Hiya Taylor!

Taylor!

OT

Wolf Blitzer: “Now some are saying the D in Democrat stands for defiant.”

He’s been doing this Bush routine pretty regularly lately. Barf

Hey Bustednuckles, marksb!

ISG should be GOB.*
Buncha recycled old politicos with no new ideas.

* Good Ol Boy’s

Taylor:

Drive-by grammar check:

Then the other day we heard Senator Harry Reid say something to the affect effect that we’re not going to force anything on Bush.

Always lurking

:-)

hi, Taylor.

Hey, who put the Fridge on the panel?

“don’t know anything”

That’s why they have ta study.

Ed fucking Meese?!
What possible expertise is he bringing to the table? Old and white and male and conservative….’cause I don’t see much else.
Wiki:

Meese became Attorney General in February 1985, holding this office until August, 1988.

Iran-Contra
Meese’s tenure was highly controversial. His involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair as a “counselor” and “friend” to the President, not as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, attracted the most criticism. Chapter 31 of the official Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters reveals his direct involvement: “Meese knew that the 1985 HAWK transaction, in which the National Security Council staff and the Central Intelligence Agency were directly involved without a presidential covert-action Finding authorizing their involvement, raised serious legal questions. The President was potentially exposed to charges of illegal conduct if he was knowledgeable of the shipment and had not reported it to Congress, under the requirements of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and in the absence of a Finding…When Meese got answers in his inquiry that did not support his defense of the President, he apparently ignored them, as he did with Secretary of State George P. Shultz’s revelation on November 22 that the President had told him that he had known of the HAWK shipment in advance.”

Supreme Court views
Meese also became the subject of deep controversy when he gave a speech calling for a “jurisprudence of original intent” in 1985 and criticizing the Supreme Court for straying from the original intention of the U.S. Constitution. Meese’s speech was publicly rebuked by sitting Supreme Court Justices William J. Brennan and John Paul Stevens in speeches later that year, in a dispute that foreshadowed the contentious Robert Bork hearings of 1987. It has also been alleged that Meese subjected nominees for federal judgeships to a “litmus test” to gauge their fidelity to Reagan Administration judicial policy, including whether the nominee believed that Roe v. Wade had been correctly decided; Meese has repeatedly denied this.

Critic of pornography
Meese also courted controversy when he appointed the “Meese Commission” to investigate pornography in the United States; their report, released in July 1986, was highly critical of pornography and itself became a target of widespread criticism. That year, Meese Commission officials contacted convenience store chains and succeeded in demanding that widespread men’s magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse be removed from shelves, [2]a ban which spread nationally [3] until being quashed with a First Amendment admonishment against prior restraint by the D.C. Federal Court in Meese v. Playboy (639 F.Supp. 581).

Corruption allegations
Accusations of ethical violations dogged Meese’s tenure at Justice. He was the subject of investigations by the United States Office of the Independent Counsel on two occasions; neither of these investigations resulted in charges being presented to a grand jury. Nevertheless, Meese’s critics continue to charge corruption.

roots! Taylor!

Caught that after the upload, Dr. Bong, but always appreciate a heads up.

Hiya, punaise.

what the frig is meese doing there?

this epu’d post is Jermain here to be sure;

perris, formerly known as me to me, @ 138

rwcole @ 134

Probably the US would get along better with the Sunnis- they’re better educated and used to being in charge- so they can deliver on what they promise- they are likely more westernized and better at kissing ass.

The only problem- from Clusterfuck’s point of view- is that there aren’t enough of em- unless ya give em lots of tanks and weapons of mass destruction- they can’t hold the country together.

my opinion is the entire “stay the course” strategy was to euthanize the Sunni’s, that’s why we trained the death squads…the administration thought Iraq would be better off without them

combined with this one;

perris, formerly known as me to me, @ 138

rwcole @ 134

Probably the US would get along better with the Sunnis- they’re better educated and used to being in charge- so they can deliver on what they promise- they are likely more westernized and better at kissing ass.

The only problem- from Clusterfuck’s point of view- is that there aren’t enough of em- unless ya give em lots of tanks and weapons of mass destruction- they can’t hold the country together.

my opinion is the entire “stay the course” strategy was to euthanize the Sunni’s, that’s why we trained the death squads…the administration thought Iraq would be better off without them

perris, formerly known as me to me, @ 137

Rayne @ 131

There are roughly 1,000,000 deer hunters in the woods here in Michigan over the next two weeks.

This state roughly 1/2 the size of Iraq.

And save for the one that sleeps in my bed (minus camo, I might add), I could go all two weeks and never actually clap eyes on a hunter clad in camo or international orange.

