Dick Cheney Controls Tim Russert.

OT – Look what Hillary is up to (from Kos)

http://kos.dailykos.com/

Hillary on homosexuality.

I also asked her about the comments by General Peter Pace that homosexulity is “immoral.” Clinton has opposed the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, so I asked her if that law — signed by her husband in 1993 — was a mistake, and if homosexuality is “immoral.”

“General Pace has clarified his remarks, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is not working,” she said. “We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women who want to serve their country who are bringing skills into the armed services that we desparately need, like translation skills. And one can argue whether it was a good idea when it was first implemented, but we know have evidence as to the fact that we are in a time of war — when we really need as many people as we can to recruit and retain in an all-volunteer army — we are turning people away or discharging them not because of what they’ve done but because of who they are.”

But is it immoral?

“Well I’m going to leave that to others to conclude,” she said. “I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can.”

She can tell those gays and lesbians she knows and is proud of that she is too afraid to say, unambiguously, that she agrees with 80-year-old Republican Senator John Warner that no, they are not “immoral”.

Here’s how Warner put it:

The ranking Republican of the Senate Armed Services Committee sharply rebuked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Tuesday, taking issue with General Peter Pace’s view that homosexual acts are immoral.

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a former Secretary of the Navy, said, “I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman’s view that homosexuality is immoral. In keeping with my longstanding respect for the Armed Services committee hearing process, I will decline to comment on the current policy until after such hearings are held.”

It’s not that hard to say the right thing.

*xyz @
2

OT – Look what Hillary is up to (from Kos)

http://kos.dailykos.com/

Hillary on homosexuality.

I also asked her about the comments by General Peter Pace that homosexulity is “immoral.” Clinton has opposed the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, so I asked her if that law — signed by her husband in 1993 — was a mistake, and if homosexuality is “immoral.”

“General Pace has clarified his remarks, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is not working,” she said. “We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women who want to serve their country who are bringing skills into the armed services that we desparately need, like translation skills. And one can argue whether it was a good idea when it was first implemented, but we know have evidence as to the fact that we are in a time of war — when we really need as many people as we can to recruit and retain in an all-volunteer army — we are turning people away or discharging them not because of what they’ve done but because of who they are.”

But is it immoral?

“Well I’m going to leave that to others to conclude,” she said. “I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can.”

She can tell those gays and lesbians she knows and is proud of that she is too afraid to say, unambiguously, that she agrees with 80-year-old Republican Senator John Warner that no, they are not “immoral”.

Here’s how Warner put it:

The ranking Republican of the Senate Armed Services Committee sharply rebuked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Tuesday, taking issue with General Peter Pace’s view that homosexual acts are immoral.

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a former Secretary of the Navy, said, “I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman’s view that homosexuality is immoral. In keeping with my longstanding respect for the Armed Services committee hearing process, I will decline to comment on the current policy until after such hearings are held.”

It’s not that hard to say the right thing.

Stay tuned for more on this . . . but don’t know when.

I wish the DC Dems would tell Holy Joe to take a hike, but given that they won’t, I have to hope that come January 1, 2009, Mr. Lieberman will be totally neutered and just counting the days until his retirement in (ugh) 2012.

Fuckin punk Barrow!

Peterr @ 3
*xyz @
2

OT – Look what Hillary is up to (from Kos)

I gave Hillary my two cents on this already. It dissapoints me more than anything else.

In my world, there are no Blue Dogs, there are only curs painted blue. An open media strips the paint. Then they appear only as yellow dogs, worthy of our disgust. What color is a halliburton dog? A GE dog?

Cezanne would have painted only Firedogs.

FEUERHUNDSEE.

Blue Dogs are consigned to pre November 2006 thinking. All such dogs should face a primary challenge by a new left candidate (here’s a tip Blue Dogs – the new left is where the old center used to be).

Good for Stoller, and thank you, Jane.
Jane, is there any plan for a FDL get-together at YearlyKos? Or are you considering a breakfast or anything?

Playing both sides of the fence is eventually going to catch up to Short Ride.
He is essentially a Republican and should be chained and shackled to that especially now that the Repubs are going down the tubes like Montezuma’s revenge.

These blue doggers are just begging for primaries.

And we will oblige them.

Oh yes we will.

I live in Heath Shuler’s district. He is getting hammered by the wingnuts for every “liberal” thing he does. The local wingnut weekly is running a front page story about how he is destroying business by his pro union vote.

That being said, I am still dissapointed in him. Part of his district is Asheville, which is very blue, but the rest is not. He is likely to get a well challenged Republican funder who will run ads against him continually next cycle about how liberal he is. The war vote should be a matter of principle though.

It doesn’t matter. Bush will veto any bill like this. The only hope is in the Senate, where there might be enough votes to refuse any bill without withdrawal provisions.

Terry Olson @ 9

Good for Stoller, and thank you, Jane.
Jane, is there any plan for a FDL get-together at YearlyKos? Or are you considering a breakfast or anything?

I hope there is an entire DAY of fdl stuff.

Little issues like where and $ are minor technical details.

Jane?

egregious @ 14

Terry Olson @ 9

Good for Stoller, and thank you, Jane.
Jane, is there any plan for a FDL get-together at YearlyKos? Or are you considering a breakfast or anything?

I hope there is an entire DAY of fdl stuff.

Little issues like where and $ are minor technical details.

Jane?

YearlyFDL?

They’re going to vote against the supplemental?

Good! You can’t fight without money.

Bring ‘em home and we can get back to spending money on people who really need it

How about some sunshine on Lieberman’s $387,000 slush fund? Shouldn’t WaPo’s Politics & Money guy John Solomon be all over that?

egregious @ 14

Terry Olson @ 9

Good for Stoller, and thank you, Jane.
Jane, is there any plan for a FDL get-together at YearlyKos? Or are you considering a breakfast or anything?

I hope there is an entire DAY of fdl stuff.

Little issues like where and $ are minor technical details.

Jane?

Charge us $100.00. I’m in.

trifecta @ 12

I live in Heath Shuler’s district. He is getting hammered by the wingnuts for every “liberal” thing he does. The local wingnut weekly is running a front page story about how he is destroying business by his pro union vote.

That being said, I am still dissapointed in him. Part of his district is Asheville, which is very blue, but the rest is not. He is likely to get a well challenged Republican funder who will run ads against him continually next cycle about how liberal he is. The war vote should be a matter of principle though.

It’s not matter of principle for Barrow, he has NONE!

I’m tired of Lieberman. I want him out. Oh… I’ve heard all the arguments for keeping him. But I don’t give a …. Unless of course it’s a new, forthright, creative and convincing argument, which will change my mind. Change my mind. I do that every so often.

And as for Reid. Well… I might as well talk about Hillary. And I don’t want to. ;0)

btw Larry Kissell has announced he is running for Congress in NC-08. He only lost by 300 votes last time.

This is even kind of on topic, he said in surprise.

Adventures in Reading the New York Times March 13 edition

“Congress Gears Up for Debate on Getting U.S. Out of Iraq” by Robin Toner with Jeff Zeleny and Michael Luo

Speaking of apples and oranges, oh we weren’t? Well, you obviously haven’t read this article. Robin Toner appears to be comparing Senate and House actions on withdrawal from Iraq but what is totally unclear from the article is that the two bills are, in fact, unrelated. The Senate is set to debate Wednesday a resolution SJ Res 9 to begin withdrawal from Iraq within 120 days at the latest after its enactment and have all troops not engaged in training, counter-terrorism, and border security out by March 31, 2008. Its sponsor is Harry Reid and is not to be confused with the Levin, Warner, Biden, Hagel fiasco. The House meanwhile continues to work on its Iraq withdrawal language folded into the $100 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan. So while the Senate debates a vetoable bit of fluff; the House is working on a must pass piece of legislation. See the difference. I wish Robin Toner did.

As it is, Toner reports how Senate Republicans, after ducking debate on previous resolutions, are eager now to debate this one. Why? Because in a Senate with Joe Lieberman in it and Tim Johnson not yet returned to it, the Republicans have a reasonably good chance of defeating the resolution. Mitch McConnell is no doubt counting on all those Republican war skeptics to ditch their much vaunted principles for a party line vote. Up to now, he has not been disappointed.

But about their comfort level debating the supplemental appropriations bill which is where the rubber will really hit the road Toner has not one word.

Shifting back to the House, Toner says,

In the House, Republican leaders said their caucus was united in opposition to the Iraq spending bill.

Toner completely misses two key aspects of the Republican opposition.

First, the Iraq withdrawal language has a big fat escape clause in it, letting Bush keep troops in Iraq as long as he certifies that progress is being made. So you have to wonder how much of this is a ploy on their part to water down the bill’s language even further before Senate Republicans get a chance to dilute it even further. Also down the road there will likely be a conference committee. How will that affect things? Gee, I don’t know because the Toners of this world have yet to contemplate this piece of the legislative process consumed as they are by the most recent talking points.

Second, a vote against the appropriations bill is a vote against funding the troops. Why isn’t Toner examining that? Will his headline then be: Republicans vote against troops? Somehow I don’t think so even though that is exactly what they will be doing.

It never ceases to amaze me how reporters and editors at the premiere paper in the country can team up to produce such sloppy examples of journalism, and do it so often. While it gives me subject matter to write on, it truly is OK with me if the Times denies me this opportunity by engaging in critical, thoughtful writing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03…..ref=slogin

TeddySanFran @ 17

How about some sunshine on Lieberman’s $387,000 slush fund? Shouldn’t WaPo’s Politics & Money guy John Solomon be all over that?

Forgot all about that. There’s just too much!

neil @ 13

It doesn’t matter. Bush will veto any bill like this. The only hope is in the Senate, where there might be enough votes to refuse any bill without withdrawal provisions.

Standing together on principle for a change will do the dems some good – encourage some spine. Let C Augustus veto at his own peril.
He does so at the the expense of his (Frat)party.

egregious @ 14

Terry Olson @ 9

Good for Stoller, and thank you, Jane.
Jane, is there any plan for a FDL get-together at YearlyKos? Or are you considering a breakfast or anything?

I hope there is an entire DAY of fdl stuff.

Little issues like where and $ are minor technical details.

Jane?

