E Pluribus Unum

OK, the dirty hippies were right about everything.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , War in Iraq

• Sounds like McCain thinks the Secret Service causes more problems that it solves -- and he'd eliminate much of it if he becomes president. "Why do I need it?" says he. I'll tell you why: because the office is bigger than you, you macho s*@thead.

• John Edwards confuses going on offense with going on the attack. Reed Hundt, on the other hand, knows exactly what the difference is.

• Optimist's view of Iraq: US keeps 80,000-100,000 troops in country for the next twenty to thirty years. Meanwhile when the Brits left Basra, violence dropped by 90%. Draw your own conclusions.

• Rove on How To Beat Hillary. Ara on How To Beat Any Republican Who Wants To Beat Hillary (or any other Dem).

• In the context of today's writers' strike, screenwriter John Rogers (aka Kung Fu Monkey) recalls his essay wherein he draws a brilliant parallel between 4th generation warfare and 4th generation media. The guy is good -- read today's Re-arranging the Deckchairs as well as yesteryear's 4th Generation Media.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Democrats , John Edwards , John McCain , Media , Odds & Sods , War in Iraq

MSNBC:

[S]ome U.S. Army officers now talk more sympathetically about former insurgents than they do about their ostensible allies in the Shiite-led central government. "It is painful, very painful," dealing with the obstructionism of Iraqi officials, said Army Lt. Col. Mark Fetter.

I'm hearing several things in that statement:

1. The surge failed to produce results as advertised.
   
2. The US Army did what it was told -- don't blame them for this mess.
   
3. The politicians -- Iraqi, US, as usual -- screwed this thing up.

If victory was ever in the cards, it was going to be dealt out by a democratic Iraqi government that was on our side. That isn't going to happen now.

Why are we even still there?

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: War in Iraq

by shep

Eugene Robinson:

"It's official: Bush Derangement Syndrome is now a full-blown epidemic. George W. Bush apparently has reduced more of his fellow citizens to frustrated, sputtering rage than any president since opinion polling began, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon. . .”

Mitch McConnell:

"The war is winding down. Next year's election is going to be about this Congress and what it failed to do"

Michael Crowley:

"I wonder whether the Democrats have been preparing for that possibility -- and what their contingency plans are if the Iraq debate tacks substantially back the GOP's way."

Karl Rove:

"The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.”

"People in the past who have been on the nutty fringe of political life, who were more or less voiceless, have now been given an inexpensive and easily accessible soapbox, a blog.”

And that’s one reason you’re out of the White House and forced to peddle your delusions on the permanently deranged pages of the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed. That is, after helping to create a permanent Republican minority.

Lets’ all pray for a slow and painful recovery.

H/T Dan Froomkin

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

Please Mr. Musharraf, could you please get back to helping me spread my “freedom agenda”? Your check is in the mail.

(Oh, and Mr. Erdogan, I sure would appreciate it if you didn’t invade Iraq. Pretty please.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

Courtesy Blogenfreude at
Agitprop: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Propaganda.

I know, I know ... the first word that popped into your mind was "Giuliani", wasn't it?

One can only hope progressives everywhere learn from the horrible mistake of hounding this old tyrant, a sad case of Activist International Tribunals, and Leave Rummy Alone.

Rumsfeld flees France fearing arrest

Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fled France today fearing arrest over charges of “ordering and authorizing” torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the US military’s detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unconfirmed reports coming from Paris suggest.

US embassy officials whisked Rumsfeld away yesterday from a breakfast meeting in Paris organized by the Foreign Policy magazine after human rights groups filed a criminal complaint against the man who spearheaded President George W. Bush’s “war on terror” for six years.

Under international law, authorities in France are obliged to open an investigation when a complaint is made while the alleged torturer is on French soil.

According to activists in France, who greeted Rumsfeld shouting “murderer” and “war criminal” at the breakfast meeting venue, US embassy officials remained tight-lipped about the former defense secretary’s whereabouts citing “security reasons”.

Anti-torture protesters in France believe that the defense secretary fled over the open border to Germany, where a war crimes case against Rumsfeld was dismissed by a federal court. But activist point out that under the Schengen agreement that ended border checkpoints across a large part of the European Union, French law enforcement agents are allowed to cross the border into Germany in pursuit of a fleeing fugitive.

“Rumsfeld must be feeling how Saddam Hussein felt when US forces were hunting him down,” activist Tanguy Richard said. “He may never end up being hanged like his old friend, but he must learn that in the civilized world, war crime doesn’t pay.”

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), and the French League for Human Rights (LDH) filed the complaint on Thursday after learning that Rumsfeld was scheduled to visit Paris.
U.S.A.

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Funny , Republicans , Rudy Giuliani , War in Iraq

by shep

Certain people, who need not be named but who whisper in the ear of the president and the leading Republican candidate to replace him and who are hired by the most prestigious (and not so much) news organizations to share their opinions with the public, think we should attack the country of Iran for providing (completely unproven) support for insurgents fighting against the US occupation of Iraq.

Well, who wouldn’t want to attack the country that arms its enemies, who end up killing their troops? Still, the main moral difference between Iraq/Iran and this seems to be that the Soviets were actually invited into Afghanistan by its government (much like our own venture into Vietnam). (Can you imagine if they simply came up with some phony excuse to invade and occupy the country, hanging its leaders and killing a million innocent Afghanis?)

Yet the IEDs Stinger missiles and other support supplied by our Quds Force CIA and China, Pakistan and Iran (”The Coalition of the Willing”), killed 10,000 or more Soviet troops (good thing the Soviets didn’t have nuclear weapons and strategic bombing capability, huh?).

The (most ironic) poison fruit, poisons us still:

“Some American groups, particularly neoconservatives came to believe that they were responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. The Islamists that fought also believed that they were responsible for the fall of the union, and this may have indirectly lead to 9/11. Osama bin Laden, for example asserting the credit for ‘the collapse of the Soviet Union ... goes to God and the mujahidin in Afghanistan ... the US had no mentionable role,’ but ‘collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant.’”

But, as we have learned from tragic effect, they are absolutely incapable of learning anything from history:

“Some participants felt leverage was not the main issue; rather, US policymakers knowingly abandoned Afghanistan to the Pakistanis and Saudis to ‘sort out’ Afghanistan’s future. However, the participant said, ‘The Pak-Saudi agenda for Afghanistan was totally ruinous . . . it was [that] agenda which leads to Al Qaeda and all the rest of it. . . . Did you not see this in 1992, as it emerges?’”

The obvious answer is either “no” or they just didn’t think it mattered very much.

Regardless, the Soviets didn’t attack the US over arming its enemies in Afghanistan, we didn’t attack China for arming our enemies in Korea and Vietnam and China didn’t attack us for arming theirs. Pakistan has illegal nuclear weapons, Maddrassas, a Muslim population that is far more radicalized than Iran and it arms Islamic radicals who kill our troops in Afghanistan while it provides safe haven to Osama bin Laden (if he's still alive). We call it an ally.

In any event, the people who have shaped the foreign and military policy of the United States for the past seven years (especially Vice President Cheney) are not the people who should be allowed anywhere near that sort of power ever again. Just as their authoritarianism, bellicosity and aggression has made Osama bin Laden’s fondest wishes come true it has also driven the price of oil to record highs, funneling ever more $billions to countries like Iran and Russia even as it unites Muslim nations against us and weakens us economically and militarily.

If the nation’s political and media leaders had either the slightest bit of level-headed judgement or a functioning moral compass the neoconservatives wouldn't be setting the agenda, they would be driven from the public sphere in shame and eventually tried for their crimes against humanity.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Afghanistan , Iraq , Republicans , War , War in Iraq

An excerpt from John Cusack's eye-opening interview with Naomi Klein:

One of the distinguishing features of the Bush administration has been its reliance on outside advisers and freelance envoys to perform key functions: James Baker, Paul Bremer, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Richard Perle, Bruce Jackson, and so on...

Their power stems from the fact that they used to perform key roles in government -- they are former secretaries of state, former ambassadors and former undersecretaries of defense. All have been out of government for years and, in the meantime, have set up lucrative careers in the disaster capitalism complex.

And because they are freelance government contractors, they aren't subject to the same conflict-of-interest rules as elected or appointed politicians.

The effect has been to eliminate the so-called revolving door between government and industry and allow the disaster industries to simply set up shop inside the government, using the reputations of these supposedly illustrious ex-politicians as cover.

P.S. Yes, that John Cusack.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Politics , Republicans , Terrorism , War , War in Iraq

Gosh, it's like the Hale-Bopp Comet all over again:

In March 1997, the cult group Heaven's Gate chose the appearance of the Hale-Bopp comet as a signal for their mass cult suicide. They claimed they were leaving their earthly bodies to travel to the spaceship following the comet.

Similarly, by blocking a vote on the Webb amendment (which would have guaranteed a 15-month home rotation following a 15 month tour of duty), Senate Republicans committed political suicide, claiming they were supporting the troops.

Pretty fantastic stuff.

Here, in the real world, what was at stake can be best expressed by reading a comment from John Aravosis' blog:

"I remember well when my son in law was in Iraq for 12 long months. My wife did most of the heavy emotional lifting, consoling my daughter when the panic attacks hit. I did less, but I remember it well.

You see -- when a guy dies in Iraq they shut down all communication home until the next of kin can be notified. One unintended consequence of that is spouses know when somebody has died, but they don't know who. It's like that scene in A League of Their Own, except the tension and fear goes on for a day or two and then it happens again a few weeks later.

How many soldiers come back from Iraq to divorce? How many broken families has this war produced?

You don't support the troops if you don't give them adequate time home. You don't support families that way either.

Neocons say, it is a way to force an early withdrawal. I say, Bush should have thought about that when he started this cursed war.

You know it's gotten weird when Robert Novak, aka the Prince of Darkness, aka the Douchebag for Liberty, tells it the way it is:

The failure of the Petraeus report to significantly alter the political climate on Iraq is bad news for Republicans in the 2008 campaign. The assessment by GOP insiders is that continued casualty lists in the election year will be fatal. President George W. Bush's statement offered little hope for relief.

P.S. By the way, the phrase "success in Iraq" -- now, more than ever --means one, and only one, thing: Bush Holds GOP Support On Iraq

UPDATE: More on Reid's inner circle and how its strategy on Iraq has shifted.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Republicans , War in Iraq

U.S. Marine General Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

“One of the mistakes I made in my assumptions going in was that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi army would welcome liberation, that the Iraqi army, given the opportunity, would stand together for the Iraqi people and be available to them to help serve the new nation,” Pace said.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Military , War in Iraq

Edwards goes over the heads of the President and the Congress and directly to the American people:

Our troops are stuck between a president without a plan to succeed and a Congress without the courage to bring them home. But Congress must answer to the American people. Tell Congress you know the truth...No timeline. No funding. No excuses.

Edwards has managed to frame the debate on his own terms.

UPDATE: Don't just sit there -- go on, call your Congressman. What are you waiting for? Tell them "no timeline, no funding, no excuses."

• Contact your Representative
  
• Contact your Senator

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , John Edwards , War in Iraq

by shep

General Petraeus, just like his civilian rulers in the Bush Administration (I'm shocked), continues to tout progress from The Surge:

"The tribes and the sheiks decided to say no more to Al Qaeda. They were tired of the indiscriminate violence, tired of the Taliban-like ideology and the other practices," he said. "They are Sunni Arabs rising up against a largely Sunni Arab Al Qaeda in Iraq."

I'm not sure what our extra 30,000 troops spread across Iraq has to do with that but, meanwhile, there are good reasons why we should keep 130,000 American soldiers, indefinitely, in a hated occupation in Iraq where 70% of the population says that The Surge has made life more violent and dangerous:

"A rapid withdrawal would result in disintegration of the Iraqi security forces, rapid deterioration of local security initiatives. . . . Al Qaeda in Iraq regaining lost ground. . ."

Obviously, no one has any idea what will happen in Iraq, with or without an American troop withdrawal. So why would anyone state as fact that Al Qaeda, who’s “indiscriminate violence” and “Taliban-like ideology and the other practices," has already been rejected and attacked by much more secular Iraqi Sunnis and which didn’t even exist in Iraq until we invaded and occupied the country, will regain lost ground if we were to withdraw occupying troops?

Your answer can be found here:

"The reason to emphasize al-Qaeda, aides said, is simple. 'People know what that means,' said one senior official who spoke about internal strategy on the condition of anonymity. 'The average person doesn't understand why the Sunnis and Shia don't like each other. They don't know where the Kurds live. . . . And al-Qaeda is something they know. They're the enemy of the United States.'"

Just as Bush and Cheney lied when they said that ”there’s no doubt” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, anyone telling the American public that they know what will happen if we begin to withdraw troops from Iraq is lying, plain and simple. To lay claim to knowledge of future events which don’t even make sense relative to your own characterizations of what’s happening at the moment can be taken for what it is: pure agenda-driven propaganda.

