zed?

w00t!!

Ten Simple Ways to End the War:

http://freewayblogger.blogspot…..d-war.html

Goodness…..what to say, what to say.

I don’t see the refresh button coming up.

I concur with Gore Vidal, who said there is but one political party in the USofA: The Party of Property. It has two wings, the Right wing and the Very Right wing. But there is no ‘people’s party’ in the USofA; no place in which to plant one, and no room for one to grow, no oxygen to feed it, no money to support it…

And I’m sure Steny and Rahm and “friends” are all familiar with using the phrase, “Who ya gonna believe, me or your own lyin’ eyes.”

For myself, I’m gonna believe my own lyin’ eyes AND remember the lies and smoke they TRY to blow up my a**.

Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel….corporatocrats.

Morning pups. We’ve been hiking around Sedona (thuglican heaven, to judge by the homes) for the past week. Spent a long weekend with a very rich (democratic) friend in Tuscon. Yes, the rich are different, and not just because they have more money.

I think the change occurred under Reagan, who brought PR politics to perfection. No content, just PR. That takes money. We live in a plebiscitary democracy, in which politicians are sold like cars. The Dems accepted the model after their devastating defeat in 1984. Policies matter only as PR points.

The netroots are a reaction to that politics, but we are a minority.

Sorry for the ramble. It’s hard to keep one’s thoughts straight in such a beautiful setting.

You folks at FDL are the Plame experts. Byron York is being an accommodating flack for Kit Bond’s nonsense today.

Has the brain-trust that is Kit Bond released his own rogue bullshit today or is this part of an intelligence committee report?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

I’m pretty dispirited right now. My congressman (Elijah Cummings) and my senators (Mikulski and Cardin), all Dems, all voted to let Bush have his way. I AM SO SICK OF THIS, I can’t see straight.

I guess I’m too busy trying to pull the knife from my back to pay attention.

Ask yourself, if the Democratic leadership controls the legislative agenda, how does a piece of imperial occupation legislation even come to a vote if a majority of Democratic voting members (in the House, at least) later votes against it, including the Speaker of the House?

Exactly, this bill could not have even made it to the floor without the okay of the House Dem leadership

The bill the Dems yanked would have mandated properly equipped, trained and rested troops, yet somehow, the Dems were too afraid to bash the warmongers with that info

Just watch, the GOP and W will try and really stick it to the Dems even further over their Memorial Day Break, but the Dems could hit back, if they have the spine to do so, and in a way that could really rally so many of us furious libs into supporting them again

From a much longer post about this subject

The Next Step, Possible Counterstep, And BIG Cudgel The Dems Can Still Play

Since the 2008 budgets will start coming up for Congressional votes in September, the Dems should say “enough” to funding all right

That is, funding the Executive Branch

I’m not talking about zeroing-out budgets for the agencies, departments and bureaus under Executive Branch control, just funding for the Executive Branch itself, it’s functions and personnel who work exclusively at the White House

Pass the various budgets, then let the Administration shift funds around, like it already does, to keep itself operating

And if the argument arises that such a punitive, spiteful act is illegal, or somehow beyond Congress’ purview, then let Congress pay as much heed to the laws and separation of powers that W does, and then go the extra step

Let Congress issue a signing statement of its own, namely, that they apportion to themselves the right to cancel out Presidential signing statements, preemptively blocking W’s ability to undercut the very bills he signs into law

Forcing the issue is exactly what the Administration, GOP and their rapidly dwindling number of true believers will never expect in the midst of their gloating, it would be a way to hit back as hard at a clearly out of control President as he enjoys lashing out at everyone else, and it would instantly regain the Dem leadership a measure of now non-existent trust from its very angry base

With or without the Dems help, the GOP collapse is already under way, as the party knows that it can’t count on help from an embattled, bunkered-down Administration, yet still hasn’t found enough strength to toss the President and Cheney over the political rail, in spite of the smacking the voters gave the GOP and Administration’s Iraq policy in the November 2006 elections

The GOP needs to be pushed off the political ledge, and the Dems can’t do that by giving W everything he wants every time he throws a hissy fit and stamps his little feetsies in whiny petulance

So, like so many parents when they threaten to “give you something to cry about”, let the Dems give W something to throw a temper tantrum over, just like taking a favored belonging away from a spoiled brat

Zero Out the Executive Branch Funding At The First Available Opportunity

AZ Matt @ 5

I don’t see the refresh button coming up.