Now ask how much of a difference 20,000 troops might make in Iraq.

I was REALLY wondering what that fuck that number means, 20,000 troops means absolutely NOTHING

they need the troops to finish up something else because 20,000 soldiers means absolutely nothing to the Iraq initiative

that 20,000 is for something else, something personal that they need to finish

Scrabble in the sand:
mISGuided
dISGusting

(unfair swipe, perhaps)

Analysis:

“The war has gotten so bad that you can’t get a decent bottle of red wine anywhere in the country- let alone a proper martini.”

ISG

No martinis?! That would cause a panic.

That list. Good Christ!

Dr. Bong @ 1:08 pm (#6)

Taylor:

Drive-by grammar check:

Then the other day we heard Senator Harry Reid say something to the affect effect that we’re not going to force anything on Bush.

Always lurking

:-)

And occasionally pouncing. Hey Dr. Bong, someone was asking about you in a thread from a couple days ago. Hope all is well.

You would have preferred Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Cliff May, Bill Kristol, etc?

Whoa, for a second there I had James Dobbins confused with Dr. James Dobson, whose advice would be to escalate into WWIII and sit back and wait for the Rapture.

And won’t Steny Hoyer make sure there is a go slow approach in the House? Can Hoyer short circuit the investigations in the House?

I see no good coming from this — none. Although with a dem Congress we can directly go after some of them.

‘This is the end…My only friend, the end…’

Gosh darn it Taylor, there you go with those pesky facts again.

;>)

The war won’t end until we cut off the funds for the warmongers. period.

So, until we get a congress that’s serious about doing their jobs, we will be shoving money down the Iraq hole, and the Iran hole and anywhere else Pretzeldent Codpiece wants to make like a cowboy.

RWCole @ 15 - You’ve pegged it.

Jon H @ 1:14 pm (#19)

You would have preferred Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Cliff May, Bill Kristol, etc?

As I mentioned on Taylor’s site, I can’t recall one of these commissions that was anything other than a political exercise. Even in the case of the 9/11 commision, which was pretty independent, political considerations seem to have played a part in the recommendations.

Gee thanks—no one was guardin me so I just dribbled in and scored.

Operation “Stay the Course” is in full effect now.

We’re never leaving Iraq. In fact we’re sending more troops.

If you people get upitty again we’ll pull some of those troops back and say “see! We reduced troop levels! Give us 6 more months…”

Look at those bright shiny keys…hmm…purty.

Cujo: And occasionally pouncing. Hey Dr. Bong, someone was asking about you in a thread from a couple days ago. Hope all is well.

Been on a BIG high since last Wednesday *g*

All is well in Bongland now… Karma is a bitch, innit?

:-)

Jon H @ 19

You would have preferred Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Cliff May, Bill Kristol, etc?

With Eagleburger, Meese and Simpson, who could tell the difference?

All are founding members of “The World is Full of Suckers, so Let’s Take ‘em to the Cleaners” club.

Screw Jim Baker — and the old man, too!

Bush answers to a higher father — Henry Kissinger.

[Cue scene from Dr. Strangelove — “Ve must haf ze VILL!”]

I heard it said, it seems like a forever ago, that the election was a referendum on the failed Bush Iraq war. The Baker boys and girl. This what I voted for? Why not put Hillary and Lieberman on the Baker team? And really make it complete. This whole day (Steny baby) has been one of disgust. I’m pissed.

Voodoo Practitioner Tries to Jinx Bush

By Associated Press
Published November 16, 2006, 9:44 AM CST

BOGOR, Indonesia — A renowned black magic practitioner performed a voodoo ritual Thursday to jinx President George W. Bush and his entourage while he was on a brief visit to Indonesia.

Ki Gendeng Pamungkas slit the throat of a goat, a small snake and stabbed a black crow in the chest, stirred their blood with spice and broccoli before drank the “potion” and smeared some on his face.

“I don’t hate Americans, but I don’t like Bush,” said Pamungkas, who believed the ritual would succeed as, “the devil is with me today.”

The broccoli is a nice touch.

Politicians speak in grave tones in order to get sex, meat, and good wine.

In no particular order…

Taylor,

Yet another brilliant analysis from our gal Taylor.

Why not put a group together of university professors? How about Juan Cole and a few who speak arabic?

Why do they recycle the same bots for these blue ribbon whitewash commissions?

Let’s predict their finding.

Iraq is messed up…

We didn’t throw enough troups in when we shoulda

Even if we did, it was only a matter of time before civil war would break out as well as insurgents wanting our ass outta there

We can’t back down because our name will be shit in the world.. even worse than it already is having attacked Iraq.