It’s a damned shame that Bush and the Republicans have so corrupted the relative non-partisanship and credibility of the US military but not really surprising. They’ve done the same with every single element of the US government from the Supreme Court to the Department of Justice when they thought it served their interests. There isn’t an honest bone among them and “fixing the facts around the policy” is all they know.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: George W. Bush , Military , Politics , Republicans , War in Iraq

If you were putting your life on the line on the field of battle, if your son, father, husband or brother was risking his life for his country, the last thing you want to hear is your commanding general admit that he doesn't know if the mission is worth fighting for.

Watch it:

This is simply devastating and the effect on morale will be excruciating.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Video , War in Iraq

• It's Petraeus Day on Capitol Hill. Can you stand the suspense??

• David Brooks compares OBL to ... lefty bloggers! Of course -- we're all for fundamentalist religion taking over the government.

• Gallup has Hillary with more support than the next two candidates put together. Obama is set to make a major policy speech on Iraq this week. Can these two facts have anything to do with each other?

• A sign that maybe this blogging thing is washed up: Alan Greenspan has a blog.

• Iraqis overwhelmingly say that the surge has made things worse, and they want the US out. Now. The only people left who disagree are the 70% of Republicans who give Bush a positive approval rating.

• When Petraeus is done on Capitol Hill today (giving his non-report that wasn't written by nobody at the White House) he'll take a victory lap participate in an exclusive interview on Fox News.

• Here's how bad it sucks to be Bill Richardson: Unavision would not allow Richardson to speak Spanish during the all-Spanish-broadcast of the recent Democratic debate.
  

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , Odds & Sods , Republicans , War in Iraq

Geekesque calls on Sen. Obama to take the lead role in ending the occupation of Iraq:

There was a time for Congress to be the steering wheel of our Iraq policy. Now, someone needs to slam on the brakes.

That person should, by all rights, be you. You alone of any major candidate running in either party had the prescience and honesty to oppose invading Iraq. You understood the disaster that would unfold. This gives you credibility--as well as intellectual and moral authority-- that no one else on the national stage possesses.
[...]
Senator, you're either moving forward or you're moving backwards. Relative to other candidates, you're moving backwards on Iraq. How on earth is it even remotely possible that Hillary Clinton, a clinical study in opportunism when it comes to Iraq, is perceived amongst primary voters as essentially indistinguishable from you?

Do the right thing and the smart thing. For your nation, your party, and yourself. Step forward, demand the damn ball, and be prepared to accept the consequences one way or another. The voters will not punish you for speaking out against a tragical farce like our so-called Iraq debate.

Playing it safe will result in Bush winning and Hillary getting the nomination. Playing it safe is the ultimate form of living dangerously.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (4) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

The President and his former Iraq Viceroy are at odds about a trifling detail.  Did Paul Bremer have White House approval to include disbanding the entire Iraqi Army as part of his plan for wide-spread de-Baathification -- the one institution that might have been relied upon to provide employment and enforce stability throughout the war-torn country?  This decision is without a doubt one of the most controversial of the entire war, a true turning point..

The NY Times recounts the back and forth between Bremer and Bush, via Rumsfeld, where Bremer drafted a letter on May 20, 2003, sends it on the 22nd and heard back from Bush himself on the 23rd with a "heckuvajob" letter that did not mention the plan.

One get's the impression that the "C" student CEO PrezNitWit really didn't read Bremer's letter, or at least appreciate it's import.  That's more than understandable.  There was a lot on his plate right then, less than three weeks after his infamous "Mission Accomplished" declaration -- he probably believed his own press clippings, that the hard part was over. 

President Photo-Op certainly had another kind of awareness pressing in on him at that time. For instance, we're still going 'round and 'round about the White House's ability to spy on us, so in an Orwellian turn of phrase ...

DARPA's Congressional report announces that the controversial Total Information Awareness program will be known as the Terrorist Information Awareness program from now on, to emphasize that its purpose is to compile data on terrorists, and not to compile dossiers on US citizens. -- May 20, 2003

Dept SecDef Paul Wolfowitz was getting "grilled" on Capital Hill about the situation in Iraq ...

Wolfowitz tells Congress, “One of the keys to getting Iraq up and running as a country is to restore its primary source of revenue: its oil infrastructure.

General Tommy Franks evidently thought this whirlwind of a day would be a convenient time to announce his retirement as well.

BUT, what was really on the minds of the media, and public at large the third week of May, 2003?  What do you think the President was doing May 21, 2003, and talking about on the 22nd when all this went down? 

What was really important, taking precedence over supervising the future of the Middle East and the legacy we will be leaving our grandchildren?  Was George Bush burning the midnight oil, preparing for this monumental day in history?

In a very, very close vote, Ruben Studdard beat out Clay Aiken to become the next American Idol.

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: George W. Bush , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

From his lust for Kralizec to his desire to privatize Social Security, Rudy unites left and right, by his stupidity.  Seriously, the guy is absofreakinglutely bat-shit crazy.

Obama figures out he's just not that good at the 30 second sound-byte debate format -- cuts and runs from attending any more debates than those already scheduled.  I assume that means there will be a hard limit of no more than 47 more until we begin voting -- probably right after Thanksgiving.  Hopefully, there will be lots of arugula.

After watching some TPMtv, spotlighting Mitt Romney's profound ignorance of anything east of Boston Harbor, Raising Kaine concludes "Multiple-Choice Mitt" is a "Giant Foreign Policy Goofball."  News Hounds gets the hypocrisy of Romney's schpeel, but you really need to watch Josh Marshall put it all together to understand how profoundly delusional Romney is. 

Meanwhile, Eleanor Clift has a question for Mitt & Co. that might stop some of the GOP hopefuls in their tracks -- since of course, they'd have to think instead of regurgitating their 30 year-old talking points or trying to remember whether they we talking to an audience that preferred the flip to the flop.

Stop asking Romney and the other Republican front runners about abortion and start asking them where they stand on family planning.

Fred Thompson, who turns 65 today (thus eligible for all the entitlements he vows to abolish), is the only candidate who needed to have his fat, lazy ass trucked around the Iowa State Fair in a golf cart. 

Actually he looked kinda gaunt.  He'll need to scarf down a few more elephant ears to be the right's answer to Michael Moore. 

She really ought to take it easy on the old guy.  How many little blue pills can one man take?

I noted before that Mike Huckabee was kind spoken towards the Clintons, to the point where he would sound almost gushing if he weren't a Republican.  Rights Field's David Dayen thinks these remarks point to where Huckabee first got the idea that cars and buses were lame, that his super-coolness would be enshrined forever once his Harley cleared the shark tank.

This kid came from a dysfunctional family — alcoholic abusive father. And yet he didn't just aspire, he was elected president of the United States not once, but twice. That is an affirmation of the system. And it's a wonderful testament to give to every kid in America that no matter where you've come from, you've got an opportunity to do something extraordinary.

Wingnuttystan still says, "Gotcha," cuz that's all they got.  I mean, what are they gonna do?  Buy into McCain trying to be the anti-war candidate?  Puh-Leeze.

More Wingnut News...

Vice President Cheney is a dildo, what else to you call a dick substitute? (Do not Click if you are under age ... 40.)  Doctor BooMan advises us to use a condom anyway.

Speaking of nuts and other guilty pleasures of the alternate universe ... you know you just gotta click on a link that says Ron Paul teams up with Dennis Kucinich.

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Ann Coulter , Barack Obama , Dick Cheney , Fred Thompson , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , John McCain , Mitt Romney , Politics , Rudy Giuliani , Social Security , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

General Petraeus not only won't be writing "his" report on Iraq, he won't be talking about it either -- Condi and SecDef Gates have the honor of live bamboozlement come September.

Hilzoy has more.  Clearly, the Administration insists that Congress and the public be more open-minded to their single-mindedness.

It's no way to run a country, and it's certainly no way to run a war.

CUT AND RUN I say!  Cut the damn country into iddy, biddy pieces; and then Run it right.

(HT: MoJo)

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: War in Iraq

This is dick Cheney, circa 1994, justifying why the first President Bush did not occupy Iraq after the Gulf War.

The question for the president in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam was how many additional dead Americans was Saddam worth, and our judgment was not very many. And I think we got it right.

It reminds of the guy who says, "I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , Republicans , Video , War in Iraq

I read this morning that John Conyers is close to initiating impeachment hearings from the House Judiciary Committee. Not sure this is accurate, but this video sums up just some of the reasons why he should get started right now.

P.S. Double-extra movie geek bonus points if you recognized the voice of Charlie Chaplin at the very end, taken from The Great Dictator.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , Video , War , War in Iraq

by shep

No, I don’t mean Dick Cheney prostrate on the sand in Ramadi – however appealing the idea – I mean the monumentally deceitful propaganda being hurled at the American public by Republican leaders in both the White House and the Congress:

1) It’s about al Qaeda

This lie has been going on (and been debunked) since before the war. The truth is, Osama bin Laden was a foe of Saddam Hussein and his secular Baathist state. While the US invasion and occupation of Iraq opened a window for al Qaeda affiliates, they represent a small percentage of those fighting US troops and are currently despised by their erstwhile Iraqi Sunni partners. They are being killed and otherwise expelled from Anbar province to much public celebration by US officials. If the US leaves Iraq, neither Sunni nor Shiite nor Kurdish Iraqis will tolerate al Qaeda’s presence there.

2) If we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us here.

The truth is, if any of the Islamist terrorists (and not just al Qaeda) could strike us here, they would already have done so. Leaving Iraq won’t change their capacity to do that one bit, except that it would take away the radicals best recruiting tool and best excuse to attack us.

3) If we leave Iraq before we “win” the cost will be too great.

The truth is, no one has any idea what will happen if we leave Iraq except that we will no longer be bleeding troops by the hundreds and money by the tens of $billions per month. And Republicans have been consistently and insanely inaccurate on the cost-benefit calculation for Iraq policy from the beginning so there is absolutely no reason to assume that their guess is right this time.

4) Congress should let the generals decide how to run the war.

The truth is, as much as the President desires, the generals have run and will continue to run whatever policy is set forth by the civilian leadership of the government, just as the Founders intended and wrote into the US Constitution. Congress gets to write and fund war policy and the President, as Commander-in-Chief gets to execute that war policy, period.

In short, you can’t trust a word Republicans or the Bush Administration, including the Pentagon and the generals, tell you about Iraq or Iran.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Corruption , George W. Bush , Politics , Republicans , War in Iraq

by shep

Dear Norman Ornstein,

I’m writing you as the e-mailer Diane Rehm referred to this morning when she asked whether you thought that the motive and timing of President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby's jail sentence might revolve around the threat he could pose to the Vice President (and, perhaps, the President himself) as his avenues for avoiding prison had just been exhausted. You dismissed the idea out-of-hand, without offering the slightest reason for why that couldn't be the case.

I may be no resident political scholar but my take is, the politics of satisfying the base aside, there is no other reasonable explanation for the timing of the commutation since it would have been weeks before Mr. Libby likely would have had to start serving his sentence. In the interim, however, Mr. Libby would have had significant motivation to offer testimony against the Vice President and, possibly, Mr. Bush himself.

Don’t take my word for it, here is what other commentators have had to say as reported by The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin:

The New York Times: "Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell."

Los Angeles Times: "The larger problem in commuting Libby's sentence is the message it sends to his unfortunately unindicted co-conspirator, Cheney.

Sidney Blumenthal writes in Salon: "Bush's commutation of Libby's 30-month prison sentence for four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice was as politically necessary to hold his remaining hardcore base for the rest of his 18 months in office as it was politically damaging to his legacy and to the possibility of a Republican succession. It was also essential in order to sustain Libby's cover-up protecting Cheney and perhaps Bush himself."

Norman Pearlstine writes on Huffingtonpost.com: "Bush's rationale might have had some merit had Libby been convicted solely of perjury. If that were the case, one might argue that he was convicted of a 'process crime'. . .

"But that isn't what happened. In addition to perjury, Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice. That was the most important charge against him. Patrick Fitzgerald's summation to the jury and his sentencing recommendation made it clear that Libby's obstruction precluded him from ever determining whether his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney had broken the law and what role the White House had played in outing Plame. . . .

"[T]he commutation of Libby's sentence is a cover-up, pure and simple."

Marcy Wheeler blogs for the Guardian: "[T]he real effect of Bush's actions is to prevent Libby from revealing the truth about Bush's -- and vice president Cheney's -- own actions in the leak. By commuting Libby's sentence, Bush protected himself and his vice president from potential criminal exposure for their actions in the CIA Leak. As such, Libby's commutation is nothing short of another obstruction of justice.

Josh Marshall blogs: "The real offense here is not so much or not simply that the president has spared Scooter Libby the punishment that anyone else would have gotten for this crime (for what it's worth, I actually find the commutation more outrageous than a full pardon). The deeper offense is that the president has used his pardon power to shortcircuit the investigation of a crime to which he himself was quite likely a party, and to which, his vice president, who controls him, certainly was.

Joe Wilson on NPR: "Congress ought to conduct an investigation of whether or not the president himself is a participant in the obstruction of justice."