Fuck it, maybe we should have our own convention, complete with poodles and other FireDogs?

Twisted Martini @ 25

egregious @ 14

Terry Olson @ 9

Good for Stoller, and thank you, Jane.
Jane, is there any plan for a FDL get-together at YearlyKos? Or are you considering a breakfast or anything?

I hope there is an entire DAY of fdl stuff.

Little issues like where and $ are minor technical details.

Jane?

Fuck it, maybe we should have our own convention, complete with poodles and other FireDogs?

and cockers!

I’ll bring my 2 killer Pomeranians!

i know i am risking being a thorn in the side, but these issues right at home, in our own states, are the ones that matter, too…..i wish you all could have heard the speech from the new democratic governor of ohio, ted strickland, oh my how inspiring, please find it on the web..i will quit after posted for everyone to see for 24 hours, really…ha ha..please just bear with me, was really big here……

epu’d for 24 hours====

jane;
i completely believe that things are coming back around to a new day. have felt that way since jan ‘04……

my dad is a retired corporate acct-fdr dem, even people he knows are jumping the republican ship…..and they are way invested in the bush warship…..jumping ship, one by one….

and i am being annoying to get the positive word out—–
i promise this is a one time thing, and i keep promises…..
but am reposting this for an entire day and then i will stop…and am sending funds as soon as i get my reimbursement check…paypal will be hit soon……

((((fdl))))

egregious @ 191

dmac—

Am from Ohio and am so happy to hear the new governor is great!

I heard somewhere it’s only possible to post something once a thread, re your wanting to post it over and over. Does anyone know about that, am just going on gossip here.

A toast to a true progressive governor!! Hip hip hooray!!!!

me back

yeah, i remember you commenting about your mum being here in ohio, almost commented, but didn’t…..and i was only going to post in a little bit aggravating way, once a post, for a day’s cycle, so everybody can know that it can happen, change that is……not to be annoying, but to know that the hard work of people pays off..and this was a hard fought battle for ted strickland to win in this state….that’s all….it’s going to affect a lot of people…..not from any one class, but everyone, which is what it’s about….

i’ve seen people repost things off-topic and rant here and there, mostly angry moments–well, i’m in an ecstatic moment and really need to shout from the rooftops…..and have been all day to all my friends and family!!!!!!!!

FINALLY, A GOOD THING IN OHIO!!!!!!!!!! man, oh man, did we need it.

i wish i could explain what a big deal it is—we have had a governor, bob taft, yeah, you’ve maybe heard of him……he is worse than what you heard, he has dismantled our state over 8 years, in horrific ways, with the help of a republican legislature….it has been dark here…..

BUT NOT ANYMOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRE!!!!!!!!!!!!

SO, EXCUSE MY RANT, but i really need to let people know, that yes, it can happen in your state……a good thing….can happen.

and this is only a highlight of the speech, also is freezing college tuition, and a long list of other things…..and he’s wantin’ to make it worth the republican’s ‘while’ to do it…..

here’s a letter i sent to my mom–part of which i posted earlier today—i am so excited with what’s FINALLY goin’ on in our state………wow

hi mom;
today’s subject is politics=======

did you hear the governor’s state of the state speech????????

oh mom, it was wonderful………see if you can find it on the web and listen to it……..when he was done, i was overwhelmed, really, had tears in my eyes………

i wish everyone could have heard OUR new OHIO GOVERNOR ted strickland’s state of the state speech!!!!!

every child in ohio gets health coverage up to age 21

family of 4 making 62,000 gets medicaid–that’s those at 300% of poverty level, those earning above that but with no health coverage can buy into medicaid coverage…

pregnant women at 150% get coverage

anyone age 65 and older and disabled don’t pay property taxes on first 25,000—that’s 1 in 4 people

adding to program that allows elderly to stay in their homes instead of going into nursing homes….

significantly adding to preschool programs—which were almost nonexistant thanks to taft in office…..said where you start out in life and where yuo go to school shouldn’t determine where you end up in life….. said that a few times in his speech.

ending vouchers, freezing charter and for profit charter schools….

tobacco settlement money going into schools…infrastructure and general funds== that’s 5 billion there.

almost a billion into alternative energy projects… 250 mil a year…..

break for businesses that provide training for untrained young workers..

expanding training for older workers and offering training to make it more accessible, i.e. location and time of day offered…

too many things to list…

is offering carrots to republican majority legislature to get policies changed…..

basically is already undoing what taft did…has been dismantling many many things since he took office..i know that cuz i’ve been following it, that part wasn’t in today’s speech, unless you read between the lines..

and adding on more changes for working poor…..and middle class that don’t want to say they’re poor-but they are and struggling. mostly because of health care, took care of that one listed above…

i can’t articulate what a pleasure it was to hear him coming over the airwaves, i have tears in my eyes…..really….

i knew he was for real, but was waiting to hear what his plans are..and if he really had any………boy does he, has surrounded himself with some really smart people….

please take a moment one day and listen to his speech, it was incredible.

forgot one of the best things in the speech=
people who are officially on medicaid-disabled/mentally/wheelchairs, etc., can now work without losing their medicare….this is one main reason keeping people down and limited financially, who are disabled but can work, if they work, they lose their benefits===now can work and keep coverage….

wow

now, when this stuff hits the state legislature, people are gonna need to be writing letters in support of all of these things…..many people need these programs…..so, get ready to write……..

wow, still can’t believe what i heard on the radio, live, it wasn’t taft and it wasn’t some democrat blowhard with good things to say but who doesn’t have a plan……..he’s definitely an organized, smart man……..finally………

love,
dayna

neil @ 13

It doesn’t matter. Bush will veto any bill like this. The only hope is in the Senate, where there might be enough votes to refuse any bill without withdrawal provisions.

It will be difficult for House and Senate Republicans to vote against a spending bill to fund the troops and for Bush to veto it. We need to get the message out early and often on this that if Republicans vote against the $100 billion supplemental appropriations bill they are voting against the troops.

I am trying to resist commenting on the latest Hillary-speak.

Not only did I vote for Baron Hill, I had to run through a gauntlet of Republican voter suppression to do it. As of this morning it feels like wasted effort.

Just FYI, here is the link to the Blue Dog list of members.

http://tinyurl.com/2erdam

Twisted Martini @ 27

I’ll bring my 2 killer Pomeranians!

A chihuahua and an American Eskimo here.

*xyz @
15

egregious @ 14

Terry Olson @ 9

Good for Stoller, and thank you, Jane.
Jane, is there any plan for a FDL get-together at YearlyKos? Or are you considering a breakfast or anything?

I hope there is an entire DAY of fdl stuff.

Little issues like where and $ are minor technical details.

Jane?

YearlyFDL?

Got 4 months of chemo ahead (starting tomorrow) followed by another surgery, so I don’t know how I’ll be feeling at that point. I want to get some of this under my belt before making any big decisions on that front.

In Liarman’s speech to the lobby, he thanked them twice for helping him get elected in November and called them ‘family’.

so there.

http://www.aipac.org/Publications/index_1721.asp

Best to you Jane.

{{{{{hugs}}}}}

You and Steve G are at the top of my prayer list Jane.

My thoughts and prayers are with you Jane.

Jane Hamsher @ 34

Wishing the Best for You!

The job title “Chief of Staff” may have the same historical resonance for this Bush Administration as “intern” does for BigDog.

raven @
5

Fuckin punk Barrow!

Quote the Raven, everywhere!

i’m confused.

why is voting for this bill a good thing? i don’t want bush to get the money to contine his war/occupation.

dmac-WOW!

Jane, yes. Big hugs.

Best wishes Jane!

Please, please take all the time you need to rest and recuperate surrounded by loved ones and the poodles.

“Do we look that stupid?” They think I look like a turnip, still looking for the truck I fell out of. I’ve got news for ‘them’.

and my new mantra=

only thing that could make me happier is to hear that gore has finally decided to kick some asses colored red…….and finally use that brain that he has to take no prisoners…..

Yes, I wish to add my best wishes. Good luck!

angie @ 36

Best to you Jane.

{{{{{hugs}}}}}

amen to that.

((((((((((((((((Jane))))))))))))))))

Jane, no one knows the outcome of your inner battle between fighting for your life against the evil demon (physician, heal thyself!) and fighting against the evil powers at loose in the world. But i will never stop respecting all you have accomplished in building this forum.

“Got 4 months of chemo ahead (starting tomorrow) followed by another surgery, so I don’t know how I’ll be feeling at that point. I want to get some of this under my belt before making any big decisions on that front.”

Ah geesh. Goddamnit. What’s going on here? Now I’m down. Jesus!

seriously – i’ve been calling my reps asking them NOT to vote the supplemental. i’m hoping someone can explain why the netroots is supporting this? even moveon is complaining (and they have traditionally not been very strongly against the iraq war).

dmac – Do you have a link to the whole text of that State of State?

((((((((((Jane)))))))))

Terry Olson @ 9
Good for Stoller, and thank you, Jane.
Jane, is there any plan for a FDL get-together at YearlyKos? Or are you considering a breakfast or anything?
————
egregious @ 14
I hope there is an entire DAY of fdl stuff.

Little issues like where and $ are minor technical details.

Jane?
————
*xyz @ 15
YearlyFDL?
————
Jane Hamsher @ 34
Got 4 months of chemo ahead (starting tomorrow) followed by another surgery, so I don’t know how I’ll be feeling at that point. I want to get some of this under my belt before making any big decisions on that front.

Hang tough there lady! We will be pulling for you.

xyz

gregious @ 14

Terry Olson @ 9

Good for Stoller, and thank you, Jane.
Jane, is there any plan for a FDL get-together at YearlyKos? Or are you considering a breakfast or anything?

I hope there is an entire DAY of fdl stuff.

Little issues like where and $ are minor technical details.

Jane?

xyz-YearlyFDL?

cut and paste didn’t work so well, you get my point-
i don’t travel much, but would for fdl forum……….

Dan Savage savages Mr. Lake WoeBeGone.

Totally get that yearlyFDL is a low priority and will be for 4 months. Just trying to think creatively ahead of time so others can make their summer plans.

I suggest there be an FDL meetup of some sort on Aug 2 which is the day of small seminars and such before Y2K proper.

