I’m not sure at all why President Bush and John McCain want to bring Iraq back to the front burner. Bringing up the war over there, even if it is necessary in oder for us to clean up George Bush’s mess, is going to do McCain nor Bush any good. Oh man! Here’s one thing John McCain doesn’t need — George Bush repeating his “Mission Accomplished” statement several years after his rightly-ridiculed, flight-suited, codpieced original “Mission Accomplished” statement. But it appears that George Bush is going to make a “Mission Accomplished” statement today, though Americans are still dying in what has become the most expensive American military quagmire in history. From Reuters:

President George W. Bush will acknowledge on Wednesday the Iraq war has been fought at a high cost but will insist a U.S. troop buildup has opened the door to a “major strategic victory” against Islamic militants.

“The successes we are seeing in Iraq are undeniable,” Bush will say in an upbeat assessment of the U.S.-led campaign in a speech marking the fifth anniversary of the war, according to excerpts released on Tuesday.

With less than 11 months left in office and his approval ratings near the lows of his presidency, Bush is trying to shore up support for the unpopular war, which has damaged U.S. credibility abroad and is sure to define his legacy.

Excerpts of Wednesday’s speech at the Pentagon suggested a more triumphant tone than Bush’s recent Iraq addresses, but he still may have a hard time winning the public’s attention.

No, Bush’s saying it is so isn’t going to work any better than it did on that carrier deck, and I’m thinking Kieth Olbermann is going to have fun with this one later today. The blowback here is going to be on McCain’s candidacy as all Americans are going to be reminded of McCain’s constant support of Bush’s failed strategeries.

John has also caught a bit of the Bush fumblemouth. In a speech in Amman, Jordan, John McCain was all for blaming Iran for supporting the chaos in Iraq, but he misnamed the group Iran was supposedly supporting, having to be corrected by one of his aides. It is like Bush has some sort of fumblemouth disease that John McCain has caught. From today’s Philadelphia Inquirer:

Sen. John McCain, in the midst of a trip to the Middle East that he hoped would help burnish his foreign-policy expertise, incorrectly asserted that Iran was training and supplying al-Qaeda in Iraq, confusing the Sunni insurgent group with the Shiite extremists who U.S. officials believe are supported by their religious brethren in the neighboring country.
The mistake, which he quickly corrected after a whisper from a colleague, was an unwelcome stumble as the Arizona senator, the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee, spends seven days in the Mideast and Europe.

His campaign asserts that McCain’s decades of foreign-policy experience make him the candidate best equipped to lead the country in a time of international peril. He has staked his bid in particular on his deep knowledge of the military and political situation in Iraq, frequently mocking his Democratic rivals for what he describes as a naive desire to pull troops out quickly.

Yeah, McCain’s supposed deep knowledge of the Iraq and world situation ended up as a fumblemouth Bush moment, though one wonders whether it wasn’t a senior moment. Yeah, we’re definitely getting reruns from the Republicans, even to the extent of their GOTV strategies here in PA.

Yup, the GOP is bringing out that old chestnut, the amending of the State constitution to not only ban gay marriage, but to ban civil unions that are already recognized in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and at many of the universities in the state. Of course they are saying the amendment doesn’t interfere with what these rights that are given by the state’s major cities, but the language of their little measure surely conflicts. Also from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

By a 10-4 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday advanced a bill to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage or civil unions.

The bill now goes to the Appropriations Committee before consideration by the full Senate.

It would have to be passed by the General Assembly in two consecutive sessions and then approved by voters in a referendum.

The amendment would read, “No union other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the commonwealth.”

The committee vote yesterday came over the objections of a minority of senators who said the language was discriminatory and confusing, and could jeopardize existing domestic-partner benefit programs offered by the Cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and elsewhere.

Proponents say they believe an amendment is the only way to protect traditional marriage from court challenges that led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and civil unions in Vermont.

There have been no challenges to the Pennsylvania Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, since its passage in 1996. But opponents say that if the Constitution is amended, it will open the door to discrimination lawsuits by same-sex or unmarried couples who are denied benefits.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Stewart Greenleaf (R., Bucks) and Sen. John Gordner (R., Columbia) said they did not believe the amendment would eliminate access to existing benefits or other legal rights of same-sex couples or unmarried partners.

“This will protect the sanctity of marriage and ensure that benefits are preserved,” said Gordner, adding that 27 states had amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage.

Sen. Jay Costa Jr., a Democrat from Pittsburgh, which offers its city employees domestic-partner benefits, disagreed.

He said the Pittsburgh ordinance uses the term functional equivalent of marriage as a way to assess those seeking domestic-partner benefits - the same language that would be used to disqualify people from recognition in the bill’s amendment language.

“Those people would be harmed,” he said.

Let’s see. They say the amendment is needed though there have been zero challenges to the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. They say it won’t interfere with benefits bestowed by Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, though the amendment uses EXACTLY THE SAME LANGUAGE as the Pittsburgh ordinance, banning the “functional equivalent of marriage.” Another argument that’s hard to swallow for its truthfulness. Of course, the legislators have yet to explain how gay marriage harms heterosexuals. The true aim here clearly is to try to energize the GOP base and get them out to the polls this autumn. Yeah, one more rerun, this time of a strategery of hate as the GOP tries to demonize one group of citizens in order to get their own people to the polls.

I’m thinking the GOP is going down this fall because they simply have zero new ideas. It’s all reruns with them, isn’t it?