With all due respect, considering what Charles O. Jones wrote in your recent book about Mr. Bush’s governing style, the use of executive authority to cover-up and obstruct finding of wrongdoing is such a consistent and predictable facet of the modern CEO, it seems incredibly naïve to dismiss it without argument. Especially when considering the timing and the political danger of exposing everyone involved in the underlying crime – a White House conspiracy that exposed and destroyed an entire covert counter-proliferation operation in the CIA.

Sincerely,
[shep]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Politics , Republicans , War in Iraq

by shep

Joe Klein asks:

"A reasonable reader might ask, Why are the left-wing bloggers attacking you? Aren't you pretty tough on the Bush Administration? Didn't you write a few months ago that George W. Bush would be remembered as one of the worst Presidents in history? And why on earth does any of this matter?”

Worse yet, he seems quite earnest in his confusion.

Joe, let me explain: your problem is the same as most beltway insiders, you see everything in terms of politics. I mean everything. No substance. No ethical or moral principle. Just plain political calculation.

Your world – and by that I mean your career and colleagues and the politicians and politics you cover – is all about the competition to win and succeed. Pretty soon, there’s just no room left to analyze the real substance and truth of things.

Liberals don’t give a rat’s ass whether you are sufficiently and reliably partisan. We just don’t think that way. That’s for politicians, media elites (elites of most stripes, really), conservatives and kids in middle school.

No matter how many times you say Bush sucks, the next time you write something false, lazy, stupid or biased, you’re going to get called on it. It matters to us because it is wrong. Hellooooo.

We aren't offended by bad politics, we are offended by bad conduct. That includes arrogant statements by “liberal” columnists that it must be simplistic, extreme apostasy that we should de-fund a disastrous, illegal and immoral occupation in the Middle East. Maybe it’s a really bad idea (Hint: No. One. Really. Knows) but right now the official policy options fall somewhere between a 50-year occupation littered with dead American soldiers and innocent Iraqis or nuking Iran. Tell us again what’s simplistic or extreme.

Sorry if you are offended by the “tone.”

BTW, I liked your takedown of Dick Armey’s libertarian dogma.

H/T: Digby

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Iraq , Media , Politics , War in Iraq

(cross posted at Daily Kos)

Let's stipulate that if the Democratic majority in Congress intends to introduce legislation to end the Iraq war in a meaningful, expeditious way, it will need to have 67 firm votes in the Senate and 290 firm votes in the House. That is the number of votes you need to be bullet-proof against any presidential veto.

Question: What kind of bill can get those numbers? Answer: We can only guess. But let's apply some political science to do a thought experiment and find some answers.

Look at the graph below:

Here's what the graph shows...

The vertical axis is the number of votes in the Senate; the horizontal axis is the content of the bill. Notice that the point on the left end of the horizontal axis represents the Feingold amendment; it got 29 votes. The right end of the horizontal axis represents the bill that Bush signed (and that everyone hated); it got 80 votes.

The good news? Somewhere between those two points is a bill, any bill, that might have gotten 67 votes without being a rubber-stamped blank check. The bad news? Congress is not a laboratory -- you can't move a slider switch left or right to calibrate the perfect bill.

That said, Jonathan Alter takes a crack at it:

I wish the Democrats had played tougher by including Rep. John Murtha's provision that any troops sent to Iraq would have to be better equipped. Bush privately promised to veto that, too, and they should have called his bluff. Vetoing a bill with no timelines, only a readiness requirement, might have been hard for the president, even if Murtha's amendment was, at bottom, a sly move to send fewer troops.

P.S. Did the Dems fail on the first go round because, as Jane Hamsher put it, "the message machine is broken?" Maybe. Is our Iraq policy being determined, as Glenn Greenwald says, "by a complete myth?" Maybe.

Did we -- you and I -- fail to convince the public that de-funding the war would NOT put the troops in jeopardy? Yes. Or maybe it is an impossible task given the time we have to work with.

I do know that more than one liberal commentator (I'm talking to you, Keith Olbermann) used the Republicans' very language to make the Democratic case -- thereby flunking the task miserably:

[Y]ou, Mr. Bush, imply that if the Democrats don’t give you the money and give it to you entirely on your terms, the troops in Iraq will be stranded, or forced to serve longer, or have to throw bullets at the enemy with their bare hands.

So shuffle the deck and deal again. But remember: it's all about the number of votes you can get for your bill. And you need to start with 67 in the Senate and 290 in the House.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , War in Iraq

"The War Prayer," a short story or prose poem by Mark Twain, is a scathing indictment of war, and particularly of blind patriotic and religious fervor as motivations for war.

The piece was left unpublished by Mark Twain at his death, largely due to pressure from his family, who feared that the story would be considered sacrilegious. Twain's publisher and other friends also discouraged him from publishing it. Twain instructed for it to be published after his death, however, and is said to have quipped "I don't think the prayer will be published in my time. None but the dead are permitted to tell the truth."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Video , War , War in Iraq

(cross posted at Daily Kos)

Which votes are meaningless and which (if any) make a difference? And who decides that anyway?

On one hand, you have the recent toothless war supplemental bill that lacked any kind of timeline and contained consequence-free benchmarks. Everyone knows it was a shocking, rubber-stamped, blank check that would not change the course of the war. Nothing good was accomplished by its passage. As a result, our troops will keep dying.

And, it's safe to say, everyone knew it would pass. As a result, many voted against it knowing they would get the best of both worlds with their vote (I'm talking to you, Speaker Pelosi). Cynical or not? Whatever you think, this kind of posturing is nothing new.

Either way, the war drags on and our troops continue to die in vain.

On the other hand, you had the Feingold amendment that called for a firm withdrawal date. It got 29 votes. But, again, the outcome was a sure thing -- everyone knew it would lose. So it's safe to say that many voted for it knowing that they would get the best of both worlds with their vote.

So I have a similar question for those who voted for it -- was it really a meaningful vote if you knew nothing would be accomplished by it? Like the other vote, was it really just all about "going on the record?" And if so, isn't that also just political posturing of the worst kind -- especially if our troops keep dying while you do it?

Yes, you could simply do nothing after Bush's veto -- technically, that would end the funding of the war. But since when is doing nothing really an option? Edmund Burke said that evil triumphs when good men do nothing. How would that not apply here? I suspect doing nothing would have simply engendered more finger-pointing and blame-casting, not clarity. Meanwhile our troops would keep dying.

So curse me if you like -- call me an incrementalist. But I'd rather see one-quarter inch of forward progress at a time instead of what we have now which is a lot of bullsh-t political posturing in advance of the 2008 elections.

Not only that: I'll bet most people in the real world are like me -- if they haven't already written both parties off as hopeless.

P.S. Isn't this why Congressmen rarely get elected President?

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: War in Iraq

Sen. Obama:

I know the toll of this war. And what I know is, what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric; they deserve a new plan.

Gov. Romney and Sen. McCain clearly believe that the course that we're on in Iraq is working. I do not.

And if there was ever a reflection of that, it is the fact that Sen. McCain required a flak jacket, ten armored Humvees, two Apache attack helicopters, a hundred soldiers with rifles by his side, so he could stroll through the market in Baghdad just a few weeks ago for a photo-op.

That's the truth in Iraq.

UPDATE: ...to which a McCain aide replied (paraphrasing): "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."

...to which Bill Maher replied: "In case you don't know, an RPG is a rocket-propelled grenade and a bong is what McCain uses when he describes how well things are going in Iraq."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , War in Iraq

So Obama and Clinton voted against the Iraq war supplemental, as did Pelosi.

But not Murtha:

Patience has run out and I feel a change in direction happening within the chambers of Congress. While we don't have the votes right now to change the president's policy, I believe that come September we will have the votes from both Democrats and Republicans to change policy and direction.

In September, General Petraeus will report back on the progress of the surge, and Congress will take up both the $460 billion base defense appropriations bill and the $141 billion Iraq supplemental.

The surge is not producing the results that were promised. And, based on my discussions with Iraqi Government officials, I don't believe they have the motivation to bring about the political and economic benchmarks agreed to. This is why September will be key.

The only question remains: are we, in fact, on the cusp of another "Tet Offensive," i.e., an exponential rise in the perceived level of violence between now and September that finally tips the Congressional scales against the president's policy?

In other words, isn't September (in fact) the "date certain" that the president fears so much -- and isn't he (in fact) the one who set it?

Isn't it logical -- and ironic -- that the enemy is simply crossing the days off the calendar until then?

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (4) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: War in Iraq

It would be instructive, at this point, to stop and examine how the Democrats got here.

First of all, at the risk of insulting your intelligence by restating the bleeding obvious let's stipulate that the people do not make policy. We -- the people -- elect representatives who do that. So when you hear that the people want the Iraq occupation to end yesterday, their representatives have to make their own individual calculation, namely this: What do my individual constituents want? And what will I have give up to give them that?

For example...let's say (for the sake of discussion) that 61% of the electorate is against the war. But as Michael Tomasky points out, the number 61 also holds significance in another context:

That's the number of Democrats in the House of Representatives who represent districts that Bush carried in 2004 (by contrast, only eight Republicans represent districts that John Kerry won). Many of these 61 are scared to death that they could lose their seats in 2008, and with good reason - the Republicans are targeting them and are intent on winning the 15 seats they need to regain control of the House.

De-funding the war would - there's no escaping it - put some of those 61 at risk. If you're thinking long term and you want a congress that might actually do responsible things about healthcare and global warming and even Iraq in the future, then now just isn't the time for the Democrats to force this issue.

It's not pretty; it's not lofty; it's not inspiring -- especially if you are a member of a military family who wants your loved ones home.

It just is what it is. And if this all comes as a shock to you, well frankly, you should be paying closer attention to how our system works.

Can you vote them out of office? Sure -- I'm pretty certain that the Greens or the Libertarians would love to have your vote. And you'd have the satisfaction of having voted with conscience.

But at the end of the day, would we be any closer to having ended the occupation? No.

Of course you might be thinking, "But in the future, these guys would think twice about doing this crap again."

But sadly, my friend, the future is now.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (6) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , War in Iraq

"...you're probably pussies."

How bad was the Iraq funding compromise for the Democrats? This bad:

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , Humor , Politics , Video , War in Iraq

• If I'm Harry Reid, I guess I can always take some solace (as Reagan did) in the fact that I'm getting fire from both ends of the political spectrum. I mean come on! -- when was the last time a politician was accused by both Sean Hannity AND Keith Olbermann of being the second coming of Neville Chamberlain?

• Note to Keith Olbermann: I love you, dude, but enough with the Chamberlain references -- first Bush, now Reid? WTF?

• Is there anything more entertaining than reading Brian Williams write about The Sopranos on Slate magazine?

• Well, even my presence in Bothell, WA this week couldn't help Blake Lewis -- so Jordin Sparks becomes the new American Idol. I guess it's no surprise: how many Melinda Dolittle posters were going to get sold anyway?

• And speaking of the Democrats (and the netroots), I'm with Kos:

  The conservative movement spent three decades building up their machine and completing the takeover of their party. And some of you want to quit after one setback?

  That's embarrassing.

  Buck up. We still haven't completely lost this Iraq supplemental battle. And if we do, instead of crying and taking your ball home, resolve to fight even harder. We owe it to our troops in Iraq, to our families, to our neighbors, to ourselves.

  I have served for many years on the boards of several organizations and the politics at that level are apparently the same as the politics at the highest levels -- the stakes are just different. It's all about what you want to get done and how you work with (and against) people to get there. It's about having the votes to pass your motion, it's about building alliances (some temporary, some not) it's about winning and losing -- and surviving to fight another day. To me it's exciting but to others it's exhausting. To some it's personal, to others it's just business. So when I see what's happening with the Iraq supplemental bill, I'm not turned off -- I just see another opportunity to fight -- again, perhaps another day -- for what I believe in.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , Odds & Sods , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

In a time when our President is identified merely by one initial, "W," and the spine of the congressional Democratic leadership cannot be identified at all, I yearn for the days when 3-initial Democrats, FDR, JFK, even LBJ and the promise of RFK were something quite different than the breed in attendance today.

Democrats with Balls.

I, like so many on the left -- some far left, others only moderately so -- and even those wandering in the middle cannot express their reaction to the "Capitulation Bill" without using the word, "disappointment." Even that word hardly seems to capture the proper emotion.

I've seen weak displays of rhetorical tricks masking the inability to follow one's convictions before; swallowing principles to pursue the practical, pragmatic politics of the day. But what we witnessed yesterday with the cave-in by the Democratic leadership giving Bush yet another blank check for his Iraq war was nothing short of pathetic.

The most egregious example came from Speaker Pelosi herself, indicating that she probably would not vote for a bill she is actively helping to get to the floor. Could there be a more cravenly cowardly stance? Explain how this is not the height of hypocricy.

The oft quoted maxim by Margaret Mead advising us never to underestimate the power of a small group of dedicated people's ability to change the world because that's the only thing that ever has, neglects to consider the sheer stupidity of those people when they've been in elected office too long.

The only thing that gives me some solace is that the candidate I've been supporting for President came out on the right side of this issue, and so many others in the way he urges us to look at our foreign policy and reject the GOP framing.

