I would have added this bullet to Froomkin’s list: When you ask an administration official why he thinks some plan will work, don’t accept the answer, “It has to work.”

We hear this all the time, and it’s a dodge, nothing more than wishful thinking. I could give the same answer to why I think I’ll win the lottery tomorrow, and it should give us just as much confidence.

I can’t figure out what the hell they’re teaching in J-schools these days; or what managing editors are doing to earn their paychecks, for that matter. Froomkin’s cautions are Journalism 101. In fact, they’re high school journalism. How can such incompetents be hired for major, high-profile beats by national news outlets? They’d be fired from a local weekly if they tried that crap.

rumi @ 50

Oklahoma kiddo @ 48

I have an ax to grind. Gore for prez in ‘08.

I have an ox to Gore. Al/Feingold for pres in 08

How sweet it is. ;0)

My bumpersticker for the past year

Mea Culpa!

http://courier-journal.gannett…..7660.shtml

mandrake @ 81

Just what’s taking them so long. Jeez, John Warner is being like this genteel southern gentlemen dancing slowly and delicately around this bully of a president as if he is were a tender Camellia bud, easily crushed and bruised by the slightest criticism. This is getting very tiresome. GROW SOME WARNER! And fast. Yeesh.

I actually think Warner may be wise. He struck a compromise that he can convince a lot of Republicans to agree with.

The compromise between Levin and Warner apparently went like this (per news reports… they’re cleverly leaving the details of the resoultion under wraps until debate in the Senate tomorrow):
- Levin gives up the language saying that an increase in troops i.e. escalation is “not in the best interest of our nation”,
- Warner gives up the language that an increase in troops is okay if situation on the ground warrants it.

Seems to me that Warner and the Republicans gave up a lot more in this compromise.

While it pisses me off that the resolution is non-binding and rather symbolic in nature, if Warner and Levin can get 70 Senators to agree to it (and word on the street is that it is possible), it sends a very clear message to Bush and to the people: We got your bi-partisan spirit right here, Mr. President. A vast majority of Congress is not going to support the McCain escalation plan, and in fact will cast a vote on record to oppose your war management strategy.

First, Republicans go on record to say this, further isolating the President from the mainstream members of his party. Then, perhaps, when the Senators get overwhelming support from their constituents, they have more reason to stand in the way of endless war appropriations, and therefore head toward ending the war.

I wish we could get 51 (or 70) Senators to support Feingold’s resolution, but we won’t. Not now. More of them would support McCain’s, and we can’t afford that. But, this compromise strikes an interesting dilemma for Republicans.

Signing the Warner/Levin resolution is incongruous with voting for McCain’s plan. They are really mutually exclusive. However, voting for the Warner/Levin resolution does not, however, ideologically exclude someone from supporting Feingold’s proposal.

As someone once said, “you’re with us or you’re against us.” The vast majority of the American people are with us. They don’t want escalation, they want the war to end. This legislation forces more Republican Senators to go on record – are THEY with us, or are THEY with the President?

You’re right, they are being cautious. I’m just griping cuz it feels good.

I don’t believe he was detroyed because of his correct position on Tonkin. He went down in a strange primary – local stuff, and the victor lost to Murkowski in the general.

Interesting tidbits. I wasn’t suggesting that Gravel’s political fate was tied to the same reasons as were Morse’s. Morse was the one who clearly paid a political price for his vote on that war, Gravel, um, not so much. Morse was almost immediately written off in Oregon because of it, while Gravel survived for many years afterwards, as you say.

Re Motag and Hugh @ 74: So many people miss the point about what Iran-contra was really all about. Particualily the press! Yes, Carter was lambasted for trying to save the hostages before the election. But no one really talks about the fact that the whole deal with Kohmeni(sp?) was to keep the American Diplomates hostage until after the election so that Regan et al could win!! It was gross manipulation of world events for domestic political gain and we, the press and regular folks like, forget how often the GOP do this. It was Treason then and what is happening now is Treason too. And it really burns my britches!

It’s not the family members so much as the family members.

With the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld plus a whole cast of similar characters, and even among the Clinton Democrats, we’ve already endured dynasties for decades. Hopefully a new generation, unburdened by the Great Games of the Cold War era, will have the vision needed to set the planet on a path of better enlightenment for all. The pursuit of peace and happiness is something all cultures have in common.

It’s the kind of thinking, the Audacity Of Hope, that ~maybe~ Barack Obama can bring – if he can survive the system.

Here’s hoping anyway :)

Just what’s taking them so long. Jeez, John Warner is being like this genteel southern gentlemen dancing slowly and delicately around this bully of a president as if he is were a tender Camellia bud, easily crushed and bruised by the slightest criticism. This is getting very tiresome. GROW SOME WARNER! And fast. Yeesh.

I actually think Warner may be wise. He struck a compromise that he can convince a lot of Republicans to agree with.

The compromise between Levin and Warner apparently went like this (per news reports… they’re cleverly leaving the details of the resoultion under wraps until debate in the Senate tomorrow):
- Levin gives up the language saying that an increase in troops i.e. escalation is “not in the best interest of our nation”,
- Warner gives up the language that an increase in troops is okay if situation on the ground warrants it.

Seems to me that Warner and the Republicans gave up a lot more in this compromise.

While it pisses me off that the resolution is non-binding and rather symbolic in nature, if Warner and Levin can get 70 Senators to agree to it (and word on the street is that it is possible), it sends a very clear message to Bush and to the people: We got your bi-partisan spirit right here, Mr. President. A vast majority of Congress is not going to support the McCain escalation plan, and in fact will cast a vote on record to oppose your war management strategy.

First, Republicans go on record to say this, further isolating the President from the mainstream members of his party. Then, perhaps, when the Senators get overwhelming support from their constituents, they have more reason to stand in the way of endless war appropriations, and therefore head toward ending the war.

I wish we could get 51 (or 70) Senators to support Feingold’s resolution, but we won’t. Not now. More of them would support McCain’s, and we can’t afford that. But, this compromise strikes an interesting dilemma for Republicans.

Signing the Warner/Levin resolution is incongruous with voting for McCain’s plan. They are really mutually exclusive. However, voting for the Warner/Levin resolution does not, however, ideologically exclude someone from supporting Feingold’s proposal.

As someone once said, “you’re with us or you’re against us.” The vast majority of the American people are with us. They don’t want escalation, they want the war to end. This legislation forces more Republican Senators to go on record – are THEY with us, or are THEY with the President?