(guest post by Taylor Marsh)
REPORTER: Will there come a day, and I’m not asking you when — I’m not asking for a timetable — will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
BUSH: That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq.
Al Franken Show on Air America (quote replayed today)
If you want out of Iraq before 2010, you better vote for Democrats in November.
I can’t say it any plainer than that, because even the Levin-Reed non-binding amendment demanded a change of course on Iraq. Democrats are united on that fact, so now’s not the time to be silent.
The Republicans had no debate. They voted in a block, like the good little rubber stamp Republicans they are, afraid to voice dissent in public. Or is it that they don’t have an original thought in their heads on how to get out of Iraq? One thing is certain, their talking points all sound the same. Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course! Oh, unless you’re listening to Silly Ricky Santorum, who’s scraping the bottom of the WMD barrel, in order to save his sorry Senate seat. The wingnuts are all on board.
Here’s a list of the Democrats who had the courage to cast a vote for a sensible timetable, which would have still left enough Americans to continue training the Iraqis, as well as force strength fighters in the region. Let’s start with the leaders of the fight, Senators John Kerry and Russ Feingold:
Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), co-sponsor
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), co-sponsor
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Send ‘em some love, if only to piss off Joe Lieberman Weekly.
But let’s get something straight, we are on a timetable to get out of Iraq, because the Iraqis are standing up. Even the killing of Zarqawi came because of Jordanian and Iraqi coordination, with our strike orchestrated outside of Iraq. None of us will be shocked at a Republican October surprise.
There is a full court press on by all the president’s people. General Casey joined Rummy in a Pentagon briefing today. Republicans are out in force, though when they’re asked about an exit plan you can see the flop sweat form.
And Dick Cheney is out on point.
JOHN KING: The Democrats will put on the floor of the Senate today a proposal — they don’t have the votes — but they say this administration’s policy in Iraq has failed. And the leading Democratic proposal would say, let’s have a partial withdrawal — they call it a redeployment — and then require the administration to put forward a plan. Now, they say this is not cut and run, it’s not retreat, but they say three years and three months later, it is time for the administration to tell the Iraqi government you cannot have this indefinite American security blanket. You need to do a better job of preparing your own people to take over security, what’s wrong with that?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s wrong in many respects, John. First of all, they’re wrong. We are making significant progress. We’ve had major success on the political front in terms of three national elections last year by the Iraqis. They’ve stood up a brand new government under a new constitution for the first time ever. We’ve got a quarter of a million Iraqis now in uniform, equipped, trained, in the fight. So there has been significant progress made with respect to what’s going on in Iraq.
What the Democrats are suggesting basically you can call it withdrawal, you can call it redeployment, whatever you want to call it, basically it’s — in effect, validates the terrorist strategy. You got to remember that the Osama bin Laden types, the al Qaeda types, the Zarqawi types that have been active in Iraq are betting that ultimately they can break the United States’ will. There’s no way they can defeat us militarily. But their whole strategy — if you look at what bin Laden has been saying for 10 years — is they believe they can, in fact, force us to quit, that ultimately we’ll get tired of the fight, that we don’t have the stomach for a long, tough battle, and that we’ll pack it in and go home.
If we were to do that, it would be devastating from the standpoint of the global war on terror. It would affect what happens in Afghanistan. It would make it difficult for us to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations for nuclear weapons. It would threaten the stability of regimes like Musharraf in Pakistan and the Saudis in Saudi Arabia. It is — absolutely the worst possible thing we could do at this point would be to validate and encourage the terrorists by doing exactly what they want us to do, which is to leave. …
The emphasis added is mine above. It illustrates why we are in so much trouble in Iraq. Neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor Rumsfeld get it.
There is no way anyone on earth can defeat us militarily. But that’s hardly the point, now is it? We talked about the Cheney – Rumsfeld strategy yesterday, which revolves around the "primacy of military power."
But the solution in Iraq depends, hangs on, the ability to arrive at a POLITICAL solution, which only the Iraqis can affect for themselves. We’re keeping that from happening through our troop presence.
The second highlighted section brings the Bush administration’s ignorance home. Because the "terrorists," which are few in number in Iraq, actually don’t want us to leave. They depend on the Bush administration to stay the course.
What the Republicans did today is hand the terrorists and the insurgents the victory they wanted. Now we all get to sit around and watch as Iraq gets worse and the Iraqi people continue to take it on the chin, while our troops get dismembered limb by limb.
Related posts:
- Rahm Cutting Deals To “Go Easy” On Republicans in 2010 Who Vote For Supplemental?
- In Iraq, As in So Many Contexts, Withdrawal is Victory
- Hoyer Whipping Republicans — 50 Republicans to Vote Yes?
- Remember Iraq or Ray Odierno is Still Wrong
- Blue Dogs and Republicans Agree: No Health Care Vote Before Recess





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Fuss Feingold???
I notice that Barbara Boxer is on the list, but not (of course) Dianne Feinstein. I really am losing respect for her–she voted in favor of the flag-burning amendment, for example.
Forgot to reload! Fixed.
Withdraw.
That should be the Democratic strategy for November. Something everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, can get behind. A united front.
Withdraw.
That’s all that needs saying. Keep it short, simple, and sweet. It’s a verb, which makes it active. “Withdrawal” is a state of being, not something you do and can get behind.
Come on now, everyone: “Withdraw.” (We can work out the details, like a timetable, later.)
Withdraw.
Thanks Taylor for posting.
What is up with Harry Reid?!!
I’m getting a little tired of all of this … I keep reading that Bush and Cheney “don’t get it”, or how they were “wrong in their strategy”. They do get it. They know exactly what they’re doing. They’re getting exactly what they want. When are we going to realize that it doesn’t matter what we hear them SAY. It matters what they DO. I’m sure they’re perfectly content with the course of events. We’re in Iraq, exactly as they planned. We’ll probably be in Iran (if we’re not there already) before too long. Bush gets it. Cheney gets it. They’re getting what they want because everyone opposed to them is still trying to play by the rules. There are no rules anymore – they’ve been done away with. We’re the ones who don’t get it.
Hayduke – Reid screwed Kerry & Feingold yesterday, which had both men visibly fuming. Feingold was furious when he spoke on the Senate floor. Kerry was still debating Warner at 7:00 p.m. Pacific time and he dismantled the war horse completely, but who saw it? Then Kerry went on Anderson Cooper. Simply put Reid made sure Kerry & Feingold didn’t get the time they wanted and were banished to beyond the sunset hour.
Thank you so very much Taylor
Hey, John Casper, you bet. Love guest posting here, cbl.
Read an analysis that explains how Iraq may be the focal point of a Republican October surprise…here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
The amount of political “love” I have to share is limited….any of these folk endangered? Wyden? Menendez? I’m becoming a big Menendez fan, btw: I think he’s fought every good fight since he replaced Corzine.