The only way to beat them is to stand our ground and not give an inch. That's what John Edwards did today.

Today, he went to the heart of America's foreign policy establishment and called out the Bush crowd for their misuse of patriotism. He had the guts to say what all of us know—that the Bush Terror Doctrine has failed our troops and failed America by straining our military to the breaking point and sowing chaos around the world.

John Edwards offered a clear plan to rebuild our forces and cure the damage inflicted on our military by Bush's policies. He offered a vision of an America where moral leadership is once again the rule, and where we are stronger and more secure because of it.

Their choice, however, should not be that difficult -- if they really meant they way they voted on Feingold-Reid. We shall indeed see if they will put their money (rather, our money) where their mouths are. So far, their silence is deafening, and as you know, "silence is betrayal."

UPDATE: Chris Dodd is going to vote no on the Capitulation Bill, putting more pressure on Obama and Clinton -- and giving hope to those of us who still hold out hope...and want action.

UPDATE II: Kerry says NO too.

"An Iraq Bill Without a Deadline is Meaningless"

"We support the troops by getting the policy right and this bill allows the President to keep getting the policy wrong. We need a deadline to force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq and bring our heroes home, not watered down benchmarks and blank check waivers for this President. We support the troops by funding the right mission, not with a White House that opposes a pay raise for our brave men and women in uniform," Kerry said. "The original Senate legislation offered a roadmap to change course in Iraq. This new version enables the Administration and Iraqi politicians to deliver more of the same. I am determined to continue pressing this issue until President Bush changes course. We owe our troops nothing less than a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice."

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , War in Iraq

It's official:

Gasoline prices have soared to levels never seen before as even the inflation-adjusted price for a gallon of unleaded topped the 1981 record spike in price that had stood for 26 years.

I feel so much better now.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Energy , War in Iraq

I'm going to tell you something you don't know:

[T]he total number of contractors killed in Iraq [is] at least 917, along with more than 12,000 wounded in battle or injured on the job, according to government figures and dozens of interviews.

The numbers, which have not been previously reported, disclose the extent to which contractors — Americans, Iraqis and workers from more than three dozen other countries — are largely hidden casualties of the war, and now are facing increased risks alongside American soldiers and marines as President Bush’s plan to increase troop levels in Baghdad takes hold. ...

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

For reasons I neither appreciate, approve of, nor care to understand, impeachment is still off the table.

(Okay, it's a numbers thing, and we lose, I know.)

So, what do you do when Bush, Inc. insists on their war in perpetuity, and laughs at the Democrats' pitiful effort to impose benchmarks he can and will ignore, and timetables we know he will never honor.

Atrios says send the little punk in the Oval Office the exact same funding bill he vetoed the last time, again and again. If he want's to defund the troops, so be it.

So does MarKOS.

Joe Biden approved of the idea last week.

How about you? Do you you agree with this statement?

“The American people gave Congress a mission to end the war - not a mission to accept meaningless benchmarks or endless temporary extensions. There is only one way to stop the president - Congress should use its funding authority to end the war. Congress passed a plan to support our troops and bring them home, and they should do it again. And if the president vetoes it - if he vetoes any bill that supports our troops but sets conditions - then he alone is standing in the way of what our troops need.”

Continue reading "Send It Back" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (21) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , John Edwards , War in Iraq

Look everybody -- the buck finally stops over there:

After a frustrating search for a new "war czar" to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ABC News has learned that President Bush has chosen the Pentagon's director of operations, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, for the role.

In the newly created position of assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan policy and implementation, Lute would have the power to direct the Pentagon, State Department and other agencies involved in the two conflicts.

Lute would report directly to the president and to National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

Filling the position had become a priority for the White House, after a handful of retired generals told the White House they did not want the job.

Among them, retired Marine Corps four-star Gen. Jack Sheehan, who proved an embarrassment to the White House after he wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post saying there were "huge shortcomings" in the White House view of the strategy in Iraq.

"What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration," wrote Sheehan, "is that there is no agreed upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region."

Lute must gain congressional approval before he can assume the position.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Afghanistan , War in Iraq

by shep

In a May 4 op-ed aptly titled Rewriting History, Charles Krauthammer claims that President Bush’s public position was that the WMD and terrorist threats posed by Iraq were not imminent. To support this ridiculous assertion, Mr. Krauthammer points to a single line from the president’s 2003 State of the Union speech, which took place after more than a year of alarmist rhetoric from President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration officials, clearly designed to convince the public that Saddam Hussein’s regime posed a dire and imminent threat.

Nevertheless, those who always doubted that Iraq posed such a threat were still left to wonder why we had to force busy UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq so we could rush to war in March of 2003. Why did we have to invade and occupy Iraq without the full support of the UN and all of our NATO allies, along with a significant number of Arab nations, similar to what George H. W. Bush managed to assemble for the Gulf War?

It is quite likely that our poor justification in international law, weak “coalition of the willing” and lack of Muslim Arab participation in this endeavor played a fundamental role in its tragic failure.

Obviously, the main reason behind this poorly planned and supported rush to war in the spring of 2003, was for the possible benefit to George Bush and other Republicans in the 2004 elections (Heckuva job, Rovie!).

Today, another of the founding neocon blackguards continued their miserable attempt to whitewash the fact that they are 100% responsible for taking the country into a disastrous, illegal war in Iraq, by trying to pin the blame on George Tenet. Say what you will about Tenet’s cowardice and self-seeking, Richard Perle’s balls should turn black and fall off for this outrageous blame-shifting:

“George Tenet and, more important, our premier intelligence organization managed to find weapons of mass destruction that did not exist while failing to find links to terrorists that did -- all while missing completely the rise of Islamist fundamentalism.”

Leaving aside the fact that it was chiefly the neocons and their Iraqi National Congress co-conspirators who created most of the bullshit about both Iraqi WMDs and supposed “links to terrorists,” what about “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”, did anyone else miss? As Richard Clarke and others have documented, while al Qaeda operatives finished their preparations to fly loaded airliners into the twin towers, Bush and the neocons were too busy planning their war for oil and hegemony in the Middle East to lift a finger to try to stop them, even as the Clarke and the CIA warned them that the threat was imminent.

It was the neoconservative bastards who ignored the Wahhabist threat until it was too late, took the country into disaster based on lies, and facilitated the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and thousands of US soldiers - so far. Tell me again why they are given a prominent voice in our public media, rather than an 8 x 10’ cell.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Media , Republicans , War in Iraq

• Barack Obama criticizes (Detroit) automakers on fuel economy. I would have liked to have seen him knock the unions, too, because they bellyache as much as anyone when the topic of fuel economy comes up. Bottom line: Detroit is reaping what it sowed.

• Hey -- is everything seen through the prism of Detroit vs. Chicago? If so, the Pistons scored a big one for the Motor City, kicking the Bulls' ass again -- by over 20 points -- to go up 2-0 in the second round of the NBA Eastern Conference playoffs. Hey Obama -- can you play point guard?

• Certain Europen governments have floated the idea that they'll let the US pick the next World Bank president -- but only if Wolfie leaves right now. Congrats, Bushies: another loss of world prestige on your watch.

• $3.23: That's the highest-ever price per gallon of gas, corrected for inflation. It dates back to the oil-embargo years, the energy-shock, gas lines around the block, Carter years of the 70's. I mention it now because gas prices are higher than ever. And (coincidentally?) Bush's approval ratings are in Carter territory.

• Does Romney believe in evolution or not? Inquiring religious fundamentalist zealots want to know. The rest of us? We just want to know...

• ...Is Romney really just a science fiction fanboy with a great haircut and $2500 suit? Recently, Mitt claimed that the French engage in 7-year marriages with an option to renew or move on at the end of the contract. Turns out he read that in a science fiction novel. By a fellow Mormon. About Mormonism in space. And this, after saying his favorite book was Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard. Wonder what Ann Coulter is thinking now?

• Has the Republican caucus really given Bush a do-or-die deadline of September -- or else they walk away from Bush on Iraq? Color me skeptical.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Corruption , Energy , George W. Bush , Mitt Romney , Republicans , Sports , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams
Cross-posted. Also in Blue and Orange.

Let me be clear on one thing. Every single Democratic presidential candidate condemns the Bush Administration for its disastrous fiscal, domestic and foreign policies. Every single one knows Bush is a joke when he pretends to be the least bit competent on anything whatsoever. They understand that "compassionate conservativism" is a fraud. They all realize that the next president, who will undoubtedly be a Democratic president, faces a monumental task rehabilitating our nation's reputation in the world and economic and social rifts at home.

Nobody gets a cookie for being the "most" unlike Bush. Everybody will do their best to correct the disastrous course of our ship of state.

All of them.

Continue reading "No Democrat Started The War" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , War in Iraq

(cross posted at Daily Kos)

Recently, while browsing another blog's comment thread I was brought up short when I came upon this statement:

It’s still unclear where the main source of our problem in Iraq lies.

But let's cut the snark and try to answer the man's question. Because until we can do that, not only will we have lost the Iraq war, we will have embarked on a path that will lead to one disastrous war after another, being bled dry by "leaders" who want one thing only: ultimate power.

Continue reading "Why Bush Lost The Iraq War" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , 4GW , Afghanistan , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Iraq , Israel , Military , Republicans , War in Iraq

(cross posted at Daily Kos -- with poll)

OK, first things first: I was wrong.

Moving on...Chris Weigant wrote an open letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi detailing what the Dems should do now that Bush has vetoed the bill. In brief, here's what he says:

1. Lose the pork.
   Any Dem who bolts will be known to have only been for the pork in the first place -- not a great position to take right now.

2. Leave in the money for veterans' benefits.
   Let Bush complain about that all he wants -- this is our way of respecting the troops.

3. Lose the timetable.
   Sorry -- if he didn't OK it this time (when he could have easily issued a signing statement taking the money and ignoring the deadlines), he'll never go for it. Besides, the American people will be the final judge of when it's time to come out (see below). I don't think they'll blame the Dems for not trying.

4. Leave in the benchmarks -- but take out the consequences.
   You don't need any consequences written into the bill -- because the American people will provide all the consequences the Dems want or need.

   Check it out: Bush said, "When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down." Well, it's clear now (and the American people know it too) that the Iraqis aren't going to stand up anytime soon; they're too busy killing each other (or letting the government go on a two-month vacation). So leave in the benchmarks and let the electorate provide the only consequence that matters -- a massive electoral defeat for the Republican party in '08. By this time next year, the Republicans will be facing an exile from power that will last for a generation or more. What better consequence could the Dems ask for?

5. Leave in the standards for troop-readiness.
   Again: this is how we respect the troops. And the Republicans? I'll leave it to sell the idea that, "you go with the Army you have, not the Army you'd like to have."

Nor is a weaker one.

The scenario Weigant talks about is the most realistic one I've seen yet that stands a chance of passage -- while putting the Dems on the right side of the issue morally and politically.

You have to move the ball forward, even if it is just by inches at a time.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (5) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

by shep

Reality check #1: there is no one to “surrender” to in Iraq, so you mendacious Republican traitors who claim that getting our soldiers out of being target dummies in a low-level civil war between native Sunnis and Shiites is tantamount to surrender, please let me know where I can meet you to beat some f*cking sense into you (or beat you to death, as necessary, as a service to our country).

Reality check #2: we are not leaving Iraq in most of our lifetimes. Even the most hysterically opposed Democratic “withdrawal” funding legislation calls for us to maintain action against al Qaeda, which, by itself, will fulfill the basic wet dreams of the neocons for American troops to occupy Iraqi bases for at least a generation.

Reality check #3: regardless of what legislation is passed, we will have no choice, morally or practically, other than to react to what happens on the ground. That means intervening militarily against: 1) systematic terrorism against civilians, 2) ethnic cleansing, or 3) open warfare that threatens access to Iraqi oil or to spill over to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, or, all of the above.

Reality check #4: there is no “war” to be “won” in Iraq. It’s about damage control. Some grownups will have to step forward and start to explain to the American people what our new mission is, what strategies have the greatest likelihood of keeping it from becoming the end of civilization as we have known it, and what we should expect the cost of those strategies to be.

We know that Republicans won’t be those leaders; they are literally insane. Unless Democrats start to ignore Republicans frames and go straight to the reality-based truth, we have no hope of building a rational, publicly supported Iraq policy.

While I agree that Congress should use threatened pullouts to tell the Iraqis that we will not continue the status quo and should also force us to end our current occupation strategy, the current “in to win” or “withdraw our troops” policy debate is, quite simply, simplistic and stupid.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , Republicans , War in Iraq

Admit it -- you've heard it time and again: "General Petraeus literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency." Problem is, the Bushies haven't read it.

Arianna:

[Petraeus'] newly-minted counterinsurgency approach calls for a ratio of 25 soldiers per 1,000 residents -- which would require 120,000 soldiers to provide the proper security for Baghdad, and roughly three times that amount for all of Iraq.

