Well, well, well. Cards on the table. How refreshing:
WASHINGTON, March 14 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
Must be that contested CfL primary coming up. She's perfect for the spot, if a little precocious. Senator Clinton said previously she would "end the war" if elected, and now, before being elected to her desired job, basically says, "Psych!" Lieberman, on the other hand, said before elected, "No one wants to end the war more than I do." He waited until very shortly after he was elected to write an op-ed entitled, "Why We Need More Troops in Iraq."
In other news, torture survivor Khalid Shaikh Mohammed confessed to plotting 9/11 and other crimes, including halitosis, the Star Wars prequels and the plot to murder Vince Foster (he says he dumped the body). I'm just amazed they left him with enough brain cells intact to complete a coherent sentence. Thank you, Scooter Libby, Abu Gonzales and all the rest for your oh so productive deployment of torture to get people to say any fucking thing. By the way, where's Osama, again?
Now, I realize some people think it's torture to have to talk with a New York Times reporter, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Hillary's scandalous candor was not coerced, Gitmo style. Let's see how she goes about spinning being just a wee bit pregnant on neverending Iraq occupation.
Good morning, gang! What news are you reading?
UPDATE: 9:51 AM EST Sen Cornyn (R-Box Turtle) just congratulated Senator Clinton on the Senate floor for her pro-occupation stance as quoted in today's New York Times. Ellen Tauscher was once described as "Lieberman in a pants suit," but perhaps that distinction is highly coveted by others.
Related posts:
- In Iraq, As in So Many Contexts, Withdrawal is Victory
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Dahr Jamail, The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan
- Valuing Democracy: Iran, Iraq and the War Supplemental
- Remember Iraq or Ray Odierno is Still Wrong
- Torture: Obama Heeded Maliki on Abuse Photos, Says McClatchy; What That Says for Our Occupation
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
My contempt for Joe Lieberman is boundless!
Pachacutec!
I just arrived from reading Tom Englehardt wondering why no one is paying attention to Seymour Hersch.
Holy crap. MSNBC is gonna run this Monday – all day Monday – a replay of the ‘greatest hits’ of the Iraq invasion four years ago.
WTF? War porn.
Maybe I should just shut up and be happy they don’t have any newer war footage – yet.
Good morning!
I’m extremely concerned that the Mets don’t have any pitching. And I’m praying hard for Steve Gilliard.
Off topic,
Calling Mr. Luskin?
http://salon.com:80/opinion/bl…..newsletter
if she implodes it will be gore in, while I would have loved the prospect of her husband as advisor, I don’t think she’s electable and I surely think Gore will be the greatest president this country has ever had, and we need him right about now, that is for certain
as far as our presence in IRaq, Bush submitted to bin laden’s demand after 9/11 and removed our military base in the suadi’s
so far as we need a base in the area, I probably agree…however the prive to continue in Iraq is obviously too dear…this is not black and white guys, ya, we need out of Iraq, however from what I understand militarily, we also need a base in the middle east.
never the less, I believe hilary is unelectable, gore seems to have a differant solution to the military requirements in the middle east and I would like to see this question posed directly to him
Wow, nice to see the piece on Hillary that I posted before 6am show up as a thread! Whoo hoo.
perris @ 8
Thank God she’s come out with it now. This will doom her before the first primary. She won’t even get a VP spot on anyone else’s ticket now — they wouldn’t dare.
It’s between Obama and Edwards now. The big question is going to be which one of them is Prez and which is Veep.
Phoenix Woman @ 11
I’m hoping if she steps out gore steps in
A couple of interesting things. Sen Leahy on NPR beside himself because Senate Judiciary Committee was caught flat-footed wrt the USAtty firings. Seems Alberto had left a lot out of his briefings to the committee. Wonder if that’s typical?
And Rayne’s article on the Atty firings is up at E Pluribus Media.
raven @ 9
Congrats!
This actually makes me happy, as of all the Democrats she was the toughest sell, but unfortunately also had the most corporate cash. But now she’s McCained herself by refusing to back a withdrawal.
perris @ 12
I’d love to see Gore come in, but the press would just rip him to shreds and smear him. Again. And he knows it, as Joe Conason has said.
So the tigress don’t change the stripe. Gota go with the PNAC as well as pretending to be Democrat and apeact got her soul. Hasta la vista baby, tienes a good life sin my vote – ever. Once it would have been so easy to be part of the solution, now a part of the war crimes, crimes against humanity problem. And the lies don’t work anymore.
Another self-inflicted wound.
Obama and Edwards looking better all the time.
Meanwhile:
A LIST OF THINGS RON JEREMY, er KHALID MOHAMMAD CONFESSED TO!
Hillary is now albatross
So if Hill doesn’t get the nomination, maybe Joe will let her run on the C4L ticket. She can be Pres & he can be Veep, since that’s where the power is anyway, right? It’d be perfect! No chance of getting elected, of course, but think of they money they could raise.
coffee’s ready – help yourselves
Great minds, raven. I didn’t see that, but as soon as this hit the Internets lst night, I was emaaailing friends at 10:00 PM EST and wrote this before bed.
But, now I’m surfing for my next post, and while I have a bunch of possible options, topic nominations welcome. . . I post gain in a little while, covering for a sick Christy.
Send Christy your best wishes. . .
Attaturk: I saw that when I got up. Very funny. . . (but the exclamation point on my keyboard is stuck, so imagine I wrote one, please).
Totally off the subject, have you looked at Bush’s bio on the WH web page?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html
A wee bit of creative writing, that.
Good Morning Pachacutec and Firedogs,
wow, even when groggy, the toobz gods grant my wishes –
was just over at Raw Story reading her comments, trying to figure out what in the holy hell she is up to with this, knowing I could just come back over here and ask one of the more saavy ‘pups and BAM! here he is and he’s written a post on it -
so -
Is this an AIPAC dogwhistle ?
Is she covering her fanny (as all Dems will need to do) wrt the mess Chimpy will be leaving the next Pres. ?
Has someone convinced her that there’s a large block of voters who will find this appealing ?
Did she make these comments before or after Biden’s rant on the Senate floor ?
Along those lines, is this about Obama/Edwards ?
It sure as hell isn’t about Giulianni or other Rep’s b/c none of the cocktail weenie guzzlers has so much as asked their positions and none of them are talking -
hey, I said I was groggy – I’m not interested in why none of us will vote for her, I just want to know what would be the campaign rationale for such
oh crikey ! forgot the ast*r*sks, and am now in mod land – sorry
Hillary is triangulating herself right out of the race. It’s the same old DLC blargh, hold no strong principles, compromise on everything, don’t make any enemies. Except that after 16 years the Clintons don’t seem to have figured out that the Republicans are going to be their enemies no matter what, and that they are pissing off their friends by not having our backs.
morning!
sadly, it’s not just clinton and lieberman – it looks like our beautiful democratic majority house of representatives is considering passing supplemental funding (of more than $120 billion) to continue the war/occupation.
here’s an analysis of the latest version (4pm yesterday) of the house bill (via matt stoller).
the requirement for bush to go to congress before attacking iran is now gone, and there are apparently massive loopholes for bush to continue doing whatever he wants.
i wish i knew where the pressure/motivation for this is coming from.
my suggested antidotes are first, norman solomon’s new essay, “‘Pragmatism’ Is Prolonging the War” and second, david sirota’s old essay, “Partisan War Syndrome“.
the supplemental war appropriation is in markup this morning at 9am – and it is scheduled to be on c-span3.
i’m calling my rep (again) to ask him to vote against this bill unless it includes hard dates for withdrawal and restrictions on attacking iran.
She is so calculated. Why would she say this when she knows the Dems want out of Iraq.
Without that oil would the US falter?
I’m reading some clever stuff the past few days; all this atop Abu Gonzales’ very bad week (extended remix). Joseph Cannon at Cannonfire highlights Daniel Hopsicker’s latest (which discusses the Wilkes brothers and their long running shenanigans and some of the billionaires for whom they work). Jeff Wells drops a thought provoking post on his blog that leaves me asking, from inside which box (or sphere) am I regarding the crumbling of the American empire… and what parapolitical forces are in play?
Compelling stuff.
As for Hillary… she’s an establishment politician, wed to the Military Industrial Complex. She does not have my support.
Pachacutec @
21
Oh, I wasn’t compaining in the least, I thought it was cool!
Well, Hillary IS AIPAC’s candidate in the Democratic Party. She mustn’t upset the neocons.
Pachacutec @ 21
pach – thanks for pitching in for christy! one suggestion is the house appropriation committee meeting this morning for the markup of the war supplemental funding bill on c-span3 (begining at any moment).
Hillary is very insulated, and her campaign, from the start, has been focused on the members of her Davos Bubble in the DC foreign policy elite, for whom this is the Responsible Position.
These elites believe that foreign policy should not be decided by voters but by their own league of erudite experts. Hillary essentially agres with these people. They have a fundamental contempt they would never admit to themselves for democracy. They don’t believe the voters can know and see their own interests.
AIPAC is an important part of this ecosystem but it’s not as simple as that. This is a funtion of the DC/K Street Elites and the foriegn policy elites in DC, and of Senator Clinton esssentially seeing them, in Georgetown, as her constituency.
Shocked, shocked I tell you that Hill would be such a hawk ;-p
So far I’ve been throwing out her mailing. Henceforth I will mark return to sender.
I’m with perris in hoping that Gore will opt in. Time will tell.
In the mean time there’s this issue of the nation’s top lawyers subverting the legal system that just makes me kind of crazy. I keep bouncing back to a post written in Oct. on Balkinization. I wish Christy, Mary, LHP or one of our legal beagles would take it and run with it.