We can’t go out without securing our strategic interests… I mean our oil.

Let’s just humker down on some mega bases, set up security around our strategic interests and withdraw from the provinces where there is no fighting… and pray that they mostly kill each other and not lob mortars into the shrinking green zone and our enduring bases.

Fortify the Iran border.. as we cant have them walking away with what we fought and paid for.

Withdraw to enduring bases over 12 months and re examine the situation.

Keep 15 battle groups in the region to show we have no intention of cutting and running.

Declare victory and establish a media blackout on the country… expell all journalists.

Wanna bet?

darkblack @22 - Fitting graphic link. Yep, facts are such a pain, aren’t they?

This gang, who wont go away, are not about to start exit strategy 101 now. Wine is the flashy object the corkscrew fix is still in.
The voters have spoken and nobody is listening.

recommendations have ta have lots of made up words that no one understands. Otherwise it isn’t a real report.

I’m less concerned about the lack of Islamic world knowledge and experience at the mentioned level.

The Expert Working Groups have a pretty deep and diverse set of members with a lot of expertise with Islamic world and Persian Gulf history, economy, politics, and religion.

The real issue for me is that the ISG is heavily stacked with corporatists who are more interested in protecting the financial interests of their clients than the interests of Iraq and the Iraqi people.

Hi Taylor, all.
This thread is too good and important to hijack, but you might want to stuff this in another tab for perusal later. Off topic, but from the same playbook. It’s about the House passing the Animal Enterprise Act (animal rightsers as terrists). It was a voice vote so no record of who was for or against — cute!

as was pointed out in the prvious thread, 20,000 troops actually translates into 5,000 at any one time if you consider shifts, eating, etc.

so once again, there is no way anyone wants these troops except to do something personal

this is definate…there is something they need to do, it has nothing to do with Iraq’s security or succes, it’s personal, it’s to acccomplish something for profit and they can’t take 20,000 troops that are already engaged

this needs some kind of investigation

While I’m pessimistic about some of the “options” we’re hearing rumors about, I’m not especially pessimistict about the makeup of the group. Blue-ribbon commissions always have only one purpose, to put together a plan that’s politically palatable to the people who appointed them. It doesn’t matter that there are few or no Middle East experts in the group, that’s what staff are for. There are no “solutions” to the Iraq quagmire, so the only thing for them to do is device a face-saving way for Junior to get us out while not admitting that’s what he’s doing.

As much as I’d like to see W take the full blame for his colossal blunder, I’m not willing to sacrifice extra lives to do it. He’ll be blamed regardless, and if he gets to pretend for a while that he won’t be, that’s a small price to pay.

I raqwar
S till
G oing

Thanks, Taylor, let’s delve some more.

Leon Panetta was Bill Clinton’s White House Chief of Staff, so presumably that gives him some foreign policy expertise, although clearly his primary brief was the budget (from his wikipedia entry):

In 1993, the beginning of his ninth term, he was chosen by then-President Bill Clinton to be Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget. He is credited with developing the budget package which would eventually result in the balanced budget of 1998. On July 17, 1994, he was appointed White House Chief of Staff by Clinton, a position he held until January 20, 1997.

He was an important negotiator of the 1996 budget, which was another important step towards balancing the budget.

Charles Robb is newer to the ME “scene”, although he’s loved being co-opted since LBJ chose him from the White House palace guard as the alternative to his daughter’s then-suitor George Hamilton. (also wiki):

On February 6, 2004, Robb was appointed co-chair of the Iraq Intelligence Commission, an independent panel tasked with investigating U.S. intelligence surrounding the United States’ 2003 invasion of Iraq and Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. In 2006 he was appointed to serve on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

William Perry (wiki again):

Clearly Perry bore a heavy load during his term as secretary of defense between 1994 and 1997. Fine-tuning the budget, downsizing the military, and conducting humanitarian, peacekeeping, and military operations provided him with a full agenda.

In January 1996 he talked about experiences over the past year in which he never thought a secretary of defense would be involved. At the top of the list was witnessing participation of a Russian brigade in a U.S. division in the Bosnian peacekeeping operation. The others: Dayton, Ohio, becoming synonymous with peace in the Balkans; helping the Russian defense minister blow up a Minuteman missile silo in Missouri; watching United States and Russian troops training together in Kansas; welcoming former Warsaw Pact troops in Louisiana; operating a school at Garmisch, Germany, to teach former Soviet and East European military officers about democracy, budgeting, and testifying to a parliament; dismantling the military specifications system for acquisition; cutting the ear off a pig in Kazakhstan; and eating rendered Manchurian toad fat in China.