Did you turn JavaScript off?

Bad link at “the right wing is melting down over the GOP corporatist position on immigration,”

Interesting, Pach. Three parties. What is the third party: the Corporatists?

Well said Pachactec.

And for that matter why don’t we have single payer universal health care for all Americans, reasonable trade policies that protect American workers, effective consumer and civil rights laws and enforcement, etc. Your post answers those questions too.

Peterr @ 14

Bad link at “the right wing is melting down over the GOP corporatist position on immigration,”

Thanks. Fixed! Please refresh.

Biodun @ 15

Interesting, Pach. Three parties. What is the third party: the Corporatists?

The CorpoRatists are the ONLY party…

it has two wings: the Dims (the Right Wing) and the Pukes (the VERY RIGHT wing)

nothing happens in congress or in the executive which isn’t first–or at least de facto– approved by them…

racing through-loved Trex’s late late night misive- could weplease deliver that to every Democrat in the democratic organization?

so much disgust!

Biodun @ 15

Interesting, Pach. Three parties. What is the third party: the Corporatists?

Here are the parties.

I have been reading comments all over the Internet this morning from people who are not falling for the Clinton and Obama nays yesterday, including Bob Geiger who has such close ties with Congress. He singled out Dodd as the only real leader among the Senate Democratic contenders for the presidency. As long as the DLC maintains any influence on the Democratic Party, it will not be a party of the people.

ohhhhhhhh pach – my head is spinning! just when i think i’ve figured this all out….. wham! you hit me with this… i like your thinking here – thats so apt – the money party… takes in both dems and pugs – question – how do we combat this force?

Corporate vultures are feasting on the carcass of this democracy.

-GSD

If we’re going to be the reality based people, let’s take another cold eyed, hard view at the realities we face, and who the actors are, etc.

amen to that.

What’s going on here, and do those votes against the bill once the bill actually came to the floor really mean what people think they mean?

nope.

i think it’s my job as a citizen to figure out what is does mean (thanks fld!), and then to share that knowledge. anyone else writing a LTE today?

shine a light on what happened yesterday, and next time they may be less likely to try to spin us.

i hate being kabuki’ed

i confess i dont know what steps to take now… clearly we must act but damn if i know what to do – and i’m tired too

Ask yourself, if the Democratic leadership controls the legislative agenda, how does a piece of imperial occupation legislation even come to a vote if a majority of Democratic voting members (in the House, at least) later votes against it, including the Speaker of the House?

It’s called political kabuki.

Thanks, and yeah, you couldn’t be more right. More here: http://scholarsandrogues.wordp…..ies-divide

I tell ya, as much as I want to fight for it, I am getting the feeling that this nation doesn’t deserve to be saved from itself.

-GSD

I was disappointed to see that Dick Durbin voted for the supplemental. He should have known better.

after dems showed their ineffectiveness this week what are we in the progressive community left to think? ahh questions questions….any answers firepups? at least on the lake we have analytical thinkers who know how to cut thru the bullshit….

My Congressman also voted to extend the blood for oil in Iraq. (1 is a repuke) My Senators did not go along, I talked to a staffer in Boxer’s office this morning who said the Senator was very upset with some of her colleagues and that she wanted to send the original legislation unchanged back to the president.

cnn – army losing mid-level officers at an alarming rate………

Attaturk @ 10

You folks at FDL are the Plame experts. Byron York is being an accommodating flack for Kit Bond’s nonsense today.

Has the brain-trust that is Kit Bond released his own rogue bullshit today or is this part of an intelligence committee report?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

From the looks of things, it is own rogue bullshit, appended to the full SIC report.

The two words that jumped out at me from that Byron York piec #1 were “additional views.” Those are the legislative eqivalent to a concurring or dissenting opinion in an appelate legal decision. With certain limitations, any committee member can attach them to a committee report. Here, it’s Bond’s vehicle for putting something out there that he couldn’t convince a majority of the committee to include in the main report itself.