Phoenix Woman @ 15
The GOP via the press has already started to smear Gore anyway. The question is why are they so intent on smearing someone who hasn’t even stepped into the race. They are scared to death of Gore. The press knows that Gore is the best we’ve got and that he has the stature to pull it off. He knows that Dems will say he won before and he’ll win again. What we have to do is have his back…aggressively! Repugs have nominated the same candidate before. We were not “going to have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore” until we did. This may be the first time since Adlai Stevenson lost twice that we have twice nominated the same person, but it could and should, IMO, happen. He did not lose that election; it was stolen from him. And talk about the opportunity for a do-over! I’m ready!
fightingdem @ 30
Ding.
pach I need to talk to you right away. Please email me a phone #. It’s important
I am really disappointed in Ms. Clinton, not that I was not already, and not that I seriously considered her my presidential candidate.
This morning, f’rinstance, it has been reported that she is avoiding the question on gays in the military. See http://www.americanchronicle.c…..leID=22161 among others.
From CNN.Com:
Obama, for his part, hasn’t answered the question either.
And now Clinton and the war. Depressing, really. But not too surprising.
Where the heck is Al? (Gore, not Sharpton!)
RevDeb @ 33
me too! if it can be the new gore and not the old gore.
selise @ 39
meet the new gore, he’s the same as. . .
This makes sense. Seriously.
We withdraw our troops to the temporary/permanent bases, maintain a greatly reduced presence. Something similar to the presence we had in Saudi Arabia from 91-2002. After all, we still have a significant presence in Kuwait.
There is a geopolitical need to have troops in this area. There is a legitimate need to deter Iran. And to protect the Kurds.
I don’t know the current troop levels, perhaps 120-160k. Perhaps we scale back to 30-40k.
And of course the US will still maintain an embassy in Iraq. I don’t know that it needs to be the monstrosity currently being built, but there is a legitimate need for a US embassy.
She’s running as a Goldwater Girl. She’s going Republican Lite.
I can’t support her in the primary.
I will bite my tongue and vote for her only if she wins the primary.
It is all the more imperative that we win a veto-proof majority in House and Senate, so that no matter who wins the White House, we still have the ability to stop this madness.
If Hillary plans to stay in Iraq, she can stay in New York.
She’s had ample opportunity to correct her deadly mistake in supporting the war and the hubristic policy that led people like her into it. She has failed again, and she has failed to explain herself adequately.
Little W simply wanted to be president. He didn’t prepare for the job except by inheriting power and money. Hillary doesn’t deserve to be president simply because she wants it real bad.
The Democratic Party can do better. If it doesn’t, it’s time for a change.
just starting on c-span3:
live coverage of house appropriates committee hearing on markup of supplemental war funding. it’s now at $124 billion – $21 billion more than bush requested.
obey chairing.
I actually thought the Times handled the KSM thing pretty well. They couldn’t not report it, and it did run above the fold on the right. But they also led with a strong Gonzalez 8 piece and a piece on Iraq missing Bush targets.
And pro-war Hillary.
Glenn Greenwald linked to an interesting American Conservative piece that discusses how the left blogosphere is creating interference in the AIPAC influence in the Democratic party.
I don’t see Hill’s idea of keeping a scaled down force in Iraq as being much different than Murtha’s plans.
I also think some of the reactions here and elsewhere (See! See! Hillary is a war-lover!) resemble our friends on the other side.
And I don’t even like Hillary, nor would I have voted for her anyway.
agree, agree, agree,
yeah, but those pesky unwashed, unknowing masses will be doing all the voting – and considering she is married to one-of-the-smartest-political-minds of the late 20th Century™, this is a stumble. why didn’t she just make these comments @ Davos or some groovy Foreign Policy forum before she declared – not the NYFT, and certainly not now
VOR @ 41
There is? From what?
catching up on my reading, and this caught my eye…
From Janes’ post about House Dems who won’t support the Iraq Bill…
Anyways, I found it rather shocking that someone who is on this list was on the Blue America list, so I checked Arcuri’s campaign website for his stated position on Iraq . Here is where Arcuri stood when he was asking US for money….
Arcuri recieved $14,000 through BlueAmerica, and over Move-On’s “Call for Change” campaign resulted in over 68,000 calls being made to voters in NY-24 urging them to vote for Arcuri — and that money and those calls were based on Arcuri’s stated support for ending the Iraq war, and redeployment in 2007.
Personally, this pisses me off…
Bay State Librul @
7
Rove is running a racket out of the White House and using presidential control of US prosecutors to protect it.
RICO! RICO! RICO!
I’m disappointed, but not surprised. Not surprised because she is the candidate of the CW and her base in the Democratic Party is pro-war. Disappointed because whether she wants it or not, whether she is elected or not, the United States is suffering a major strategic defeat in the Middle East. Our presence, whatever it is, will no longer be as dominant as it was before 2003. This is a simple fact, and her being elected or not elected won’t change it. Unless she is prepared to come out for a draft, which is a necessary condition for maintaining a real American presence in the Middle East, she’s talking through her hat. My disappointment is that she might not know it.
Pachacutec @
33
Biden has this disease as well. They really see themselves as a ruling elite, and, therefore, do a poor job of demanding accountability because they see themselves, in the future in the Oval Office, and don’t want to be accountable themselves.
Not that Biden matters.
But the larger point–that this is not just Senators but a whole class of media, elected officials and money sources–is dead on.
And is very hard to crack. For people whose Senators are from NY, at least. I’ve heard things are better elsewhere.
I don’t have CSpan3 gang, so keep me updated, please!
Clinton does nothing that is not calculated. My guess is that she/Bill are betting that the sustained “surge” may actually reduce violence (or at least reported violence) in Iraq, that some political accommodations will occur that look like progress, and that Republicans will be boasting in 2008 that Iraq was a success and Bush was right. Hillary then looks like the Dem that criticized the war’s implementation but never renounce her vote for it. Her supporters then claim she’s the responsible, experienced realist who didn’t panic when others, like Edwards/Obama, did. Just a guess.
stream CSPAN 3 from here
(the CSPAN 3 topic is mislabeled BTW)
p.lukasiak @ 49
I’ve passed this on to the NY netroots folks.
Russ Feingold also said he’s for leaving some troops in Iraq …
Edwards stance is …
When I saw the Hillary-Iraq headline, I had the same immediate reaction, but I think the press is blowing this out of proportion. Although I think it’s worth getting her — and the other candidates — to clarify their positions, I do think most of them, including Obama and Edwards, will leave some troops in Iraq for support, training and border security, and not kicking down doors.
The more Hillary talks, the more she sounds like, well, Hillary.
charlietuna (89) — I’m sorry, and you are…?
Read the letter. Again. Carefully.
Fitz was checked up short by the USAG. He’s given Waxman et al as many breadcrumbs as he can without risking getting himself treated like the rest of the Gonzales 8-plus. And yeah, they would do that, in spite of the hue-and-cry; they only have to say that Fitz broke the law, failed to observe Rule 6(e) handling of Grand Jury testimony.
No, this is not why some of us blogged 24/7 on this topic. It is because Fitz has been so damned good and careful that we even got this far, that a senior administration official was successfully prosecuted without the trial being shut down by greymail and claims of state secrets and national security.
Jebus, what is going on today? Caffiene shortage out there or what?
p.lukasiak @ 47
the current version of the appropriations bill does NOT look like it will end the war (at least to me).
i hope i’m wrong – but if i’m not…. i think the right call for anti-war house members is to vote AGAINST this bill.
as always, if i have this wrong, i’d love someone to walk me through it…
CaptCT @ 57
When I saw the Hillary-Iraq headline, I had the same immediate reaction, but I think the press is blowing this out of proportion. Although I think it’s worth getting her — and the other candidates — to clarify their positions, I do think most of them, including Obama and Edwards, will leave some troops in Iraq for support, training and border security, and not kicking down doors.
Here’s the transcript so people can judge for themselves.
Hilary your probush keep the war going stance just lost you the democratic Primary you are never going to be president. After the last election the Democrats got a majority because everyone wants an end to this war. Everyone but g.w bush and you it seems, what part of government for and by the people don’t you understand? How can you expect to win our votes for president when you don’t support the most important issue to the biggest part of the vote?
VOR, and where are we going to maintain that embassy? Because saying we WILL, presupposes that there won’t be ANY faction there, needing a little mortar practice.
One sliiight difference with the Saudis and the Kuwaitis, from Iraq; both governments were glad to have us there, at least in the short-term, after GWII. The Kuwaitis, of course, were VERY grateful for our returning their country to them, and the Saudi Royals hung with us for a while, but then our presence there began to smell like an occupation, to some extent, and it became a political liability to them.
In Iraq, name me one faction other than the Kurds (who really, down the road, will have no say in what goes on in the lower 2/3rds of the country) who will be publically tolerant of permanent U.S. bases there. If there are U.S. troops in Iraq, there will always be someone shooting at them…AND at any Iraqis who are remotely supportive of their presence.
Now, for the capper: As you read Pacho’s excellent call-out of HRC, for her on-again, off-again, blowjob to bushCo, ask yourself which presidential candidate is going to be talking about “maintaining a presence” in Iraq with those big bases you’re talking about, 16 months from now, in the heat of the campaign, and with U.S. casualties still coming in?
(and they will be; Petraeus and the other generals saying “no military solution” is an understatement.)
For Hillary to do this, is just more of the mind-boggling political stupidity that she’s shown from the gitgo. How can she be elected, when the republicans hate her with a white-hot hatred, and when she’s writing off a third of the democratic party, and a third of it that will, as I’m going to do, work their asses off to get her out of the race so that we can nominate someone who is at least, electable.
