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.

Taylor Marsh @ 71

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.

Spot on, Taylor. Ironically, there were three points along the way that was possible:
1.) When we had inspectors who found nothing we could have said our policy is a success and no need to go to war anyway.

2.) After the initial military victory, when Bush declared Mission Accomplished, we could have reinstated the Iraqi military and police, used our forces to quell looting and announced plans for withdrawal.

3.) After free elections were held, we could have declared victory and begun withdrwal.

Each point along the way becomes more difficult and means more blood has been needlessly spilled, but that is the point. It’s not going to get any easier and it’s not going to be pretty.

My suggestion to the ISG is to hold talks–any kind of talks. I don’t care if it involves Bugs Bunny, Charo, Borak and the ghost of Minnie Pearl. Just have some fucking talks and say THAT is what we’ve been waiting for–people have come together at The Table and hallelujia for that. Now, get the hell out of Dodge. And serve sandwiches and a nice tea. And declare it a holiday in Iraq for which we will try to turn some freakin’ electicity and water on to celebrate.

And hope and pray, but know that if people die now at least it won’t be our poeple killing them and our people being killed and curse the motherfuckers who put us all in this position in the first place. And thank the soldiers in a meaningful way when they come home. Especially those who didn’t want to come home.

On the “bright side”, I’d bet Hoyer will go Pelosi’s way most of the time, collecting favors until he wants some egregious piece of corporate welfare passed.

punaise @ 94

salon.com War Room:

Reid vows legislation on robo-calls, phony sample ballot . . .&etc

Good. Because HoJoe used them against Ned Lamont. He had a number of different robocalls. One of HoJoe’s robocalls apparently used Ned’s voice and tied up people’s machines. People complained and thought it was us. We told them our campaign management was strictly against leaving messages on people’s machines. Which was true. HoJoe tried to screw us with than one.

Taylor Marsh @ 71

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.

While I believe that certain members of the Bush team are fully capable of massive self delusion, it seems beyond the pale that anyone outside Bush himself believes that there is still a positive “legacy” possible for this policy.

If I’m Hadley, I’m concerned about my own “legacy.” As the National Security Advisor, he has to know that the situation is dire, and if not already beyond repair, very close to it. Moreover, he must also know that there are insufficient troops (and no political backing) for any meaningful increase in US forces. A few thousand to stall, but not more. He must recognize that he needs to (1) design a strategic retreat that avoids the worst catastrophe happening soon, and (2) disguise it as something other than retreat, to sell it to the deluded people around him. (If this perception is correct, then the Republicans better intervene and demand the President’s resignation.)

I think the “one, last final push” might be just buying time, not for the 08 elections — which are too far away to save them (and Iraq is disintegrating at an accelerating pace and won’t wait for 08) – but to develop a withdrawal plan that they will claim was forced on them by the Democrats. The one thing Hadley cannot allow is a total Iraqi collapse on Bush’s watch while appearing to be following Bush’s “plan.” And there may be no way to avoid that.

The Generals’ strategy is also to avoid losing the war on their watch, so there may be an alignment of interests. But Abizaid did more than describe conditions, yesterday; he argued for a strategy that he associated with success: No fewer troops; perhaps a few more, but not too many, and speed up training. He now owns a piece of defeat. He’s a true believer.

Jon H @ 98

“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.

Online resources are having a tough time keeping up as the transitions occur; it’s not your “Doh!”, it’s theirs. Also, as the Democrats’ nominated candidate for Speaker, Congresswoman Pelosi pointed out today, she was nominated by the caucus for election to the Speakership when the 110th Congress convenes in January 2007.

All the others were elected by the caucus to their new positions today.

I’d have to say, though, that Bush’s sudden passion for his own Iraq reevaluation – which didn’t start until after he talked to the ISG – leads me to think that the ISG isn’t going to tell him what he wants to hear. I imagine the ISG’s questions didn’t really go his way.

If it was just going to stenograph Bush/Cheney’s preexisting plans, I don’t think Bush would be panicking to come up with his own “review”.

Sparkles the Iguana @
32

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. …”

“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.

Well, that’s interesting. I don’t know of any other American politician who can brag of something that wild.