(I’m on dialup, and that’s a big pdf file from the SIC, so I haven’t had a chance to pull it down and look through it for the details.)

OT:
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a neo-conservative group created two days after the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, is holding what it calls “a policy workshop” during Congress’ Memorial Day recess, no doubt to plot strategy for moving U.S. policy toward Iran in a direction compatible with its confrontational views.

Among those experts who have been invited are several serving and former senior administration officials, including one of the diminishing number of neo-cons left in the Bush administration, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, Paula Dobriansky; the hard-line Iran country director in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Office of Special Plans (OSP) alumna, Ladan Archin; the recently-departed State Department Coordinator of Counterterrorism, Amb. Henry Crumpton; the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Treasury Department, Matthew Levitt, who is now with the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). The administration’s new UN Ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, has also been invited, although his duties as next month’s Security Council president may make it difficult for him to travel. In any case, his spouse, Cheryl Benard, who directs the RAND Center for Middle East Public Policy, is confirmed. Uri Lubrani, the chief Iran advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is also expected to participate.

Neo-Cons To Plot Iran Strategy Amid Caribbean Luxury

1,526 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Pachacutec and the Firepup Patriots:

Citizen Pach, you are a Godsend of reason and hope. I think you got more’n yer willin ta acknowledge from yer religious trainin’ in yer youth …intelligent faith with works is what I’m seein’ here. Anywayz thanx fer the post.

Now, what does this mean for us if what you’ve stated about the political calculus is true? Doesn’t it mean that expanding’ the Democratic Party behind a well articulated anti-fascist program can provide the political space for a new coalition that will include real libertarians, real conservatives and workin’ folks as well as real liberals?

In order to accomplish this it seems that we need two things: (1) a national grassroots movement of direct action this summer coordinated outside the national parties. (2)A declared candidate for president that is not holdin federal office, didn’t vote for any of the war authorizations and has a national base of support.

If we can generate the heat this summer and let the voices of common Americans be heard by bringin’ the war home, well then, we get number 1 above and we can create the space for Big Al Gore to declare on Labor Day before the courage-challenged Democrats come back for the fall session.

I am convinced that saving our democracy requires a new President with the legitimacy and political skills necessary to slay the dragon of the corporate oligarchy.

How ’bout it Pach…you got the chops, if you ken get some a the netroots heavy hitters on board we got the troops out here ta get the job done.

KEEP THE FAITH, MAYBE GOD HAS BEEN TALKIN’ TO YA ALL ALONG!!

my energy is sapped lol – i guess this means lunchtime for me ;o)

it’s one thing to lose on an important issue (like ending the occupation).

but i refuse to accept being played by my own party on how that happened.

we are NOT helping the party or our country when we cover up or pretend the D leadership didn’t just fuck up and try to tell us it was a victory.

i think gore’s got this one right:

Faith in the power of reason—the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault

political kabuki is an assault on reason.

tell the truth and tell it loudly. defend reason.

Martha Burk dissing the Emmanuel & Schumer for backsliding on women’s rights with a lousy strategy for picking candidates in recent election.

CSPAN Nat’l Press Club speech

GSD @ 28

I tell ya, as much as I want to fight for it, I am getting the feeling that this nation doesn’t deserve to be saved from itself.

-GSD

Buck up Buckaroo – the last 24-hours have been heartbreaking but as long as the Ned Lamont quality candidates are waiting in the wings we can and will prevail. Or so I ardently hope.

Ah, darling! At last you are getting glimmers of the truth. Trs interessant, don’t you know?

Toodles!

Ivana Moore-Enmoore
Richly Upholstered Chair
Boston-Metro Chapter
Billionaires For Bush… or whoever else will give us our ‘fair’ share!

blue e (from downstairs) -

Bless you.

a.k.a “clueless”

This is a really good post. The fact that the very people who “negotiated” with the WH and then brought the bill to the floor after all the hoopla and posturing when sending the bill to Bush the first time; turned around and voted against it, totally throws me for a loop.

The question is why. It is just not logical. One could immediately suspect that a lobby with the Iraq war continuance in its interest may have made an offer or threat that could not be refused, but I don’t even think that was it.