These things, Perry said, demonstrate “just how much the world has changed, just how much our security has changed, just how much the Department of Defense has changed, and just how much my job has changed.”

Shortly after President Clinton’s reelection in November 1996, Perry made known his decision to step down as secretary. He spoke of his growing frustration over working with a Congress so partisan that it was harming the military establishment, and said that he did not think the results of the 1996 congressional election would decrease the partisanship. He later explained that his decision to retire was “largely due to the constant strain of sending U.S. military personnel on life-threatening missions.”

Mad Dogs @ 29

Jon H @ 19

You would have preferred Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Cliff May, Bill Kristol, etc?

With Eagleburger, Meese and Simpson, who could tell the difference?

All are founding members of “The World is Full of Suckers, so Let’s Take ‘em to the Cleaners” club.

Correct.

This is so obviously not about fixing the situation in Iraq, but fixing the political situation here at home.

Therefore, there is no need for experts on the Middle East, but for experts on political fixing in Washington. Hence this group of — political fixers.

This needs to be drummed home to the unsuspecting public who may be under the misunderstanding that the ISG is actually trying to solve the problems in Iraq, not the problem of Iraq.

Experience and expertise. Jesus. Just pull out now. No more American GI deaths.

Did anyone else interpret McCain’s argument with Abizaid yesterday as a full-on cynical embrace of “stab in the back”? As I see it, McCain was calling for additional troops he knows we don’t have, and which he probably knows wouldn’t do any more good than the ones we have there already. He burnishes his hawk/wingnut credentials, and when the troops don’t get sent, he gets to say “not my fault — it would have worked if you’d done it my way!”

So, TeddySanFran and firepups, what does all this spell? Wait for it… ESCALATION, if Democrats don’t act.

“As I mentioned on Taylor’s site, I can’t recall one of these commissions that was anything other than a political exercise. Even in the case of the 9/11 commision, which was pretty independent, political considerations seem to have played a part in the recommendations.”

Well, yes they are always political.

But the members aren’t really *supposed* to be subject matter experts, anyway. Chances are, any subject matter expert on Iraq who could be chosen to sit on the ISG is an involved party and thus *not* who you want making the decision.

The panel talks to the experts, who bring their knowledge and their biases. The panel just has to be able to weigh the testimony and evidence, accounting for biases in any direction, and come to some recommendations based on them. Sure, they have political connections and biases, that’s why it’s a bipartisan panel. But more importantly they don’t personally have anything at stake in the war the way a Kristol or a Feith would.

Personally, I figure the membership of the ISG is relatively good, considering the Bush administration’s history. (Remember when they wanted Kissinger to run the 9/11 panel?)

Where I question them is in their selection of people to talk to: Tom Friedman!??!?!?!?!

Oklahome kiddo - I am pissed too and find it difficult to sing ‘let’s all get together’ when Hoyer is not a guy to trust — especially to protect Pelosi’s back - NOT.

Stay the course, being now run by Reid and Pelosi with Hoyer pushing, with Rahm on deck, is sickening. I am not going to get over this for awhile. And if, as we suspect, stay the course, or even ‘one more big push’ is the new policy and it fails, as it will, how are the dems going to be seen then. Oh let me guess - weak.

But time will tell, just as it did when I had this same feeling with the start of the Iraq war.

Taylor Marsh @ 36

Yep, facts are such a pain, aren’t they?

I’ve heard it said that they’re stupid things….Something that several members of the ISG may know all too well.

;>)

William Perry

William Perry (born December 16, 1962 in Aiken, South Carolina) is a former professional football player. He is best known for his years as a defensive lineman for the Chicago Bears. In reference to his large size, he was popularly known as “The Refrigerator” or, abbreviated, “The Fridge”.

Shufflin’ on down…

GrandmaJ @ 21

And won’t Steny Hoyer make sure there is a go slow approach in the House? Can Hoyer short circuit the investigations in the House?

I see no good coming from this — none. Although with a dem Congress we can directly go after some of them.

Hoyer can’t do a whole lot. The power rests with the Speaker and the relevant Committee Chairmen.

Taylor Marsh @ 48

So, TeddySanFran and firepups, what does all this spell? Wait for it… ESCALATION, if Democrats don’t act.

O peration
I raqi Enduring
L iberation

Everything’s going according to plan.