Just when you think you know the score with this Bush administration something so wild, so unexpected happens. I hesitate to even make up something which *might* happen next.

I think we have to get Dubya out of office…you know, for the kids.

Before I go for today (I’ll be back tomorrow, I’m happy to say), I thought I’d leave you with this, which doesn’t bode well for any of us.

Mr Bush’s refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said. …

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq…..48,00.html

Jon H @ 103

I’d have to say, though, that Bush’s sudden passion for his own Iraq reevaluation – which didn’t start until after he talked to the ISG – leads me to think that the ISG isn’t going to tell him what he wants to hear. I imagine the ISG’s questions didn’t really go his way.

If it was just going to stenograph Bush/Cheney’s preexisting plans, I don’t think Bush would be panicking to come up with his own “review”.

Seems like CYA – he’s not sure what the ISG will come up with (for once, the fix isn’t in), so he needs to be prepared with his own version of the truth (as usual).

shhhh! bush doesn’t know their incompetent and incontinent.
only those of us not ignorant, cretinous or senile know.

Some of this happened, you know it did:

B/H-ISG got left behind in the White House Cabinet Room when W walked out. Cheney followed the Preznit and said, “Let me put together some better options for you. We’ll crash the entire team this weekend in the SitRoom with the big screens and all the fun phones. You’ll see — I can do better for you than these bozos your Dad sent.”

W snorted a line of meth and said, “Fine, Dick, whatever. Then I’m goin to see Pootie and head for Veetnam.”

Jon H @ 2:07 pm (#104)

I’d have to say, though, that Bush’s sudden passion for his own Iraq reevaluation – which didn’t start until after he talked to the ISG – leads me to think that the ISG isn’t going to tell him what he wants to hear. I imagine the ISG’s questions didn’t really go his way.

If it was just going to stenograph Bush/Cheney’s preexisting plans, I don’t think Bush would be panicking to come up with his own “review”.

I think you’re right, at least in that whatever Baker and crew come up with will be viewed by Little Bush as suboptimal. He almost certainly has an inkling of what Baker thinks about the Iraq situation, and some of those other folks are still tied into the Bush family, too. He could find out what they think if he wants to.

Sparkles the Iguana @ 92

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.

We have GOT to nip this shit in the bud. Calling for more troops on McCain’s part is absolutely calculated politically (and brilliantly at that.)

McCain loses nothing by calling for substantially more troops. It’s not going to happen (he can dismiss a few thousand here or there as insignificant, after all,) so when we are still mired in Iraq in 2008 (any doubters on that?) to one extent or another he can say it’s not his fault. The Democrats’ withdrawal plan or the President’s denial led to the collapse, he can say, when he would have done what was truly necessary for victory.

It is a stance taken with nothing but political calculation. In fact the very perception Kurtz is promelgating with the St. John halo of righteousness adds to the calculation.

Sparkles the Iguana @ 92

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.

Howie is so disingenuous. The entire right wing is calling for “one last pusch” (sp) and “more troops to get the job done.” And McCain gets the nomination by winning the primaries with the vote of the right wing.

Even if one assumes McCain in “principled,” then one also has to conclude he’s not very smart or responsible. There is no analysis to show that his proposed 20-30,000 more troops would turn the tide, or even that 200,000 more troops would do that. He got almost no support yesterday from Abizaid, so he can’t claim that the generals agree with his military judgment. We can’t even decide who we’re fighting, or why, or how it’s possible to distinguish the “good” guys from the “bad,” and so having failed to define the mission, the enemy or the rules of engagement, there is no way for any responsible person to say “just 20-30,000 more troops would do the job.” He hasn’t defined what the Iraqis must do, and which of them must do it, and how much US force would be required to compel/allow them to do it, or how things would be different if they iraqis actually did what we said they need to do. We don’t even know whether disbanding the militias would improve security (McCain’s assumption, without evidence) or create more chaos and allow more sectarian cleansing. His is just a hollow proposal, even if based on “principle,” and there’s no reason to assume that it either principled or credible. He is not a grownup.

We (center, center-left, progressive, liberal) can still portend moderation, without the DLC.