It’s looking like, other than her name and her money, she has not the slightest qualification for becoming the party’s nominee, much less, the president. That is, unless you add in the fact that it’s time we had a woman president. (Just not this woman. :o) )
WADR, I think your scenario projects a happy ending in Iraq that just isn’t real. ANY embassy there should be painted with a large bullseye, because that’s what it will be; a perpetual target.
i hope i’m wrong – but if i’m not…. i think the right call for anti-war house members is to vote AGAINST this bill.
baby steps, selise, baby steps.
Pachacutec @ 51
lots of gabbing before starting…
here comes the gravel.
obey says it looks like a 5 pencil day. request all members to stay for the entire proceeding. expect lots of amendments. serious long day. will go around the clock if necessary. lifeline send out for a sandwich if needed.
largest appropriation supplement request in the history of the world.
selise @ 60
Obey pointed out to his justly angry constituent that it took 31 votes to get out of Vietnam. This cannot happen quickly, in our system, with the president opposed to withdrawal.
And, as Pach is pointing out, there is a substantial group of people in the ruling elite who really do want to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq. It’s not just Republicans.
I am loving my coffee this morning. I lost 5 pounds in 2 days just having my coffee after 9:30 AM. I was not taking my thyroid medication on an empty stomach since my surgeries like I was supposed to. I was cranky & tired….now I take it early in the morning and I am like a different person. Just thought I’d interrupt Pach’s post for the update.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled program. Go Gore!
Pachacutec @ 53
You can usually go to the C-span website and listen online. Put it in a different window or a different tab?
Pachacutec @
33
An Irish investigative reporter has written a book covering the beginnings, development and history of what you are speaking of here. I highly commend getting it although I don’t know if it is available in the US. It can be gotten at amazon.co.uk in sterling (about $1.9X to the pound) the link is: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Americ…..mp;sr=1-51 and should be in every self-respecting library.
p.lukasiak @
49
Does huh?
Some of that money is mine and I get the bastard as my representative.
I was surprised when Patrick Murphy talked about what a straight shooter Arcuri was when he was interviewed on FDL.
Are we better off than when we had a maverick Republican representative who had Newton Gingrich throwing brickbats at him?
Best, Terry
ROFLMAO.
OT, Democrats have got to embrace the Powell Doctrine for speaking about the use of military force.
Joe Wilson also illustrated this in his comments here at FDL: “Based on current US deployments to Iraq, what are the troop to task ratios and the force protection requirements?”
Congress is supposed to apply “Principles” for the use of military force anywhere in the world, then the experts provide specifics and then Congress can decide.
The other area we have lost in is calling Iraq/Afghanistan a “war.” They are occupations, that cost $267,000,000/DAY not “wars.”
haha. severly EPUd and now on topic. http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..ent-559669 re: Hilary’s “stay the course” quote. BANG THE GONG. Bill, please take your wife home. She’s had too much to drink (Koolaid???). We need a new frontrunner. Where the heck is Al?????
HotFlash @ 3
What is implied is: not only are CheneyCo the ones not supporting our troups, but they are engaging in terror acts (in Iran). Strong stuff.
Ann in AZ @ 66
The laptop I’m on get’s overwhelmed easily, and I already have a bunch of windows open. But CSpan2 also has the Senate talking about Iraq, and I have that on the teevee.
Perhaps Candidate Hillary, only The Lobby’s LEADING candidate, will demonstrate just how Owned she is by inviting the Also-Owned Nancy pelosi to be her VP Support? I say leading candidate because A*IP*C (Do we really have to drop in the asterices? Is it to counteract that Moss*d proxy, the N*A data trawling software?) pays most of the members of Congress.
To get our troops out of Iraq and to stop our Administration from bullying the world we of common sense and reality, we of the middle ground and points Left must hammer away that The lobby must be stopped now.
Perhaps letters to all those listed as supported by A*PAC/The Lobby/PNAC/the neocons (Rest assured, Hillary’s team, I know you are monitoring these posts, you are in their camp!) telling them to choose if they are americans or not would help.
sorry for the driveby. staying home tomorrow. more to come.
This is disappointing http://thinkprogress.org/2007/…..h-15-2007/
jayackroyd @ 63
can we have the first of those 31 votes now, please? i understand it will take time. i don’t understand why giving bush an extra $21 billion for his war does not.
baby steps are ok… i just want them to be in the right direction.
Zbigniew Brzezinski – certainly fits in to the aforementioned DC Foreign Policy Elite crowd – and he does not agree with the junior senator from NY
Zbigniew/1/7 Statement to Congress
now that I’m in to my 2nd cup, it may indeed have been blown out of proportion, but I will stick with my ’she should’ve stated “the responsible position” in another, more exclusive forum
selise @ 26
IMHO: A*PAC and DLC
localroger @ 25
I believe she is going by the conventional (ie, consultant) wisdom that the winner is the one with the most bucks, so she is courting campaign $ rather than votes.
Things have changed, tho, and we have shown that a good campaign can be run on a shoestring. My worry is that having spent the bucks will legitimize the outcome, even if it’s done with Magic Machines…
Oh, speaking of Magic Machines, I linked to this yesterday, but it’s *important*. Avi Rubin, computer voting specialist @ Johns Hopkins, says he’s read the Fl State U analysis of the ES&S software used in Sarasota Co and he’s shocked. He also posts his March 7 testimony before the US House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government — well worth a read if you’re interested in getting our votes properly counted in 2008. And he demands a recount from American Idol. Hey, fraud is fraud!
And one last thought before I go to do something billable — Rupert is spending $ on Hill b/c the R’s would rather run against her than anyone. Also, remember that Rupert isn’t really giving away all that much. A large proportion of campaign $ end up being used for media advertising, and what does Rupert own? Right!
house appropriations committee:
obey giving an intro now… on everything from walter reed to bird flu.
(i won’t be able to live blog, but will try to come to the computer for highlights if there is an interest… hopefully twolf1 and others are around).
Bring on the subpoenas! It’s about time Congress grew some balls…
Leahy will subpoena Rove to appear before his panel regarding the eight US attorneys fired.
HuffPo
Wigwam @ 76
probably… but, i think they are fronts for (primarily) the military/industrial complex.
selise @ 76
Believe me, I’m with you. I think they should force the Blue Dogs and the Republicans to cast a clear vote. I’d rather lose a clear vote than win an inconsequential vote. But that’s not how these guys work.
Pachacutec @ 21
What about that Tom Engelhardt article in truthout, about the Sey Hersh article in the New Yorker.
HotFlash @ 3
I’ve read him and quoted him in various places.
Maybe it’s the shock of so many scandals at once. People are just beginning to get that Iraq was based on manufactured evidence, now we want them to think about another huge scandal, on top of Walter Reed, US attorneys, etc? Yes, but those who are outraged are busy, and those who are beginning to be outraged are dizzy with confusion.
inmymind’seye @ 75
Waxman’s letter asking Fitz to come was written all wrong, for in a variety of ways we will get to later on the front page tody.
This is fixable, but the bad execution of the letter from Waxman’s committee left Fitz no choice. He cannot offer opinions, for one thing. And for another, well, there’s a right way to get this stuff before Congress, legally speaking, and a wrong way. Fitz has to get approval for his testimony from elsewhere in DOJ, so as a matter of process, this can be fixable. We’re studying the matter and will publish on it.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has turned down requests from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to testify on the Valerie Plame leak case. Fitzgerald said he did “not believe it would be appropriate for me to offer opinions…about the ultimate responsibility of senior White House officials for the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity.”
So are people ready to admit that fitz was not really the hero that many made him out to be? Looks like the net result of his investigation was a whitewash that diverted attention from high crimes and treason in the White House to a single scapegoat – scooter.
Is this what we blogged about 24/7 for 2 1/2 years?
Pachacutec @ 87
Thanks Pach – breathing deep sigh of relief.
RevDeb @ 33
Thanks for the link to that excellent article at Balkinization.
selise @ 77
This bill is a step in the right direction — it requires that benchmarks be met that will result in all troops being withdrawn by August 2008.
Now, there are lots of flaws in the process — like its dependent upon Bush telling the truth about the “progress” in Iraq — but those flaws are (IMHO) part of the process. (Bush lies about the progress, the lies are exposed a month later, and another more restrictive bill results….)
HotFlash @ 79
I think it’s pretty clear that they want Clinton to get the nomination. They’ve gone after Edwards and Obama very aggressively. My guess is their focus groups have them particularly concerned about Edwards.
I have no dog in this hunt. All the serious candidates are fine with me. I could hold my nose and vote for Clinton if I had to.
jayackroyd @ 79
completely agree. or at least give us a clear vote before the inconsequential one.
i realize that’s how they work. but i don’t like it… and i don’t think WE have to work that way. i’m with solomon on this:
Why, what a sweet little multitool Clinton has handed to the Tough Jew demographic she and Obama have been courting. Why, her occupation will do everything: intimidate Iran, help Iraqis, intimidate Iran, fight al Qaeda, intimidate Iran, help the Kurds, intimidate Iran, etc. Sounds to me like the Senator from New York has signed on to the “realignment” of American strategic priorities as oulined by Seymour Hersh in his recent reporting. Too bad she didn’t read for comprehension. What a hollow, strange person she is.
Clem
Pachacutec @ 86
I thought the same thing when I read Waxman’s letter — lousy letter. He left no out for Fitz. I’m looking forward to a publish on this at FDL!
RevDeb @ 33
selise @ 39
raven @ 39
I wasn’t all that involved in 2000, so I’ve no personal opinion on a lot of that. But if I can say I had one epiphany that got me interested in politics it was listening to Donna Brasile (yes, I know) on NPR (yes, I know) talking about the 2000 election. She said that when Gore conceeded she said, “But Mr. Gore, aren’t we going to fight it?” and he said, “No. Orders from higher up.”