This is exactly what they want; it’s a planned failure. Iraq is a money pit and a mass transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. You have to remember that Paul Bremer was a deputy of Henry Kissinger: he of the quote …

Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

(google it)

The grand scheme is not to win the war (btw it’s an occupation), but to steal our money. They don’t want to win: that would end the sucking dry of the treasury.
If the purpose was to win they would listen to people whose jobs are to actually define ways to win wars, understand your opposition, and hold peace - they would listen to people like Dr. Steven Biddle of the US Army War College where he basically says that “staying the course” is a quagmire (my interpretation) or Jessica Stern writing about The Protean Enemy in Foreign Affairs.

We either need at least 500,000 troops (according to the 20 troops to 1,000 residents ratio) which we don’t have, or we redeploy. But both of these solutions are untenable to them because that would end the transfer of wealth.

Anyway, have a good day, gotta run along now

from EPU:

Taylor, Swopa — If I understand the “one last push” approach, its essence is to both allow the Shiites to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing on the Sunnis and, worse, to help them do it. Or if that seems too extreme, then to crush them so thoroughly that they simply give up — for which there are almost no successful examples. Am I missing something?

There is a powerful post by Glenn Greenwald earlier today (”Afghanistan and alQaeda: Together Again”), in which he argues, among other things, that there is no rational discussion of realistic options going on at any level. Glenn concludes with this:

The real problem is that we don’t actually debate the issues that are the real ones because they are too politically radioactive. The real choice is whether we want to maintain our presence and controlling influence in the Middle East and, if so, (a) why do we want to do that?; and (b) what are we are going to do to enable us to maintain that dominance? But we can’t discuss item (a) in any constructive way because doing so requires a debate about the role of oil and our commitment to Israel, both of which are strictly off limits, as the President himself told us:

…

Incremental changes and some mild limits on this administration are nice and welcomed. But the damage done to the United States by this administration over the last six years is truly severe. It’s fundamental damage, and it requires much, much more than some tinkering around the edges. We need a debate and re-examination of the core premises of our foreign policy and our role in the world. That, in turn, requires a willingness to call into question the most sacred orthodoxies, which, in turn, requires real political leaders with the courage, credibility and skills to do that. Does anyone see any of those?

MayDaze @ 52

GrandmaJ @ 21

And won’t Steny Hoyer make sure there is a go slow approach in the House? Can Hoyer short circuit the investigations in the House?

I see no good coming from this — none. Although with a dem Congress we can directly go after some of them.

Hoyer can’t do a whole lot. The power rests with the Speaker and the relevant Committee Chairmen.

Thank God

Yes. Hot Tub Tommy set up his boy Denny as speaker so he could run amok behind the scenes, but traditionally the Speaker has all the power.

I’m not sure exactly what Reid can do about the decisions made by Bush. Certainly the Dems can make their displeasure made known concerning his decisions, but he is the Executive - Bush owns Iraq and is fully responsible for changing direction (until we elect a non-Republican President). Um, and I don’t expect him to listen to any group that would be actually qualified to render an accurate course of action in Iraq any time soon.

What Congress & the Senate CAN do is end no-bid government contracts & hold contractors responsible when they fail to provide our troops what they require. Oh, and they can start opening investigations into handling of intelligence by the White House. We’re in this mess because the Executive Branch didn’t think there would be consequences for misleading the country.

scarecrow @ 55

from EPU:

Taylor, Swopa — If I understand the “one last push” approach, its essence is to both allow the Shiites to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing on the Sunnis and, worse, to help them do it.

that’s it, that’s what 20,000 new soldiers can do…I think you’ve hit it on the head

OT, but in case no one has linked to this fine set of promises to our vanquished conservative friends:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/wo.....2006-11-14

GrandmaJ @ 50

Oklahome kiddo - I am pissed too and find it difficult to sing ‘let’s all get together’ when Hoyer is not a guy to trust — especially to protect Pelosi’s back - NOT.

Stay the course, being now run by Reid and Pelosi with Hoyer pushing, with Rahm on deck, is sickening. I am not going to get over this for awhile. And if, as we suspect, stay the course, or even ‘one more big push’ is the new policy and it fails, as it will, how are the dems going to be seen then. Oh let me guess - weak.

But time will tell, just as it did when I had this same feeling with the start of the Iraq war.

Am in sympathy with your sentiments.

All of the financial burden of Iraq should be paid for directly from a gasoline tax, with absolutely no borrowing or hidden extended costs. A surcharge on those taxes should be included to pay for costs previously incurred.

While we are at it lets add a sales tax on walmart customers equal to the amount of money borrowed from China.

Taylor:
[EPUd]
Notice that once again, there is a major crisis going on in the United States, that cries out for Presidential leadership, and the President is nowhere to be found.