& Jim Baker says . . .
The solution for today’s problems is an ethnic cleansing of Sunni. Please don’t let MSM sleep on this if true. Please don’t let MSM sleep on this if it turns out ChimpCo will send more troops. Both HoJoe and McCain have already started floating promoting “that idea.” (see CTBob.) & please don’t bring that maniac Henry Kissinger into the fold. *praying to the sky*

Bush to recommend butterfly bandaid for sucking chest wound.

News at 11:00.

-GSD

Who’s missing:
Madeleine Albright
Wesley Clark
Any General from Gulf War I
What’s weird about the list is that it includes people who would most likely give you advice on how to obstruct justice.

GSD @ 115

Bush to recommend butterfly bandaid for sucking chest wound.

News at 11:00.

-GSD

Best analysis I’ve seen.

Taylor Marsh @
106

Before I go for today (I’ll be back tomorrow, I’m happy to say), I thought I’d leave you with this, which doesn’t bode well for any of us.

Mr Bush’s refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said. …

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq…..48,00.html

Looks like policy will be fixed around the strategy one more time.

-GSD

Why are some cartoonist so smart? I think this is a pity description of HoJoe’s current position. Someone sent that to me, can’t resist posting it.

Waiting for Godot

Somewhere, I get the feeling the circle-jerk is having a big ole laugh at our expense.

These are the same people as always. Better than getting elected. Get appointed with big expense accounts.

portia.vz @ 116

Who’s missing:
Madeleine Albright
Wesley Clark
Any General from Gulf War I
What’s weird about the list is that it includes people who would most likely give you advice on how to obstruct justice.

Pammy from Atlas Shrugs.

Michael Savage

Saddam Hussein

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Glenn Beck

Lucrecia Borgia

Pol Pot

Solobodan Milosevic

Radovan Karadzic

Augusto Pinochet

Anastasio Somoza

Pee Wee Herman

Barbara & Jenna Bush

For starters.

-GSD

It’s beginning to look a lot like Viet Nam.
Let’s face it, nobody knows the fucking answer.
The Generals don’t know, Prez hasn’t a fucking
clue, the Commission? So the best we can do is declare victory and concentrate on domestic affairs, which haven’t been looked at in six years….
Kennedy called it a quagmire, anyone disagree?

Jack

Gore works.
Clark works.
Edwards works.
Combination thereof works.
Did I leave anyone out?

Only 24 short months to election day. The work continues.

portia.vz @ 116

Who’s missing:
Madeleine Albright
Wesley Clark
Any General from Gulf War I
What’s weird about the list is that it includes people who would most likely give you advice on how to obstruct justice.

The ISG did interview former Secretaries of State; Albright was included, though apparently only for about an hour phone call, because she was out of town on some prior commitment. I have not seen Brezinski mentioned as one they interviewed, but it would make sense. He actually has a proposal that includes troop deployment and regional diplomatic efforts, but things have gotten some much worse so quickly, it may be inoperative by now.

big expense accounts.

Sorry about that. Typo.

Kevin Drum is ready to make nice, sorta:

TNR AND THE WAR….Generally speaking, I favor a warm embrace for people who once supported the war but have since seen the light. This is mostly a pragmatic choice. It’s easier for people change their minds if they think their admission of faulty judgment will be welcomed instead of scorned, and since I want people to change their minds on this subject I figure it’s best to let bygones be bygones.

Even by my soft-hearted standards, though, today’s editorial from The New Republic renouncing their support for the war was remarkably clumsy and unsatisfying. TNR “deeply regrets its early support for this war,” the editors say, but they don’t provide a hint about why they regret their support. Is it just because things didn’t work out? Because they think things could have worked but they’re ashamed of not realizing that George Bush would bollocks it up? Because Saddam turned out not to have any WMD? Or what?

…

In fact, I can’t really figure out why they wrote the editorial….

perris, formerly known as me to me, @
84

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”

Do you mean that Baker and all are called in to close the deal on martial law? That seems a bit clumsy, but I wouldn’t be surprised. The gorilla in the room is BushCo’s legal problems.
These folks have never allowed oversight and have much to answer for.

This ain’t over.