So. True, false, misremembered or whatever. *That* was the moment I started paying attn to politics and haven’t really stopped since.
I’d be delighted with the Old Gore, so long as he tells the Old Advisors to take a hike. Edwards is suffering from advisor problems right now, and Hillary — so many advisors that there is no Hillary there. Please god, let us have a candidate who speaks from his/her heart, not some creature made by Advisors.
somebody send Pachacutec a keyboard.
house appropriations committee hearing:
lewis giving his opening now. first it was support the troops, and the war. now he’s telling us that the current supplemental has $22 billion in unrelated spending including a bailout for salmon fisheries (some others i missed).
bottom line, he does not support the bill as currently constructed.
murtha up.
Pachacutec at 6:43 am
Thanks, very helpful.
Also, just to celebrate Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s “confessions” that have been obtained, I wanted to share this, which I suspect most FDLers have already heard:
house appropriations committee hearing:
murtha is pissed.
members of congress are not fighting this war. a very small segment of of our country is fighting this war. does anyone here think our troops should be sent into combat w/o proper training or proper equipement.
Murtha hollering about the lack of training and equipment for the troops and that only the military is fighting, not Congress or the American people.
On to PTSD.
(feel better soon Christy!)
Blame it all on KSM, now that he confessed?
Here’s a link to a book that describes coerced confession–
THE RAPE OF THE MIND: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing, by Joost A. M. Meerloo, M.D., Instructor in Psychiatry, Columbia University Lecturer in Social Psychology, New School for Social Research, Former Chief, Psychological Department, Netherlands Forces, published in 1956, World Publishing Company. (Out of Print)
http://www.ninehundred.net/control/mc-ch1.html
jayackroyd @ 92
Gotcha but I think it is probably Obama that scares the daylights out of them and where they have concentrated their fire.
Edwards is talking mighty fine but he isn’t notably catching fire.
Best, Terry
[[[[[[Christy]]]]]]
Agh, it happened again. I just overwrote my (59) with my response to (89) and I have NO clue how it happened.
I hit Quote This Comment on (89), nothing happened. Hit again, nothing happened. So I posted a comment without quoting, and it ended up overwriting my last post.
??? Gremlins???
Cheap advertising for the movie Premonitions?
o/t
spent about an hour chatting with a TX., Repub. minister last night -
he signed on against torture
he calls it an occupation
he sees our kids pinned down in a civil war
and actually guffawed when they ran the Khalid Sheik Mohammed fable
charlietuna @
89
Give it up, canned fish. What’s this WE?
as far as gore gettig smeared
hey guys, whoever we run is going to get smeared, gore is unasailable, he’s prepared for the onslaught, he WILL fight back, he knows the attacks before they come, he will be ready and he will PUNISH them this time, HE KNOWS HOW TO HANDLE THIS
he is the bestest, mostest qualified to be president, the bestest mostes prepared to deal with their onslaught
he is the best president we ever elected, and now he needs to be the best president who ever served
it’s gore guys, gore
Murtha incensed in Defense sub-Committee hearing on C-SPAN3. He’s ripping on lack of troop training, equipment, size of supplemental & its usage, drawing applause.
Damn, he’s a forceful speaker. Go, John Murtha!
Lindy (108) — thanks for that.
At the risk of repeating myself – but this time chronologically correct order:
Good morning, all.
I’m back home, and basically have missed most of the news for the past four days, except for a brief visit here yesterday. It’s a little overwhelming to understand all that’s been going on. I don’t think I fully understand Reid’s bill (I did get a letter from Stabenow saying she’s supporting it). All I know is that it is making no sense to me whatsoever that any Democrats are opposing it. Are their constituents generally pro-war, or are their constituents instead likely to believe limiting funds for the ongoing endless wars will put the US in danger? I just find this baffling.
I know we need to be patient, and that it will take time and a lot of votes before we can get anything meaningful through the House and the Senate. I’m just amazed that the Republicans managed to filibuster on an earlier bill, and now a substantial number of Democrats are voting against this bill.
house appropriations committee hearing:
murtha:
it costs $2 billion a month in logistics cost alone.
94% of our troops in iraq have been underfire. these are intensive deployments.
he’s going through a list of some of the add-ons, equipment, security, PTSD tx, defense health programs …
Hey, since KSM confessed to planning 9/11 from A to Z, I guess there is no longer any reason to catch Osama. Case closed. Good job George.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..8111/07946
Good interview with Sibel Edmonds. If you don’t know who she is, you should. She was fired by the FBI after working as a translater post 9/11 and found evidence of criminal negligence on the part of our government. She has been silenced since.
To paraphrase a certain Rock Opera written by Hummer salesman:
You didn’t hear it
You didn’t see it.
You won’t say nothing to no one
ever in your life.
You never heard it
Oh how absurd it
All seems without any proof.
You didn’t hear it
You didn’t see it
You never heard it not a word of it.
You won’t say nothing to no one
Never tell a soul
What you know is the Truth.
Sibel Edmonds: Help me put Perle and Feith in jail
by lukery
Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 05:18:32 AM PDT
Below is a terrific interview with David Swanson of AfterDowningStreetand Sibel Edmonds conducted yesterday.
Sibel promises that Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Dennis Hastert, and Marc Grossman (and others) will be thrown in jail, for treason, if we can persuade Henry Waxman to hold hearings into her case.
Sibel:
“…take that two minutes, maybe less than two minutes, and call Chairman Waxman, and remind him that he’s the Chairman, there’s no obstacle.
This case is not allegation, it’s not a case that needs to be investigated, that has already been done. Even the Dept of Justice’s own Inspector General’s Office has put out a report vindicating the case. We have had bipartisan congressional statements saying that this is credible, and absolutely confirming it. So this is not taking something that is unknown. He’s the Chairman, he has the power, there’s nothing that stands in his way, this is a confirmed case, let’s see some justice and accountability.”
Sibel asks (and I beg) that, today, you call Waxman (202-225-3976 ) and Conyers (202-225-5126) and demand open public hearings into Sibel’s case.
Hey rayne. We were making an animation last night of a talk I had with Marcy on Saturday using Marcy’s avatar. We made her your sister–emptywheel oh.
Agh, up-thread I do a great disservice to lukery by failing to mention all the hard work under way regarding Sibel Edmonds’ case and story. In recent interviews, Sibel Edmonds describes the amorphous mass that seems to emanate from within (or around) AIPAC (including the ATC).
Sibel Edmonds encourages people to contact Congressman Waxman’s office to urge a public hearing of her case. Call your own congress critter to urge support of Waxman.
I’d be delighted with the Old Gore, so long as he tells the Old Advisors to take a hike. Edwards is suffering from advisor problems right now, and Hillary — so many advisors that there is no Hillary there. Please god, let us have a candidate who speaks from his/her heart, not some creature made by Advisors.
These people are their advisors. They have met the enemy and they are them.
Heh. Too funny, jay. I might actually have time to mess around in 2L today, since I got both my contract work and my ePluribus Media article off my laptop for the moment. Guess I’ll have to look up Sis when I get in there.
charlietuna @ 89
Charlie Tuna – I would not lose any sleep over it. Fitz responded that he could not offer up any opinions regarding the disclosure of Wilson’s identity and status. Keyword: opinion. Fitzgerald is about legal facts, and opinions don’t interest him, at least not in this professional matter.
Ms. Wilson’s testimony will get the ball rolling, as will the Wilson’s civil suit. If the stench of a pardon wafts in on the icy winds from the White House, Waxman can take a look into some of the harder facts, and move beyond the solicitation of opinion.
Patience, grasshopper!
charlietuna @
89
I have some questions regarding some recent events regarding Fitzgerald—-
Off subject but related:
Was Patrick J. Fitzgerald Special Prosecutor on Harriet Myers’s loyalty ranking of Federal Prosecutors?
Did Karl Rove pressure Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) 2001 to choose someone (not named) around the Chicago area to be a US State Attorney? That choice ended up being Patrick J. Fitzgerald apparently. (Not a relation to the Senator).
Why didn’t Karl Rove get indicted for this Valerie Plame leak affair?
Lastly, how does one get on the Harriet Myers’s loyalty ranking of Federal Prosecutors list?
What was the criteria, was there some kind of interview process?
perris @ 109
I second that. I’d give Gore the excalibur sword if I knew where it was.
Pachacutec @ 88
Thanks again Pach…
Here are my questions that leave me unsettled
and which deserve an explanation or clarification from Fitzy:
Why did it take 5 Grand Jury visits from Rove
and why wasn’t he indicted?
Please make public the testimony made by
Bush in June 2004 and Cheney when they
testified in the Plame matter. Doesn’t the American have a right to know?
How come no official was charged with the
misuse of classification information?
There may be legit reasons but we need a report.
Jack
mui @ 122
Have you checked with the local watery tarts and moistened bints?
RevDeb @
34
If it’s not first-class mail, don’t bother. It will only return to the USPS, who will throw it away (non-profit mail isn’t returned to sender unless the sender pays a fee requesting that service).
If you really want to send a message to her about what you think of her attempt to leech a buck off you, or just to drain a few cents from her campaign at no cost to you, just because, take a good look at what the mailing contained. I bet a Business Reply Mail envelope is in there, and she gets charged for every single one of those she gets back–based on weight. Fold up everything sent and stuff it in there. Write a nastygram if you like (nothing threatening!). Throw in some extras, too, like, oh, a thin sheet of lead (it’s flexible enough to go through postal machines, and weighs a ton!). Then mail it back to her. Just don’t tape it to a bowling ball or brick; it won’t go anywhere.