But let's just focus on the 120,000 soldiers that, according to the manual written by Petraeus -- "the expert on counterinsurgency," remember? -- are needed to secure Baghdad.

Simply put: we're not even close to that number. And never will be. Even after all of the planned 21,500 additional troops are sent to the embattled capitol, there will still only be 85,000 security forces there -- and that includes significant numbers of Iraqi security forces, whose readiness and loyalty have repeatedly proven to be unreliable at best...

Petraeus' manual also says that a muscular military presence is just 20 percent of what is needed for a counterinsurgency effort to succeed -- the other 80 consists of establishing political and economic reform, two areas in which the United States is also failing miserably.

Gen. Petraeus can't change that -- and he should be ashamed of himself for selling out to an administration that is using him to prop itself up.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

MANCHESTER, N.H. —- Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

Update: John Edwards nails it:

"Rudy Giuliani's suggestion that there is some superior 'Republican' way to fight terrorism is both divisive and plain wrong. He knows better. That's not the kind of leadership he offered in the days immediately after 9/11, and it's not the kind of leadership any American should be offering now.

"As far as the facts are concerned, the current Republican administration led us into a war in Iraq that has made us less safe and undermined the fight against al Qaeda. If that's the 'Republican' way to fight terror, Giuliani should know that the American people are looking for a better plan. That's just one more reason why this election is so important; we need to elect a Democratic president who will end the disastrous diversion of the war in Iraq."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , Rudy Giuliani , War in Iraq

Looks like the House will compromise with the Senate by making the deadlines non-binding:

Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, a freshman Democrat who represents a district strongly opposed to the war, said lending his support to a bill that funds the war without setting a firm end date will be difficult. On the other hand, he added, Democrats might be in a tougher spot if they can't pull the caucus together long enough to act against Bush.

"We have to look at the political realities of being the party that's in control, and prove to the American people we can govern," he said.

With Senate leaders nervous the final bill would fail if it included a firm deadline, aides said Democrats were leaning toward accepting the Senate's nonbinding goal. The compromise bill also is expected to retain House provisions preventing military units from being worn out by excessive combat deployments; however, the president could waive these standards if he states so publicly.

On Thursday, Pelosi, D-Calif., summoned Woolsey, Lee, Waters and several other of the party's more liberals members to her office to discuss the issue. According to aides and members, concerns were expressed but there were no loud objections to a conference bill that would adopt the Senate's nonbinding goal.

Watson said she would personally oppose the final bill, as she did last month, but would not stand in Pelosi's way if the speaker agrees to the Senate version.

"It's still a timeline," she said. "We're not backing down from that."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , 2008 Presidential Election , Democrats , George W. Bush , War in Iraq

So here's the thing: Bush traveled to Virginia to comfort the families of the victims killed in yesterday's shooting. But in the 4+ years of the Iraq war, has he attended one single funeral or similar tribute to our fallen fighting men and women? Nope.

Ever wonder why?

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: George W. Bush , War in Iraq

by shep

I hate to beat a dead horse (but I just had to use that metaphor to describe the rotted corpse of what was once our adversarial press) and it may be obvious to many that calling the media “liberal” is absurd as long as it fails to reveal the truth or speak truth to power.

But this Sunday offered yet another journalistic horror show of worthless he-said, she-saids, framed by soft-spoken center-left Democrats such as Carl Levin and Bill Richardson on one side and mendacious idiots such as John Kyle, bombastic assh*les such as Lindsey Graham and, not to mention, the psychopathic, megalomaniac Dick Cheney on the other.

Although a target-rich environment, let’s focus on just a couple of the major Republican lies that go continuously unchallenged by our pampered press poodles. Here’s icky Dick explaining why the Democrats are going to give him and the idiot king a blank check for an open-ended occupation in the middle of a bloody civil war – against the expressed will of the American public:

"I don't think that the majority of the Democrats in Congress want to leave America's fighting forces in harm's way without the resources they need to defend themselves."

Now an adversarial press interviewer, rather than one committed, above all, to another chance to interview our monstrous vice president at a later date (yes I mean you Bob), might challenge this frame thusly:

"But aren’t the Democrats proposing to get the troops out of harm’s way altogether and isn’t the administration’s policy to keep them there indefinitely?"

See, it not that hard. Even for a guy who isn’t paid ridiculous sums of money to interview the powerful for living.

Graham repeats the same lie in his Mike Wallace interview opposite Carle Levin. Then he adds this bit of inane, lying spin when Wallace forcefully questions him about the lack of political progress in Iraq:

"My point is that it took us 13 years to write our Constitution. Then we had our own civil war. Political reconciliation is moving forward.

Allrightythen. Let’s see how a liberal, truth-loving interviewer might handle that stupid analogy (they might simply say, “that’s a stupid analogy,” but that might seem “uncivil”):

“What does the development of democracy in America in the 1700s have to do with the situation in Iraq?”

or

“The writing of our Constitution and the American civil war were separated by more than 100 years; are you suggesting that is analogous to what is happening in Iraq?"

or

“But Senator, we didn’t have to write our Constitution in the middle of a civil war, while occupied by foreign troops.”

and

“If this is what political reconciliation looks like, how will we ever tell when it’s time to leave?”

So now you know why people who watch liberal fake news, know more than people watching Face the Nation and way more than those who watch Fox.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , Dick Cheney , Media , Politics , Republicans , War in Iraq

Bill Moyers is ready to let 'er rip:

Bill Moyers has put together an amazing 90-minute video documenting the lies that the Bush administration told to sell the Iraq War to the American public, with a special focus on how the media led the charge. I've watched an advance copy and read a transcript, and the most important thing I can say about it is: Watch PBS from 9 to 10:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 25. Spending that 90 minutes on this will actually save you time, because you'll never watch television news again – not even on PBS, which comes in for its share of criticism.

Don't miss Moyers' presentation. Pass this along to everyone you know.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: History , Television , War in Iraq

by shep

From every public rationale: the UN resolution upon which our entire Iraq policy is predicated, the congressional authorization which provides all legal justification under US law, and the rationale upon which all original public support for invading Iraq was established, our mission in Iraq is complete. And it has been completely successful relative to those goals:

1) elimination of Iraq’s WMD program and any threat thereof,

2) punishment and/or removal of the Hussein regime as a consequence of its lawlessness,

3) and institution of a democratic constitution and institutions for the Iraqi state.

By what legal or moral justification does John McCain declare that our victorious exit from Iraq constitutes defeat?

Why does John McCain hate America?

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Republicans , War in Iraq

by shep

"Congress should not tell generals how to run the war."
--George Bush, April 3, 2007

"The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation."
-- The Washington Post, April 11, 2007

Now see, I thought Bush was saying that no one should "micromanage our military commanders" in the field but, apparently, IOKIYAR.

Um, no, it’s definitely not OK.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

They should be renamed, because they are the Democratic Party's leading compromisers and capitulators.

I'd like you to read something, and see if you agree that the official party-within-a-party-line of the Democratic Leadership Council is no better than President Bush when he says his sworn duty is to protect the American people -- when it actually is his sworn duty to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Normally, we would be skeptical of attempts by Congress to write war strategy into law -- as opposed to exercising its Constitutional duties to declare and finance wars.

However, the DLC throws this framing into their argument to give George Bush exactly what he want's, a "clean" supplemental spending bill. Their "plan" is to (1) cave into Bush on funding after he vetoes the conditional bills, complete with their timetables, then (2) take a look at whether the surge escalation is working, and finally (3) to call for a diplomatic strategy.

(Cross-Posted and KOS-Posted)

Continue reading "The DLC Doesn't Lead" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , Iraq , John Edwards , Politics , War in Iraq

by shep

Shankar Vedantam does a regular drive-by social science column for the WaPo, called “Department of Human Behavior.” In this week’s episode, as in many past columns, Mr. Vedantum shows us some interesting facet of human behavior and psychology that, in the end, manages to absolve the Bush Administration for its inhuman behavior and psychology.

Vedantum tells us that, “[t]he political scientist [Columbia University’s Richard Jervis], who counts himself as a critic of the Bush administration [bitchin' bona fides, eh?] said a focus on this historical analogy [Iraq’s successful concealment of its pre-Gulf war WMD program] – not political pressures from the White House (emphasis added) – played the central role in the intelligence failure.”

Gosh, I’m no “scholar” at Columbia but I’ve been awake for the last four years and I can google:

cheney pressured CIA intelligence iraq

Low and behold, the first two links are from Vedantum’s own WaPo:

Government sources said CIA analysts were not the only ones who felt pressure from their superiors to support public statements by Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others about the threat posed by Hussein.

Former and current intelligence officials said they felt a continual drumbeat, not only from Cheney and Libby, but also from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, Feith, and less so from CIA Director George J. Tenet, to find information or write reports in a way that would help the administration make the case that going into Iraq was urgent.

About a week later, the Post’s Walter Pincus (a profile in journalism whom his colleagues would do well to emulate), again documents Cheney administration treason:

Senior intelligence analysts say they feel caught between the demands from the White House, Pentagon and other government policymakers for intelligence that would make the administration's case and what they say is 'a lack of hard facts.'

And I believe that the Post and a few others did a little reporting on some sort of dust-up around something called “the sixteen words”:

Beginning in October, the CIA warned the administration not to use the Niger claim in public. CIA Director George J. Tenet personally persuaded deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley to omit it from President Bush's Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

But on the eve of Bush's Jan. 28 State of the Union address, Robert Joseph, an assistant to the president in charge of nonproliferation at the National Security Council (NSC), initially asked the CIA if the allegation that Iraq sought to purchase 500 pounds of uranium from Niger could be included in the presidential speech.

Well, just as long as incessant White House pressure in the form of repeated visits and calls from the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, setting up a parallel, fake intelligence office to compete with the CIA, and White House push-back against CIA warnings about discredited “mushroom cloud” claims, didn’t play the central role in taking the country into a disastrous war, based on a pack of lies.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , War in Iraq

by shep

Regarding your recent appearance on the News Hour, opposite Rich Lowry, I have a few suggestions:

When Mr. Lowry claims that Senator Reid’s Iraq appropriations legislation is being driven by the “left-wing,” the correct response is as follows:

“It is the president’s position that is the extreme one; only around 30% of Americans favor Bush’s approach in Iraq.”

(or the reverse):

“Nearly 60% of Americans favor a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, so it’s hardly the left-wing position.”

When Mr. Lowry complains that Bush didn’t expand the military after 9/11, it would be useful to point out that we didn’t need a bigger army to go after al Qaeda. The only reason the Army and National Guard are nearly broken is because the president chose to invade and occupy Iraq instead.

One more thing, Speaker Pelosi’s trip to the Middle East will only be widely seen as a political mistake if pundits ostensibly representing the more liberal viewpoint say it is.

I know that practically no mainstream news source puts an actual Democratic partisan opposite the rabid Republican ones but please do try to at least point out the obvious and not give undue cover to White House talking points.

Perhaps it was because you have a cold. Get well soon.

Sincerely,
[shep]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , George W. Bush , Military , Politics , Republicans , War in Iraq

(cross posted at Daily Kos)

MSNBC asks: Are vetoes the key to a Bush recovery? The simple answer is "no" because I don't think he'll veto the Iraq spending bill.

Before I tell you why, let's look at some background...

A defining moment of Clinton’s presidency was Oct. 19, 1995 when he threw down the gauntlet to House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole. “I will not let you destroy Medicare and I will veto this bill,” Clinton said referring to GOP legislation curbing the future growth of Medicare spending.

The standoff between Republican leaders and Clinton led to the government shutdown at the end of 1995. Clinton won the perception battle on Medicare and it helped him win a second term.

“You guys took extraordinary advantage, very correctly so, of demonizing us,” Dole’s advisor Sheila Burke told Clinton strategist George Stephanopoulos during a 1996 campaign post-mortem at Harvard University. “We essentially lost the public relations war early in December (1995).”

Speaking of the Clintons, Bush might be able to prevail -- by being a divider and not a uniter:

Bush’s veto threat may pay some dividends in that he’s splitting the Democratic ranks. While Obama sounds resigned to Bush winning on the veto, his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton said Tuesday, “This is vetoing the will of the American people.” She added that “I’m not ready to concede” that Bush will ultimately make his veto stick.

As for other threatened vetoes (stem cells, discounted pharmaceuticals, labor unions) -- at this point, who cares? We're into the primary season already and these are all political theater. The Democrats will nationalize these issues on the way to the general election.

One lesson some members of Congress drew from last November’s election was that that the public was fed up with partisan discord. If that’s true, would a veto antagonize a public tired of confrontation?

The public is already onboard with Congress. Everyone is tired of this endless occupation and they'll see Congress as being more than generous in giving Bush his war funding -- but with a redefinition of the mission.

So here's what happens next:

If Bush is smart, he'll sign the bill and then ignore the part about withdrawal timelines -- you know, with one of his infamous (and ubiquitous) signing statements. By the time it winds through the courts, Bush will be nearly at the end of his term. His legacy "secure," Bush will leave office -- but not before screwing the Republican candidate for president.