The only legacy Bush and family are interested in is continued occupation/quagmire because this insures a continued flow of money.

I think all those in favor of the ‘one last push’ should either volunteer or, if physically unable, send their oldest living child to pursue this tragic nonsense.
Not one more American should lose their life in this farcical Oedipusian-Bush tragedy.

Are we prepared to conclude that the U.S. military would support a declaration of martial law?

portia.vz @ 116

Who’s missing:
Madeleine Albright
Wesley Clark
Any General from Gulf War I
What’s weird about the list is that it includes people who would most likely give you advice on how to obstruct justice.

and one (Robb) who knows how to lose his Senate seat to Macacawitz.

Didn’t John Dean write a book “Worse than
Watergate…
Any takers on Worse than Vietnam…
Hell, Tricky Dick looks good these days…
Bush is listening to Kissinger, is this fucking world gone crazy.
I think so.

Jack

Oklahoma kiddo @ 129

Are we prepared to conclude that the U.S. military would support a declaration of martial law?

Why wouldn’t they? Dissent legally equals terror now.

“One last push” is the raspy plea of an impotent man to the frustrated ear of the one he has fucked and is about to leave distraught and alone. At best, he will feel a small tremor of self-satisfactio before pulling out and she will feel further violated.

The policy isn’t being fixed around a strategy, it’s being fixed around the derangement of Dear Leader.

The Vietnamization of Iraq.

Calling Maya Lin….

“Tom Delay’s choice for Time’s Man of the Year?

Nancy Pelosi. Said Delay:

“She worked for years putting a strategy together, building a huge coalition. She held the Democrats together in the House like I have never seen before. She is going to change America!”

And, yes, Time actually had Delay on its selection panel.”

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ How gallant of him!

They link to this article:

http://tinyurl.com/yymxnp

portia.vz wrote:

Madeleine Albright
Wesley Clark
Any General from Gulf War I

As noted above, they did talk with Albright, by phone. They also talked with Clinton. I don’t know if they talked with Clark, or if they talked with any generals from GW1 who were not involved in GW2. They may have – I don’t think the complete list has been released.

Note that James Baker, besides being the Bush family fixer, was also the Secretary of State during GW1, so he was involved with all the coalition-building in the region.

James Dobbins and Chas Freeman are not principals like the others listed. They are members of working group 4 which deals with Iraq and its strategic environment.

The ISG site is here:

http://www.usip.org/isg/index.html

You can navigate to the members’ list and working groups from there.

I did brief bios of the working group members, I think, back on the Captain Renault thread.

Here once again are bios of the Principals (the gray beards and carriers of gravitas, not expertise):

The Democrats:

Lee Hamilton, Democratic Representative from Indiana for 34 years, served on Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committees, vice chairman of the 911 Commission, and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. From wiki, “As chair of the Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran (Iran-Contra), Hamilton chose not to investigate President Ronald Reagan or President George H. W. Bush, stating that he did not think it would be “good for the country” to put the public through another impeachment trial.” He worked with James Baker previously when he co-chaired the Baker-Hamilton Commission to Investigate Certain Security Issues at Los Alamos.

Vernon Jordan, Jr., Washington power broker and advisor to the Clintons, Senior Managing Director with Lazard Freres & Co. LLC an investment banking firm, no foreign policy experience.

Leon Panetta, White House Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton 1994-1997, domestic, civil rights, and budget experience, no foreign policy experience.

William Perry, Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton 1994-1997, came up through the defense industry and Pentagon, broad foreign policy and defense experience. Helped enforce the policy of containment in Iraq.

Chuck Robb, mostly conservative Democratic Senator from Virgina 1989-2001 (lost to George Allen), served on the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence Committees, Chairman of the Iraq Intelligence Commission set up by Bush in 2004. This Commission found that the intelligence community was wrong about everything to do with Iraq but that there had been no political pressure on the intelligence community to modify its assessments.