*ilson,
twice in one day I extend my thanks to you and others behind the curtain for helping us out
Robert
I am sorry to say I tend to agree with you. I have been saying all along that we are doing these guys a favor when we ca them imcompetent as it tends to get them off the hook. They are NOT imcompetent! What they do is calculated and deliberate and Diabolical! From Irag to Katrina and beyond all is going exactly as planned and they don’t give a rats ass about the Constitution, the troops, the people or America. They see us all as sheep to be sheared and used as canon fodder to be used and discarded on their slash and burn path to unbridled power and riches.
LeisureGuy,
DiFi’s been a Likud Dem all along; your former respect was misplaced.
Nice work Taylor. Reid sure did stick it to Kerry and Feingold. Again.
Remember when Feingold introduced his motion to censure and the Dems went running to the press with unattributed whining about how he messed up their plans to make a stink about Dubai and then “pivot” to other topics? What a joke. And Dubai still controls those ports.
None of them endorsed Murtha’s proposal when he spoke up, either.
Barack Obama: piece of shit.
Yes I do, DB, remember it well. The wingnuts are still trying to swiftboat Murtha.
My thanks too, Taylor, for pitching in for the firedoglake family. I’m late for the sad news abour Jane’s mom, but want to put my love here in a big way:
((((((((((((((((love you Jane))))))))))))))))))
in case she reads old threads when she comes up for air.
Robert @ 8, KN @ 15 — so true.
As I’ve said before, the Republicans would rather save face than save lives. In fact, I would add now that “saving lives” seems to be a notion they’ve moved over to their “how quaint” category.
Congress 2006: Go Democratic Or Die!
(I’m getting Republican on my mottos)
FITZ!…..Doesn’t seem appropriate any more to get all hopeful and excited about the DOJ. I hate this watching my beautiful country evaporate like a popsicle on the Arizona sidewalk.
Cheney the warmonger says, “We’ve got a quarter of a million Iraqis now in uniform, equipped, trained, in the fight.” So why can’t they defend their country? We’ve had over three years to train and equip them. Has this administration bungled that process like it does everything else about this conflict?
Hayduke says, “What is up with Harry Reid?!!”
That is a good question. I have a cardboard sign that I brought home from YearlyKos. It says, “Give ‘em Hell Harry.” I stood in a room full of a thousand people waving those signs and cheering when Reid spoke. It was a good speech, but he has a long way to go to deserve that kind of praise. He needs to show more backbone before that slogan becomes a mockery like “Joementum.” The true party leaders in this case are John Kerry and Russ Feingold. Either of them would make a great president.
Give ‘em Hell Harry needs to get some feedback from the netroots on this debacle.
…Reid screwed Kerry & Feingold yesterday, which had both men visibly fuming.…
(The following may be treated as a bemused rant with all questions rhetorical, iyl.)
Taylor (thanks, btw), or anyone else with a clue, where is this coming from? Is this just Reid’s agenda, or what? If the national party, i.e. Dean, have a position on this I would think it would more or less support Feingold-Kerry-Murtha. So if Reid’s not just freelancing then it must be a Congress thing?
I know we’ve been hearing and talking about the harm issuing from the re-election committee for a while, but the thing about it that’s really just crystallizing for me today is, Where the &^*( do they think they get the right to stifle expression and debate by their own party members? The move stands out all the more that, as C&L noted, Holy Joe Lieberman basically opened the debate for the Republicans. What party discipline awaits him for that move? I don’t see this as helping Democratic candidates in the fall.
Kathi (#15) – thanks for your post. I read the blogs everyday, Keith Olberman at night, and just get so frustrated at this kind of talk: “Well, we just have to do better in the upcoming election!” as if the last several elections had not been stolen. I feel like Kathy Bates in Misery: “Have you all got amnesia?!!”
Hayduke,
What’s wrong with Harry?
Maybe it’s Steve Wynn.
Taylor Marsh @
Hey, thanks for the info. That is VERY disconcerting to hear. Not good.
NOw for a comment, Reid lost me a long time ago. In spite of his masterful shut-down of the Senate, he dances right across the middle of the stage too much and seems to be the Principal rather than the Leader, shutting down respected senators who actually represent the wishes of the people, not just the senate, see Censure Resolution. Where is Phase Two?? If it was imoportant enough then, why isn’t it important now. I hear him right now saying,”The American People are with us” on the radio, but is harry truly with the American People who want some ACTION to go with their rhetoric? Not so much, I’m afraid.
Also heard about Santorum and Hoekstra’s WMD find….what a ridiculous joke!! Old, decrepit leftovers and these were worth a war? “Maybe a local threat” is what I heard today, but surely not WMD’s. A sorry, sorry bunch.
You have to connect the dots with what Cheney’s saying, and in fact he almost comes right out and says it: leaving Iraq means the terrorists win.
So if leaving Iraq validates and encourages the terrorist strategy, what does winning mean in this context? I think this is why Bush says it’s going to be up to future presidents, and that the goal here – the win – is precisely for America to be in Iraq forever (or as long as possible?). It’s not merely about Iraq having a government and self-sustaining army, it’s about the US being there for decades to come. If a military occupation is all we can manage right now, so be it, but the plan must be for there to be normalized relations just like with, I dunno, Luxembourg or something.
prostratedragon – The Dems are afraid that a timeline will sink them in November. They also evidently are afraid of making November a REFERENDUM on Bush and the rubber stamp Republicans. They don’t want to make Iraq a national fight.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06…..ref=slogin
Thanks for link Danile DeRito in #12. Food for thought.
So, time to drive home a good motto for GOP for next few months: More of the Same. Also need to drive home point that an October surprise of partial troop withdrawal can always be matched by a November surprise of troop increase (after election).
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..008824.php
For me the bottom line or Iraq is that it has been a disaster. Troops stay, troops come home, whatever, any half way decent solution will be a matter of luck and miraculous pulling together of forces in region. Not some stinking Washington DC plan. Things started spinning out of that sphere a month after invasion when it became apparent there was no plan for reconstruction.
Need to do what DLC fears most: hold GOP accountable for the mess. Call it what it is: a disastrous mess. And hold GOP accountable. BushCheneyRumDum for mismaterminding Iraq, and GOP Congress for going along 110%. Left work in Afghanistan unfinished. Lied about Iraw WMD and terrorist connections. Took resources away from work on terror. Blew political, economic, social reconstruction. Stolr and lost billions and billions of dollars. Loss of high moral US ground for nothing. Lying about progress on terrrists. Torturing insane captives for insane babble to eat up resources for political advantage (out of Bush’s own mouth, no less). Need to add, now that we know, blowing off warnings in mid-2001 (out of Bush’s own mouth again, no less). That is the bottom lin and the absolute truth for me. Why not say it. If it seems like an attack, too bad. We will not be giving them Hell, we will be telling the truth and it will look like Hell to them.
“Is he a good man? Does he have Plans?” Plans Schmlanz. It is way beyond that now. In the hands of God/Allah/Buddhanature. We need to make plans, since, as Ike said, plans mean nothing but planning is everything. But a magic plan will not guarantee that much will change at this point. Need them, but need to be realistic about what any human plan can accomplish now. Why? Simple: BushCheneyRumDum.
ot- I live in Ct and just got a mailer from Joe Lieberman, which quotes himself saying “It’s time again to have a government in Washington that fights for the people, not against them…”.