End result: Democrats add to their lead in Congress and also take the White House. But Bush will have accomplished one thing that he wanted: it'll be someone else who has to end the war, not him.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

by shep

“The base isn't interested in Iraq. The base is for Bush. If Bush said tomorrow, we're leaving in two months, there would be no revolt.”

No great moral imperative. No existential threat from the islamofascistterroristassholes. No moral commitment to the country and peoples we set aflame. Just more innocent souls on the pyre for the pure sake of fealty to The Leader.

And here’s another terrific peek into the mind of the authoritarian follower:

“In retrospect, some of his comments and interaction – that at the time seemed edgy but innocent enough – now seem questionable.”

You see, when Ted Haggard was the authority figure of the New Life Church, and said, “evangelicals have the best sex life of any other group,” and “pulled aside two men from his congregation and asked how often their wives had orgasms,” he seemed “innocent enough.” Once he was demoted and disgraced those same comments “seem questionable,” to those same (now former) followers who previously thought they seemed "innocent."

The need for the authority dictates the positive perception of everything from correct professional conduct to appropriate personal behavior, regardless of what one sees with one’s own eyes. In this case, the exact same behavior is judged differently on different days, only Haggard’s authority had changed.

Think of all of the former Bush supporters, from Paul O’Neill to Matthew Dowd, who were unassailable the day before they turned against the Bush administration’s conduct and savaged the day after. Those people were not unimpeachable originally because the supporters judged that they merited it due to their character and integrity. They were respected or reviled, based soley upon their loyalty to the authority figure.

Different authority; different righteousness. When it comes to their leaders, Republicans are simply incapable of judging ethical behavior.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: George W. Bush , Politics , Religion , War in Iraq

Things from Bush's Tuesday Rose Garden presser that you can brush off as just so much baloney:

"My main job is to protect the people..."

Bush's main job is to protect the Constitution, not the people. That job description is so fundamentally important that he is required to swear an oath to fulfill it upon taking office. It's right there in...the Constitution!

Gosh, what could the framers have been thinking?

They were thinking that we needed to live in a Constitutionally limited republic where the people have certain inalienable rights. They were thinking that those rights must be protected against encroachment by any single individual seeking to gain absolute power. You know -- like the King against whom the colonists were rebelling.

As such, in Article I, they laid out the blueprint for the Legislative branch which was to be a co-equal branch to the Executive branch whose blueprint came in Article II. The co-equality was implemented through an intricate (but easy to understand) system of checks and balances.

Harry Reid:

[Bush] is president of the United States, not king of the United States. He has another branch of government, a legislative branch of government, he has to deal with.

Which brings us to Bush Baloney #2:

Congress shouldn't tell generals how to run the war.

But the fact remains: The military answers to a higher civilian authority, namely the President and his various delegates (e.g., the Secretary of Defense). In addition Congress has the authority to declare war and control the allocation of war funding. But above and beyond all that, these civilian authorities are nothing more than public servants who serve at the pleasure of the people. If the people want an end to a war, they have the final say so via the ballot box. True, the results of an election are not alwas easy to interpret, especially when it comes to foreign policy. But if ever there was a time when it was, this is it.

But why am I telling you that? You get it. It's Bush who doesn't understand his own job description.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , George W. Bush , War in Iraq

Shorter Charles Krauthammer:

We have to keep fighting the war in Iraq, against the fanatics in Afghanistan, because that’s where the oil is.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Afghanistan , Iraq , Military , War in Iraq

Virtually everything that Bush and Co. says will happen if we "cut and run" out of Iraq -- i.e., population in despair, our military in strategic peril, an Iraqi government too weak to provide security, militias and armed bands killing innocent people at will -- virtually all of those things are happening now, in Iraq, after over four years of our present occupation:

An influential retired Army general released a dire assessment of the situation in Iraq, based on a recent round of meetings there with Gen. David H. Petraeus and 16 other senior U.S. commanders.

"The population is in despair," retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey wrote in an eight-page document compiled in his capacity as a professor at West Point. "Life in many of the urban areas is now desperate."
[...]
[McCaffrey's] bottom line is that the U.S. military is in "strategic peril" -- a sharp contrast to his previous views.
[...]
The government lacks dominance in every province, he added. One result is that "no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO [nongovernmental organization], nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi, without heavily armed protection."

Militias and armed bands are "in some ways more capable of independent operations" than the Iraqi army, he added.

Enough.

Congress will soon send a bill to Bush giving him everything he asked for in the way of war funding. But he has vowed to veto it because it forces him to end the occupation within the next 18 months. And if he vetoes it, the troops will be denied the funds they need to pack up and come home safely. If that happens the blame will lie with the president and no one else.

Call your Congressman and call your Senators. Tell them to support the bills in the House and the Senate that wind this war down. Tell them to stand firm.

And contact the White House and tell the president to sign the bill when it reaches his desk.

Enough.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: War in Iraq

As we know now, the House voted to give the Commander in Chief everything he asked for in the way of Iraq war funding -- and more. But you don't hear much about this fact from the traditional media.

Over 200 Republican congressmen voted against authorizing the funds in this bill. Don't hear much about THAT either.

And of course Bush now threatens to veto the entire bill altogether. Hello? If he vetos the bill, he won't get the money.

That's also a fact you don't hear much about in the traditional media.

With all of this in mind, I think it's time to create an Internet ad that brings this to light. Luckily, Bill from Portland Maine has written a script for just such an ad and -- for super double-extra bonus points -- inserted Bush's own words (in bold) to make the point more strongly:

OMINOUS ANNOUNCER WITH DEEP, RASPY VOICE: Republican Congressman [name here] voted against a bill to provide our troops with vital funding. This funding is badly needed for delivering of vital resources for our troops, like armor, food and other critical supplies that help them fight the war on terror and protect our children. But Republican Congressman [name here] voted to shut off funding for our troops. Our men and women in uniform need these emergency war funds. The Secretary of Defense has warned that our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so would their families.

Republicans in the House like Congressman [name here] have sent their message, now it's time to send their money. Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win.

Shame on you, Republican Congressman [name here]. Our troops deserve better than this.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , Politics , Republicans , War in Iraq

The Senate is poised to vote on legislation that will mirror the Iraq bill passed by the House.

Hopefully you live in a state where your Senator(s) already support this legislation. If not, please contact your Senators today and urge them to approve that bill.

Below is the text of a letter I sent to my Senators in Louisiana (Landrieu and Vitter) neither of whom supports the language in the House bill. Feel free to use it whatever way you like. But please don't wait -- the vote is coming up very fast.

[Feel free to add that "a solid majority of Americans say they want their congressional representative to support a bill calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by August 2008. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) say they would like to see their representative vote for such legislation, compared with just 33% who want their representative to oppose it," according to a new poll by Pew Research.]

Senator,

I understand the Senate is going to be considering passage of a bill similar to the Iraq war bill passed by the House. I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of it.

I understand that you do not support the approach that the House took because you feel that it puts the legislature in the position of "micromanaging" the war and ties the hands of our generals on the ground. I know how you feel about this. I felt the same way too. But then I thought about it some more and here is what I found:

The US military is run by civilians such as the Defense Secretary as well as the Legislative branch of our government. These parties are directly or indirectly answerable to the people. The same goes for the Commander in Chief -- he is a civilian who is elected by the people. And in November of last year, the people spoke loud and clear: it is time to end the war.

Now, the House heard the call and has given the Commander in Chief all the money he asked for and more. The troops have plenty of support to get the job done -- which is now defined by the House as "getting out of Iraq."

If the President vetoes the bill, then it will be he that is not supporting the troops, because he will be denying them the money to complete their mission.

The fact is we have achieved everything we set out to do when we invaded Iraq: Saddam is gone, there are no more WMD and Iraq has a government elected by the people. It is time now to declare victory and come home.

I hope you will vote in a way that supports this. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ara Rubyan
Baton Rouge, LA

[Note: I was inspired by I Help You Blog’s “101 Great Posting Ideas For Your Blog” to write this post about citizen activism and the war in Iraq.]

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: War in Iraq

"Dick" Cheney is at it again:

Cheney called it a myth that "one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements they need to carry out their mission."

P.S. If this ties the hands of the generals on the ground, well, that's the way it is supposed to work: last time I looked, the military was governed by civilians like the Secretary of Defense AND the legislative branch of our government. The Commander in Chief is also a civilian -- who is elected by the people. So the people have the ultimate final say in this -- not the generals.

Get with the picture, "Dick."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , War in Iraq

Newsweek has published a story this week that quotes from letters sent home by those in our armed services that were killed in combat.

The first letter was from Army Maj. Michael Mundell to his 17-year-old daughter, Erica:

"Tell all of your friends and your teachers that I said hello from Fallujah. I am doing well and our battalion is considered the best in the brigade. We are fighting the enemy and hopefully winning, though that is difficult to measure." He signed off with a pledge: "Never forget that your daddy loves you more than anything and that I will be home soon."

"Daddy loves you more than anything..." This is the kind of heartbreak that haunts you for the rest of your life. And it isn't anything new, not in war, not in this war or any other. So I almost didn't write about this...

... until I read the following passage, also from the Newsweek piece:

When Mundell was laid to rest in a hillside cemetery in Irvington, Ky., he joined the solemn company of America's fallen warriors—men and women who become objects of veneration, commemorated, in Lincoln's words, as the "honored dead" who "gave the last full measure of devotion."

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

And not only that: what of our own system of government? How is it that the people can speak with such a clear voice not only in public opinion polls but also at the ballot box an yet the Commander in Chief can continue to go against our will?

Mark Bowden, celebrated author of Blackhawk Down, said it best nearly four years ago:

When a president lies or exaggerates in making an argument for war, when he spins the facts to sell his case, he betrays his public trust, and he diminishes the credibility of his office and our country. We are at war. What we lost in this may yet end up being far more important than what we gained.

End the war. Bring 'em home.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Iraq , War , War in Iraq

Way back in the day (c. 1974) I spent a summer in Beirut as an exchange student. It was the summer after the Yom Kippur War and it was also the summer that Yassir Arafat began building up the PLO presence in Lebanon. As a result, the Israeli Air Force was accustomed to low-flying flights at sonic speed over the Lebanese capital. Trust me when I say I have never -- ever! -- heard anything that loud in my life. The Beirutis would, of course, laugh saying that you could always tell the tourists because they were the ones who would dive under the cafe tables when the jets went booming overhead.

I remembered all that when I saw this video of the the U.N. Secretary General diving for cover after an enormous blast went off in the Green Zone during a press conference.

[Note: When the camera pulls back, check out the reporters in the audience -- they ducked too. But not Maliki, of course. He never even blinks barely winces -- he's like an fracking action hero!]

P.S. Maybe I'm not paying attention, but when was the last time a rocket exploded inside the Green Zone? Isn't that, um, a bit too close for comfort? [I guess I've been slacking off -- there was a rocket attack on the Green Zone in late January.]

P.P.S. What surge?

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Video , War in Iraq

Amnesia (David Byrne)

Peace on earth, soon we will be
Where nothing worries us
Lazy days, cool is the breeze
Across the universe

Armies of soldiers are sleeping tonight
And moonlight is kissing their eyes

When you awake you will be free
I'll be your lullabye

Alcohol, no need to feel
Rest in these fuzzy arms
Ease on down, amnesia
Baby's on valium

Keep us from danger and safe from all harm
From the wind and the rain and the fire

When you awake you will be free
I'll be your lullabye

When you awake you will be free
And then I'll be your lullabye

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Iraq , Music , Video , War , War in Iraq

Fact is, the war's over. All that's left is, well, the shouting.

C'mon -- Saddam is dead, there are no WMDs, Iraq has a democratic government. Mission Accomplished, right? Declare victory and come home already.

In that context, the House Democratic proposal is a mess. I'd vote against it -- and I'm a yellow dog Democrat. I'd vote against it and start over with a much simpler proposal that provides 100% of the funding requested by the president with the proviso that the funds only be used to withdraw the troops (see above, "Mission Accomplished").

UPDATE: Here's another video of David Obey (D-WS). This time the camera captures him speaking to Tina Richards, the mother of a Marine and anti-war protester in the hall outside his office in Washington. The video runs over 6 minutes -- but hang in there, it is a fascinating encounter between two impassioned people who feel they are doing what they can to end the war.

Obey is a sponsor of Pelosi's supplemental spending bill that would pull U.S. troops out of Iraq by Aug. 31, 2008. "We're trying to use the supplemental to end the war," Obey stormed, later adding, "It's time these idiot liberals understood that!" Later, when another war protester also starts questioning Obey, he says: "That bill ends the war! If that isn't good enough for you, you're smoking something illegal."

Now I know that Obey has been on the Hill forever; at one point he reminds Ms. Richards that he was instrumental in passing the legislation that cut off the funding for the Vietnam war in the early 70's. On the other hand, I also understand that he fancies himself a rival of Jack Murtha, so I have mixed feelings about that.