In the meantime, he leaves a nation bogged down in an unnecessary and grossly mismanaged war, that is spinning into chaos and wide-spread sectarian kidnapping, torture, murder and neighborhood-by-neighborhood “cleansing,” with no credible scenario for resolution or even graceful exit.

I don’t understand why the entire nation is not demanding that the Bush/Cheney administration leave office, immediately. The only “last push” that makes any sense is to drop-kick these criminals out of office. Than, perhaps, we can have a grown up discussion about what to do next. But the notion that we should be force to even talk with the current clowns, let along convince them to do anything (if there is a solution) is absurd.

It’s time to call for their removal from office. Everything else depends on that.

Wait a minute! You mean I actually have to go and work???

How could this be?

Bye now, firepups.

What we really need to hear about is the makeup of the staff. It’s a given that the named partners aren’t going “study” anything. It’s not what they know, but whom they know. They’re just window dressing. They’re in place to censor and sell the report, not write it.

“ISG meeting tonight—BULLSHIT– I’ve got tickets for the knicks and a late dinner with a 25 year old blonde with the world’s greatest ass….Look- just tell em I vote “YES”–yeah- on everything!”

Mad Dogs wrote: “All are founding members of “The World is Full of Suckers, so Let’s Take ‘em to the Cleaners” club.”

Um, yes. That pretty much covers the entire GOP. So if they’re going to participate, their side of a bipartisan comittee is going to look like that.

Do you really expect the GOP to appoint Dennis Kucinich, Warren Beatty, Ani Difranco, and Deepak Chopra to represent the Republicans on a bipartisan committee?

It’s rather silly to complain that a bipartisan committee has Republicans on it. If they weren’t there, it wouldn’t be bipartisan, and it wouldn’t be happening at all.

The GOP have a rather limited and unpleasant bench to choose from. In the international relations area, if they aren’t involved with the Bush Iraq War, they’re probably involved with Iran-Contra. As I alluded earlier, it’s a small blessing that they didn’t pick their side from the PNAC signatories.

MayDaze @ 53

GrandmaJ @ 21

And won’t Steny Hoyer make sure there is a go slow approach in the House? Can Hoyer short circuit the investigations in the House?

I see no good coming from this — none. Although with a dem Congress we can directly go after some of them.

Hoyer can’t do a whole lot. The power rests with the Speaker and the relevant Committee Chairmen.

“Hoyer can’t do a whole lot.” I admit I might be quite naive. But if Hoyer exists to do nothing then why didn’t they give the Speaker who she wanted? Are we saying Steny was just PR? I don’t get it.

All I can say, reading more and more about these Baker3Bots, is “Thank goodness the Bush national security team met last weekend in secret to develop an alternative.”

Which is purposely counterproductive to the goal of the B/H-ISG. JB3’s goal is:

One page
One paragraph
One checkbox
One signature line

JB3 knows Junja is confused enough to pick EXACTLY the wrong options if any are presented, thus B/H-ISG will present only ONE. Cheney’s NeoConInsurance Policy is the new, shinier, not-Poppy’s “alternative” homegrown option, just as easily formatted but featuring:

More death
More destruction
More hate
More chaos

Confronted, as he will be on the exact same day (watch it happen!!) with two competing proposals, equally simply presented, will W choose the proposal of Team Poppy or Team Darth?

Scarecrow @ 56 - A couple of thoughts. First, the “last push” is about another very obvious thing: Bush legacy. The goal for Mr. Bush is to push this redeployment talk into the presidential election cycle of ‘08 so nothing gets done. That way he can walk out of Washington claiming he didn’t lose Iraq, according to his… er… thinking.

In addition, the U.S. military is in a horrific position. The leaders, especially the top brass, remember well what happened after the loss of Vietnam. Morale for soldiers was terrible, absolutely awful. There are times when the military on the ground, regardless of their HEROIC efforts, can’t let go of the fight, even though they aren’t the ones that screwed the pooch. Soldiers often have to clean up for politicians, and in doing so take on the brunt of the blame themselves, whether they deserve it or not. They do not deserve the blame in Iraq. Abizaid and our forces want a “victory” in Iraq. Defining it down so they can claim some part of that is likely job one right now.

““Hoyer can’t do a whole lot.” I admit I might be quite naive. But if Hoyer exists to do nothing then why didn’t they give the Speaker who she wanted? Are we saying Steny was just PR? I don’t get it.”

Presumably there are things Hoyer has influence on, and things he does not.

Career military types know that you’ve got ta have a war- even a shitty one- ta get ahead in the military.