So is he endorsing Ned Lamont?
Please keep in mind that this strategy is all, I repeat, all the Repugs have. Rove’s put them in a box: Polarize and Survive is his mantra. The Catch 22 is simple: Republicans have lost all credibility with the American people. Drip, drip, drip.
I missed hearing Harry in Vegas, but Barbara Boxer was sending him love from the podium in her speech, then afterward when someone mentioned how Lieberman is vilified here, she knew nothing and didn’t know what it was about. Maybe after his DINO antics today, she’ll see where we’re coming from. Time for Schumer to get a clue as well, how much more proof does he need?
Do these Republican Warmongers think the American people will continue to buy their sit & watch Strategy forever? Hopefully enough American voters will get off their duffs in November 2006 & give many of the Bush “Rubber-Stampers” a REAL message at the Polls.
With this crowd in power, they think the American people should wait another 10 years for redeployment. Someone forgot to tell them, SOME people are losing their kids over there.
Is 3 years long enough to realize, there’s a real civil war going on in Iraq ?
Don’t forget, at a BILLION a week, the military contractors must be in their glory.
Hopefully the American voters are still awake.
Have they heard enough fairy tales YET!
Must be time for another Tax cut for the Big contributors!
Taylor @ 30.
Are these democrats not paying attention to the polls? Are they really still that brow beaten that is it that difficult to stand to an administration with 30 something % approval rating? That’s not to mention the fact the war is flatly wrong. I mean, just based on pure politics%u2026getting out of Iraq is a political winner for them (never mind it’s the right thing to do). This makes me very nervous about November. Jesus, stand for something already.
wes, 31, I agree, again the lack of corp media access rears its head. I’ve been off the grid since I left for YearlyKos, and jet lag provided me with a lovely 2 day migraine yesterday and today. It is a very wierd feeling after FDL practically IV for the last 10 months. About a month ago, there was a whiff of more evenhanded press here and there, a bit of pushback from our good friends in print and on TV. Has that gone away completely? (prob a stupid question)
hayduke @36 – As you know, there is a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, with progressives demanding our politicians take a strong stand. Some Democrats are afraid of their own shadow (see Hillary Clinton, which gives me no joy to say, let me add).
Fear. It’s got many of them bottled up.
So, please reach out to the Democrats on the list I provided, especially Kerry & Feingold. They need to hear we support them. PLEASE reach out if you feel it.
I also noticed that Harry Reid (? NV) is also leaning toward support of the “Flag Desecration” amendment too.
I just got a mailer from Joe Lieberman, which quotes himself saying “It’s time again to have a safe Senate seat for me, Joe Lieberman. After all, it’s my seat. We need a government in Washington that rewards me for my blind support of Dear Leader, one that fights for me,not against me. The people? Who are they?”.
Robert et al are exactly correct. Cheney and Bush don’t want out us of Iraq. The whole point of lying us into war was to get us into Iraq PERMANENTLY. That’s why they’re building fifteen huge, fortified, PERMANENT bases. It was a political non-starter, of course, to tell the truth: that they (two oilmen) were put in office by the oil companies to achieve a PERMANENT American military garrison in the Middle East to protect oil company profits. Something happened two months after the invasion that nobody remembers or thought was hugely significant at the time: every American soldier in Saudi Arabia was removed to Iraq or Kuwait. That says it all, folks. The “war on terror” is a big cover for accomodating Bush’s Saudi friends by getting our troops out of their country, where they were threatening the royal family’s hold on power, and getting them into Iraq, where they can stay FOREVER. Bush said it himself: he has no intention of EVER bringing the troops home. That’s for “some other President.” Of course, since the Rethugs have rigged the vote in so many places, “some other President” will behave exactly like Bush for the foreseeable future!
Taylor @ 38
I will.
I guess I really underestimate the behind the scenes pressure in D.C.. Getting out of Iraq should be political no brainier for ANY Democrat at this stage in the game. Is hard to believe these guys have not learned to fight a Karl Rove trick right back but kicking it right in the nuts, instantly and in unison. He has beaten them silly before but is running on a losing issue this time. Any Democrat that can’t see that deserves what they will find coming for them. People are sick of this war, period. There are maybe 5% of Democrats that support it, not opposing it and standing behind Kerry/Feingold/Murtha is politically RETARDED. Playing right into Rove’s hands yet again, unreal. Stand the hell up already, it’s politically the right thing to do and%u2026 it IS the right thing to do.
As a life-long member of what used to be called the Democratic Party, what really scares me is another Democrat. Hillary Clinton. She’s close to Lieberman and she’s basically a part of the DLC. And she likes war. If she’s the choice in ‘08, I’ll vote for her, but I sure won’t like it. Not one bit.
OT:
cbl, Left you some info on the Perfect Storm thread.
Sen. Hillary Clinton continues to disappoint me. I would like to believe in her. She votes correctly on some important issues, but then on something like this she doesn’t stand up. Are New York voters so right wing that she has to be that way to get reelected, or is it just a lack of resolve?
The Dems resolution was a political non-starter and (once again) showed party divisions. It served nothing, except for that give that fucktard Cheney an excuse to shoot his mouth off on tv.
I love Feingold–he’s got brass ones, God bless him–not so much Kerry. But they both should have known they didn’t have the votes.
This is not how you run an opposition party. It didn’t knock the Rethugs on their heels; it gave them ammunition. For Chrissake, if you want to showboat with a non-binding resolution, why don’t you put one on the floor about condemning war profiteering or demanding a referendum on actually declaring war on Iraq? That would make the fuckers squirm.
Today was lame.
How about Deadeye Dick Cheney.
“Iraq is a gathering threat. An imminent danger.”
“North Korea? Those clowns?”
-GSD
There are maybe 5% of Democrats that support it, not opposing it and standing behind Kerry/Feingold/Murtha is politically RETARDED.
Can we have some applause, please, for hayduke @ 42? Priceless.
Oklahoma kiddo – You know, I don’t think Clinton likes war, which cannot be ruled out when our nation is threatened, like when we went after al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Righteous damn war.
I believe Clinton’s problem is political courage and personal stubborness, flanked by ego. That’s something that should scare all progressives and every American. Been there, done that.
I might have more respect for these Chickenhawk assclowns if they were to say “awright, enough of this irritating insurgent bullshit. We are not only NOT gonna cut & run, we’re gonna TRIPLE our ground force and lock the country down while we eliminate the terrist insurgents, so the Iraqi people get get on with the business of creating the stable, prosperous, and peaceful democracy they overwhelmingly want, and that is in the interest of the entire world.”
But, NO-O-O-O-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o !!!!
It’s the BUSHIES that instead prefer to play politics ad infinitum with the lives of U.S. troops, just so they won’t have to implicitly own up to their post-invasion/occupation phase strategic fuckup.
“Stay the course” is another way of saying SNAFUBAR.