If she doesn’t have a BRM, I know something else you can do to get it to her, but I’ll wait to tell that one.
Have-it-both-ways, alienate-no-one — which brain dead political craft generally alienates everyone in the end — is a hallmark of Clinton/DLC.
Otherwise known as “Republican Lite” served Al Gore miserably. It is good to see Hillary listening to her anachronistic handlers early on so she lessens her chances of being the Dem standard bearer so we can get someone who has the strength of their convictions to seize the opportunity to fill the vacuum now being left by the self destructing Repugnican Party.
15 years of being vulnerable to “Slick” as in “Slick Willy” — now “Slick Hill — is quite enough.
A woman candidate has a hard enough time overcoming the ordinary voters prejudice about “Female Strength” without being labeled “Slick.”
The only time a voter will break the gender barrier is if they perceive, say, a Pelosi-like strength.
Good to see “Slick Hill” throwing herself under the bus early on so we can have a real campaign about real issues and gender a candidate with “strength of convictions” regardless of gender.
Keep those slick sound bites coming, Hill.
Rayne @
119
She wasn’t there, herself. We were operating her avatar. I suspect she won’t be terribly interested in SL.
The US casualties continue but are not news any longer because the surge is working. A couple of days ago they were 3189 this AM 3203 but things are going well except for the families who get their kids back in a box. I check icasualities every day and its 2,3 or 4 just about every day.
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/
house appropriations committee hearing:
rep. bill young (r-florida) is up. joking around wrt being in the majority/minority, ranking members, how long everyone’s been in the committee, blah, blah.
now on the war. blame the iraqis (esp. maliki). agrees with most of the current version of the bill, except for three parts (but he doesn’t tell us which). thanks to all…
Thanks for the information and the link wrt Sibel Edmonds– this is a story that has most disturbing implications, imho.
I will make those calls.
mui @ 121
He probably stuck it in somebody else’s back.
Might want to ask Gore about his vote for the Human Life Amendment, the most radical anti-abortion legislation ever proposed. Last I heard, Gore was still defending that vote.
Gore ain’t gonna run again as the “conservative alternative” and isn’t going to be elected. Praise the Lord.
Best, Terry
HRC spent how much campaign cash in NY to get reelected by a huge margin?
What does that say about her skill as a politician even with WJC as a husband / advisor.
Morning everyone.
Thanks Pach for another well worth the read.
And thankyou for filling in for Christy.
Hope you feel better ASAP, Christy!
{{{{{hugs}}}}}
house appropriations committee hearing:
nita lowey (d-ny) up – goal post keeps changing, trying to police a civil war. it is way past time to set some clear parameters. need to focus on the true war on terror – afghanistan.
now she listing add-ons for somolia, lebanon,….
safe guards, conditions are included.
OT..But just read the last post at the News Blog and Steve Gilliard is not doing well following his heart surgery.
http://www.thenewsblog.net/
jayackroyd @ 127
Would be nice if we were at the next point where our movements in RL could be translated directly to 2L by way of optional sensors. Then we could locate other folks in RL by checking proximity in 2L at the convention. For instance — I want to catch “Sis” when she’s speaking, but I don’t want to miss attending another event. I watch for her to get ready to speak and then leave the other event to catch her just in time, based on proximity monitoring in 2L.
A note from the NY Netroots on NY-20:
house appropriations committee hearing:
frank wolf (r-virginia) – has two things he doesn’t like about the bill. the secretary of states’ hands are tied by too many restrictions. the dod has an exemption – so should the SOS.
jayackroyd @ 44
Thanks for the link to that excellent American Conservative article. Strangely, the libertarians and paleoconservatives have always been more comfortable than progressives with discussion of the negative side of A*PAC and America’s “special relationship” with Israel.
Puesto @ 125
What you said.
If you picture Pelosi being the candidate rather than Hillary, you begin to spy Hillary’s problem. It isn’t gender.
I used to think Ann Richards would have been a wonderful candidate and then Texas voters did the obscenity of kicking her out in favor of Bush.
Run down a list of candidates without regard to money or current name recognition. You should find many women that would be marvelous candidates.
Only my opinion, of course.
Best, Terry
Steve @ 134
oh no– it does sound very serious indeed.
intensified, mega hope heading his way.
Did everyone catch the update?
Morning gang…it looks like that A*P*C convention sure did the trick. Marching orders have been issued.
Pach– many of the repugs were commending and citing Hill’s previous stance wrt Iraq yesterday in their speeches on the floor; using it as a finely honed sword that she has lived up to, again.
They were gloating.
;(
Balrog @ 124
Not yet!
Pachacutec @ 141
Yes. I’m sure the Box Turtle was very sincere.
house appropriations committee hearing:
david price (d-nc). list of extras on port security, tsa, transit grant, emergency preparedness grants, secure our borders, changing the chemical security provisions,
[wtf is it with all these add-ons?! this is supposed to be a supplimental bill]
This is why Hillary and any Republican would stay. Have Obama or Edwards committed to a position yet?
Glorfindel @
143
How so?
house appropriations committee hearing:
harold rogers (r-kentucky) – welcome to walmart. this bill is attempting to buy off members of congress to vote for this ill-advised demand for withdrawal.
“Good morning, gang! What news are you reading?”
Pach;
Here’s a piece from yesterday’s Des Moines Register, just wondering if Matthew Whitaker is one of the “toadie” US Attorneys who survived “The Great US Attorney Purge of 2006.”
And is this the kind of legal persecution Bushco wants these USA’s concentrating on? And, is this the tip of a legal nightmare iceberg? How many other Democrats will face unrelenting and unjust scrutiny from these lackeys, while Republicans get by with murder.
“U.S. Attorney Matthew Whitaker has called a press conference for 2 p.m. at the federal building to discuss the indictment, which alleges that he violated the Hobbs Act, a federal antiracketeering law that frequently is used in cases involving public corruption.”It looks like I’m going to have to march through hell here,” the senator said Tuesday.”
http://desmoinesregister.com/a…../NLETTER01
house appropriations committee hearing:
chet edwards (d-edwards) is up.
[i gotta go… and this is so depressing, it’s probably good thing for my pysche.]
oddz & endz –
- forgot to include yet another sign the Great Rupture is upon us above
resident facist guest made one of his regular visits and for the first time ever, did not insist we turn to Fox News
– moveon is privately demanding Madame Speaker’s office toughen up Iraq bill
Josh Marshall
– anyone know if Senator Webb withstood the A*P*C lobbying onslaught with his no auth/no $$ for Iran bill intact ?
angie @ 144
It’s truly bizarre how Republikans fixate solely (negative way) on Hilary. And she is now pretending to be a Republikan-lite? Ughh.
From the ‘Even a bad Democrat is better’ department:
Return of Macaca?
Balrog @ 155
NOOOOO way.
Balrog @
155
LOL
CaptCT @
57
When I saw the Hillary-Iraq headline, I had the same immediate reaction, but I think the press is blowing this out of proportion. Although I think it’s worth getting her — and the other candidates — to clarify their positions, I do think most of them, including Obama and Edwards, will leave some troops in Iraq for support, training and border security, and not kicking down doors.
Edwards is actually pretty clear about withdrawing all troops from Iraq though he does want to redeploy some of the troops within the region.
Take a look at this. It isn’t as clear as we would like but there isn’t a lot of wiggle room.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y52C9ai8mM
Me @ 146
On the face of it, both Obama and Edwards positions can be made to sound much like Hillary’s. In fact, Obama was opposing the war from the very beginning and Edwards has said he regrets his vote authorizing the war.
Even Jim Webb’s ideas are not totally congenial to those of us who would be delighted if a Dennis Kucinich could be elected. But Kucinich isn’t going to be elected president and Edwards or Obama will do fine I think. Hillary obviously doesn’t get it.
Best, Terry
angie,
correction: that’s, no f**king way :)
So I guess Hilliary is Joe Liberman in a Skirt, since Ellen has dibbs on the pants suit.
I’m glad she’s be branded by the Senator from TX.
Balrog @ 155
Allen’s political toast. But he may prove to be a perrenial loser, if he stays in the game, kind of like Bob Dole when he was running for President. I’ll wager the VA Democrats will surely appreciate having a proven caveman as an adversary.
Republican politics; so easy a caveman can do it.
From the ‘Even a bad Democrat is better’ except Rahm department:
Rahm just says no to Colbert
I really, really, REALLY hope HRC does NOT get the Democratic nod. Thankfully there are still MANY more months before the primaries and the general election.
cbl @ 161
true.
:0
Balrog @ 155
Once a whore, always a whore.
That’s it we need to find Excalibur!
Humphrey was a nice man, but he was the wrong candidate in 1968. We needed someone to end the war. Hillary is the wrong candidate for 2008.
Hilary is the wrong candidate for ANY ERA!
I hope she precedes me in death so I can piss on her grave.
Rayne @ 136
Would be nice if we were at the next point where our movements in RL could be translated directly to 2L by way of optional sensors. Then we could locate other folks in RL by checking proximity in 2L at the convention. For instance — I want to catch “Sis” when she’s speaking, but I don’t want to miss attending another event. I watch for her to get ready to speak and then leave the other event to catch her just in time, based on proximity monitoring in 2L.
The database is designed to implement this. We’ve been discussing whether it’s a good idea or not.
Hey, right now I’m just trying to keep my energy field clear and clean, and stay peaceful while this country battles the terminal bu$hites. It is getting tougher every day………….WHEN ARE WE ALL GOING TO ORGANIZE IN THE STREETS AND START BANGING THOSE POTS AND PANS????