If this works for you and Christy we can then kick around some ideas about when and how it can happen. Don’t worry about the financing it’s taken care of.

We are thinking about you and love you.

Poodle kisses and pumpkin muffins,
———————-egregious

Dear Jane,

All good wishes to you through chemo and more surgery.

The best thing I’ve read today about the supplemental appropriations bill was over at The American Prospect. Mike Tomasky has a wet blanket of reality to lay on all of us.

Thank you so much for everything you do here, & hang tough, Jane.
Can’t say thanks enough, really. This place is an oasis.

and jane, my genius uncle sonny has only a small little spot left on his liver from being eaten up in intestines, and liver cancer……only a little teeny spot left….he’s 81…..and people don’t get well from liver cancer they say……he eats right….and rests.

eat well, live foods, enxzymes, complete protein combinations….rest, water, eat well, live foods……food is fuel, keep that in mind and you will heal….every three hours you need fuel, think about what you are feeding your body to heal and you will.

Oklahoma loves JH.

Jane:
I’ve been hoping you could share the next step. I am welcoming you to the flock of survivors and joining the crowd wishing you the best results.
Karen

Oklahoma kiddo @ 62

Oklahoma loves JH.

Will Rogers is Jane’s spiritual grandfather.

After Bush announced his surge plan I emailed my rep in Congress, Melissa Bean (D-IL), and asked if she supported it or not since she was one of the last to make her position known. Here’s the email I got in response:

Thank you for contacting me about Iraq. I am honored to represent you, and I appreciate your active participation in our legislative process. Your involvement makes democracy work better by helping me more effectively represent you and Illinois’ Eighth District.

I share the concern of many Americans regarding the direction our involvement in this war is headed. I believe America went to war without a plan for securing the peace, and as a direct result, our military personnel is still combating a dangerous-and expensive-insurgency more than three and half years after the fall of Baghdad.

When I visited Iraq in 2005, I was hopeful that democratic elections would allow Iraq to become a more unified sovereign nation. Unfortunately, the situation on the ground has worsened, sectarian violence has increased, and as casualties continue to mount serious scrutiny of our strategy in Iraq is needed.

As you know, the president is currently increasing the number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq by 21,500. In January 2007, I met with top White House officials to discuss the plan. Regrettably, after learning the details of the plan I could not support the troop surge. In the past, we have tried multiple troop surges and after the most recent surge last summer conducted in Baghdad, the U.S. Military declared it a failure as insurgent attacks increased by 22 percent.

In February 2007, I registered my opposition by supporting H.Con.Res. 63-a non-binding resolution expressing disapproval for the troop surge-which passed by a margin of 246 to 182. The U.S. needs to encourage the Iraqi government to resolve the current internal strife politically. Instead of sending more troops, our military mission in Iraq must shift from attempting to secure Iraq to better equipping and training the Iraqi Security Forces so they can secure their own county.

To increase the accountability of the Iraqi Government, we must condition our continued involvement on the Iraqis achieving set benchmarks. To that end, I joined many of my colleagues in cosponsoring H.Res. 100, The Iraqi War Cost Accountability Resolution. This resolution would require increased accountability over future war spending and condition future American financial and military support upon measurable improvement in Iraqi progress towards principal responsibility for internal security.

Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. I am proud to serve Illinois’ Eighth District, and I am committed to working hard for you. Please do not hesitate to write, call, or email if I can ever help you in any way.

Sincerely,
Melissa L. Bean
Member of Congress

It’s because of things like this that most people are sick of politics. Why bother? I took the time to write her, got a response saying what a Democrat like me wants to hear, and now she’s just going to vote against any actual plan in Iraq that doesn’t give Bush what he wants. What’s the point?

So, on Waxman’s committee’s site is a response from Pat Fitzgerald. Essentially, no dice, he doesn’t think he can talk about the GJ proceedings at all.

I remember some legal eagles here saying that Waxman can make some kind of motion under the Rules of Criminal Procedure? Can we get the GJ testimony unsealed for purposes of the committee’s oversight duties?

Here’s the best quote from the Tomasky piece at TAP

I know that anti-war activists consider ending the war a preeminent moral issue. And maybe it is — they should apply all the pressure they have at their disposal. But if the Democrats want to do good things for the country and the world on a wide range of fronts — particularly, they hope, as a majority working in concert with a Democratic president come 2009 — then I say holding on to power is a moral imperative too. Cutting off war funding in an abrupt manner would clearly place more than 15 members in an extremely difficult position.

It’s a big country out there. And now, in the Iraq debate, we see a lesson of the recent election that we weren’t thinking about last November: Part of winning in red districts means that you have to represent them.

Holy smokes.

Who would have known, if only Bill Clinton had said that his interns serve at the pleasure of the president the whole Lewinsky scandal would have blown over.

-GSD

njprogressive @ 59

The best thing I’ve read today about the supplemental appropriations bill was over at The American Prospect. Mike Tomasky has a wet blanket of reality to lay on all of us.

i might be able to understand why some dems would make this calculation (vote to fund the war inorder to keep their seats), but what i can’t understand is why would WE (the netroots) support that?

PLEASE, PLEASE… can someone explain to me why we are supporting giving george bush more money for his war? please tell me i am being stupid/ignorant and walk me through it…

Thanks Jane. Very useful run-down.

Thanks especially for making this a measured plea to put pressure on the blue dogs. Much as I love the netroots, I have seen some really over-combative posts about this on “other sites.” I think the time may come when we get very, very angry at the Blue Dogs over Iraq. I don’t presume to tell everyone when we should come to that point — but I don’t think we’re there yet.

I’m contacting them to urge them to vote for the bill, politely.

selise @ 53– I think the bill needs more teeth as Mattzie and Moran suggest. Taking Iran out of the bill and giving bushco another blank check is making me crazy, too.

I’m a little confused here as well.

GSD @ 68

Holy smokes.

Who would have known, if only Bill Clinton had said that his interns serve at the pleasure of the president the whole Lewinsky scandal would have blown over.

-GSD

instead, it blew under…

Joe’s the beard. Ick. Lieberbeard.

and jane, my uncle’s doctor searched around for a cream that helped his splitting skin on his fingers from his chemo….you might want to search some out before your chemo===

he has a fine doctor, that’s another reason why he has done so well

vitamin k cream, really helped him…..his fingers were splitting from the chemo and nothing helped…..had a thing that sealed the splits, but then added the cream to help heal….i used it last year when my feet were splitting from a drug reaction, long story, just suffice it to say that the vitamin k cream worked for my uncle……and me

No, I ain’t stupid like C. Augustus ButtHead…but Reid sure is if’n he thinks so.

Jane,

Keep on keeping on.

-GSD

GSD, you funnee.

Here is Fitzgerald’s response letter.

Crazy Horse @ 64

Oklahoma kiddo @ 62

Oklahoma loves JH.

Will Rogers is Jane’s spiritual grandfather.

Nice.

The feeling here is that my fellow Oklahoman and Native American (Mr. Rogers) would absolutely adore JH.

kiddo ;0)

selise @ 53

seriously – i’ve been calling my reps asking them NOT to vote the supplemental. i’m hoping someone can explain why the netroots is supporting this? even moveon is complaining (and they have traditionally not been very strongly against the iraq war).

There’s an enormous amount of kabuki going on here. The reporting has been terrible on this. As an op-ed in the NYT today indicates,

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03…..ref=slogin

there are more options than just the purse available to the Congress. The House Democratic language leaves Bush a big out and Blue Dog Republicans Democrats are still against it. The other Republicans have a disaster they are doing everything to hold on to, that they are lying their black little hearts about, and that they will blame the Democrats for no matter what.

dmac @ 28
……….i wish you all could have heard the speech from the new democratic governor of ohio, ted strickland, oh my how inspiring, please find it on the web……..

Here is the link

Thanks for the heads up on this. It is indeed “inspiring”. There really are some good politicians besides Feingold and Boxer

Oklahoma kiddo @ 79

Crazy Horse @ 64

Oklahoma kiddo @ 62

Oklahoma loves JH.

Will Rogers is Jane’s spiritual grandfather.

Nice.

The feeling here is that my fellow Oklahoman and Native American (Mr. Rogers) would absolutely adore JH.

kiddo ;0)

He would be teaching her his rope tricks!

angie @ 71

selise @ 53– I think the bill needs more teeth as Mattzie and Moran suggest. Taking Iran out of the bill and giving bushco another blank check is making me crazy, too.

I’m a little confused here as well.

thanks for the response. here is an analysis of the current version (via matt).

i’m really hoping to hear that my thinking is all wet on this. ‘cuz i’m thinking that it would be a good thing if this bill fails.

AIPAC appear to like Dick Cheney just fine.

raven @
26

Fuck it, maybe we should have our own convention, complete with poodles and other FireDogs?

Chow/Pitt Mixes! I WUV my Bravo… and whatever type Suzanne’s dog is :)

EDIT: Totally understand timing/wellness issues. I just am tickled Suzanne put a photo of my dog up on her blog, and this was the first time I got to invoke it. HUGS and much love to Jane.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 20

I’m tired of Lieberman. I want him out. Oh… I’ve heard all the arguments for keeping him. But I don’t give a …. Unless of course it’s a new, forthright, creative and convincing argument, which will change my mind. Change my mind. I do that every so often.

And as for Reid. Well… I might as well talk about Hillary. And I don’t want to. ;0)

Leaperman

*Too bad Cheney didn’t march into the AIP*C conference to Darth Vaders Theme with his black robe billowing behind him.

*John Sununu is now dumping on Abu Gonzales…Circling the bowl like a lone kernal that Alberto is.

-GSD

Everythingseemssoneat @ 84

AIPAC appear to like Dick Cheney just fine.

If you are so inclined call your reps this week let them know what you feel about Aipac, and the disproportionate amount of influence that Israel via Aipac’s lobbying efforts has on U.S. foreign policy.

Crap and Fan = Mess

Furor Over Baptist’s Gay – Baby Article

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 14, 2007
Filed at 6:31 p.m. ET

NEW YORK (AP) — The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified.

selise @ 69

njprogressive @ 59

The best thing I’ve read today about the supplemental appropriations bill was over at The American Prospect. Mike Tomasky has a wet blanket of reality to lay on all of us.

i might be able to understand why some dems would make this calculation (vote to fund the war inorder to keep their seats), but what i can’t understand is why would WE (the netroots) support that?