As far as I’m concerned, any Democrat that can’t oppose this war at this point might as well be named Joe F**kin’ Lieberman. Screw em’. We don’t need them. They should be run out w/ the same treatment Lieberman is receive for his treachery, and replace their seat w/ a legitimate Democrat, and while we are at it, preferably a woman, men are ruining the nation, they’ve had their time. This spinelessness is fodder for the Reich Wing, and rightfully so (hate to admit that but lying about it isn’t going to help the cause). Be rid of them if they don’t represent the will of their own godamn party!
I’ve the DNC is behind this then to hell with them too. Everything is so far in the tank across the board right now we might as we’d rid ourselves the old party while we are at it and start anew, it’s the only way for real change.
its time for the iraqis to stand on their own! after 3 years and many american lives and many many wounded soldiers – enough already! WITHDRAW NOW!!!
OT – via Rawstory, a GQ interview of Russ Feingold
http://tinyurl.com/eje3v
That he can end it all with a nod to the cows of Wisconsin, “[Wisconsin is] not, you know, just cows. Though we have wonderful cows.”
I’m officially in the fan club.
LindaR at 21:
Republicans would rather save face than save lives.
Oh the truth in that statement! Would love to see that spread across the editorial pages of every paper in the nation!
Yeah, Taylor, maybe I’m just temperamentally unable to see their point or what it is they’re so afraid of about making the election a referendum on the war. (Don’t let the prostrate part of my moniker fool you—that’s mostly just how far back I have to lay to maintain some restraint, or how far forward I was leaning a few years ago when I noticed there wasn’t much of a line behind me, or something.)
Not only do I think this strategy means the Dems miss a lot of opportunities to strike or counterstrike, but it puts them in a really poor position from which to exercise their various constitutional duties, shall we say, should the occasion ever arise. What they are doing now is tantamount to saying that the actions of the Bush government, e.g. the misuse of the authorization for the use of military force as if it were a declaration of war, are fundamentally legitimate. I don’t think they should be making that blanket statement. And at the very least, the Democrats should side with the kind of debate on continuing Iraq policy that can only take place in the light of a real alternative to the present.
I heard Feingold speak at Take Back America in D.C. He was great and the crowds loved him. I’ve got an audio of his speech, though the mp3 is rough, due to tech issues. Here’s the link that leads you to Feingold’s speech at TBA if you’re interested. Again, the sound is rough:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/arc…..p?id=24149
Already said it once today but:
Feingold/ (Janet)Napolitano
Gore/Napolitano
Kerry/Napolitano
Murtha/Napolitano
Any of these are winners in 2008 (I like the Murtha combo best).
Oklahoma kiddo @ 3:01 said “If [Hillary Clinton’s] the choice in ‘08, I’ll vote for her, but I sure won’t like it. Not one bit.”
I would be as likely to vote for her as I would to vote for Bush. And he won’t even be running.
The reason that the Republicans drool all over Hillary all the time is because it’s their wet dream that she gets on the ticket. It’s a no-lose situation for them. If she wins, then they not only have one of their own as President, but they can engage in at least four more years of Clinton-bashing.
The problem is that we have a whole huge chunk of the American people who are recognizing what a problem we have and that it needs to be resolved and that it can never be resolved by continued occupation.
But we have only the barest handful of politicians from either party who are willing to endorse that overwhelming sentiment. And a very large numbers of polticians who have grown very clubby and very enamored of corporate support, which is very tied to continuing to produce the obscene contracts with no oversight that have come to be the hallmark of this administration.
So there is a huge concerted effort to drown out any effective realization of steps to end the Iraq problem, and only a few voices raised against the onslaught.
Even so, the sentiment has turned and some of those politicians are going to need to be concerned about their continued political future if they don’t get on board. The Dems have squandered an tremendous opportunity to engineer a route this election.
As it is, the “you have to vote Dem bc otherwise Republicans are unopposed” theme runs very thin when Dems are not mounting any effective defenses. By 2008, 2010, 2012 – it won’t be a question of how fed up people are with Republicans – it will be a question of whether voters have completely given up or have started to turn to non-mainstream parties more.
Bush doesn’t want to “Stay the Course.”
Bush wants to “Pass the buck.”
===========
Had Enough?
===========
FDL Brothers/Sisters
We can’t win if our votes arn’t counted! We need to know if the fix is already in. It was in 2000/2004. Part of our stategy must include transperancy in election talies.
We must demand that their is verifiable hard copy. Excellent writing Taylor, and well thought out comments to everyone.
I think Maria Cantwell just sealed her fate in November.
Hope she enjoys her retirement.
Taylor Marsh…48
Let me amend that (#43) to Hillary ‘likes the Iraq War’. The Senator has been one of, if not the biggest Democratic disappointments, in my enfranchised life. There was a time when I would have walked on coals for her. Not anymore. What happened to that giant of a woman who once spoke of the “vast right-wing conspiracy”? Senator, the conspiracy is still very much with us.
Feingold, Edwards, Murtha, a handful of others – all great, speakers, speaking on matters where they have real commitment.
We need someone with the kind of commitment. IMO
rubber stamp republican lemmings:
traitors to the constitution and the memory of our founding fathers.
I get the sense that Russ had finally had it. “Just open my mouth, say what I think, and let the chips…” His disdain for the truly cowardly behavior of some (you know who you are) in his own party just wore on a decent guy.
Thanks Taylor!
Show her some love!
http://www.taylormarsh.com/arc…..p?id=24171
Mary, I would add to that list John Kerry. I thought he handled the floor debate on the Iraq amendment quite capably. Despite his early support for the war, I think he is now committed to doing the right thing.
OK @ 63 – Did you see Hillary on Larry King last night, along with the other Dem women of the Senate? It was like she phoned it in. I’ve known for many years she’s a conservative Democrat, because I’ve done scads of research on her. Some people think I’m too conservative on some issues, so go figure. But there is something impassionate about her now. She’s just so down right chilly.
I disagree, Tommy yum, if only because it’s long past time for the Dems to start saying what they need to to get the words and impression out there to independents and others who don’t want a Republican administration anymore. Kerry and Feingold knew they didn’t have the votes; Russ said it right on the floor. The Levin resolution was also doomed, but it made people vote and we learned a bit more about who stands where (although we already know about HolyJoe). It’s a forced vote to make people put thier votes out there for the record and I think it was the right thing to do.
Frist, McCain and Cornyn were playing to the base and that was predictable. What wasn’t predictable was which Dems would vote where and that is instructive, always. For the less vocal ones, it is sometimes the best way to separate the wheat from the chaff.
The occupation of Iraq is FUBAR. They cannot now ramp up to REALLY occupy the place and set it right. They simply will not draw down any time soon. So, we will continue to see the “death of a thousand cuts.” Because, hey, there’s an enemy out there that lurks and plans…
It was all gonna be SO easy -
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
Thanks, newtonusr, I so appreciate it. Lord knows I need it. ;-)
OT -
NewsHour PBS will have a piece on ‘giants v. giants’ internet…seems like a Net Neutrality thing to me.
just fyi..
Taylor,I left you a thank you note on your site about Janes mom.
zennurse,
There are other, more profitable, ways to win a pyrrhic victory. The Dems could have, for example, offered a non-binding resolution to stay in Iraq on a permanent basis at unlimited expense. Then make the Rethugs vote on that.