It’s clear that congress and the senate are going to let bu$h continue to lie, cheat, steal, destroy, and imprison……….THE BODY POLITIC IS A FULL BLOWN CANCER.
My local veteran’s peace group says there’s probably nothing to worry about but conservatives may disrupt the demonstration on Saturday in Washington DC.
again, in the past, HRC has done what’s she’s done to force her opponents either more to the right or more to the left – it worked in getting rid of Bayh and Mark Warner – but if she’s trotting this out in hopes of making Obama/Edwards sound more like hippies – her timing is so off
OT- Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s coerced spill-all takes up most of the space on L.A. Times front page this a.m., bouncing Attorneygate to p. 14. They had room on p. 1 for an article complete w/pic on sumo wrestlers though, I notice.
At least there is a pretty forthright account of Carol Lam’s firing by a Times staffer, albeit again buried on p. 14…
Phoenix Woman @ 11
I guess I am still waiting for a Howard Dean type to come rocketing out of nowhere and inject some fire & fearlessness into this rather bland pre-election cinematic.
Wigwam @ 139
one of the strengths of Glenn’s work is his willingness to read lots of material on the right, and to pull out stuff that’s either illustrative of their tendencies, or actually useful analysis.
Like Markos has pointed out, there should be plenty of Tester like common ground with anti-authoritarian right wingers. And those guys do seem to have principles that the evangelicals appear not to have.
Oh, that’s another Glenn looks to be right about–that the evangelicals are just fine with Rudy.
I am running way behind this morning. This comment is a follow up of a comment by KathieinMN in a much earlier thread, but I am confident all will agree it is appropriate in any FDL thread.
“Dear Jane – my heartfelt prayers are with you as you go through your next four months of tribulations. The best fight against cancer is a strong fighting and positive spirit such as you have! I hope that your alternative medical people can provide you with the help you might need to ameliorate any side effects from the chemo. We all love you so much – and love is a very strong potion! We are here for you!
Take care -
Kathie”
You can say that again!
Dear Jane – my heartfelt prayers are with you as you go through your next four months of tribulations. The best fight against cancer is a strong fighting and positive spirit such as you have! I hope that your alternative medical people can provide you with the help you might need to ameliorate any side effects from the chemo. We all love you so much – and love is a very strong potion! We are here for you!
Take care -
Kathie
charlietuna @ 89
Yes, this is what makes him a hero. Just imagine if everyone did what was appropriate, and adult. He really is the grownup in the room. I’m looking forward to the posting later on today. The Libby trial was hardly a whitewash, and Libby’s actually a pretty big fish.
Bay State Librul @
123
It may be that Fitz had to agree to certain terms to keep his job.
In his indictment of Scooter Libby, Fitzgerald claimed: “At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified”.
At a subsequent press conference, he claimed that “[H]er affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified. If that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act.”
The testimony from the Libby trial would be sufficient to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that information about Mrs. Wilson’s affiliation with the the CIA was indeed “intentionally transmitted.” But perhaps Fitz doesn’t think he can make that case stick.
What was Hillary thinking? Is she trying to lose all of her liberal support?
http://political-buzz.com/?p=100
Marie Roget @ 174
Has he confessed to causing global warming yet?
((((((Jane))))))(((((Christy)))))
Late coming to this thread:
It’s Edwards-Obama on the same ticket:
Edwards–President
Obama–Vice-Presidnet
no but we are expecting grainy photos from the grassy knoll any minute now ;)
I share the preference for Gore as the Dem candidate, but I respectfully dissent from the idea that ‘we’ need a military base in the middle east.
I don’t see myself as part of a ‘we’ with Halliburton, Citigroup and the like who use these bases to advance their own interests, interests which are adverse to those of most Americans, not to mention the locals.
Virtually no other countries have external military bases.
Hoping all this interest regarding Gore is just foreplay for the man to run again for President…
Please let it be so!
CNN – Leahy has been authorized to issue subpoenas
twolf1 @ 187
Next post up any minute. Heh.
Watson @ 185
But…but…but…if they can’t attack us over there, then they’re going to try to attack us over here!
twolf1 @
187
Heh.
Right about now, I hear Antonio Banderas in Desperado saying, “Let’s play.”
Pachacutec @ 188
Speaking of whom, where’s the damn report on the pre-war intelligence?
Maybe the long campaign will prove to be a good thing. Reporters may even flush out the candidates’ positions so we won’t be buying a “pig in a poke.” The only problem is there may not be anyone left to vote for, even halfheartedly.
Obama ~ Edwards………our only lifeline!
We the people are much more aware since the bu$h massacre of the last seven years. Any Democratic candidate must be real………that’s it. REAL….transparent on all the issues. The press has no power in the upcoming elections for anyone with an education above a third grade level.
mui @ 122
I’d be leery of any of those magic sword cures. They seldom work. Best example is Nothung, the magic sword in Das Nibelunglied, the legend that inspired Tolkien. No sooner does Sigmund pull Nothung from the tree, than he’s sleeping with his sister. The result is Siegfried, a guy even dumber than Doug Feith.
From an earlier post, but also applicable here is a comment from
“HeirofPatriots says:
March 14th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Barack Obama . . . (*sigh*) [Note to Dems: Straddling a barbed wire fence only ends up doing serious damage to yourself.]
Exactly the problem with Obama!!! This is the greatest frustration I have with my jr. Senator: he’s an absolute coward who can’t take a position until everyone else has passed him by.
So far, he’s had kevlar pants while sitting on the barbed-wire fence, but sooner or later people need to learn of his herd-follower temperament. He’s not a leader!”
It is a very long fence, and he is not up there all by himself. Hillary and friends are up there too.
I really like this line from Peterr
“Straddling a barbed wire fence only ends up doing serious damage to yourself.”
Peterr: Is it OK to use this line? Instead of crediting you specifically and thus opening you up to a time consuming task of responding to the multitude of others who would also ask for permission, I wonder if if would be OK to just attribute the comment to One of the country’s leading moralists made the profound observation that “Straddling a barbed wire fence only ends up doing serious damage to yourself”
http://www.badge714.com/images/DRAG.WAV
jayackroyd @ 176
Libertarian Justin Raimondo has posted a lot of very good stuff at antiwar.com. In fact, so has Pat Buchanan, quite surprisingly.
cbl @
196
707
new thread
She certainly knows how to treat a female impersonator, according to Lieberman.
Rocket Scientist @ 195
It’s fine with me to use that line, but I can’t take all the credit for it. One version or another of it has probably been used for as long as barbed wire has been around. I first heard it from an old rancher in Wyoming when I used to live out there, who was tired of all the posturing of DC folks.
Speaking of Wyoming, Dick Cheney gives the state a bad name. Lots of good folks there, and I feel for them every time Cheney’s home state comes up in conversation.
angie @ 156
Angie — you can’t fix stupid. ;-)
Hillary is bought and sold, so she will be promoted at whatever cost, and she does not mind that she is therefore in bed with all of Cheney’s WHIG/PNAC/A*PAC/The Lobby pals.
No matter how much that gang and their Goebbels-like propaganda machine, the MSM, promotes her, Hillary is unelectable, because the great majority of Republican voters who might switch just will not vote for her.
Rocket Scientist -
“One of the country’s leading moralists” could easily sound like the biggest finger-wagging bluenosed fundy . . . in other words, like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc.
All in all, I’d prefer if you could come up with another phrase to describe me.
;)
Ed*ard Teller @ 194
Uh, I didn’t know the Nibelungenlied story. *achem*
Mandrake @ 172
One can only dream of a real firebrand among the strawmen. Even a Fritz Hollings-type would be a delight but give me a real crowd pleaseer:
Ahh the good old days.
Best, Terry
Peterr @ 204
Right now I am laughing too hard to think of anything. But I promise I will work on it.
To paraphrase Lenin:
Leftwing-ism is an infantile disorder.
Parachutic:
Let me start by saying that I have no love for Hillary Clinton. And I do not know why she voted for the invasion
And I opposed us going into Iraq from the getgo, and foresaw some of what has happened since…..
But that world does not exist. The world that does exist is where we did invade made all those mistakes etc.
In the discussion about US attorneys there is much made of the unwritten assumption that once appointed they give up partisanship and represent all the people.
There is as much an unwritten rule about a democracy. Once a vote is taken the decision is supported by all.
I don’t see that in you and that is for me an infantile disorder. You want to take your bat and go home.
The war was supported by a majority of Congress freely elected by the people. Representing even you and I.
And when we broke it it was broken in all our names. And now we own it. You, I, MoveOn and Hillary among others.
Put another way we fucked Iraq, knocked it up and now we have to pay child support
Maybe you are a teenage father for whom responsibility is thrust upon you.
But there Iraq is. And taking our bat and going home is just as immoral as invasion was.
I think that Hillary is genuinely trying to find a middle way here. Iraq will be in no position to govern independently on 1/08
Just a thought about the Edwards/Obama ticket;
If Obama had eight years as VP in an Edwards administration, he would be one of the most qualified Presidential candidates in history.
Obama could hone his diplomacy skills, acting as the international image fixer to repair the damage done by Bushco.
This doesn’t trivialize Obama, like many of my fellow Dems fear, it only positions him to be an even better president than he could be at this time.
But I agree with previous posts, an Edwards/Obama ticket would be refreshing and very VERY hopeful, like a precious jewel fished-up out of the political sewerpond called DC.
Just my two cents worth.
Scarecrow @ 54
Hillary Clinton also guesses that opponents of the war in Iraq are like war opponents of Vietnam, in her mind basically flakes and certainly not as smart as her and Bill. They view the world as a big corporation and politics as a series of career steps for themselves and those who wish to get paid off for being “loyal”. Both of these Clintons are vapid and unimaginative. They set the bar and we got Gore and Kerry who are third rate.