Jon H @ 72

““Hoyer can’t do a whole lot.” I admit I might be quite naive. But if Hoyer exists to do nothing then why didn’t they give the Speaker who she wanted? Are we saying Steny was just PR? I don’t get it.”

Presumably there are things Hoyer has influence on, and things he does not.

What are these “things”?

cloud7 @ 58

I’m not sure exactly what Reid can do about the decisions made by Bush. Certainly the Dems can make their displeasure made known concerning his decisions, but he is the Executive - Bush owns Iraq and is fully responsible for changing direction (until we elect a non-Republican President). Um, and I don’t expect him to listen to any group that would be actually qualified to render an accurate course of action in Iraq any time soon.

What Congress & the Senate CAN do is end no-bid government contracts & hold contractors responsible when they fail to provide our troops what they require. Oh, and they can start opening investigations into handling of intelligence by the White House. We’re in this mess because the Executive Branch didn’t think there would be consequences for misleading the country.

I agree with you. It makes no sense to raise a lot of expectations that the Dems can now get us out of Iraq; the Executive Branch has all the control here. The threat of investigation may give Bush some pause, but I don’t see the Congress cutting off funding - besides the political implications, practically the majority is way short of being veto-proof.

WASHINGTON - About 2,200 Marines are headed from their ships in the Persian Gulf to an undisclosed location in Iraq’s western Anbar province to help shore up U.S. combat power in an area riddled with insurgent violence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....military_1

EPU’d so, sorry, will post this link again. About a 48 min (BBC?) report on

the death squads

being run out of the Shia controlled Ministry of Interior (though I believe that particular minister has been moved).

This is the side that Bush will join.

Doesn’t matter if there aren’t any military/Mideast area experts on the ISG. Their role is strictly political, to give Georgie cover until the Dems take over in January. After that, everything Iraqi can be blamed on the Congress.

W. has his own personal “study group” going now as well, and they will (surprise, surprise) recommend the “big push.” He won’t even read the Executive Summary (comic book edition) of the ISG report.

MayDaze @ 75 - You’re right, Bush is still the commander in chief, and the Senate is tight. That said, showing anything less than absolute resolve on a methodical redeployment gives Bush too much room, because any room is too much.

If this past election was about the Iraq war and the majority of the American public agree we went there on gross false pretenses and do not support this fiasco, are the Demos who now control Congress going to cut off financing this horror? After January.

Two Friedmans from now, when Bush is contemplating Baker II after The One Last Push bullshit, the Democrats will be entangled deeper into his Iraq quagmire, just like the Emanuels and the Clintons want.

My guess would be that the voters will not be as kind to the Democrats in 2008 as they were last week. At best, they’ll stay home.

What’s a few hundred thousand more dead Iraqis to the Democratic neocons, after all.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 68

“Hoyer can’t do a whole lot.” I admit I might be quite naive. But if Hoyer exists to do nothing then why didn’t they give the Speaker who she wanted? Are we saying Steny was just PR? I don’t get it.

The Majority Leader is an important post for rallying the “troops” and keeping them in line, but has no real independent authority (except in the absence of the Speaker). This is why the position should be filled by someone who shares the values of the Speaker, which, I fear, is not the case now.

Oh good god. Death squads and ethnic cleansing is the plan? Great,jumpstart some of the old Iran/Contra guys,back the Shia while they rid Iraq of Sunni,crap,this sounds WAY too familiar,an odd deja vu. Damn it. WTF is WRONG with these people?

when bush says “one last push”, I think what he really means is;

“to get us into a war so he can declare marshal law”

An Angry Old Broad @ 82

Oh good god. Death squads and ethnic cleansing is the plan? Great,jumpstart some of the old Iran/Contra guys,back the Shia while they rid Iraq of Sunni,crap,this sounds WAY too familiar,an odd deja vu. Damn it. WTF is WRONG with these people?

They lack souls.

“What are these “things”?”

He’s the whip, which is just about keeping track of who’s voting yea or nay, and convincing people to flip their votes if they aren’t going to vote his way.

I’m not familiar with how things work in Congress, but that might only come into play after the committees do their thing, if at all. For all I know the whip mainly has a role in passing legislation, not in running hearings and whatnot.

Then the other day we heard Senator Harry Reid say something to the effect that we’re not going to force anything on Bush.
Harry Reid needs to start leading an opposition party–with or without the deck chairs arranged in the WH— or he can retire.
Seems like McCain is banging on his crazy drum about Iraq. & Since the country elected Dems to fix the problem we really don’t have the option of sitting back and playing nice. That goes for HoJoe/McCain/Chimpy. If the solution is redeployment, sorry chimpy.