They couldn’t even go into caucus and hammer out something they could unite against. Lame-o. Lameness come and me want go home.
Roll calls on the two amendments (H/T to CBoldt:
Kerry-Feingold (4442):
http://www.senate.gov/legislat…..vote=00181
and Levin-Reed (4320):
http://www.senate.gov/legislat…..vote=00182
Democrats voting Nay:
Dayton (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Republicans voting Yea:
Chafee (R-RI)
Jim Jeffods (I-VT) also voted Yea
zennurse -
xoxoxo
BobbyG @ 70
Jesus… from the Harpers piece:
This was published September, 2004!
I’d give Kerry the benefit of the doubt. He lost me with way too much posturing and trying to find the perfect sloganeering in 2004, but he’s ponied up lately on a lot of different fronts and seems much more genuine.
>>>>>>>>>>
To follow up BobbyG’s older in depth Harper’s piece, here’s a brand new piece primarily interviewing ex-CIA agent Robert Baer about his new novel, but also hitting the issues of Iran, Iraq, etc.
http://harpers.org/sb-baeriana-1150920184.html
I think Chaffee (R-RI) voted for the Levin amendment – though he’s usually in lock step with the rest of them …
With two years until the actual vote for 08, isn’t it just possible that Hillary will lose her shine by then? (Not that I see it in the first place) I just feel that there are others who will have the next year to move her out of the spotlight, particularly the next year of dealing with Iraq and the remaining Bush administration which can provide many opportunities for her to continue to be a DINO. I also hope that we can have enough faith in netroots activism and media presence over the next two years that she won’t have much of a chance, that is unless she has a complete paradigm shift, which is doubtful.
Mary @ 78
Great piece. Baer was on Washington Journal this morning. CSpan @ its best.
newtonusr 77 -
Yep. Klein called it right on the money. These neocon asshats were simply blinded by their own fevered visions of infallibility. They did NO continency planning, ‘cuz they never thought they’d fail.
Taylor Marsh @ 68
Hillary is like one of those pols who started out idealistic, worked like dogs to save the world, do some good. Then came the *click* moment, the moment of recognition that there is no justice, and a lot of the people you are working so hard to help are idiots who won’t notice and don’t care.
Do you stay idealistic? Or does everything shift and instead of it all being about service it’s now all about you?
Look at the difference between Hillary Clinton and Russ Feingold. With her, it’s all about her. On the Larry King show last night, everytime there was a reference about her running for prez she got all cutsey and giggly and beamed for the camera.
I have to disclose that, though I love Bill Clinton as a character and I think Chelsea is an amazing wonderful human being and Hillary herself gets millions of points for her grace under pressure, I still fault the Clintons and those associated with them for the 1996 Communications Act and for NAFTA.
But the short of it is: I think Hillary has jumped the shark from public service to self-service.
I might also add: I don’t blame her for it for one nanosecond, and I think she makes a mighty-fine senator.
busted @73 – Got it and thanks so very much.
Mary @ 3:20 pm (#59) – What bugs me to this day is that back in 2003 I was telling my wingnutty coworkers that the American people didn’t support the Iraq War, only the lies that were told about why we went in. Now that we know the real reasons, people are coming around to that point of view. That CNN poll of all Americans a week or so ago (cited in comments at FDL) said that 53% now favor setting a timetable. I’m willing to bet that a substantial part of the remaining people want us to get the heck out of there, too, just maybe not on a schedule.
It’s sad that all I had to do was remember how Vietnam went to know how this one would go.
Senator Tom Harkin continues to make me proud that he is my Senator…and my favorite one at that.
Mary 78 -
Yeah. eVery good. Thanks.
Thanks, mk ultramaroon and Leslie in CA, for your A’s to my Q re ChiTrib story earlier today! Back in a bit.
Wait wait wait a minute. Let’s not say “withdraw!”, or, “the Republicans wan’t to stay the course!”. What we should say insead is:
DO THE REPUBLICANS WANT TO STAY IN IRAQ FOREVER? WE DON’T WANT TO BE THERE FOREVER! You’ve got to slime them with the word “forever”. In Iraq, forever.
This is rhetoric, indeed, but not at all unfair. If you consider our massive embassy and permanent military bases, etc., there is no question that our government intends to be there forever. And they are giving us no indication of when or whether we will ever cease to be occupiers.
Taylor M. …68
I didn’t look at Larry King last night with Sen. Clinton. I don’t usually watch Larry. Perhaps I should. I know what you mean by Hillary’s chill factor effect. Compassion doesn’t seem to be her strong suit. What really bothers me about the Senator is her continued support for the Iraq war. If she would just come around to a say more Murtha like position, I’d turn on a dime and support her. And please permit me to thankyou, for your contributions to FDL. I always read your stuff. And I don’t have to tell you but I will anyway. It’s good.
My senator, my GOOD senator, Ron Wyden will be presenting a very well articulated non-binding resolution soon. It calls for Bush to come before Congress to discuss the war because Congress is an EQUAL BRANCH of the government. It has about 5 really pertinent questions to pose to Bush. Of course, Bush won’t come, but I think it will unite the Dems even more strongly than the Levin/Reed resolution, and Bush’s no-show would be a good talking point for the Dems. in the fall campaign.
There’s something I don’t get: How can the Senators from LA, MI and the other states so devastated by Katrina vote nay to this? I’m sure there’s a “political operative” answer someone has, but it just makes so little sense to me. I don’t see how they can support the admin and want to keep thier Nat’l Guard in Iraq with hurricanes getting worse and DHS now saying basically that in a disaster, you’re on your own. Are they just afraid that if they don’t support Bush and his crew they will lose the little they have?? Trent won’t get his porch??
I would have loved it if the Dems had offered a contingent resolution if their Redeployment Resolutions failed (as was expected).
The contingent resolution would institute the Draft; forcing the Repugs to “put up or shut up”!
Might even put a specific wording in there that “Jenna and Not-Jenna” would be the 1st drafted, that they would have no Secret Service protection, and that after 8 weeks of Boot camp, the twins would have to go to Iraq and fill the billets and duties of the 2 poor soldiers kidnapped and beheaded this past week.
Dems should force the Repug’s hand on the Iraq Occupation on every occasion that they can!
Again, force the Repugs to the put up or shut up!
LindaR @ 83 – Well said and I agree, right up until her pathetic cowardice on Iraq.
los diablo 5:42 p.m.
When Harkin endorsed Feingold’s censure motion, I called his office and told them he is a patriot. I am going to do the same on this one.
And btw I don’t live in Iowa.
OK @ 90, it’s my pleasure to be among this community, believe me.
Everyone, again, do what neurophius @ 95 is doing: tell the Democratic senators that stood up how you feel.
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
re Hillary — oh. yeah.
Iraq
and the flag thing.
These make it impossible for me to ever vote for her, sigh.
Joe-mentum!!!
Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter appeared on Fox News this afternoon to discuss the war in Iraq. Coulter derided the lawmakers who have called for a redeployment strategy from Iraq, questioning whether “FDR [had] to deal with this during World War II.” She argued that the only type of politician she “admires” is someone like Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) because he “does want to defend America and fight the war on terrorism.” Lieberman has argued “our troops must stay” in Iraq.
