" attack on Patrick).

Gee, aren’t you glad that the Courier Times allows such adult, mature commentary on the vital issues related to the upcoming election?

Update: I wonder if this is what Laura Bush had in mind when she called for "civility" in the election; I guess her definition of that word is the silent compliance from someone who is bound and gagged (and by the way, I think Brian Scheid of the Courier Times does a good job here of calling Mikey on his bullshit through solid reporting...sorry, I know that's a bad word, but that's exactly what it is.)

And also regarding this update, here's a link to an Atrios post with a copy of Patrick Murphy's appointment letter.