The Republicans:

James Baker III, longtime Bush family friend, consigliere, and fixer, WH Chief of Staff to Ronald Reagan 1981-1984, Secretary of the Treasury 1985-1988, National Security Council, Secretary of State 1989-1992, WH Chief of Staff to Bush I 1992 to end of term. In 1993, founded the James Baker III Institute of Public Policy at Rice University, chief legal adviser to Bush II during the 2000 Florida recount. His presence and guiding role behind the Iraq Study Group is seen as an intervention of Bush I and his advisors to salvage Bush II’s Presidency and Bush I’s legacy.

Sandra Day O’Connor, Reagan appointee to the Supreme Court 1981-2006, swing vote in the Rehnquist court, no foreign policy experience

Robert Gates replaced by Lawrence Eagleburger (Nov.10, 2006), National Security Council staff 1974-1979, CIA careerist, nominated to be the Agency’s head in 1987 but withdrew because of his involvement in Iran-Contra, renominated and confirmed he served as DCI 1991-1993, became President of Texas A&M in 2002, nominated by Bush II to be Secretary of Defense on Nov. 8, 2006.
*Lawrence Eagleburger, assistant to Henry Kissinger when he was National Security Adivisor 1969-1971, Acting Secretary of State to GHW Bush replacing James Baker 1992.

Edwin Meese III replaced Rudolph Giuliani (resigned May 24, 2006 because he didn’t have the time), National Security Council 1981-1985, Attorney General 1985-1988 under Ronald Reagan, was involved in Iran-Contra mostly in covering up Reagan’s role in it, helped develop the conservative constitutional view of “original intent”, aside from his time on the NSC no foreign policy experience.

Alan K. Simpson, Senator from Wyoming 1979 to 1997, Republican Whip 1985-1995, no foreign policy experience.

When you look at the 10 ISG principals, you will notice there are no neocons included. 5 (Jordan, Panetta, O’Connor, Simpson, and Meese) have little or no foreign policy experience. All of the Republicans after Giuliani’s departure and before Eagleburger’s arrival were Westerners. All of them also had connections to either Reagan or Bush I’s Administration (Baker, Meese, and Gates, in particular). What is probably less known is that 3 of the 5 Democrats (Jordan, Panetta, and Perry) had close links with the Clinton Administration. In other words, the Iraq Study Group is not just a Bush I vehicle but reflects a considerable input from Clinton. Remember all of the pal-ing around between Bush Sr. and Bill? Well, this appears another instance of it.

The Gates nomination for Secretary of Defense is objectionable because of his Iran-Contra past but that is not the game that is being played here. Gates is the ISG’s man, which is to say Bush I’s and probably even Clinton’s. It will be interesting to see what positions the Establishment Dems stake out do during the confirmation process in this light. In any case, it is clear that if Gates is confirmed (and I’m betting he will be), he will be Bush I’s Secretary of Defense and not Dubya’s.

Jon H @ 138

portia.vz wrote:

Madeleine Albright
Wesley Clark
Any General from Gulf War I

As noted above, they did talk with Albright, by phone. They also talked with Clinton. I don’t know if they talked with Clark, or if they talked with any generals from GW1 who were not involved in GW2. They may have – I don’t think the complete list has been released.

Note that James Baker, besides being the Bush family fixer, was also the Secretary of State during GW1, so he was involved with all the coalition-building in the region.

My recollection from Book Salon is that B/H-ISG staff have also spoken with and listened to former Ambassador Joe Wilson.

“Blue Dog Dems Rebel Against Pelosi’s Pick For Intel Chair; Urge Harman Instead
By Greg Sargent

Election Central has just obtained a letter that has been sent by the conservative Blue Dog Coalition of Dems to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging that she back Rep. Jane Harman to chair the Intelligence Committee.

As the panel’s ranking Dem, Harman is the logical choice for the Intel committee. But Pelosi — who failed today in her bid to install Jack Murtha as House Majority Leader over the Blue Dog-backed Steny Hoyer — appears to have been pushing Rep. Alcee Hastings for the Intel gig. The letter — which was voted on and given the necessary 2/3 vote to make it an official Blue Dog position — suggests that Pelosi may be about to get hit by another revolt against her pick by rank-and-file House members. The letter reads:”…………….

http://tinyurl.com/y2cgho

Dobbins actually does have some ME and postwar reconstruction credentials.