Jim way back at 13, I forgot to say that Wyden is not endangered at all. He won relection in 2004 and is widely supported by Republicans as well as Democrats. It’s our other senator, Gordon Smith, who needs to be replaced in 2008.
Vartan7 at 3:48 p.m.
You are half right. Our government doesn’t want to be in Iraq forever. Only for as long as the oil reserves last. They couldn’t care less about the Iraqi people.
LindaR …83
I voted for the big-dog twice. But I shall never forgive him for what has resulted in the wake of the horribly distasteful NAFTA. Of course that fits with the whole DLC thing. I think.
there is no question that our government intends to be there forever
Yes, and be there very large, which should also be part of the argument.
Say, I’ve been noticing that there seems to be a sort of critical reading list of articles, mostly from 2 to 4 years ago, that have had some of us bouncing off walls for quite a while—Baghdad Year Zero, The New Pentagon Papers, for example—but that others are just discovering. Is there some way to address this in the blog? It’s good that we all contribute readings in our posts and comments, but I’m thinking maybe it would be a good idea to have posts or open threads every now and then, say monthly, in which a basic list is repeated, and then people offer some of their better outside readings. By making it a post, it would be easier to find in the archives, and a certain amount of repitition plus reader comments should keep it from becoming a big megillah for anyone.
*ilson at 3:59 p.m.
“Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter” should read, “Right-wing pundit and Official Republican Party Spokesperson”
Very good comments. My take so far, three points:
1) GOP rule = more of same for 3 more years (reversible Oct surprise on troop levels or not)
2) Tell truth about why Iraq and WOT a mess (BushCheneyRumDum)
3) Ask question: what is long run strategic plan: large permanent bases and presence or not? Why? Does “more of the same” include that? and for how long? And consequences for functioning Iraq? For US troops? Cost in lives and dollars?
IMHO, asking Dems for plan, or comparing Dem and GOP plans, can turn into a scam. More of the same can work as political tactic since it looks like US is doing some good, it looks like a plan if you don’t have will or time to think about it much, it looks brave and fierce, and many of the long term costs are hidden. Tell me if I am defeatist, but for me it all comes back to BushCo and only BushCo responsible for making such a mess that no human plan may make any difference at this point. That is bottom line truth for me. If that is the truth, why not tell it straight and loudly?
neurophius @ 4:03pm
That’s a generous, if not accurate, characterization. I would say “dead-eyed spittle-flecked simian poo thrower Ann Coulter.”
Cujo – I think from this and some other posts you and I had very similar reactions to Iraq and to the context that Vietnam should have brought to the discussion.
The blatant dishonesty of outright tricking emotionally overwrought Americans into believing that Iraq was behind 9/11 and that Iraqis were the hijackers as a springboard for war made me heartsick.
Even if I were not as convinced of the propagandizing and trickery, it would still have been just as dishonest for the leaders of this country – who knew better about 9/11 and the al-Qaeda / Hussein links – to take such a confused population into war to benefit other goals that were never clearly articulated.
All while replacing law with a militarized response that even someone like Karzai can tell us will never work.
Sadly, No links to a Suskind piece from a couple of years ago about the President. It’s a long piece (with a “please numb my mind so this won’t hurt so much” story about how BUsh explained to members of Congress that Sweden is neutral and has no army and bullishly held to it, even after being offered away out).
But a chunk of that piece is Jim Wallis with Sojourners explaining that poverty, education, etc. are all issues that need to be addressed to respond effectively to the rise of terrorism as a tactic. Karzai repeats the analysis in significant parts.
Instead – we leap to militarize. It’s just crappy reasoning, crappy morals and crappy vision.
I don’t want to see bad people walk away free. I want to see a system that is a system and not a fiefdom, and a system that works smart, and a system that has rules that protect our values. All that has been given away by Congress, the Military and our DOJ.
I have such a hard time with the “we can beat any other military” in some respects. I think the important part of “winning” a war has to do with how the war was waged.
Was it a fair war? Was the war waged with respect to the civilian population? Were our Allies behind us?
It is very hard to wage a war on an emotion. How can you know it is over? If you had a war on laughter, and after it someone cracked a joked, it would begin anew. If and when the troops pull out and two Iraqi’s are killed a month later by a car bomb, the terror begins again as the mothers bury their sons.
Our brave men and women have been put in a horrible and unfair position. Our self interest leaders should all be gathered up and parachuted into the war arena. The Democrats are sitting back waiting for the Republicans to lose the Election of 2006– The Pussy Party vs the Chickenhawk Party. In a time of war, the press is suppossed to stand behind the president….therefore, the Preznut is to afraid to bring the troops home because then maybe (big maybe) the press would begin to ask the big questions. In the meantime, the Preznut is biding his time until his occupancy is up. He may win the rat race, but when it’s over, he’s still a rat.
From where I’m sitting, our leaders are all better suited for a war on foot fungus.
Hillary will not win the democratic nomination if she continues to enable the Goopoer frame on Iraq. This is their fucking mess, not ours. Where in the hell is the accountability for their monumental fuckups?
Their goddam feet need to be held to the fire until they are toast. These people are not gentlemen. They are scum sucking sleazebags who need to have bullshit called on them every fucking day. Hillary doesn’t get that and she will lose.
These bastards are destroying our country right before our eyes and no one in the MSM even gives a shit.
This is war, it is personal, and we want our goddam country back NOW!!!
Hillary may think she can nudge her way through (or past) the ’soft support’ Kerry had in ‘04.
I thought of him as the lesser. He wouldn’t defend his views, and by extension, Dems. When he did defend himself, it was late, ham-fisted, and/or poorly executed. I detested him some days.
Hillary seems to think she can slide by even with ties to Gingrich & Murdoch, teppid support for flag burning legislation & a more ‘balanced view’ on reproductive choice; Iraq might just end her, though.
She may be getting very bad advise, and it doesn’t sound like Bill. Or she may just be captured.
tommy yum at 4:06 p.m.
Actually, I like yours better. But there is something to be said for tying the evil witch around the Republican Party’s neck. I’m sure she gets her daily talking points from Mehlman every day just like the rest of them do. She just puts a little more enthusiasm into the job.
Mary,
May I say, platonically, that you’re hot.
neurophius 104 -
Yesterday in an editorial letter reply I characterized mAnn as
“…the All-Time Undefeated Lightweight Fecal Polemical Mudwrestling Champion of the Universe, the scurrilous GOP Screechwoman Ann Coulter, whose DNA nucleotide letter symbols are simply H-A-T-E.”
I totally agree, neurophius. People like her and Malkin are Rove’s seething id articulated, from a plausably deniable distance. The Right and the GOP need to own her.
“That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq.”
This is taken to mean by Franken et. al., that future US presidents will decide. But, in context, it surely sounds like he means future Iraq presidents … so “of Iraq” modifies both “future presidents” and “future governments.”
If not, by using the plural, is he pushing things to 2012, 2016, and beyond? That seems pretty bad pr form. So, I think the words might be twisted here.