An Angry Old Broad @ 82

Oh good god. Death squads and ethnic cleansing is the plan? Great,jumpstart some of the old Iran/Contra guys,back the Shia while they rid Iraq of Sunni,crap,this sounds WAY too familiar,an odd deja vu. Damn it. WTF is WRONG with these people?

alternatively, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.....-515h.html

Michael Markman @ 66

What we really need to hear about is the makeup of the staff. It’s a given that the named partners aren’t going “study” anything. It’s not what they know, but whom they know. They’re just window dressing. They’re in place to censor and sell the report, not write it.

What he said. It’s the staff that matters.

MayDaze @ 82

Oklahoma kiddo @ 68

“Hoyer can’t do a whole lot.” I admit I might be quite naive. But if Hoyer exists to do nothing then why didn’t they give the Speaker who she wanted? Are we saying Steny was just PR? I don’t get it.

The Majority Leader is an important post for rallying the “troops” and keeping them in line, but has no real independent authority (except in the absence of the Speaker). This is why the position should be filled by someone who shares the values of the Speaker, which, I fear, is not the case now.

I’ll buy that. I like it!

An Angry Old Broad @ 83

Oh good god. Death squads and ethnic cleansing is the plan? Great,jumpstart some of the old Iran/Contra guys,back the Shia while they rid Iraq of Sunni,crap,this sounds WAY too familiar,an odd deja vu. Damn it. WTF is WRONG with these people?

Very alarming and bad case of deja vu. And you know, no “side” is going to be nice after a death squad. Which makes death squads not just murderous and inhumane, but stupid.

Howard Kurtz thinks McCain asking for more troops is courageous and principled:

McCain can’t possibly believe this is smart politics, so the only remaining alternative is that he strongly believes sending more troops is necessary. As a former POW, he certainly understands the costs of war.

This, I think, is what people like about John McCain, even when they disagree with him on this or that issue. He has compromised his reputation for straight talk by cozying up to the man he once demonized, Jerry Falwell. But by and large, McCain seems to many folks to be a politician who stands on principle, even when that principle is not in his political self-interest.

In a way it’s kind of fitting Since Baker was the one who lobbied the Supreme Court and O’Conner cast the deciding vote that brought started this nightmare. You’re right though, it’s like having Kissinger investigate 9/11.

salon.com War Room:

Reid vows legislation on robo-calls, phony sample ballot

Remember those abusive Republican robo-calls and the sample ballots that suggested — falsely — that Michael Steele is a Democrat? The soon-to-be Senate majority leader does, and he’s prepared to do something about them.
…Harry Reid told reporters today that the calls and the phony campaign literature were “absolutely wrong,” and that one of the first 10 bills he introduces in the next Senate will deal with such abuses. “We need to make these criminal penalties,” Reid said, saying that civil liability was apparently not enough to deter what happened in the run-up to last week’s election.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, is pushing the Justice Department to explain what, exactly, it’s going to do about last week’s reports of voter intimidation and trickery.

…

Call it a reminder of what oversight looks like — and the sort of thing that Gonzales and other Bush administration officials probably ought to expect a little more frequently when Schumer & Co. start controlling the Senate’s agenda in January.

Jon H @ 85

“What are these “things”?”

He’s the whip, which is just about keeping track of who’s voting yea or nay, and convincing people to flip their votes if they aren’t going to vote his way.

I’m not familiar with how things work in Congress, but that might only come into play after the committees do their thing, if at all. For all I know the whip mainly has a role in passing legislation, not in running hearings and whatnot.

In the current 109th Congress, Steny is now the MinWhip, but was today elected Majority Leader by the next Democratic Caucus of next year’s 110th. Their new Majority Whip is Congressman Jim Clyburn (SC-6):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clyburn

In this particular case I want a majority leader who is in tune with Speaker Pelosi. I do not think the election of Steny sends the right message to the right. These guys (GOP)might look at this as disarray and equate that with Demo weakness. I’m angry.

Everythingseemssoneat @
93

In a way it’s kind of fitting Since Baker was the one who lobbied the Supreme Court and O’Conner cast the deciding vote that brought started this nightmare. You’re right though, it’s like having Kissinger investigate 9/11.

Which was Plan A, right?

“In the current 109th Congress, Steny is now the MinWhip, but was today elected Majority Leader by the next Democratic Caucus of next year’s 110th. Their new Majority Whip is Congressman Jim Clyburn (SC-6):”

Doh! Sorry, Google-checked but it failed me.