Excerpted from FRONTLINE.org’s “The Lost Year In Iraq”:

“A career diplomat, James Dobbins participated in or oversaw postwar reconstruction efforts in five countries — Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. After leaving the State Department, he moved to the RAND Corporation, where he directs the International Security and Defense Policy Center and conducted a study called America’s Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq.”

If you analyze the members of the working group, most come from think tanks or the National Defense University. Most of the think tanks are conservative.

What I would like to know is why a partisan hack like Clifford May is in the Military and Security working group or why big time neo-con Reuel Marc Gerecht is in the one on political development.

What’s the common thread (among others)in all this Baker-Bush-Gates etc. baloney? Oil.

What was the replacement mechanism for Gates and, earlier, Giuliani? The ISG is a creation of Congress (Warner?) but how were the principals selected? The Gates/Eagleburger swap appears in TradMed entirely in the passive voice, with no “actor.”

If Sandra Day has enough time to do this, why isn’t she still on the court protecting us from the emperor she helped throne?

OT_ will someone please 12th step Al Franken? Jesus.

And, you’re JUST NOW noticing the line-up?

Hugh! A post designed for you. Glad you made it.

My favorite name in this proposed mission is Leon Panetta – whom we central left coasties know and love so well. Despite his origins as a Republican (as a young intern inside Nixon’s White House) we appreciated his thoughtful switch to the Democratic Party, subsequent career in congress and in Bill & Hill’s White House as chief of staff. But all things considered Leon really should decline the offer – he is needed here closer to home keeping his Panetta Institute on point and fulfilling critical board member responsibilities to stem a scandal brewing in the executive suites of CHOMP (Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula).

More on Iran-Contra collaborator Ed Meese –

I couldn’t find a direct citation on the net, but the San Francisco Chronicle said some years ago that Ed Meese was quoted as saying that James Rector (killed by police buckshot at the Berkeley Peoples’ Park protest in 1969) “deserved to die.”

More repeated comments, sorry.

The Iraq Study Group (ISG) had its genesis when a Republican Representative from Virginia Frank Wolf returned from what was I believe his 3rd trip to Iraq and decided that the situation there had to be reassessed. Also at the beginning of this year, Jim Baker began talking about options with various Washington insiders. At some point, these two ideas were married and on March 15, 2006 the Iraq Study Group was born. It is not a stand alone entity but was created using the resources of the US Institute for Peace, a congressionally chartered independent bipartisan entity, as the umbrella organization. Parenthetically, the USIP’s current head is J. Robinson West of PFC Energy strategic energy consultants primarily to the petroleum industry. Further support was given by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Center for the Study of the Presidency (CSP), and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. These associations show that the ISG was from its beginnings meant to be a reflection of Washington’s institutional and Establishment foreign policy heavy hitters.

On March 15, 2006, Congress at the behest of Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) who was concerned about conditions in Iraq announced the formation of the Iraq Study Group, facilitated by the US Institute for Peace (a congressionally chartered independent bipartisan group currently headed by J. Robinson West of PFC Energy strategic energy consultants to the petroleum industry) and supported by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Center for the Study of the Presidency (CSP), and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

Basically, Baker and Hamilton choose members with the aid of the associated institutions, the USIP, the CSIS, the CSP, and JBIPP.

phoebes at 148 — you know, there is no reason to get snippy with Taylor, who was nice enough to do a guest post for us today. You can never have too much emphasis on credentials on the ISG — we’ve discussed them int he comments a lot (thanks, Hugh!), but front-paging information on this is useful reinforcement for everyone.

jinny @ 142

“Blue Dog Dems Rebel Against Pelosi’s Pick For Intel Chair; Urge Harman Instead
By Greg Sargent

Election Central has just obtained a letter that has been sent by the conservative Blue Dog Coalition of Dems to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging that she back Rep. Jane Harman to chair the Intelligence Committee.