PLEASE, PLEASE… can someone explain to me why we are supporting giving george bush more money for his war? please tell me i am being stupid/ignorant and walk me through it…

You are not “being stupid/ignorant”. However, due to your compulsion to insist on logic and reason makes it impossible to walk you through it.

Schumer has questions… (at TPM Muckraker)

3. Who at the Department of Justice was responsible for inserting a line into the USA PATRIOT Act in March 2006 that allows the appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval? Did the President know of or approve this effort?

BusChen has answers…

Jane, I love you for your visionary spirit and your wicked writing. You are in my thoughts. xxoo VG

Hugh @ 80

There’s an enormous amount of kabuki going on here.

ok, then we can kabuki too. pretend to support this bill (but really don’t)… and then when it fails, be glad while blaming the republicans (of both parties *g*).

?

nah, that’s too complicated.

there are more options than just the purse available to the Congress.

even if that’s so, i don’t see the other options being used.

hugh, thanks for trying to help me understand… but, i still just don’t get it. sigh.

Hah!

The Pentagon Strikes Back.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed has confessed to everything including 9/11!

Yep. A big fat terror related story to bump the Alberto Gonzales/Karl Rove story off the front page.

Now we’ll be treated to a drip, drip, drip of juicy details.

-GSD

Mutant Poodle @
4

I wish the DC Dems would tell Holy Joe to take a hike, but given that they won’t, I have to hope that come January 1, 2009, Mr. Lieberman will be totally neutered and just counting the days until his retirement in (ugh) 2012.

Has anyone thought about the possible repercussions of a nomination of Joe Lieberman for the post of AG, should it become available? Seems to me it has the possibility of solving a few of Georgie’s problems with one stroke.

I was thinking the other day that G W would almost have to nominate a democrat in order to get Senate confirmation for a new AG. Then it hit me that if he nominates Lieberman, there is a possibility of his confirmation, with the added advantage of taking away Democratic majority in the Senate. Even counting Senator Tim Johnson, who is still hospitalized, Dems would still have only 50-50 split, with the VP breaking any ties.

I know Jane thinks Joe isn’t going anywhere, but as I pointed out before, that’s what the Repugs thought when they tried to punish Jim Jeffords for not walking the company line. Then Jim went Independent and caucused with Dems when they offered him a committee chairmanship. Somebody please prove to me I’m wrong! Please!

Update: Senator Sununu has become the first Repug to call for Gonzo’s resignation.

GSD @ 94

Hah!

The Pentagon Strikes Back.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed has confessed to everything including 9/11!

Yep. A big fat terror related story to bump the Alberto Gonzales/Karl Rove story off the front page.

Now we’ll be treated to a drip, drip, drip of juicy details.

-GSD

Roves porcine behind in a tub of gravy, simmer till done.

THIS VIDEO AT RAW STORY IS REALLY WORTH WATCHING

Video: Special report on Iraq’s growing refugee crisis
David Edwards Tuesday March 13, 2007

In a Channel 4 News special, Jonathan Miller reports on the millions of Iraqi refugees fleeing their homeland in the wake of an ongoing war.

“They’ve escaped from hell in Iraq, but now they’re stuck here in limbo,” reports Miller on the roughly one million Iraqi refugees who have fled to Syria. “Many are destitute, most are illegal. They can’t get health care, there’s no schooling, and no jobs. And there’s always that looming threat of summary deportation.”

In Jordan, as in Syria, Iraqis who flee the war are not officially recognized as political refugees, but instead are considered temporary visitors, thus denying them any permanent residence or work permits. Jordan has currently stopped accepting refugees.

Resentment toward the United States and Britain for not taking in refugees is expressed by many. “The Brits and Americans brought this disaster on us, they’re the occupiers, the solution is also in their hands. They brought their armies across the continents, so surely they can solve this,” said an unidentified refugee interviewed by Miller. “Let them get us out of this mess.”

An accompanying article for the video below is available at Channel 4 News.

“Do we look that stupid?”

Evidently we do look that stupid to the Blue Dogs, and maybe even to some Ordinary Donkeys. Those of us who are not their constituents must nevertheless remind such curs that they are no longer slinking through the shadows. Many, many dog catchers are watching them now, oh so very closely. All is light.

Please keep listing their little names.

viget @ 66

So, on Waxman’s committee’s site is a response from Pat Fitzgerald. Essentially, no dice, he doesn’t think he can talk about the GJ proceedings at all.

I remember some legal eagles here saying that Waxman can make some kind of motion under the Rules of Criminal Procedure? Can we get the GJ testimony unsealed for purposes of the committee’s oversight duties?

I just read the letter and it is absolutley correct. Fitzgerald cannot on his own go reveal GJ info. It has to be unsealed by a court.

Waxman cannot get a shortcut to instant gratification. “Scrupulous” adhearance to Rule 6(e) requires jumping through ALL the hoops.

An interesting fillip is the line about

Based on consultation with the Department of Justice,I have been advised of its longstanding policy of declining to provide non-public information about pending law enforcement matters, including briefings

Does that sound to you like somebody from DOJ called up and said, “heard your little crack at the press conference about providing information if requested, and we don’t think we are going to let you do that”

Remember, Fitz had to establish that he was an inferior officer and subject to removal and tkaing orders from DOJ in order to escape the attempt to have his appointment declared unconstitutional.

QUote from the US Attorney’s Manual showing that all requests such as Waxman’s must be approved by the Counsel to the Executive Director for US Attorney’s (CTD)

1-8.030 Reference of Other Requests to CTD

All other Congressional requests for information or assistance should be immediately referred to CTD either by contacting CTD or politely informing the requestor that you are required to refer all such inquiries to CTD and providing them with information on how to contact CTD by phone, mail or fax.

Examples of requests that should be referred to CTD include but are not limited to requests for non-public documents or information, discussion of or briefings on case status (other than as set out in 1-8.020), attendance at settlement conferences, specific suggestions on case disposition or other treatment, discussion of or requests for information on problems under existing law or suggestions for changes in existing law, requests for interviews, statements or appearances to or before Congressional, members, staff and committees. Follow this standard in both open and closed cases and never provide information on pending investigations, closed investigations that did not become public, that involves Grand Jury, tax or other restricted information, that would reveal the identity of confidential informants, sensitive investigative techniques, deliberative process or the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, or the identity of individuals who may have been investigated but not indicted, without consulting CTD and obtaining authorization from the proper Department authorities. Any Congressional request that involves Privacy Act considerations should also be referred to CTD as special rules apply to Congress in this area.

Obviously CTD is not giving approval.

eureka springs @ 54 dmac – Do you have a link to the whole text of that State of State?

((((((((((Jane)))))))))

sorry took so long, am on dial up…….but what is missing in the text is his inflection….strong, no bullshit, honest, firm…the text is wonderful, but his tone was predatory……it’s gonna happen…

wow, i am a fan of oratory…..a cspan junkie from its inception, not many can claim that, i really was a cspan junkie, even the boring parts, i can say that even though i only get pbs now…..he was incredible….please seek out his oration in audio when it is available, makes me think strickland in 2012 for president, really….and i’m not easily led

This is discouraging:

House Democratic leaders will not whip the Iraq supplemental spending bill, on grounds they don’t want to apply political pressure on a matter of war and peace.

“It’s a conscience vote,” House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said after yesterday’s Democratic Caucus meeting. But he added his office had begun to “survey” members now that more are looking at the 170-page bill.
“Have we got the 218 votes to pass it? I don’t know,” Clyburn said.

Jeez louise, if our leaders won’t whip the vote, the BlueDogs will go their own way!

Thanks Hugh and selise — I remain confused by the kabuki and am still against the funding.

kathleen– thanks for that article.

Resentment toward the United States and Britain for not taking in refugees is expressed by many. “The Brits and Americans brought this disaster on us, they’re the occupiers, the solution is also in their hands. They brought their armies across the continents, so surely they can solve this,” said an unidentified refugee interviewed by Miller. “Let them get us out of this mess.”

I agree with this refugee. I do believe the Geneva Conventions require the invader/occupier to take care of these folks.

But then again, bushco has thumbed their noses at all things Geneva.

Terry Olson @
9

Good for Stoller, and thank you, Jane.
Jane, is there any plan for a FDL get-together at YearlyKos? Or are you considering a breakfast or anything?

Terry, two things:

1.) Second the thank you, hearing these words from Jane is greatly sane-making.

2.) Please be kind! Breakfast? Like, in the morning?

TeddySanFran @
17

How about some sunshine on Lieberman’s $387,000 slush fund?

Gee, you’d think that a Rove-approved politically appointed USA would be all happy and eager to investigate an Independent Democrat on campaign donation irregularities…

Oh, wait…

The last nugget of Fitzgerald’s letter to Waxman:

“You may wish to review the substantial information gathered during our investigation, (especially as it concerned Mr. Libby in particular), which has become a matter of public record as a result of court proceedings and the trial. Many of the court filings are publicly docketed and, of course, the trial testimony and all trial exhibits are matters of public record.”

shorter Fitz; “look here, I laid it all out for you, everything you need.”

You’ve got my well wishes, Jane.
Your strength is inspiring.

Gotta say something about this “serves at the pleasure of the president” BS. This is all one congressperson needs to say:

“I serve at the pleasure of the president”

Do you know what that means? It means that if you are not serving all the American people impartially, he can fire you. But you and the president have turned that concept on its head. You both take it to mean that if you are not sufficently loyal to the president, he will fire you. That is the opposite of what it is founded on. If you aren’t loyal to the country, not the Republican National Committee, you aren’t serving at his pleasure. Again, loyalty trumps competence. I’m sorry, no matter what you wish were true, America does not have a king.

I have to wonder sometimes if the will is really there to do the right thing and end the war. If someone is afraid to step up and do the right thing, which is to end the war, because they are worried about being getting elected again, then they are a A#1 Joe Liberman Ass Wipe.

Jane Hamsher @ 34

Got 4 months of chemo ahead (starting tomorrow) followed by another surgery, so I don’t know how I’ll be feeling at that point. I want to get some of this under my belt before making any big decisions on that front.