Aeolius;
“There is as much an unwritten rule about a democracy. Once a vote is taken the decision is supported by all.”
Are you related to Pollyanna? Or just working for Rove?
Your perspective is as infantile and naive as anything you can accuse others of, especially some of our notable Bloggers, Pach in particular.
Your condescending alusions to childishness is ironically not lost on those of us who know the real truth about our administration and their “illegal laws.”
Stop and consider the childish, naive nature of your opinion. Do you really believe a rubber-stamp, bully congress like the 109th was passing meaningful legislation? And do you continue to support them even when they are wrong, for the sake of your imaginary democracy?
What if that vote you mentioned is fixed or influenced by strongarm political tactics? Do you still go along to get along?
Your model democracy depends on integrity among lawmakers, and public trust, both of which are in very short supply these days.
aeolius @ 205
Why would anyone think we would be in any better position to govern Iraq?
When you have a thorn in your foot, it is generally best to pull it out.
American troops are part of the problem, not the solution.
Best, Terry
“And taking our bat and going home is just as immoral as invasion was.”
My, what an ADULT thing to post…
We broke it (granted Saddam did his share), but that means we’re obliged to help fix it, not that we own it.
How about Dems renouncing US claims to permanent bases and oil, and supporting an internationally negotiated solution?
perris @
8
And yet, she had a great speech yesterday to the firefighters.
‘We broke it (granted Saddam did his share), but that means we’re obliged to help fix it,’
No, the neocons broke it, and they want us to bail them out. “We” is a mighty big word.
“We” don’t all agree with you.
Why do our sons and daughters and husbands, wives, brothers and sisters, moms and dads, grammas and grampas, have to die for what “they” started? Aren’t they part of “we” or are they some sort of expendable class of ultimate suckers?
I do, however, agree with your last sentence, it would surely prove the Dems mean business, and not corporate enablement.
RevDeb @
36
That’s exactly right, and Israel wants us to be in Iraq indefinitely and also bomb Iran. Also, notice Hillary’s getting more states to move their primaries to Feb. 5 and the NY delegation to support her now.
Cute analogy, too bad it has nothing to do with the case. But if you want to use it, how about, “We fucked Iraq, knocked it up and now we are going to stay there and keep fucking Iraq, and when the kids are old enough we can fuck them, too.”
Metaphors may be useful to introduce difficult or complex concepts to children. But adults understand that the metaphor is not the territory. BTW, do you still make bunny ears to tie your shoes?
Watson @ 214
Yes! And granting refugee status to Iraqis fleeing the chaos that our illegal government illegally made.
Pachucutec:
I hope you and other commenters won’t take this post as a change of subject. I’d also like to preface this comment by admitting that I posted it a while back at Jane Hamsher’s Blue Dog entry.
I hope you’ll forgive me for re-posting it, but I wanted to bring my thoughts to your attention, as you had a post on the topic a couple days ago.
Hillary Clinton’s Iraq statements must be taken in the context of her and the other Democrats’ recent AIPAC appearances.
Here is what I think the big news was there. I think AIPAC made a big slip-up 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 fuckup and an opportunity to go after them on a partisan basis, without any extraneous, emotional debates about Israel-Palestinian politics, or God forbid, Israeli-Palestinian history.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/
Don’t Go Bonkers About The Times’s Clinton Story
Before everyone goes nuts about the New York Times’s write-up of its interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton, keep this in mind:
The Senate resolution set for debate today endorses the concept of a residual force in Iraq for counterrorism purposes. Said resolution is supported by Sen. Russ Feingold, Sen. Bernie Sanders and other non-Liebermans. Most every Iraq plan propounded by Democrats since the end of “major combat operations” would keep a limited amount of troops in the country or on high alert nearby.
On 1/30, Sen. Barack Obama’s office released a fact sheet about his Iraq plan. It included this sentence: “The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.”
Here’s what the Times writes of Clinton: “Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military. In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.”
This is NOT a Note-esque criticism of the Times’s Gordon and Healy, who dutifully led with the lede. It’s just a caution to those who want to cast the substance of Sen. Clinton’s remarks in the worst possible light. [MARC AMBINDER]
Brendan @ 220
Yes, but the big jump is to get past the shrieked ‘Anti-Semite’ cries in our pounding away that support Israel and Zionism is bad for the US, and always has been, because to do so is Bad For Business.
I offer the following:
Israel’s existence is like a great supprating carbuncle in the Near and Middle East.
Arabs carry a lot more Semitic blood that Europeans Jews descended from 2,000 years ago emigrants.
I imagine it is the same today, but when I was at the Hebrew University about 40 years ago, my fellow students were proud to assure me that about 80% of Israelis were staunch atheists.
There is a great deal less historical reason for Israel’s existence than there is for the Frank-descended French to be permitted to stay in France or the Anglo-Saxon and Norse- descended British to be left in Britain. The Old Testament was written in about 650 BC: there was no Abraham (in Palestine, anyway), no Moses, so no Wilderness, no David, no Solomon (So no Temple, then!). ‘Israel’ was an organized society of Canaanites (what Palestinians were called then) in the north when those who became the Hebrews were still disorganized semi-nomadic hill tribesmen in the south, what became later called Judaea.
Why do we support a terrorist murdering illegal regime? Read Jimmy Carter’;s book; it shows Israel to be straight Hitlerian. Read about the USS Liberty, destroyed by the Israel Air force for listening to the Israel Army murdering Egyptian soldiers they did not want to feed.
The underlying message you suggest is great for the Democratic Party, but i think it is important the whole of America to wake up and realize it is being manipulated by The Lobby and its public persona, the MSM.
maunga #222:
Yours is the kind of slapdash, pseudo-historical rancor I was proposing this site avoid in discussing this particular political issue.
“Israel wants us to be in Iraq indefinitely and also bomb Iran..”
I think this relates to the total gist of Brendan’s previous post; “Israel”is a big word, and encompasses a lot of individuals who do not support their own country’s aggression and militarism.
It might be more accurate to say “Conservative Israelis” or “neocon Israelis” but to cast the whole nation as warmongering trivializes the pacifists and moderates in Israel, who have long opposed the provocative war posturing of their elected leaders.
Hillary’s new Iraq plan has all the clarity, simplicity and political appeal of her old health insurance plan.Her New York Times Interview: Questioning Bush’s tactics but not the premises of his policy, the plan triangulates by half steps and half measures to perpetuate the morass we find ourselves in. It seems destined to fail. Like her ill-fated health insurance proposal of 1993, it offers bewildering complexity when bold initiatives are called for. If, by some miracle, the plan survives the Democratic primaries, it would most likely destroy any administration that tried to implement it. The American people want out of Iraq, and this doesn’t do it.
Before Hillary and the other Democrats totally take over ownership of this war, they need to realize that the real issue facing the American public is no longer just Iraq. The real issue is whether we should get out of the business of empire before we expend even more treasure, both human and financial, destroy our democracy, and bankrupt our nation.
“The Old Testament was written in about 650 BC”
Yet it was “spoken” for over a millennium before it was ever written…
Written words aren’t the only vehicle for spiritual understanding and cultural progress.
And, from my POV, your convoluted history lessons reveal a very prejudiced perspective that is so full of holes, you can drive a Mack truck through it.
The spoken word has been around much longer, so you shouldn’t discount it’s original authority. I mean, rreally, haven’t we learned the hard way that, just because it is in print doesn’t make it true.
JEP:
Thanks for engaging my post. I would go further. The AIPAC issue, for our purposes, doesn’t even need address Israel, much less make generalizations about “Jews”. If the Israeli public wants, or allows, AIPAC to be the Israeli state’s lobbying arm in the U.S., that’s their business.
What’s our business is that AIPAC has made a potentially fatal error in breaking from its nonpartisan tradition. It can be attacked on partisan grounds. You don’t even necessarily argue that AIPAC’s bad for U.S. national security, an obvious truth that doesn’t need to be spelled out for readers and posters at this site.
This site can take on AIPAC the same way it took on Lieberman. As an agent for the Republicans. Inevitably, when it does, it will face the same trollery and charges of “anti-Semitism” it did during the Lamont campaign from a tiny minority of malicious commenters and maybe even a few equally malicious comments from other sites. Boo hoo. Sticks and stones. Don’t let that even be a consideration in moving forwards.
Re: ‘granting refugee status to Iraqis fleeing the chaos’
In response to a population decline that it considers ‘catastrophic’, Russia has started a program to reward women who have more children.
Given population pressure on global resources, we should welcome any population decline.
Perhaps part of the solution to the Iraq conflict would be a program to encourage countries with declining populations to accept Iraqi refugees.
Hillery just told us there is an rhino in the parlor and people here seem to say no, don’t mention that reality. We needed to move the bases out of Saudi Arabia to cut the legs from under arab furry at all those unclean US soldiers being in the holy land near Mecca.
So we chose Iraq. Why do you think we’ve been spending all that money on those bases? Do you really think we’re going to abandon that investment? We want bases in the Middle East and that’s perhaps the better part of why we invaded in the first place.
In that light we don’t care about chaos. We don’t care about dictators or Democracy as much as we do about our global position and protecting our interest. So outrage against a political canidate telling the truth, a fact of life is miss spent.
I may not like it. You may not like it. But what we’re building in that country would seem to suggest we have no intentions of leaving for a long long time.
jep and brendan
AIPAC exists to sustain a fallacy: the origins of that fallacy need to be addressed for there to be any possibility of the influence to be addressed.
jep — what weight would we place upon writing of 2,200CE about Caesar’s Gallic Wars based entirely on verbally handed-down stories.
brendan — You have not shown in any posting a grasp of history of the neighborhood in question. You have, and are posting, thoughtfully, but it seems to me you address the symptoms constantly and not the disease itself and its causes.