As the panel’s ranking Dem, Harman is the logical choice for the Intel committee. But Pelosi — who failed today in her bid to install Jack Murtha as House Majority Leader over the Blue Dog-backed Steny Hoyer — appears to have been pushing Rep. Alcee Hastings for the Intel gig. The letter — which was voted on and given the necessary 2/3 vote to make it an official Blue Dog position — suggests that Pelosi may be about to get hit by another revolt against her pick by rank-and-file House members. The letter reads:”…………….

http://tinyurl.com/y2cgho

As one of the commenters at TPM Cafe mentioned, the actual letter is a lot more respectful than the tone of Sargent’s post.

OfT: From the Department of Sad Things Happening to Bad People, MSNBC trailer sez Mark Foley will leave rehab this weekend to attend his father’s funeral.

Off topic,

I just stepped outside and it’s close to 70
degrees. I think Al Gore is right…..
we’ve neglected our domestic tranquility..

Jack

And thanks to FireDogLake for hosting Taylor’s post today.

baked potato @ 151

More on Iran-Contra collaborator Ed Meese –

I couldn’t find a direct citation on the net, but the San Francisco Chronicle said some years ago that Ed Meese was quoted as saying that James Rector (killed by police buckshot at the Berkeley Peoples’ Park protest in 1969) “deserved to die.”

Even as kid watching the hearings, Meese came off particularly despicable.

It’s not about foreign policy expertise. It’s about political extrication from disaster.

OFT: Will TradMed ever focus on the really divisive fight that, much more than the Democrats, will feature Eating Their Own — the GOP House leadership fight tomorrow?

Tucker Carlson is abhorrent.

new thread

Alcee Hastings has a sloppy history.

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

Eureka Springs, AR @
133

Oklahoma kiddo @ 129

Are we prepared to conclude that the U.S. military would support a declaration of martial law?

Why wouldn’t they? Dissent legally equals terror now.

How would martial law (actually, a state of national emergency or imposition of military rule) be enforced nationally? Let us look closely at some information pertaining to one controlling statute that comes to mind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…..encies_Act

The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) is a United States federal law passed in 1976 to stop open-ended states of national emergency and formalize Congressional checks and balances on Presidential emergency powers. The act sets a limit of two years on states of national emergency. It also imposes certain “procedural formalities” on the President when invoking such powers, and provides a means for Congress to countermand a Presidential declaration of emergency and associated use of emergency powers.

The perceived need for the law arose from the scope and number of laws granting special powers to the Executive in times of national emergency (or public danger). At least two Constitutional protections are subject to revocation during a state of emergency:

The right of habeas corpus, under Article 1, Section 9;
The right to a Grand Jury for members of the National Guard when in actual service, under 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
In addition, many provisions of statutory law — as many as 500 by one count (ref. 1) — are contingent on a state of national emergency.

It was due in part to concern that a declaration of “emergency” for one purpose should not invoke every possible executive emergency power that Congress in 1976 passed the National Emergencies Act. Among other provisions, this act requires the President to declare formally a national emergency and to specify the statutory authorities to be used under such a declaration.

(snip)

Those of you who express concern that martial law will somehow be declared nationwide in this country (nationwide military rule with what army?) should draw some comfort from a Supreme Court decision (ex parte Milligan) that has frequently been quoted in various FDL threads. That decision, rendered in 1866, held as follows (quoting from Wikipedia):

The Supreme Court decided that the suspension of habeas corpus was lawful, but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution of the United States only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed. In essence, the court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even during times of war.

It further observed that during the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, citizens may be only held without charges, not tried, and certainly not executed by military tribunals. After all, the writ of habeas corpus is not the right itself, but merely the ability to issue orders demanding the right’s enforcement.

Furthermore, I don’t see how any attempt to impose military rule will bolster George Bush’s legacy.

A list of experts interviewed is given here:

http://www.usip.org/isg/isg_meetings.pdf

This is a pdf document and I don’t know when it was last updated. Clinton, Albright, and GHWB do not appear. Albright is as a former Secretary of State is an ex officio member of JBIPP. Clinton and GHWB are the Iraq Study Group’s godfathers so their names may not appear anywhere.

I am announcing the formation of a new Iraq study group. I will keep everyone posted.