Oh sweetie, if I could take that from you I would. And I’m not the only one. Ask anything. Meanwhile, I’ll go hit PayPal.

selise and angie, 60 minutes also covered this last Sunday. General Eton was fantastic in his closing remarks, imo.

Most Americans don’t know we have the highest population of Iranians in the world outside of Iran. Most in CA now, iirc.

I am sure much of the reason we don’t bring many Iraqis here is because of the “not in my back yard response.” Remember when Bill Clintons only loss was his Governors seat when he brought Vietnamese refugees to AR. I am sure many a politicians are aware of that.

Dan Boren,
Bud Cramer,
Lincoln Davis,
Bob Etheridge, and
Mike McIntyre

are also on my list of Dems who voted

o For the Military Commissions Act

o For the Bankruptcy bill (technically known as “Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act”)

o Against Net Neutrality (technically the “Markey of Massachusetts Amendment” to the “Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006″)

With friends like these…

OK, my stomach hurts now. The letter from Fitz to Waxman is “cc’d” to Richard Hertling, now at DOJ. Guess what Richard Hertling was before that. Read the WHOLE article and then google him up yourselves, you’ll have a party.

article about Hertling role in creating Dept of Homeland Security and emxempting it from FOIA

Please note the refence to concerns by others about turning the Government into “big brother”

Then check out this little snippet snippet

Richard Hertling, the minority staff director for Governmental Affairs, addressed privacy concerns by stressing the importance the bill places on encouraging businesses to share information with the new department. He said a controversial Freedom of Information Act provision is “not quite an exemption but an exclusion” from FOIA for businesses that share information with the government that is considered important to homeland security.

Can anyone here say Mega Hack? I am genuinely queasy. They are doing it again!!!!

Peterr is Pacing upstairs

For those who weren’t in LasVegas last year:

We had two opportunities to get together with FDL folk: a “caucus” the afternoon before the big event began and a breakfast Pach organized for us high atop the Riviera tower. Both were terrific; Christy ran a swell icebreaker that let us find out all about one another at the first, and we all milled about high in the sky the next morning.

Rest assured we’ll have a chance to have a “caucus” event on the YK schedule in August; I’m sure we’ll get something else organized for all of us to hang out together. Plus, there’s always lots of times to meet up with ‘pups lying around in the hallway charging their laptops.

See you there!

{{{{{ Jane! }}}}

Oh wonderful. They can’t raise the Terror Alert anymore to distract us.

So now the al Qaeda dude Khaleid Muhammed (sp?) says TODAY that he’s the mastermind of 9/11, from A to Z.

How conveeeeenient.

“Based on consultation with the Department of Justice,I have been advised of its longstanding policy of declining to provide non-public information about pending law enforcement matters, including briefings”

This sounds to me like he’s saying he has information, which is not public, about pending law enforcement matters.

Then he goes on to say, but you can review all of the information that was made public in the Libby trial.

Sounds to me like the game is still on regarding the larger investigation..but what do I know.

ESAR– thanks for that information.

And then there are the Afghan refugees and the Palestinian refugees and the Lebanese refugees.

Nothing shames these folks.

I am going to repost this diary ONE MORE FRIGGIN’ TIME (under “Joe has no power over the Senate”). Let’s see – I posted it on Kos, were it dropped like a rock, and at Myleftnutmeg, where they were smart enought to know that even if those in power knew the legalities, they really don’t care, I posted it in the Guardian – what more can the Secretary for Connecticut for Lieberman do?

To wit -
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/sh…..aryId=5974

From Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings – Here’s a longer history, containing an account of the 83rd Congress, which must hold the all time record for shifting majorities:
“The Republicans had a Senate plurality from January to July 1953. Then the Democrats had a plurality until June 1954; the Republicans again until December 1954; and finally the Democrats again until the 83d Congress ended in January 1955. These periods were occasionally interrupted by a week or two, and in one case a month, when the parties were tied.

For nearly half of the 83d Congress, the Democrats had more Senate seats than the Republicans. But for the entire two years, Republicans chaired the committees and ran the Senate. Republican Senator William Knowland frequently referred to himself as a majority leader without a majority, and his Democratic counterpart, Lyndon Johnson, said, “If anyone has more problems than a majority leader with a minority, it is a minority leader with a majority.”"

It also contains an account of Sen. Wayne Morse’s difficulties finding a stable party identity after he left the Republicans:

“When the Senate met at the start of the 83d Congress, Morse refused to sit with either party in the Senate chamber and instead sat on a folding chair in the aisle between the Republican side and the Democratic side. When he realized this made him look silly, he resumed his seat on the Republican side even though he was no longer a Republican. Then he wanted to sit among the Democrats because, he said, two Republican senators kept whispering insults at him.”

I went and checked the Senate’s Organizing Resolutions, and it’s true: whereas the 107th Congress’s resolution (S. Res. 8) does provide for a shift in control of the Senate if the majority shifts, there is no such language in the organizing resolutions for the present Congress (S. Res. 27 and 28.)

S. Res. 27

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…..0:S.RES.27

S. Res. 28
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…..ES.28.ATS:

Maybe, just maybe someone in the Senate will read these resolutions. I give up.

GSD @ 68

Holy smokes.

Who would have known, if only Bill Clinton had said that his interns serve at the pleasure of the president the whole Lewinsky scandal would have blown over.

-GSD

Ding!

angie @ 116

ESAR– thanks for that information.

And then there are the Afghan refugees and the Palestinian refugees and the Lebanese refugees.

Nothing shames these folks.

since ww2 references seem to be all the rage… we weren’t very open to european jews even when we knew of the holocaust. it should shame all of us… we can’t change the past, but we could learn from it. sigh.

Thank you, Sue — I refresh everyone’s memory about the Organizing Resolutions every chance I get as well. As does digby.

looseheadprop @ 111

…I am genuinely queasy. They are doing it again!!!!

Easy, take deep breaths and a sip of cool water.

He left us a breadcrumb.

Can you think of any good reason why Hertling should be copied on this? Why the Deputy? I can’t think of a good reason…unless…

Anyhow, I would have taken this as a sign to watch our backs.

angie @ 116

ESAR– thanks for that information.

And then there are the Afghan refugees and the Palestinian refugees and the Lebanese refugees.

Nothing shames these folks.

Quite welcome and I intended to thank you for the Geneva info, I didn’t know.

I think that little tid bit of Clinton info is often lost and it’s one of his greatest leadership moments…)

AZ Matt @
78

Here is Fitzgerald’s response letter.

I read that as, “Henry, see Marcy. Sic’em.”

Good luck to you on your treatments! I just know its going to work out ok. Try not to push yourself til youre ready. Best wishes!

Sue @ 117

Veto.

Proof.

Those two words are the wall that Dems can’t break through without the f*cking Blue Dogs and some Repugs.

In the Senate, it would take all the Independents of every stripe and more Repugs.

And as long as we are struggling with that headcount, even that gork Lieberman has weak leverage.

I believe that we cannot pressure the Blue Dogs alone. I believe that to get the numbers, we are going to need to pressure Republicans as well, particularly moderates and those who are in the most contested districts. We need to make it hurt to stay on the wrong side of veto proof.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Jane}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

…firepups’ hugs lean left…….

Oh and Hertling may have his own probelms

The findings by Inspector General Glenn Fine were so at odds with previous claims by the Bush administration that Capitol Hill was peppered yesterday with retraction letters from the Justice Department attempting to correct statements from earlier testimony and briefings. Gonzales and other officials had repeatedly portrayed national security letters as a well-regulated tool necessary for the prevention of terrorist attacks.

One such letter, sent to Specter by Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling, sought to correct a 2005 letter that attacked a Washington Post story about national security letters. “We have determined that certain statements in our November 23 letter need clarification,” Hertling wrote

Hertling used to work for Senator Specter.

Sickening, just sickening.

Rayne – Did you catch this link to an interesting TPM post above?

Shumer has questions?
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002759.php

I posted some collective answers from here on question 3.

Following is from http://www.waynemadsenreport.com.

Comments on whether Shrub has really fallen off the wagon? If he has, and since he has his finger on the “Button”, is this not a national security issue of importance? Has the MSM ignored this? Or is the report a parody?

“March 13, 2007 –Our White House Press Corps sources report further disturbing news about President George W. Bush. Our sources have witnessed a clearly inebriated Bush approaching members of the press corps and making rude comments, including one particularly crude remark about First Lady Laura Bush. In that case, Bush, nodding toward Laura, called her a “c**t.” While Bush’s drinking is no secret to the White House press contingent, that particular comment was reportedly the worst they have heard uttered by Bush. Our sources also report that Laura Bush’s stays at the White House are less frequent and that her overnight trips to the Mayflower Hotel often coincide with the president’s drunken binges.

“Note: Some of our female readers were shocked to see the “C” word in the above news item. This editor wants to make it clear that word was used by George W. Bush to denigrate his wife. It was his word, not mine. It is important that the public knows what kind of person Mr. Bush is by the offensive words he uses. The editor also wants to make clear that the President chose a public press gaggle to use this word — that is not a private moment between him and his wife. If Mrs. Bush feels her privacy has been violated, she must understand that it is her responsibility to herself, her children, and the nation to end this abusive relationship by legally separating from the President and becoming a role model for other women around the country and the world who find themselves locked into similar abusive marriages.

“Nevertheless, we have “asterisked” the word in question. However, Mr. Bush cannot asterisk his own vile words.”

GSD @ 87

*Too bad Cheney didn’t march into the AIP*C conference to Darth Vaders Theme with his black robe billowing behind him.

*John Sununu is now dumping on Abu Gonzales…Circling the bowl like a lone kernal that Alberto is.

-GSD

eww!

laughs again!

eww!

Abu’s face – and glasses – on a kernel in the vortex…..

what an image…his floating pudgy visage

this calls for -

a graphic artiste!

There’s lots in the Geneva Conventions/IHL/ and the UNHCR wrt refugees– we caused the war and occupation and it just stands to reason that we are responsible for the huddled masses, too.

Remember how the admin crowed about their wunnerful preparations for civilians fleeing shock and awe and the fight to come?

Nothing since then.

Nothing.