Herbert Spencer — “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”
maunga:
I’ll leave it to other commenters to decide whether they prefer your approach or mine.
Let me put my original post at #220 in context. I have posted on the subject a lot in the past few years, often heatedly, and rarely, if ever from a perspective favoring the Israelis or U.S. politics vis-a-vis Israel — that is not a defense or a boast, just something other commenters have a right to know. But I’m not expert in the history of the state of Israel and its neighbors, or of Zionism, or of the Palestianians, and I’ve ultimately realized that to drag in 1948 or 242 is to alienate commenters who are potentially mine — our — political allies in a specific matter: countering AIPAC. I am willing to wager that a lot of commenters who countenance a lot of Israeli behavior I object to think that AIPAC is simply too extremist.
That said, I am well-informed, alas, on the past six or seven years of accelerated history in the Middle East. As I’ve said, I’ve commented heatedly and extensively, and, for my taste, exhaustively already.
It took me a while, and a lot of comment and debate, to formulate what I said in #220. I think a unique opportunity is arising to put differences aside and create a coalition to break AIPAC. Debating the past is a worthy end in itself — debating the recent past and the present state of Israeli-Palestianian and Israeli-Lebanese politics an even more worthy end, but I don’t think either help advance the immediate political objective I’m concerned with.
FWIW, I think brendan and maunga are both making sense.
As to AIPAC, I agree that it certainly has a pervasive and shameful influence on our policy, but it’s pervasive only because it serves the greedy ends of the US establishment. AIPAC is just the teeth of the dog.
I would hope that the Dems would reaffirm to the world that they accept the UN Charter, and that the US has no right to act as a vigilante or as the world’s policeman.
brendan — We do indeed stand on broadly the same ground. I do take your point about drawing people to the position, but I also think it has become time to stand.
It is ‘their’ strategy to move ever gradually towards their goal. They have been probing for chinks and moving into them then resisting modification, for more than 100 years.
It is my opinion, and that of others, I know, that matters have become very urgent that GW has been “programmed” to assault Iran. If he is permitted — and Pelosi (who is supported by AIPAC) continues to leave the Iran-forbidding words out, which brings us closer, to bomb Iran, Iran will flatten the oil installations on the other side of the Gulf.
My certainty of this consequence, which would be disastrous for the US but of little consequence to the Greater Israeli Reich, is what is making me so strident and vehement.
Pachacutec @ 33
Hillary Clinton is embedded in institutions, not a creative person by experience or ability. She will go to mediocre but established advisors like Richard Holbrooke, who wanted to be Secretary of State under Gore, then Kerry and now Clinton. Someday he will get there!!
In the end Hillary and her bunch are just petty office seekers without any real substance.
Watson:
Saying “AIPAC serves the greedy ends of the U.S. establishment” does not address the problem of Democratic politicians genuflecting to it, unless, of course, you consider them all parts of “the establishment”, which doesn’t leave one optimistic about the prospects of Democratic activism.
That is what I’m trying to address. We could have long and acrimonious debates as to whether AIPAC serves Israel, or the Israeli right, or the U.S. establishment, or American Jews, or defense contractors, or all of them, and then proceed to argue to what degree any of this is true.
Something new is happening, however. AIPAC has broken one of its cardinal rules at the national level. It has taken sides (booing speaker Pelosi and giving Cheney an ovation), and it has taken sides with the crazies.
It can credibly be described now as a neocon, Republican operation and attacked on that basis by everyone here. And we can credibly begin to ask our candidates to call out AIPAC for that reason. It will only take one to start the avalanche.
maunga:
You correctly understand I’m not condemning you and would probably agree with you on a lot of points, at least on points of recent history, on which I’d feel qualified to comment.
But a lot of your language betrays a lack of rigor, to be diplomatic about it. “They” have been “probing” for 100 years? George Bush has been “programmed”? I know all the ins and outs of this stuff, — we probably read all the same sources for our news, so that I understand why you’d say “programmed” after reading, say, about Bush’s soiree with warmongering neocon scholars at glenngreenwald. But your kind of talk can only fail to persuade. It’s empty invective that takes things in isolation, amplifies them, and distorts their significance.
Look at Shrum’s recent description of John Edwards’ pathetic “decision” to vote for the Iraq war. Our politicians may be coerced by cranks like AIPAC and their money, but it’s only because they are so completely lacking in spirit and spine, which it is our job to give them.
Hillary is unelectable. We patient democrats have allowed her to usurp our precious time and election process to feed her mega-ego. Enough. Vote her the hell out in the primaries. She’s going to lose this one for us. We don’t need that!
Brendan, I agree that something new is happening.
Not only has AIPAC has broken one of its cardinal rules, but Jimmy Carter’s book, plus Mearsheimer/Walt’s LRB essay on ‘The Israel Lobby’, have opened the door a bit for honest discussion. Meanwhile, Bush & Cheney have discredited unilateralism, and the rest of the world is virtually unanimous for U.N. Resolution 242 (return to the 1967 borders).
I recommend $upporting Kucinich, and Sharpton if he runs, to get Israel/Palestine on the table in the primaries where they can argue that the neocon (dba Likud/AIPAC) approach has inflamed the region, drawn us into war, and made Israel less secure (not to mention its drastic impact on Palestinians).
deandra @ 237
Why do you say she is unelectable? Is it because (a) she is unlikable (b) she is a female (c) she is vapid: (d) she is boring; (e) she is unprincipled; (f) she is the property of the Young Republicans and always has been; (g) she promised Richard Holbrooke he will be her secretary of state; and (h) she will accomplish nothing positive as President except what she and Bill see as another successful promotion.
Some or all or none of the above?
Watson:
The most pressing need we have is to get a candidate to denounce plans to attack Iran, or at least demand return of the legislation requiring Congressional approval. I think the best way to do this would be to use Hillary Clinton as a foil. Attack her as a warmonger and a neoconservative. But even this oblique challenge to the lobby will necessarily invite a full scale attack from AIPAC, so why not attack them to start with, on our our terms?
When you do attack AIPAC, you have to attack AIPAC and its people, not its general charter; you don’t want a debate about Oslo or Jenin or last summer in Lebanon. You have to get a major candidate (i.e., not Kucinich or Sharpton) to refuse an invitation to AIPAC. Grounds can be that the organization is a bunch of Cheneyite extremists, they’re involved in espionage, and they boo Democrats. Getting a candidate to do that is, admittedly, a longshot. But among them, Obama is ranked 17th of 17 of every single candidate by Haaretz for how “pro-Israeli” (not necessarily a black mark to the leftist and enlightened Haaretz”). He is not going to cross them publicly, but we can let him know we “have his back”. Edwards, too, seems more of a risk-taker, despite his cravenness at Herzliya, and I think he is disgusted with himself for voting for the war.
Of course, it’s still likely that candidates are going to continue to kiss AIPAC’s ass, publicly at least. Meanwhile, it would be fruitful to arrive a consensus in the left blogosphere that AIPAC has lost its perceived legitimacy (it never had legitimacy, as far as I’m concerned) and is now playing for the other team exclusively, and convey that consensus to the candidates.
Hillary is unelectable because she is very Lieberman with regard to imperial ambitions in the Middle East. Period.
Amilius @ 241
Hillary is not “very” anything. Don’t you get it? She has no potential. That is why she is unelectable. You cannot define her by issues. She believes in nothing other than feeling important or seeming important. Talk to my sister the doctor about Hillary and what it was like to deal with her on healthcare when she had the power to do something about it years ago. She is vapid.
If you are going to vote against her on issues, you miss the point. She is really much more dangerous and dysfunctional than her current “position” on Iraq which is nothing more than Richard Holbrooke’s current position on Iraq.
new york lawyer:
Hillary presents us with a valuable vehicle for isolating the warmongering minority still seemingly running the show in our party. She is the most committed warmonger (see my #240) among Democrats. The 2008 primary campaigns must be a public exorcism of Hillary Clinton and her money.
Brendan, I like your thinking. I’m just saying that support for Kucinich and Sharpton early may create the environment in which a major candidate can make the break that you’re advocating.
brendan @ 243
I agree with your proposed result but ask yourself why is she taking her “responsible” position on Iraq. She most certainly anticipates that Bush will lie about the progress of the “surge” and that “progress” in Iraq will be a more complicated issue at the time the primaries take place.
Her position on Iraq is definitely not because of some moral compass. It’s because she thinks she can win with that position. So we need to figure a way to expunge the Clintons not because of their positions so much but because they have no sense of real responsibility to this country.
(ya,its old)
burn hillary burn- you’ve never been a friend to my class.
Deandra, the reason she’s unelectable is that practically EVERY republican voter hates her with a passion, to go along with the democratic conservatives who don’t like her.
Then, throw in the fact that she has completely pissed off the progressive wing of the party, and what she has left for potential support is the center of the democratic party, to go along with her name and a ton of money.
And that’s not enough to counter all those negatives. Not nearly enough.
It’s time for a woman president; just not THIS woman.
new york lawyer @ 239
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All of the above, plus, she’s the republicans’ favorite democratic party candidate. They know, even with all her money, they can and will beat her. I’m so tired of hearing her team state how ‘inevitable’ her candidacy is, that she has more money than God, and that her husband’s slick election team is working her to a swift victory. She arrived on third base, with an obnoxious entitlement swagger, having the entire road paved for her by her husband. She is not my idea of a democratic candidate with pertinent policies who can win an election. She’s an echo.