But the most fascinating thing about the confrontation is when he says that "you don't have to cut off funds for an activity that is no longer legal." Clearly he believes that the current proposal somehow avoids the hot potato of defunding by first "making the war illegal." Not sure how that works; besides, there are lots of things Bush has done that are of, um, questionable legality, as Jon Stewart so humorously alludes to in the first video.

Watch the video. It's worth six minutes of your time as a fascinating glimpse constituency outreach in the halls of Congress -- and I say that with only a bit of irony.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , Video , War in Iraq

I was watching a motivational speaker the other day who basically said, "There is no such thing as trying. You either do or you don't. Trying just means you failed with honor."

And so it goes with the Democratic congress on the Iraq war.

Right now it seems that they are suffering from paralysis by analysis when, in fact, they should pick a direction and go. Instead of trying to please everyone in their caucus (which ends up pleasing no one), Dems should look around: A huge majority of Americans are sick and tired of the war, think it was a mistake and want us out of there ASAP. And this is to say nothing of what they think of Bush.

Matt Stoller:

It's unlikely that we'll be able to get a bill through the House, and through a Senate filibuster, and through a White House veto, and past a constitutional crisis. Right? The votes aren't there. They just aren't.

Bottom line (and here come the cliches): Half a loaf is better than none; don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good; don't just stand there -- do something! [Note: Just because it's a cliche doesn't mean it ain't true.]

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams,  Cross Posted

Chairman Henry Waxman has invited Valerie Plame Wilson to testify before his House Committee on Oversight and Government next Friday, March 16th.  I'd like to know if Valerie Plame, and more broadly the CIA's counter-proliferation division and it's front company, Brewster Jennings & Associates (which "covered Ms. Plame), was specifically targeted -- and not simply a casualty of war.

Not since Fawn Hall have I awaited Congressional Testimony with quite the same emotional reaction.  There's nothing quite like a blond bombshell with movie star good-looks telling a panel of boring old men all the sordid details of an administration bent on waging a war that neither the American people or a majority of Congress support.

But if that isn't enough to get your attention, maybe this will:

Brewster Jennings CIA counter-proliferation network prevented a WMD "salting" operation by Bush White House in Iraq.

Continue reading "Some Questions For Valerie Plame" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Corruption , War in Iraq

End the war, end the occupation.

"I believe the vote should be a vote of conscience," said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, one of 71 members of a liberal coalition opposed to the war. "My vote would be for a safe, fully funded withdrawal of troops" by the end of this year, she said.

REP. BARBARA LEE (D), California: We want to make sure the American people know that this war must end, that we stand with them, and we're leading the charge here in the House of Representatives to do just that.

[Note: My daughter and I shot this last summer at an informal display outside a Farmington Hills, MI city park. The music is from Springsteen's appearance on The Tonight Show.]

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , Music , Video , War in Iraq

Apparently, there's more than one way to end the Iraq war. One way has lots of support and the other way, not so much:

USA Today/Gallup Poll. March 2-4, 2007. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Would you favor or oppose Congress taking each of the following actions in regards to the war in Iraq?

"Setting a time-table for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year"
Favor: 60%
Oppose: 39%

"Denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq"
Favor: 37%
Oppose: 61%

Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, is drafting an amendment that would allow financing only to protect American troops in Iraq pending a full withdrawal under a set timetable:

Assuming the supplemental bill is unsatisfactory to the caucus, war opponents are discussing whether to threaten to vote against it when it comes to a vote in the House floor in mid-March, unless the House leadership also permits a vote on the amendment from Ms. Lee.

Ms. Lee said her goal was to shift the discussion to a “fully funded withdrawal” from “cutting off funding.”

“There’s a distinction between cutting off funding and using the funding to begin a speedy and secure withdrawal within a specific timeframe,” she said.

• Earlier polling had shown a very strong majority in favor of Murtha's proposal to make "surge-funding" conditional on certain readiness benchmarks. What happened to support for that? It cannot have melted away so fast. Is it all in how you ask the question?
• As a practical matter, I'm not sure how Lee's proposal could be an amendment to the supplemental. For example, if the supplemental is shot down, how can the amendment to it pass and become binding? I'm not a parliamentarian so that seems confusing. But I like this approach.

End the war already.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , Poll , War in Iraq

MSNBC:

Former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI in an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative’s identity.

Now I know Fitzgerald has said that the investigation has been "inactive" since before the trial began; he also said they (the prosecution team) could all go back to their day jobs.

But is it possible that Libby's sentencing might be contingent on his further cooperation with the authorities? If so, how long before Cheney resigns? If it happens, the official reason will be his recent health problems. But Libby's guilty verdicts are going to figure large in the calculation.

And, yes, he'll be pardoned along with Libby.

P.S. Saddle up the ponies! Can't wait to hear what Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have to say about this. [Update: Here's Joe Wilson on Keith Olbermann's Countdown.]

They're suing everyone in sight and this makes everything that much more interesting.

UPDATE: Jane Hamsher captures a telling detail:

Afterwards Mrs. Libby came up and hugged [defense attorneys] Jeffress profusely, then Wells, saying "love you, love you" with much emotion. Then all the rest of the defense team. She didn't hug Scooter however, or hold his hand, or even make eye contact.

UPDATE 2: Nancy Pelosi:

Today's guilty verdicts are not solely about the acts of one individual. This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush Administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed – at the highest levels of the Bush Administration – a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq.

UPDATE 3: Attention Plame junkies (I'm talking to you, Mark): Huffington Post has the exclusive account of the jury deliberations, written by juror (and former Washington Post reporter) Dennis Collins. A must-read. No, really -- you have to read it.

UPDATE 4: Ari Emanuel says Cheney will resign on March 28.

UPDATE 5: Christy Hardin Smith has a positively fascinating and insightful analysis Libby's chances for a pardon. The title spills the beans: No Pardon. Period. In brief, she observes that Libby's future lies in the balance between Rove's influence over Bush vs. Cheney's. It is a must-read for Plame-junkies.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , Law , Republicans , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

Because Congress isn't going to do a thing about it.

David Sirota: "Democrats are not serious about ending the war, or even trying to slow it down."

"Democrats are considering cutting President Bush's $142 billion budget request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year by $20 billion, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said Thursday." - AP, morning of 3/1/07

VERSUS

"Just hours after floating the idea of cutting $20 billion from President Bush's $142 billion request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad was overruled by fellow Democrats Thursday. 'Our caucus feels strongly that we should go with the president's numbers' on 2008 war costs, Conrad said." - AP, afternoon of 3/1/07

This is the first time, ever, in the long history of the Internet Toobz, that Mark Noonan was right. (Gawd, it sickens me to actually type those words.)

But never fear, our savior will soon be here and all will be roses and liberators.

Continue reading "Forget About Stopping The War, Chalabi Will" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Corruption , War in Iraq

Mine does :-)

by Mark Adams

Citizen 53 has posted the full transcript of an almost hour long interview with John Edwards from WNYC Radio. (Audio link to John Edwards interview).

This is an in depth interview with detailed examination of every position that matters in this election:

• citizen53's diary :: ::

This interview is an excellent example of Edwards in full. shows his policies and much of who he is as a person, a human being, running for President.

If you have the time, I hope you will read it and offer your comments.

Clearly, what follows is better than any sound bite. is Edwards's views in depth, where he has an opportunity to expound. gives interested DKos'ers a chance to become better educated about Edwards, straight from Edwards, not from the flame wars in a thread that contains oft-repeated information and misinformation that, alas, is so prevalent in the blogosphere.

Get some coffee, settle back, and enjoy!

BL: And what if you were in the house? This Murtha plan...

JE: I'm for it.

BL: ... to starve the war by requiring shorter stays for American troops, longer intervals between tours, some other things...you're for it?

JE: I'm for it.

BL: You'd vote for it.

JE: I'm for it.

BL: Alright then, do one other thing on this before we leave Iraq to distinguish yourself from the other presidential c...

JE: Can I interrupt you for just a minute?

BL: Sure

JE: You did that very quickly. The Murtha plan that I know about is one that requires American troops not to be sent back for another deployment in Iraq, some of them 3rd and 4th deployments without adequate training, without adequate equipment - is that what you're talking about?

BL: Yes.

JE: OK. Yes, I'm for that.

BL: Which is just an indirect way to stop the troop surge, true?

JE: Yeah, yeah - it certainly affects the number of troops in Iraq.

This is big folks, possibly the best talking point Edwards Supporters have.

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Democrats , John Edwards , War in Iraq

Murtha's plan, although popular with the people, is apparently DOA in Congress. Instead, the Dems (including the Blue Dogs) hope to pass a plan that requires the Commander in Chief to provide Congress with a "presidential waiver" for any troops that do not meet their "standard" for deployment.

Feh.

It's clear that the Dems are split into two camps: those that do not want to stay the course versus those who do not to change the course. As a result, they are trying to have it both ways which means they will have it no way at all.

Because no one is willing to lead the way with legislation to end the war (translation: "cut off funding") the difference between the Dems and Republicans is minimal, if not zero. So the war will keep going for at least another two years, if not longer. This, despite what the people want.

Bottom line: if Dems vote for the presidential waiver option, they will own the war for the next two years.

UPDATE: Russ Feingold is the only one so far who is talking sense:

I am working to fix the new proposal drafted by several Senate Democrats, which at this point basically reads like a new authorization. I will not vote for anything that the President could read as an authorization for continuing with a large military campaign in Iraq. Deauthorizing the President’s failed Iraq policy may be an appropriate next step if done right, but the ultimate goal needs to be using our Constitutionally-granted power of the purse to bring this catastrophe to an end.

UPDATE: Chris Bowers thinks Steny Hoyer is behind the House refusal to allow a roll-call vote on Murtha's proposal. Makes sense: There's no love lost between those two rivals.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , Republicans , War in Iraq

Mark has already covered some of the results from the latest polls on the Iraq War. Here's more...

The one result that jumps out is that while the House Blue Dogs might not support Murtha, the American people support Murtha's plan, 58-39.

The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that "a majority of Americans now support setting a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces from the war-torn nation and support putting new conditions on the military that could limit the number of personnel available for duty there."

All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?

(Parenthetical number indicates result from last poll)

Iraq War worth fighting 34 (40)
Iraq War not worth fighting 64 (58)

Do you think (the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties); OR, do you think (the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there)?

Keep forces 42 (46)
Withdraw forces 56 (52)

Do you support or oppose Bush's proposal to send approximately 22,000 additional U.S. military forces to Iraq?

Support 32 (34)
Oppose 67 (65)

Would you support or oppose Congress trying to block Bush's plan by creating new rules on troop training and rest time that would limit the number of troops available for duty in Iraq?

Support 58
Oppose 39

Would you support or oppose Congress trying to block Bush's plan by restricting funding for the war?

Support 46
Oppose 51

Continue reading "Poll: Majority Support Murtha Plan" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Poll , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

... then I should take some time to reconsider. -- A Few Good Men

Majority "Strongly Objects" To Bush Troop Buildup (via HuffPost)

Washington Post: Opposition to Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq remained strong. Two in three Americans registered their disapproval, with 56 percent saying they strongly object. The House recently passed a nonbinding resolution opposing the new deployments, but Republicans have blocked consideration of such a measure in the Senate.

The response from the Office of Vice President was refreshingly honest and blunt...

(more)

Continue reading "Oh. Well, If You Strenuously Object..." »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , War in Iraq

Lots in the news today about Democratic tactical maneuvering (translation: "infighting") in Congress, re: the war:

• Senate Democrats (translation: "Biden") want to pass a measure that sunsets the 2002 AUMF.
  
• House Blue Dogs have stymied Mutha's plan to restrict funding contingent on meeting readiness benchmarks.
  
• Progressive bloggers are pitted against each other, arguing the best way to proceed.

Let's agree that historians will give this episode a simple paragraph their narrative of the times. It'll go like this:

"Public opinion turned against the war. As a result, the Democrats took over Congress. However, the president prevailed because he was the Commander in Chief and there was not much the Legislative branch could do except shut off the money...or impeach the Chief Executive neither of which the Democrats were strong enough, united enough, nor resolute enough to do. Furthermore, none of the Democratic or Republican candidates for president was able to capture the public's imagination about what to do on this one, most important issue. So the war droned on for two more years, ruining lives and families at home and weakening the nation's standing around the world."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (6) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , History , Republicans , War in Iraq

The Brits are pulling out of Iraq -- and Cheney says that's a sign that things are going well in some parts of the country.

If that's so, then shouldn't the Brits be moving into the parts of Iraq that are, you know, not going so well -- like Baghdad?

(HT to Josh)

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , Republicans , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

My new favorite blog, Queequeg the Harpooneer, delves into the history books to annihilate the sophistry, distortions and outright lies of Rep. Frank Gaffney (R-Deluded) who not only misquoted Abraham Lincoln on the floor of the House of Representatives, but insists that despite the mis-quote, he accurately described the Great Emancipator's sentiments.

Queequeg indeed harpoons Gaffney. In fact, to truly massacre the metaphor, Gaffney didn't just subject the Congressional Record to a little white lie, but made up a whale of a story when he said Lincoln accused Congressmen who criticize the war are "saboteurs” and should be "arrested, exiled, or hanged."