It’s all fallen to Iraq’s neighbors.

TeddySanFran @
40

The job title “Chief of Staff” may have the same historical resonance for this Bush Administration as “intern” does for BigDog.

Ding!

;~)

lhp,
if you’re still here, your links aren’t working. might be bcause of two http?

looseheadprop @
99

Obviously CTD is not giving approval.

So…what’s our next step? Remain on course with 6(e)? Our fellow FDL peep Elliott already pulled Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211 (1979) for me to look at, not certain since IANAL but I think that serves as an example, along with United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418 (1983), In re Grand Jury Proceeding GJ-76-4 & GJ-75-3, 800 F.2d 1239 (4th Cir. 1986), and Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. 3 (missing part of that citation, I think).

??

“Conveniently, Reid and Co. can bang all the anti-war gongs they want to and never have to worry about coming through on anything because Joe is there to save their bacon, keep all that defense contractor money flowing and (let’s not forget) keep AIPAC smiling.”

That’s a whole series of claims which may sound like reality to you, but which are ENTIRELY UNSUBSTANTIATED.

• What is the evidence that Lieberman is ’saving their bacon’?

• What is the evidence that ‘all that defense contractor money’ is driving policy?

• What is the evidence that AIPAC is driving this policy?

You apparently don’t know that the Senate is BARELY in our control. You also apparently don’t know that Bushco has committed a long string of major federal crimes, and the judicial system has done nothing about it, while the vote-fraud has prevented the use of the legislature to stop the fraud, rape, and treason going on.

You just like throwing tomatoes. Actual political facts don’t have to enter in.

Sue wrote “I am going to repost this diary ONE MORE FRIGGIN’ TIME (under “Joe has no power over the Senate”).”

I was educated on this issue by someone, maybe you, so thanks. It further weakens Jane’s idea that Joe is some sort of excuse-maker for Maj. Leader Reid. He is not. He, however, does have considerable seniority in the Senate, and while LBJ changed the seniority system to a significant degree, it still exists, and in a very narrowly controlled Senate, it is questionable how much variation from seniority is possible.

The AIPAC claim is one I find risible. IF AIPAC supports Bushco in Iraq, they are fools. Bushco has done more to damage Israel’s national security than thousands of Al Qaeda could ever do (without a nuclear weapon). Bushco handed out sufficient high-explosives to keep Israel aflame for a thousand years. Etc.

The rightwing Israelis are racists; AIPAC is undobutedly racist. So it’s quite possible they support Bushco because Bushco has killed a million Arabs. But if so, such is the stupidity of racism that it blocks observation of the crimes against Israel that Bushco has committed. When I mention the 380 metric tons of high-explosives gone missing from Al-Qaqaa, it generally quiets even the hardened Zionist racists.

looseheadprop @ 127

Oh and Hertling may have his own probelms

The findings by Inspector General Glenn Fine were so at odds with previous claims by the Bush administration that Capitol Hill was peppered yesterday with retraction letters from the Justice Department attempting to correct statements from earlier testimony and briefings. Gonzales and other officials had repeatedly portrayed national security letters as a well-regulated tool necessary for the prevention of terrorist attacks.

One such letter, sent to Specter by Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling, sought to correct a 2005 letter that attacked a Washington Post story about national security letters. “We have determined that certain statements in our November 23 letter need clarification,” Hertling wrote

Hertling used to work for Senator Specter.

Sickening, just sickening.

Senator Arlen “Let Me Make Your Purge Possible, Mr. Bush” Specter? The guy who snuck the provision into the Patriot Act revision that allowed the AG to hire and fire US Attorneys without weighing in with the Senate?

Hmmmmm.

Eureka Springs, AR @ 128

Yup, saw them, but I don’t think they are as specific and un-weasel-able as I would like.

Bet you LHP could come up with much, MUCH better questions. ;-)

moi @
133

lhp,
if you’re still here, your links aren’t working. might be bcause of two http?

Yes, you are correct. Just fixed it.

*xyz @
2

OT – Look what Hillary is up to (from Kos)

http://kos.dailykos.com/

Hillary on homosexuality.

I also asked her about the comments by General Peter Pace that homosexulity is “immoral.” Clinton has opposed the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, so I asked her if that law — signed by her husband in 1993 — was a mistake, and if homosexuality is “immoral.”

“General Pace has clarified his remarks, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is not working,” she said. “We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women who want to serve their country who are bringing skills into the armed services that we desparately need, like translation skills. And one can argue whether it was a good idea when it was first implemented, but we know have evidence as to the fact that we are in a time of war — when we really need as many people as we can to recruit and retain in an all-volunteer army — we are turning people away or discharging them not because of what they’ve done but because of who they are.”

But is it immoral?

“Well I’m going to leave that to others to conclude,” she said. “I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can.”

She can tell those gays and lesbians she knows and is proud of that she is too afraid to say, unambiguously, that she agrees with 80-year-old Republican Senator John Warner that no, they are not “immoral”.

I am not exactly a fan of Mrs. Bill Clinton but what is wrong with her response about immorality?

If she thinks homosexuality is sinful, is that not her privilege?

If she wishes then to harm gays or deny them benefits that other Americans receive, that would be very different. IMO “don’t ask, don’t tell” is an atrocity.

Why must we question personal beliefs?

And no I don’t think homosexuality is immoral but that is my privilege to exercise my constitutional right to believe as I wish.

Best, Terry

ABC News’ Jake Tapper (formerly of Salon.com) was razzing the Democrats for pushing a bill everyone knows will get shot down (and would get vetoed even if it made it to Bush’s desk).

Tapper totally ignored the whole point of GETTING PEOPLE ON RECORD. It’s what the Republicans fear more than anything. Too bad the Blue Dogs don’t get that.

Rayne @ 125

Sue @ 117

Veto.

Proof.

Those two words are the wall that Dems can’t break through without the f*cking Blue Dogs and some Repugs.

In the Senate, it would take all the Independents of every stripe and more Repugs.

And as long as we are struggling with that headcount, even that gork Lieberman has weak leverage.

I believe that we cannot pressure the Blue Dogs alone. I believe that to get the numbers, we are going to need to pressure Republicans as well, particularly moderates and those who are in the most contested districts. We need to make it hurt to stay on the wrong side of veto proof.

Rayne, yeah but…

1.) Why is no one asking about HoJo’s 387k ‘walking around money’? The reason given for not pushing the FEC on that back when was that if HoJo were dumped Gov Jody Rell (R) would appoint and presumably an R. So, that no longer impedes. FEC don’t need no stinkin’ majority.

2.) Why are the Dems in both houses not screaming to the rooftops, whether or no they have a veto-proof majority? If the R’s are going to do what they’re going to do anyway, why aren’t the Dems doing a bit of screaming just for us voters? It appears that the voters favor out of Iraq, for instance, and there are always elections coming up.

BTW, nice work with the USA stuff. YOu are a terrier. Or maybe a tiger!

Jane Hamsher @ 34

YearlyFDL?

Got 4 months of chemo ahead (starting tomorrow) followed by another surgery, so I don’t know how I’ll be feeling at that point. I want to get some of this under my belt before making any big decisions on that front.

May this time fly by in a snap and may you as comfortable as possible, bringing you back to full health.

I got here too late and I really wanted to ask downstairs

isn’t the president claiming he might invoke executive priveledge to prevent rove from testifying?

My blue dog representative is Mike Arcuri. He had no need to be one IMO. He replaced a maverick Republican, who was appreciated for being a maverick.

Netroots supported Arcuri but not that much.

Stoller is getting served what he ordered – and now doesn’t like the taste. Can’t say as I blame him for that but has he taken any responsibility for foisting blue dogs on the Democrats?

Best, Terry

HotFlash @ 103

Terry Olson @
9

Good for Stoller, and thank you, Jane.
Jane, is there any plan for a FDL get-together at YearlyKos? Or are you considering a breakfast or anything?

Terry, two things:

1.) Second the thank you, hearing these words from Jane is greatly sane-making.

2.) Please be kind! Breakfast? Like, in the morning?

HA! I was just thinking our heros may have plans for all of the evenings already!

Keith Oberman is smoking hot – just asked outloud:

Is President Bush really expected to dump the guy who got him off of (uhhh…pause) jury duty?

LOL!

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beacon…..902460.htm

eureka here’s the link to ted strickland’s speech, and i’ve spent and hour, literally, through something wrong in the tubes to provide it………oh my…….don’t know what’s wrong, but it’s definitely a problem for dial up users………..wish you could hear the speech in audio…………

Can you think of any good reason why Hertling should be copied on this?

BC he is the acting Assistant AG for legislative affairs. DOJ/Congressional interaction falls roughly under that umbrella.

BTW – whenever I mention this:

Remember, Fitz had to establish that he was an inferior officer and subject to removal and tkaing orders from DOJ in order to escape the attempt to have his appointment declared unconstitutional.

lhp @ 99, I seem to generate troll suspicions, but it doesn’t hurt to recognize what is, is.

It was also a very short period of time after that judicial determination that Rove got his get out of Court letter.

Very soon after the court held that the Dep AG could revoke authorizations delegated to Fitzgerald any time, at will.

fwiw

terry hallinan @ 138

*xyz @
2

OT – Look what Hillary is up to (from Kos)

http://kos.dailykos.com/

Hillary on homosexuality.

I also asked her about the comments by General Peter Pace that homosexulity is “immoral.” Clinton has opposed the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, so I asked her if that law — signed by her husband in 1993 — was a mistake, and if homosexuality is “immoral.”

“General Pace has clarified his remarks, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is not working,” she said. “We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women who want to serve their country who are bringing skills into the armed services that we desparately need, like translation skills. And one can argue whether it was a good idea when it was first implemented, but we know have evidence as to the fact that we are in a time of war — when we really need as many people as we can to recruit and retain in an all-volunteer army — we are turning people away or discharging them not because of what they’ve done but because of who they are.”

But is it immoral?

“Well I’m going to leave that to others to conclude,” she said. “I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can.”

She can tell those gays and lesbians she knows and is proud of that she is too afraid to say, unambiguously, that she agrees with 80-year-old Republican Senator John Warner that no, they are not “immoral”.

I am not exactly a fan of Mrs. Bill Clinton but what is wrong with her response about immorality?