Stephen Parrish, I don’t think the military would turn on Bush if he ordered it. S 3036 and parts of the John Warner national defense authorization bill 2007 clearly contradict the intent of much of what you bring forth. I don’t see why Bushco would want this nor where the payoff is except in the no bid contracts it presents. But the new laws are piling up at a frightening rate.
I hope it’s tin foil but the question is not far fetched anymore. Bush doesn’t need a clear plan or reasonable number of troops to start a fight.
During a declaration of marshall law wouldn’t local/state (and others) police be federalized?

It would be truly extraordinary for martial law to be declared coast to coast.

Martial law can be declared an an individual county basis. National Guard and Reservists can be re-located from any state without the state’s approval thanks to recent legislation.

Posse Comitatus (1878) is essentialialy gone. The Insurrection Act (1807) is now “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order.”

“The changes to the Insurrection Act impact the relevance of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act because it removes many of the conditions under which the PCA would have applied. The PCA reads “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” Since those cases and circumstances have now been changed in the Insurrection act to be extremely broad, the PCA has essentially been made moot.”

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

Harman

http://tinyurl.com/slfp7

DefJef @
35

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

Can’t the Dems do this now? Call it laying the ground work for a realistic and informed Iraq plan, unencumbered by political agenda. Throw in a few reasonably apolitical generals and Bob’s your uncle and Fanny’s your aunt.

DefJef @
35

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

-Racism rules their day.Moreoevr, I think this group was put together for our(US) comsumption and not the Arabs or Iraqis.And hence that’s why most of the suggestion of this group(ISG) is destined for failure.Juan Cole his too smart for the group.

Fortunately they can’t send in any more troops. THERE AREN’T ANY.

Both Webb and Murtha have publicly said so.

The ISG is composed of actual grownups, whether we like their resumes or not. I view it as a positive sign that there are thinking people, who have power, that are now engaged in the question of how to disentangle ourselves from Iraq.

I wish them well. It’s an awful responsibility.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 69

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.

Take a look at David Sirota’s take on this situation http://davidsirota.com/index.p…..i-win-win/

I thought Sandy O’Connor was retired because her husband was ill (not that she would be personally emptying the commode and feeding him bottles of Ensure)…she retired and that’s how the SC opened up to allow Alito…..now she has enough time to “work” on this group? Isn’t anyone suspicious?

Sounds like she got bored so she was up for this project to burnish her “reputation”.

And the Bushes owe so much to Sandy for 2000 election stealing…..

mui @ 101

punaise @ 94

salon.com War Room:

Reid vows legislation on robo-calls, phony sample ballot . . .&etc

Good. Because HoJoe used them against Ned Lamont. He had a number of different robocalls. One of HoJoe’s robocalls apparently used Ned’s voice and tied up people’s machines. People complained and thought it was us. We told them our campaign management was strictly against leaving messages on people’s machines. Which was true. HoJoe tried to screw us with than one.

Really?????

I never heard about that.

I wouldn’t worry too much about the make up of the ISG. They will come up with vague statements about “engaging regional players to assure security in the region” and Bush will read it (ok he’ll like look at it as they hand it to him) and he’ll say words about the valuable insight they bring through their combined years of service and experience and he will ignore it for 2 years.

Then in ‘08 GOP candidates will run around the country with secret plans to extricate the US from Iraq while they attack the dems for being soft on terra.

Taylor,

I would have you know that Sandra Day O’Connor is a very well-respected jurist internationally as well. Few outside the legal community are aware of her extensive work with CEELI (Central Eastern European Law Iniative/Institute) in creating the foundations for functioning judiciaries and civil rights frameworks for post-Cold War countries. She is amazing and is very quiet about her work spreading democracy to former Communist countries. She is the very best qualified person in the US to help Iraq form a working (and very necessary) judiciary. Gimme me (and her) a break!

you can not replace a party full of corrupt liars with another party of corrupt liars and expect change. the karmic wheel just doesn’t work that way. the dems won because of some kind of divine intervention. the republicans actually imploded on themselves. it had nothing to do with how well the democrats represented themselves to john and jane q. unless and until we actually start telling the truth and accepting the real truth about both sides of the fence we’re just rooting for a football team. these people are getting wealthy beyond belief(all of them)using the dumb money. simply put that means your money. pick up the clue phone, it’s ringing and it’s for you.