Republicans go on record against mother's milk

Lest you forget that GOP protestations of patriotism are limited to war at the expense of any other American values like, say, liberty, or the rule of law, it's now official: Republicans are against breast-feeding:

In an attempt to raise the nation's historically low rate of breast-feeding, federal health officials commissioned an attention-grabbing advertising campaign a few years ago to convince mothers that their babies faced real health risks if they did not breast-feed. It featured striking photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples.

Plans to run these blunt ads infuriated the politically powerful infant formula industry, which hired a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a former top regulatory official to lobby the Health and Human Services Department. Not long afterward, department political appointees toned down the campaign.

So, in an effort to assuage their corporate masters, the GOP has come out against mom.

Next on the agenda, government reports touting the benefits of mock-apple pie and tee-ball?

Dogs of War

Glenn Greenwald has the call on Bush's most dangerous speech to date regarding the impending (so the neo-cons hope) war with Iran.

After outlining the mendacities upon which Bush is building the case for war, Greenwald makes the scariest observation I've read:

The true danger here is that even if there would be marginally more political opposition to an attack on Iran than there was for an attack on Iraq -- and surely there would be, perhaps considerably more opposition -- those who favor an attack are still politically strong within the administration. And there simply are no factions which would oppose such an attack that are anywhere near strong enough to stop one. Who and where are they? What are the political factions which have sufficient political strength and who are willing to risk political capital to stop such a confrontation?

By stark and dispositive contrast, those who are pining for an attack on Iran -- from the Weekly Standard to the AEI and various generic warmongers of the Dick Cheney/National Review strain, as well as our most pious evangelical Christian warriors -- are zelaous adherents, True Believers. Bringing about a military confrontation with Iran has always been, and continues to be, their paramount priority.

Where oh where is the outcry against Bush's transparent warmongering?

If you want to nip this lunacy in the bud, please, please, please contact your representatives and let them know you'll support anybody who stands up to Bush and the war-machine.

[NOTE - Here's the text that I sent to my reps. Feel free to copy/paste it and send it to yours:

Yesterday President Bush gave a speech to the American Legion in which he outlined his case against Iran.

I found the similarities between this speech and the rationales given in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq to be as disquieting as they were border-line mendacious.

Too many Democratic leaders appear to feel that opposing the President's war-mongering will lead to charges that they are "weak" on defense.

Please let me assure you that I and many like me understand that strong defense does not require an unending series of needless wars and that we are prepared to fully support any politician brave enough to stand up and say so.

I hope to count you as such.

GONZO

And though you'll never hear it from MSM accounts, the blogosphere was incredibly important in exposing this hack.

Congratulations to Josh and the gang at TPM.