If she thinks homosexuality is sinful, is that not her privilege?

If she wishes then to harm gays or deny them benefits that other Americans receive, that would be very different. IMO “don’t ask, don’t tell” is an atrocity.

Why must we question personal beliefs?

And no I don’t think homosexuality is immoral but that is my privilege to exercise my constitutional right to believe as I wish.

Best, Terry

This comment makes me wonder how often you actually read firedoglake.

Power – how it used, misused, and abused – is a central topic at the Lake.

Where have you been during Rethuglican rule?

Away from our computer screens, people’s prejudices and values (aka “personal beliefs”) really do affect their exercise of power – and hence their political decisions.

The day they file for office or announce the exploratory committee, the candidates’ personal beliefs are very much my business, and that of all other voters.

As is the welfare of the LGBT/queer patients I serve.

So if Hill can’t reject the premise that homosexuality is sinful, that’s her political problem.

And I look forward to the opportunity to help make it so.

I look forward to making any candidates’ prejudices regarding biology (gender orientation, gender, ethnicity, disability, age, etc) grounds for political destruction.

And I look forward to Hill’s triangulation on acceptance of LGBT/queer people (hey – guess what – passing on “sinful” is not acceptance! who knew?)…

I look forward to Hill’s latest calulating “values” remark further destroying her fundraising from Hollywood/entertainment sources.

Those who haven’t already calculated that Geffen’s star ascends, while Hill’s fades.

In other words, any deep pocketed “industry” donor who’s been out of contact the last two months.

Both of them.

Bye’ Hill – by your prejudice, we shall remember you.

Of course, your and your hubbies “end of welfare as we know it” already wrote off the poor (who, due to our national history of racism, are disproportionatly people of color).

Hill, you’ve already triangulated the urban and rural poor right over the side of your DLC campaign – and your all-consuming ambition.

Hill, of course you’ll make gays walk the plank.

You’re looking for your “Sister Souljah” moment -

with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

Wishing you the earliest possible consummation, Hill.

Your compulsive triangulation must be so isolating….

a whole flock of other women stuck in bad habits will help you feel less alone.

{{{{{{{Jane}}}}}}}

Best wishes

mbbsdphil @ 129

Following is from http://www.waynemadsenreport.com.

Comments on whether Shrub has really fallen off the wagon? If he has, and since he has his finger on the “Button”, is this not a national security issue of importance? Has the MSM ignored this? Or is the report a parody?

Madsen is an ex Marine officer, according to the German review of his book. Wrote editorial for Salt Lake Tribune, amongst other things…
so the background does not seem to indicate parody. However, hard to believe.

kirk murphy @ 149

Away from our computer screens, people’s prejudices and values (aka “personal beliefs”) really do affect their exercise of power – and hence their political decisions.

The day they file for office or announce the exploratory committee, the candidates’ personal beliefs are very much my business, and that of all other voters.

So then can I assume you will vote against anyone claiming to belong to most any organized religion for their – umm – prejudices?

If I voted only for those who held the same faith – or more precisely lack of faith – that I do, who pray tell would I be able to vote for?

Best, Terry

Jane…too late but wanted to send you my best healing thoughts and wishes. I look forward to meeting you at YK.

HotFlash @
141

1.) Why is no one asking about HoJo’s 387k ‘walking around money’?

I answered this one earlier today in a different thread. Do you think that a U.S. Attorney hand-picked by Rove might be sitting on this, rather like the U.S. Attorney did on the phone jamming case in NH? Where’d the money come from, anyhow…Republicans? (I already checked the last minute donations – there’s definitely a strong Republican trend in donations.)

2.) Why are the Dems in both houses not screaming to the rooftops, whether or no they have a veto-proof majority?

I think that’s something they don’t want to trumpet because it gives the Repugs something to crow about. It also puts Repugs who might be on the bubble in a position where they have to stand firm on party line. The real problem right now is the Repugs, need to persuade them to cross over; the Dems in office have their hands full, really need us to give them air cover. If we made it absolutely untenable for our Repug reps to remain on the wrong side of the issue — actually protested outside their offices, wrote LTE’s about their leadership failures, campaigned hard against the ones running for office in a contested district, the Dems could pull it off. We getting closer.

And thanks re: USA’s…but I’m just a Metal Rat, in Asian astrological terms. Hardly a tiger.

Mary4 @
148

BC he is the acting Assistant AG for legislative affairs. DOJ/Congressional interaction falls roughly under that umbrella.

Butt covering. Nice work, Fitz. Hertling can’t claim that he didn’t know, wasn’t told. And we get reminded upfront what we’re dealing with, that we have to be able to confront this character.

Works for me. Forewarned is forearmed.

Thanks, M4. BTW – your comments about authority and Humphrey’s made it to a few offices. If they hammer away at this angle, they push it all the way to the top. No wonder he said he was unhappy…

Are you obtuse, or merely feigning it?

Your comment inaccurately conflates religious beliefs and faiths with candidates’ individual personal expressions of their personal values.

All the elections I’ve voted in have individual candidates, not religions, for each office.

To restate what I’ve stated above, the individual candidates’ values affect their exercise of power.

Nothing I stated suggested that selection of candidates based on their values equates with rejecting all candidates with religious beliefs.

However, that bizzare assumption is the premise for your comment.

Your comment fits so nicely into the Reichwing’s tired lie that liberals/progressives reject religion that I am left wondering if the creation of that false impression was the point of your comment.

If so, it failed.

On the other hand, if your comment merely reflects poor reasoning and logical skills, my sympathies to your cerebral cortex.

Those neurons seem to be having a rough day – hope tommorrow is better for them.

terry hallinan @
152

kirk murphy @ 149

Away from our computer screens, people’s prejudices and values (aka “personal beliefs”) really do affect their exercise of power – and hence their political decisions.

The day they file for office or announce the exploratory committee, the candidates’ personal beliefs are very much my business, and that of all other voters.

So then can I assume you will vote against anyone claiming to belong to most any organized religion for their – umm – prejudices?

If I voted only for those who held the same faith – or more precisely lack of faith – that I do, who pray tell would I be able to vote for?

Best, Terry

Rayne @ 155

Mary4 @
148

BC he is the acting Assistant AG for legislative affairs. DOJ/Congressional interaction falls roughly under that umbrella.

Butt covering. Nice work, Fitz. Hertling can’t claim that he didn’t know, wasn’t told. And we get reminded upfront what we’re dealing with, that we have to be able to confront this character.

Works for me. Forewarned is forearmed.

Thanks, M4. BTW – your comments about authority and Humphrey’s made it to a few offices. If they hammer away at this angle, they push it all the way to the top. No wonder he said he was unhappy…

According to the US Attorney’s manual Fitz needed prior DOJ approval to give Waxman what he was asking for. Clearly, Hertling said “no approval”

Admittedly Waxman’s letter was not surgically drawn to get at the stuf PAt should have been permitted to talk about. Having said that, DOJ could have authorized Fitz to talk about some things in a very circumscribed way.

More to the point, it’s not Pat’s place to push information onto Congress, it is Congress’s obligation to pull information out of places where that information can be found.

Going home now just printed out a stack of rule 6e research. Yummy reading tonight for me.

kirk don’t go out with all guns blazing on Terry. I think there is a misinterpretation that can be easily sorted out with less inflammatory language.

kirk murphy @ 156

Are you obtuse, or merely feigning it?

Many would say I am not pretending at all.

Your comment inaccurately conflates religious beliefs and faiths with candidates’ individual personal expressions of their personal values.

All the elections I’ve voted in have individual candidates, not religions, for each office.

That’s mighty fine but if a candidate professes, for example, to be a Catholic then he or she:

a. Professes to believe in the teachings of the church as enunciated by the Pope, who need not even consult God like our president before speaking for Him.

OR

b. Is lying.

Religion constitutes personal beliefs. How can it possibly be otherwise?

If you determine that you will rate politicians by their personal beliefs rather than their willingness to represent all voters, then you must judge politicians on their religion or lack of same.

I frankly don’t care that Bush talks to God regularly. I do care that he talks to Karl Rove. Maybe Bush confuses the two.

Best, Terry

neokneme @
91

Schumer has questions… (at TPM Muckraker)

3. Who at the Department of Justice was responsible for inserting a line into the USA PATRIOT Act in March 2006 that allows the appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval? Did the President know of or approve this effort?

BusChen has answers…

I believe those are questions that Josh recommends Schumer ask….

Wow, I had two other comments in this thread re Fitz not testifying before congress. I assume because it is off topic? God forbid it be because I shed some DOUBT on Fitz’ loyalty to the people over the administration. I expect this to be deleted as well. But at least a mod at FDL will have to read this, my objection.

I see people post OT things all the time… breaking news, etc.

I don’t plan come back, and will stop talking you guys up in my numerous listservs.

Now I get why the setup is to have ONE long thread. No one is supposed to go off message. Sheesh.

Um…doh,… nevermind. I am an idiot. (re post 162), I don’t know what the heck thread I am in. SHEESH. Neverrrrmiinndddd.

RadRobin @
162

Wow, I had two other comments in this thread re Fitz not testifying before congress. I assume because it is off topic? God forbid it be because I shed some DOUBT on Fitz’ loyalty to the people over the administration. I expect this to be deleted as well. But at least a mod at FDL will have to read this, my objection.

I see people post OT things all the time… breaking news, etc.

I don’t plan come back, and will stop talking you guys up in my numerous listservs.

Now I get why the setup is to have ONE long thread. No one is supposed to go off message. Sheesh.

On behalf of all the mods, be assured nothing you have written today has been deleted.

There are two of your comments about Fitz on another thread, including:

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..ent-559595

RadRobin—glad we came to the same conclusion at almost the same time.

…that rat! I made hundreds of get out the vote calls for Arcuri…what a traitor!

Ann in AZ @
95

Mutant Poodle @
4

I wish the DC Dems would tell Holy Joe to take a hike, but given that they won’t, I have to hope that come January 1, 2009, Mr. Lieberman will be totally neutered and just counting the days until his retirement in (ugh) 2012.

Has anyone thought about the possible repercussions of a nomination of Joe Lieberman for the post of AG, should it become available? Seems to me it has the possibility of solving a few of Georgie’s problems with one stroke.