OK @ 102 — Imagine how different things would be today if there had been the netroots then!
More of the same is good wesgpc!
Ended up at a b-day party yesterday in which I only knew a couple people. Someone mentioned Al Gore’s movie and off we went (on a political discussion), that’s all it took.
Everyone, to a person, supported Kerry-Feingold and said the war should be the issue the Dems attack on. Don’t let Rove dictate the message and use what he perceives as his strength against him.
I just heard Coulter say Joe should run independant. Ha! No suprise there.
ccmask @ 4:06 pm (#107) – I regard winning as “achieving our strategic objectives”. In that context, it doesn’t look like a win to me.
- We didn’t secure the oil, nor can we use it. We probably haven’t helped secure Saudi oil, either.
- Iraq isn’t a stable democracy, and looks like it will never be.
- We’ve created more of a terrorist problem than was there before. What will happen after we leave is unclear, but given how many political divisions there are in Iraq at the moment, I can’t help thinking there will be Al Qaeda-like terrorists in Iraq for some time.
- We’re no safer from WMD than we were before.
I’m trying to think of a strategic objective that we actually have achieved, and haven’t come up with any. Any takers?
We are crossing the border and recruiting for our armed forces from poor high schools in Mexico.
I think many in the Dem leadership want to inherit this Iraqi fiasco.
I can’t keep calling Sen. Pryor and Lincon offices, against every vote they make and call myself a Dem . Banging my head against Republican Wall of Shame, calls for more advil than Mary can provide.
and reading through more comments, I’m left wondering HOW the Dems looked the last two days. I can see both sides:
a.) they fucked it up by not showing unity
or
b.) the American people at least saw debate on the issue, FINALLY, and want to see ideas at this point. At least the Dems are giving the people something to chew on besides “stay the course” and “more of the same.”
As to ann coultar: if liberalism is a religion (she says) and she advocates killing liberals because of what we believe isn’t she practising hate speech and can she be sanctioned for it in whatever state she spews it?
Cujo -
No, it’s FUBAR. The occupation planning and execution was a TOTAL.FUCKING.STRATEGIC.AND.TACTICAL.FAILURE that has landed us in a lethal problematic circumstance.
What one would fully expect of an incoherent dilettante Play President and his venal imperialist handlers.
Cujo359 #119: Me neither. I can’t think of one thing that was not messed up by Iraq permanent base strategy. So, I second, can any one think of one thing accomplished? One thing it did not make worse? Note also, it constitutes another lie by BushCo. From power politics, if Iran or regionial terrorism was a problem, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was a very good permanent base for our interests. And not one US life or US dollar at risk. Not pretty, but we are talking real politik here. Any opinions?
I think the whig’s strategic objective was to go to Iraq, destroy the infrastructure, wipe out those who revolt, and install an “Oil Friendly” cabal that they could work with. I don’t think it’s going very well for them.
#123: Dems need to shout that from the roof tops. They can be good Jesus is Lord Christians in doing so too, for the Bible Belt: All the is secret will be made manifest, and all that is hidden will be shouted from the rooftops (paraphrase of some Gospel verse).
I’m trying to think of a strategic objective that we actually have achieved, and haven’t come up with any. Any takers?
All the sand and camel shit your heart desires. lol.
Cheney thought Chalabi would be the new Hussein. I’ve read he blamed Powell and his softie State Dept for messing that plan up. Like in a million years it would have worked no matter what Powell did.
Oh, I forgot to say that when we parachute all the seer suckers into Iraq, they should have a journalist under each arm.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 4:19 pm (#119) – We are crossing the border and recruiting for our armed forces from poor high schools in Mexico.
That’s cause the Hessians finally solved their feudalism problem.
new thread !
I like to watch. By Chauncey Gardiner
wesgpc @ 4:23 pm (#123) – I think in the long run, Saddam was probably going to be bad for our interests anyway. One charge the wingnuts make does seem to be true – if the sanctions had been lifted he probably would have gone back to making chemical weapons, and maybe even nukes. He was also driving his country to the brink of ruin. Iraq has a 40% literacy rate (source CIA World Factbook 2006), and that’s by the same measure that gives the U.S. a 99% literacy rate – clearly not a high standard. At one time, Iraq was one of the most educated and cosmopolitan countries in the Middle East. Saddam brutalized the country long before we showed up.
So, even from a realpolitik perspective, I think Saddam was potentially a big liability. Whether he would have been better than our current situation with Iran is an interesting discussion, to say the least.
I’m trying to think of a strategic objective that we actually have achieved, and haven’t come up with any. Any takers?
Well sure. The contractors, including Halliburton/KBR, Carlyle, CACI, and many others, have certainly achieved their strategic objectives.
Plus, if you have a security clearance around here (DC) you can name your price. They are desperately trying to hire more and more people to keep everything secret.
ccmask @ 4:34 pm (#131) – These are times when I wish I had a more powerful remote control.
I suggest a one word slogan that almost all democratic candidates can get behind and win with this Fall:
Withdraw.
Short, sweet, and simple.
Withdraw.
Sure, it’s lacking in detail, but who the hell needs a timetable? Everyone just agree to withdraw, and the pentagon will help figure out the rest.
Withdraw.
It’s verb. It’s active. Everyone can get behind it.
Withdraw.
(Break up into small groups and discuss.)
egregious @ 4:38 pm (#133) – I certainly thought of them, but I don’t necessarily think that what’s good for Halliburton is good for the country.
It isn’t?
But it worked for General Motors…
Everyone,
Stop complaining about Hillary. You can’t see the big picture. Do you have a short memory about how the Republicans used President Clinton’s remarks about Bosnia and Somilia after he got elected against him. Hillary said “President Clinton had to change is strategy in Bosnia” after that Sunday morning market slaughter he had to attack and force Milosvick to Surrender. President Clinton did not want to use violence but was forced to and the Republicans did everything they could to make his policy in Bosnia fail but it didn’t because he listened to General Wesley Clark and all of the his military advisors. You have to be careful about what you say on the campaign trail because Shawn Hannity will use it and so will Rush Limbaugh. People please think, and take time to pause. She saw alot of what goes on behind the scenes. She’s trying not to make the same mistakes President Clinton made. As Bishop T.D. Jakes would say, “there’s nothing wrong with emotions, just make sure that emotions don’t have you.” You’ll fail everytime being emotional.
Thanks!
There are some great one-liners in this thread that every Democrat who goes on TV should commit to memory:
“Bush doesn’t want to Stay the Course, he wants to Pass the Buck.”
“Republicans would rather save face than save lives.”
“They accuse us of wanting to cut and run, but their only plan is to sit and watch.”
In addition to the great soundbites above, how about a few possible bumper stickers for the upcoming elections….
Iraq = Republican’ts
Tax Cuts for the rich = Republicans
Had enough yet?
Friends don’t let friends vote Republican!
You can replace Iraq with Katrina or Illegal Immigration or $9 Trillion Federal Debt or whatever other debacle comes to mind.
Hillary did have a good knock down for the 2006 campaign today
re: Republicans who tar people who disagree with them as unpatriotic….