Thanks to the Melvillian mariner, we know exactly how Lincoln thought, and how he behaved when he felt -- as a Congressman -- that the Mexican-American war was started by President Polk under false pretenses, that Congress had the right and duty to end the war through the power of the purse, and that the administration had deceived the American public by insinuating that it be over in a matter of months, not years.

Lincoln did not mince words in personally attacking a President he believe unworthy of the title Commander and Chief

His mind, tasked beyond its power, is running hither and thither, like some tortured creature on a burning surface, finding no position on which it can settle down and be at ease.

Again, it is a singular omission in this message that it nowhere intimates when the President expects the the war to terminate. … As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show there is not something about his conscience more painful than all his mental perplexity!

If you ever needed proof that there's no such thing as ghosts, it's that George Bush hasn't been seen running and screaming out into the Rose Garden, mumbling something about being haunted by a tall ghost in a stove-pipe hat.

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: War in Iraq

The Democrats in the House plan today to bring to a vote the non-binding resolution in the House that says we respect the troops but reject the escalation. A baby-step but forward movement to be sure.

After that, Rep. Murtha plans to introduce legislation that has considerably more teeth to it. It would allocate funds for the war only under the following conditions:

1. The Pentagon would have to certify that troops being sent to Iraq are “fully combat ready” with training and equipment;
2. Troops must have at least one year at home between combat deployments;
   
3. Combat assignments could not be extended beyond one year
   
4. Prohibition on “stop-loss” program forcing soldiers to extend their enlistment periods

The Republican response?

“While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely,” [House Minority Leader John] Boehner said.

Say what?

In Boehner's world, you send the troops into battle to fight the terrorists, no matter what -- naked, barefoot and oiled up with a knife between their teeth, if necessary.

Outnumbered? Outgunned? No problem! We're the US Army! We're the Marines! We're the awesome Black Knight by God!

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , Republicans , War in Iraq

OK, let's say you've got three major Democratic candidates running for their party's nomination for president.

1. The first one says s/he was mislead by Bush about the war and that while voted to give him the authority to use force, s/he didn't necessarily give him permission to invade Iraq.
   
2. The second candidate now says s/he flat-out made a mistake in voting to give the president the authority to use force.
   
3. The third candidate says that s/he was against the war from the very start and said so to whomever would listen.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Democrats , War in Iraq

Sen. Obama got in trouble the other day for saying this:

"We now have spent $400 billion dollars and have seen over three thousand lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."

But really: don't you understand his point -- and agree with it?

Abraham Lincoln, a real war President, said it best:

"...we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

That said, do you really believe that our men and women didn't die in vain? That's not just a waste -- but a shame and a stain on our history.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: History , War in Iraq

I'm no Senate parliamentarian so I don't have the ability to explain exactly what happened yesterday except to say there will be nothing done in the Senate about the Iraq war for the time being. What might have been (at most) a non-binding vote of no-confidence did not take place, nor did a debate of any length on the progress and conduct of the war.

Nothing. No. Thing.

Here's the simple recap: Republicans mostly voted against debate and Democrats mostly voted for it.

It's not over, but it ain't exactly an auspicious beginning.

P.S. What I wonder about is what spooked the Republicans into voting against debate. My hunch? Cheney, et. al., probably told them that it would embolden Iran and force the US to expand the war to include Iraq's neighbor(s).

UPDATE: Senator Obama has introduced a bill in the Senate and Rep. Thompson and Rep. Murphy have introduced the companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill is called "The Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007."

The binding legislation ends President Bush's escalation by capping the number of troops at January 10, 2007 levels, puts forward specific benchmarks for success in Iraq and establishes a timeline to redeploy our troops. Redeployment, according to the bill, would begin no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of all combat brigades redeployed by March 31, 2008 - a date consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Troops would be sent either home to their families in the U.S., to Afghanistan where more troops are needed to fight the war on terror or would remain in the region to train Iraqis, protect against more violence and perform counterterrorist activities. The Iraq War De-Escalation Act will refocus the efforts of American armed forces on Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden and urges the president to send, within 60 days, a Special Envoy to Iraq to begin the important work of diplomacy with key nations in the region.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , Dick Cheney , Republicans , War in Iraq

Hey, Newsweek -- what took you so long?

Better late than never, eh?:

Matt Dowd knows more about the politics of war than almost anyone who has worked inside Bush's inner circle. The president's long-time pollster was the chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney campaign three years ago, when he helped frame the conflict in Iraq as a winning issue for his boss. But as Dowd surveys the field of 2008 presidential candidates, he's puzzled. "The American people have decided what they think about the war and are ready to look to the next stage," he says. "What I don't understand is why the big three GOP candidates have all chosen to follow the president's approach rather than offer up their own alternative."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Republicans , War in Iraq

I'm no expert on military strategy and/or tactics and so I mostly steer clear of the topic. But after watching the following video and reading the story after that, it's pretty clear (once again) that we're wasting our time in Iraq.

The video: CBS declined to broadcast the following report, instead putting it on their web site. Watch the video and then read the piece in the New York Times describing the same situation.

The article in the Times:

In a miniature version of the troop increase that the United States hopes will secure the city, American soldiers and armored vehicles raced onto Haifa Street before dawn to dislodge Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias who have been battling for a stretch of ragged slums and mostly abandoned high rises. But as the sun rose, many of the Iraqi Army units who were supposed to do the actual searches of the buildings did not arrive on time, forcing the Americans to start the job on their own.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Video , War in Iraq

(Click to see larger image)

Glenn Greenwald:

Yesterday, Party loyalist Hugh Hewitt unveiled what he and his comrades are calling "The Pledge" -- a creepy, Soviet-sounding declaration of loyalty, all based on Gen. Petraeus' decree, that vows to repudiate any Republican who opposes the "surge"...Bush followers across the Internet are now huddled in strategizing conference calls, and leading right-wing luminaries such as Glenn Reynolds have endorsed The Pledge.

Forward this to your friends. Go viral baby! End the War.

Yeah, you have to provide an email address to verify the signature, but if enough people do this, it'll be worth it.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

This "plan" kill two birds. The wingnuts will be happy with it because we'll stop seeing the daily doom-n-gloom of a hundred funerals a day -- because the media will stop reporting all the "bad news" from Iraq.

The media will have no choice, because the other "bird" in the plan is to evacuate all American personnel from the country.

You see, the media is only hammering us with the daily death toll because American troops are in harms way. They'll stop if there are no more U.S. targets to worry about. Mmm, Kay?

Besides guys, you've got other problems, and other enemies you can be terrified of.

Allahpundit:  Is Hillary the best we can hope for among the Democratic nominees? Obama talks bipartisanship but votes a deep, rich blue. Edwards is running on a platform of class warfare. Of Gore let us say no more. Who’s left? Unless Mark Warner jumps in and figures out a way to beat all of them by running to their right, Hillary’s probably the most “conservative” (i.e., nominally hawkish) candidate in the pack. Terrifying.

Continue reading "So Dumb, It Has To Work" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Media , War in Iraq

(Cross posted on Daily Kos)

This is the headline this morning at MSNBC:

And, in a creative burst of linguistic irony, the first paragraph goes like this:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - At least 14 people were killed and 31 wounded in a series of car bombings in Baghdad on Thursday, the third day in a surge in insurgent violence in the Iraqi capital.

Let's get one thing straight:

Americans pride themselves for being a practical, businesslike people -- we revere the free market. So when the president, or any leader, declares "Follow me!" we, as Americans, instinctively ask ourselves four questions:

1. What are we being asked to buy?
2. What is it going to cost us?
3. Why should we believe him?
4. What's in it for us?

Perhaps you've never broken it down quite like this, but if you'll stop and give it some thought, you'll know I'm right. We even elect politicians this way. And we definitely buy wars this way. Even Andy Card knows that.

So they can call it a "surge," they can call it an "augmentation," they can call it "reinforcements." Hell, they can call it "a banana" for all I care.

But this time, whatever you call it, the answers to each of those four questions adds up to "no sale."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: War in Iraq

Jeffrey Feldman has posted a handy diary at Daily Kos that consolidates details of 6 different Democratic proposals that are alternatives to Bush's escalation. He's even got a poll on which one you prefer.

We all know that the very definition "Democratic Congressional Majority" means "herding cats." So it'll be difficult to offer one clear way out of Iraq any time soon.

But for those who think the Dems problem is that they have "no plan," well, think again. If anything, the exact opposite is true.

UPDATE: Rep. Lynn Wolsey's comprehensive proposal (to disengage in 6 months, reconstruct Iraq, and provide care for US veterans) seems to be carrying the day.

John Edwards' proposal is in second place:

I am opposed to President Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq. Congress must act now to block funding of Bush's escalation of the war — and demand that the President provide a plan to leave Iraq.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Democrats , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

My advice, consistent with the five basic principles of the Progressive Netroots, is not to play Hillary's game. Don't be defensive and apologetic, insisting that no offense was intended, but ask rather what size shoe the former First Lady wears, because her lack of an affirmative, absolute rejection of the escalation of the war seems like a perfect fit to John Edwards' call to stop the madness.

Any apologetic response, a "hey, I didn't mean you personally," defense, will come off weak and mitigate the importance of Edward's message.

Continue reading "Untwist Yer Knickers" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , War in Iraq

by Mark Adams

The General directs us to remember the wisdom of MLK. I believe that there is no coincidence that the theme, the three-word slogan that launched John Edwards' candidacy for president last month can be found in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech at Manhattan's Riverside Church.

There's more....

Continue reading "JRE Echos MLK, Tomorrow Is Today" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: John Edwards , War in Iraq

Wonder which one gets more coverage?

• Iran confirms U.S. arrest of five Iranian consulate staff in Iraq

• Suspected Greek militants fire rocket at U.S. embassy

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: War in Iraq

(Cross posted at Daily Kos)

Well. That's pretty serious talk. And I'll take it at face value.

That said, if I'm a Congressional Democrat, here's what I would do:

I would immediately draft a package of three related bills that accomplish the following:

1. End all off-budget funding of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
2. Roll back all existing tax cuts for people making, say, over $200 thousand in wages and passive income, and
3. Renew (or not) the original Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

You could call the package of three bills by some exotic name like The Shared National Sacrifice Act of 2007, or The Protection of Future Generations' Prosperity & Security Act.

I should think all Democrats (including the Blue Dogs) would vote for these bills as would all non-Southern Republicans. You might even get up to a veto-proof majority. Not that Bush cares of course.

But heading into 2008, this would have the effect of showing that Democrats can show some leadership, some "bipartisanship," some vision, some responsibility, some sensitivity. It would show that Democrats are not just going to sit around and be blamed for losing the war.

Do it now and ram it through. Let's have a debate, baby. Congress controls the purse-strings. So let's talk about funding this war in the real world.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Democrats , War in Iraq

Wait for it:

"Good evening my fellow Americans. Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. God bless America."

P.S. Seriously, Bush will never end this war because then he'd have to relinquish his "wartime powers."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: George W. Bush , War in Iraq

Robert Novak:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has gone public with criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy, is caustic in private about the proposed ''surge'' of 30,000 additional U.S. troops.

Powell noted that the recent congressional delegation to Iraq headed by Sen. John McCain heard from combat officers that they wanted more troops.

''The colonels will always say they need more troops,'' the retired general says. ''That's why we have generals.''

A footnote: Senior Republican senators are trying to get word to the president that any troop surge would be dead on arrival in Congress.

P.S. For the record, here's the Powell Doctrine, one more time

• Military force should only be used if there is a clear risk to national security
• The force used should be overwhelming
• Get, and hold, the support of the American people
• The operation must have a clear exit strategy.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: George W. Bush , War in Iraq

Democratic strategists say it would be politically foolish to help Bush by crafting a bipartisan war policy. "Why should we try to come up with a compromise policy with him?" asks Mike Ward, a former congressman who was back at the Capitol for opening-day festivities. "If we do that, we take ownership of the war. Why would we want to do that?" Only one reason I could think of: to end the war faster so that the troops could come home.

The best thing is for the Dems to hold all the hearings and investigations; insist that war funding be a part of the normal budget process; and pass bills like Leahy's War Profiteering Prevention Act. In other words, hang the war around Bush's (and McCain's) neck and make it THE issue in the '08 elections.

UPDATE: Joe Biden weighs in:

Sen. Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it would be a "tragic mistake" if Bush chooses to increase troops. But Biden, D-Del., said cutting off funds was not an option.

"As a practical matter there is no way to say this is going to be stopped," Biden said regarding a troop increase, unless enough congressional Republicans join Democrats in convincing Bush the strategy is wrong.

Biden added that it probably would be an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers if Democrats were to block Bush's efforts as commander in chief after Congress had voted to authorize going to war.

"It's unconstitutional to say, you can go, but we're going to micromanage," Biden said.

UPDATE 2: Josh Marshall (using more than my seven words) agrees:

Biden here is his reliably muddle-headed self. Congress can declare war (or, in this case, resolve to authorize the use of force) but not reverse itself later? Cong