I was thinking the other day that G W would almost have to nominate a democrat in order to get Senate confirmation for a new AG. Then it hit me that if he nominates Lieberman, there is a possibility of his confirmation, with the added advantage of taking away Democratic majority in the Senate. Even counting Senator Tim Johnson, who is still hospitalized, Dems would still have only 50-50 split, with the VP breaking any ties.

I know Jane thinks Joe isn’t going anywhere, but as I pointed out before, that’s what the Repugs thought when they tried to punish Jim Jeffords for not walking the company line. Then Jim went Independent and caucused with Dems when they offered him a committee chairmanship. Somebody please prove to me I’m wrong! Please!

Update: Senator Sununu has become the first Repug to call for Gonzo’s resignation.

Very simple solution…the Dems fail to nominate Joe. They thus retain their obligate majority.

Or they could let Joe go…lose his seat and have the voters of Maryland vote in Lamont. The 17th Amendment States that:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

The Democrats control the Connecticut Legislature and likely wont not allow the Republican Governore to fill the seat with anyone but Lamont. They would NOT EMPOWER the Gov. to fill the vacancy, requiring it to remain empty until a Special Election filled it. I beleieve that the Continuing Operating Rule holds that the Democrats would retain Chairmanships until the Session was over.

Sue @
117

I am going to repost this diary ONE MORE FRIGGIN’ TIME (under “Joe has no power over the Senate”). Let’s see – I posted it on Kos, were it dropped like a rock, and at Myleftnutmeg, where they were smart enought to know that even if those in power knew the legalities, they really don’t care, I posted it in the Guardian – what more can the Secretary for Connecticut for Lieberman do?

To wit -
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/sh…..aryId=5974

From Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings – Here’s a longer history, containing an account of the 83rd Congress, which must hold the all time record for shifting majorities:
“The Republicans had a Senate plurality from January to July 1953. Then the Democrats had a plurality until June 1954; the Republicans again until December 1954; and finally the Democrats again until the 83d Congress ended in January 1955. These periods were occasionally interrupted by a week or two, and in one case a month, when the parties were tied.

For nearly half of the 83d Congress, the Democrats had more Senate seats than the Republicans. But for the entire two years, Republicans chaired the committees and ran the Senate. Republican Senator William Knowland frequently referred to himself as a majority leader without a majority, and his Democratic counterpart, Lyndon Johnson, said, “If anyone has more problems than a majority leader with a minority, it is a minority leader with a majority.”"

It also contains an account of Sen. Wayne Morse’s difficulties finding a stable party identity after he left the Republicans:

“When the Senate met at the start of the 83d Congress, Morse refused to sit with either party in the Senate chamber and instead sat on a folding chair in the aisle between the Republican side and the Democratic side. When he realized this made him look silly, he resumed his seat on the Republican side even though he was no longer a Republican. Then he wanted to sit among the Democrats because, he said, two Republican senators kept whispering insults at him.”

I went and checked the Senate’s Organizing Resolutions, and it’s true: whereas the 107th Congress’s resolution (S. Res. 8) does provide for a shift in control of the Senate if the majority shifts, there is no such language in the organizing resolutions for the present Congress (S. Res. 27 and 28.)

S. Res. 27

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…..0:S.RES.27

S. Res. 28
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…..ES.28.ATS:

Maybe, just maybe someone in the Senate will read these resolutions. I give up.

Sue! I read them! The Democrats are immunized until the NEXT Congressional Session…I’m sure that if Lieberman was appointed by Bush to be Atty Gewneral or somne other Cabinet position there would be a Special Election hled in Conn. and Ned Lamont would be elected to the Senate.

That’s something the Republicans would not want at all! And thus Lieb is gonna sit right where he is. Bush’s best chance would be to appoint someone like Cohen, a moderate, to the position.

RBG @
165

RadRobin—glad we came to the same conclusion at almost the same time.

Ugh. I am idiot. Well, I learned one of the little things you have to pay attention to when using this site: what thread you are on.

I apologize for being so rude. My feelings really were hurt! :-)

Jane: Good stuff. You nailed that posture-and-whine policy that Pelosi and the dems are doing, perfectly.

But, let me play the devil’s advocate here, for a minute. They really don’t have the votes yet, to do anything very meaningful with direct legislation. The committee hearings into Abu Gonzalez and the “Night of the Attorneys” pogrom, and all the Halliburton shit, etc., are their best cue-stick for beating, right now.

And factor this in: There is not going to be a happy ending for Iraq, nor for us, nor for the region, no matter who is in the white house.
When, not “if” our troops leave, the likelihood of a much worse level of civil strife than we’ve already seen, is high. And even if, by some miracle of goodwill, and a spirit of compromise the size of the Himalayas, that could somehow be avoided, we are still going to be looking at 2/3rds of Iraq dominated by that Shiite majority which is already exchanging ass-rubs with the mullahs in Teheran.
Then, there will be the ongoing problem of the Kurdish-dominated north, with IT’S huge oil reserves at stake. The Turks simply will not stand for an independent Kurdish state, and the Kurds, without american power there as a check on their statehood aspirations, will try to move in that direction, and move fairly quickly, I think.

Bottom line, SOMEONE is going to get blamed for all of this, and if the dems are the ones to force a pullout, most of it will accrue to them. When has bushCo scrupled to reject the opportunity for a big, Hitlerian, lie, about the stab in the back? It’s a rhetorical question, and the answer, of course, is NEVER.

The game that bush and the petro-borgs have ginned up, is now for ALL the marbles. They didn’t intend it that way; it just happened, when they were stupid and arrogant enough to think they could impose an occupation, and their will, on Iraq at the point of a gun.
If the dems can force the troops home, there is no way that every republican and chickenhawk, from bush all the way down to the street-peckerheads, ALL of whom are now shit-their-pants desperate for SOMETHING to help them get out from under the turd-barrage (which has already started, with the loss of both houses of congress) won’t crank up a chorus worthy of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, to the effect that Pelosi & company snatched defeat from the jaws of “victory”.

And, sad to say, a lot of americans who’ve supported the invasion in the first place, will grab for that idiot’s jar of conscience-salve.
“It’s all THEIR fault!” will be a mantra, for the people who really did this to us.

As cynical as it is to point out, if Pelosi and the democrats succeed TOO early at pulling the plug on the shitmire, they will be providing an out for bush, and it could be a disaster for them, and for those of us who’ve been outraged these years, at the bloody misery of Iraq, which bush and his people have created out of a bucket of bullshit and koolaid.

It’s like this; any realistic projection for the “end” of the war in Iraq, is also shit-your-pants scary, for the dems, when they consider a REAL move to bring the troops home. That’s just how fucked up was bush’s decision to pull the trigger, and perversely, it’s one thing that is helping him, sorta/kinda: no one else REALLY wants the responsibility for ending our military presence there, just now. Instead, the preznintial candidates, and the congressional democrats, are willing to let bush twist slowly in the wind, to the point of allowing more of our troops to die, and of pissing away that $2.5 billion a week that the shitmire is costing us, as the voters become more and more cynical about the chances for “victory” in Iraq, and, more and more willing, for now, to blame bush and his coterie of neo-shitbirds, for the unending war in Iraq.

Even if the splurge succeeds at suppressing a lot of the violence, and at forcing both the Sunni insurgents, and the Shiite militias and death squads, back into hiding, does anyone think they won’t be back, with a vengeance, the moment bush starts drawing down?

And draw down, he must, or, after the 2008 elections, the repubs won’t have enough bodies left in congress for a good roundpound.

So. I think the dems are saying:

“Yeah, we don’t have the votes to bring ‘em home, just now…and that’s fine with us, to have the repubs and a few yellowdog dems, defeating any legislation, binding or not, to really put an end to our military occupation of Iraq. Especially since, the shit is almost certainly going to fly, when we do pull out.

You guys can keep on staying the course, and we’ll keep on holding press conferences to remind the american people of who pulled the trigger, and of all the bullshit that was cobbled up to get support for doing it, and 19 months down the road, we’ll let the voters decide (just as they did last November…) whom they want to hold responsible. :o)

It’s hard to blame them for playing a game of “chicken” right now; what else can they do, at this point?

Jane Hamsher, Pachacutec:

I think AIPAC made a big slip-up the other day when they booed Pelosi and offered a standing ovation to Cheney.

I know that after the Lamont campaign the people of firedoglake are very sensitive to trolls’ charges of “anti-Semitism”, but AIPAC has just crossed a line into Republican partisanship.

Let me propose a reframing.

In order for people here to more comfortably address this important issue people should not call it, or even think of it, as a “Jewish” organization. Call it neoconservative, or, even better, Republican. Give AIPAC to the Republicans, along with their war. Democrats should learn soon that there’s no pleasing them, and that the downside of displeasing them may, in fact, be overrated. Did Pelosi lose for standing up to Harman?

Let me offer a comparison. In the same way that AIPAC partisans will claim they represent Jews you could say a Dobson or a Falwell represents Christian evangelicals. Some, yes, but not all, or even necessarily a majority. What defines those leaders, rather, is that they are cogs in the Republican political machine. AIPAC has always been different, trying to keep a watch on both parties; it really belongs among the constellation of narrow constitutuencies for the war. But as supporting the war becomes less viable for Democrats, AIPAC will become openly hostile to them, more overtly Republican.

I think we are seeing the beginning of a coalition shift; wars can do this. AIPAC, though its first home was the Democratic party (Richard Perle, after all, is a registered Democrat, as he constantly reminds us), must necessarily gravitate now to the Republicans as the political cost for Democrats of supporting the war increases. It will become more nakedly crazy and partisan. Booing Pelosi should be seen as big fuck-up opportunity to go after them on a partisan basis, without any extraneous, emotional debates about Israel-Palestinian politics, or God forbid, Israeli-Palestinian history.

Gillibrand was on your original list. I called her and 5 others I SUPPORTED LAST FALL, ASKED THEM TO CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON THE BLUE DOG AMENDMENT, AND SAID I HAD MADE MY LAST FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THEM IF THEIR POSITION WAS NOT ALTERED: Murphy, Mahoney, Donnelly, Arcuri, Ellsworth.