“they may not have a war strategy, but they do have a reelection strategy”
She said it wonderfully, and I do think it that line could have an impact on Joe/Jane Public come November. She was on tape of NPR this morning.
And I am fairly certain the opportunity to use the line will come up a few times.
Hope I did not miss reference to this in comments earlier.
Barbara Long at 5:28 pm says “You have to be careful about what you say on the campaign trail because Shawn Hannity will use it and so will Rush Limbaugh.”
You are right, insofar as you need to be sure that you are stating truth and being very clear. You are wrong if you’re implying that it is necessary to alter your message. This kind of behavior on the part of the Democrats is a huge part of why they have no power today.
None of that has anything to do with Hillary, though. Hillary is not equivocating, she is supporting ideas, in words and votes, that I do not agree with, and that in my view clearly indicate she is in the same coporatist camp as the majority of the Republican party. (She’s far from the only Democrat in that camp — I’m not singling her out on that count.)
That’s why I could no more vote for her than for Bush. When it comes down to brass tacks, there’s not much difference between their goals.
cfeddy at 2:40
milksnort alert, please.
Maybe a bit OT, but definitely related:
Larisa over at Raw Story has a piece about Harry Reid introducing the Iran Intelligence Oversight Act
According to “Give ‘em heck” Harry:
Why brief the (rubber stamp)U.S. Senate, they’re irrelevant now that Bu$h is the Urinary Expletive.
I didn’t mispell anything in bold letters either!
We won the war, let’s end the OCCUPATION.
Two thoughts. First, I sent an email “Thanks” to everyone on the good list for voting to get us out of the “sand trap” in Iraq. As I completed the various forms, it struck me that differences among the lists of topics I was asked to choose among were at least interesting and possibly significant. In only a few cases was “Iraq” or “War in Iraq” an option. Are the Senators saying that the war isn’t that important? OK. “Defense” was often an option, but I felt funny selecting that. This war is really an OFFENSE, not a defense.
Second, a couple of days ago I received a snail mail appeal for donations from my Senator, Bill Nelson. I wrote to tell him that he can’t have it both ways: vote like a Republican (albeit tacitly) and then expect to be supported like a Democrat. We need to get that message through to all of them.
Did anyone hear Ed Schultz’s attack against the Democrats yesterday for not having one bill? He lamblasted Kerry (Feingold-boxer) for having the 2nd bill and causing a non united reponse.
Here’s his email if you want to contact him:
Now here’s the contact info:
For comments on overall show content:
wendyjoschultz AT yahoo.com
To contact the show’s producer:
james AT edschultzshow.com
701-200-9134
E-mail Ed during the show!
ed@edschultzshow.com
And he has a vote here:
http://www.wegoted.com/
Dear Mr. Shultz or Wendy Shultz,
I am extremely angry and disappointed in Ed’s big rant at the Democratic Senators yesterday. Frankly, he couldn’t have helped the right-winged pundits anymore had he tried!
Let me explain why….First, the bill by Levin, Reid, Clinton, Feinstein, and Salazar was a hodge podge of mush just set forth to atone the calls for bringing the troops home but the plan itself had no meat and no real actionable accountability for this (lying)President and this (lying) Republican Congress. We’ve seen the President has no intention of bringing the troops home and the Republicans think that any strategic plan to pull the troops out is to be held out there for political purposes. Hence their incorrect and overused frame “cut and run.”
Yet, despite your bashing of John Kerry, John Kerry was right when he called it a “Lie and Die” strategy from the White House and the Republicans. Thus, the Levin-Reid bill was playing exactly into those same incompetent hands that have no intention of bringing the troops home. It’s why their measure was nothing more than grandstanding and sitting on the fence.
I researched both bills because at first I thought they were almost the same, and I had notices to call my Senators and ask that they support both bills. Through my research, I discovered exactly what made Kerry’-Feingold’s bill better than Levin-Reids bill. The things most valuable in Kerry’-Feingold’s bill were:
1. Accountability. The President and his administration would no longer be able to paint half-truths about the progress in the war and would be reporting to Congress how the war was going. For an administration who has had no oversight this was a hugely important facet of this bill. This President and his majority party have run a-muck and can not be trusted! We needed this oversight desperately!!! Furthermore, the very fact that Bush has refused to fire the archetect of their incompetent war, Rummy himself, is all the proof we needed that until there is accountability, we will never see the war run in a competent or honest way and we will never see the troops come home, except as a midterm election year ploy.
2. A Specific time table to get out while at the same time giving a huge lea way for a secret and strategic exit. (As opposed to an article saying, “We are leaving July 7th” , the President would have ample time to secretly pull troops out and to work diplomatically with other countries to use an international approach to ending the war.)
3. Americans want the troops home immediately. They see the war as a failure and they see this President as a liar. So Kerry-Feingold’s bill was the policy that most American’s support. They no longer trust Bush and they no longer trust Republican policy. This bill was exactly what they wanted!
Yesterday, I was quite upset after listening to you bashing Democrats for not having one specific plan. Then I heard your rant against Kerry and I was more upset that you chose to specifically take sides against Kerry. The more I thought about it, the more angry I became that you even considered the Reid-Feingold measure to be an acceptable plan at all! It’s a hodge-podge of nothingness except pure unadulterated politics! The American people don’t want that. They wanted a specific plan and Kerry-Feingold put their own names at risk to give the American people a true, specific, highly engineered plan that would pull the troops home in a strategic manner and would hold a crazed political administration and his party accountable for the first time in 6 years!
And Kerry is attacked every time he does something by the right-winged media, and you can vew the NYT’s hit piece on Kerry from Monday as proof of this statement as well as view the video of the Today show that broadcasted the same article, the same concerted smear! So I guarentee you Ed that he didn’t just say to himself, “Gee…I feel like standing on the backs of the troops for political gain and letting the right-winged media (and apparently the left too) smear the hell out of me, so I think I’ll put in a logical, strategic resolution to bring the troops home…I love to get smeared!!!!”
You claimed the dems should have had only one plan. Well, if you want to believe the Republican talking points, I can not stop you. But at the very least, I hope that my information has helped you see that the single plan that Reid, Levin, and Clinton should have gotten the nerve to support should have been the one that was best for the American people. And that one was the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer bill.
Thank you for your time.
oh I watched maybe about five minutes of Fox. I think it was Hannity. Santorum was so pathetic. I get the feeling if there was a weapon from 1000 years ago unearthed in Iraq, Santorum would still try to convince the public it was Saddam’s WMD.
Lil Ricky is also blathering about a crossbow found in the debris of the pillaged Baghdad Museum …
Dear Seepeesate:
Thanks for responding to my e-mail. You misunderstood me. I never said Hillary had to taper her message. I said they will take her words splice them and use them against her with a totally different meaning. Please quit drinking the Koolaid with these people. We need to stop turning on each other. I believe Hillary is surronding herself with people who are looking for a strategy that will get us out of this. I don’t see anyone in the party that can win over John McCain. There’s no none out there, that is electable face it!!!!!!!
I call the Republican position to stay the course ’stay and pray’………counters ‘cut and run’ pretty well, wouldn’t you say?