There may be something in this bill that will give Pelosi etal. leverage that we don’t really realize, or maybe they just decided they couldn’t appear to not being supportive of the troops. I don’t think that is it either, since it was the President who vetoed it.

It just doesn’t make any obvious sense. Maybe it is just money. I sure don’t know.

Leahy, Specter Want Rove To Hand Over Emails

From Dec. 31, ‘06 – Mar. 31, ‘07, Faux News spent 10% of their time on Anna Nicole. Only 15% on the war. Surprise, surprise.

Report

…

As an example, we found that coverage of the three biggest stories of the quarter—Iraq policy debate, the 2008 campaign and Anna Nicole Smith differed greatly across the three channels and day parts.

Overall, MSNBC and CNN were much more consumed with the war in Iraq than was Fox. MSNBC, for instance, devoted nearly a third of the time studied to the war (26% on the policy debate, 3% on events on the ground and 2% the homefront). Fox, by contrast, spent less than half that much time on the war—15% in all, (10% on the policy debate, 3% on events in Iraq and 1% on the homefront).

…

juslin @ 31

cnn – army losing mid-level officers at an alarming rate………

Are they dissappearing, quitting or getting killed?

-GSD

This is why we have to watch very carefully when we get the “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” lecture …

Siun @ 46

This is why we have to watch very carefully when we get the “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” lecture …

DING!

@38, newspaperbrat says:
Buck up Buckaroo – the last 24-hours have been heartbreaking but as long as the Ned Lamont quality candidates are waiting in the wings we can and will prevail. Or so I ardently hope.

i ardently hope this doesn’t sound too snarky:

Ned Lamont is a Senator from WHICH state?
just askin

naschkatze @ 21

I have been reading comments all over the Internet this morning from people who are not falling for the Clinton and Obama nays yesterday, including Bob Geiger who has such close ties with Congress. He singled out Dodd as the only real leader among the Senate Democratic contenders for the presidency. As long as the DLC maintains any influence on the Democratic Party, it will not be a party of the people.

I need to agree with this. Thumbs up.

newspaperbrat @ 39

GSD @ 28

I tell ya, as much as I want to fight for it, I am getting the feeling that this nation doesn’t deserve to be saved from itself.

-GSD

Buck up Buckaroo – the last 24-hours have been heartbreaking but as long as the Ned Lamont quality candidates are waiting in the wings we can and will prevail. Or so I ardently hope.

I am hopeful, but more for the far future more than for the near.

GSD @ 44

juslin @ 31

cnn – army losing mid-level officers at an alarming rate………

Are they dissappearing, quitting or getting killed?

-GSD

Quitting. Both mid-level commissioned and non-commissioned officers are leaving at the highest rates in about 35 years – ie, the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam debacle.

do-si-do @ 49

naschkatze @ 21

I have been reading comments all over the Internet this morning from people who are not falling for the Clinton and Obama nays yesterday, including Bob Geiger who has such close ties with Congress. He singled out Dodd as the only real leader among the Senate Democratic contenders for the presidency. As long as the DLC maintains any influence on the Democratic Party, it will not be a party of the people.

I need to agree with this. Thumbs up.

What about Edwards?

Career fed employees are quitting ALL agencies at alarming rates. EPA, FDA, all of them.

twolf1 @ 42

Leahy, Specter Want Rove To Hand Over Emails

More sandpounding.

Ready the torpedo tubes. Fire off the subpoenaes!!

Loved the videos today. Condolences to those with connectile dysfunction. I used to be one.

Peterr @ 33

Attaturk @ 10

You folks at FDL are the Plame experts. Byron York is being an accommodating flack for Kit Bond’s nonsense today.

Has the brain-trust that is Kit Bond released his own rogue bullshit today or is this part of an intelligence committee report?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

From the looks of things, it is own rogue bullshit, appended to the full SIC report.

The two words that jumped out at me from that Byron York piec #1 were “additional views.” Those are the legislative eqivalent to a concurring or dissenting opinion in an appelate legal decision. With certain limitations, any committee member can attach them to a committee report. Here, it’s Bond’s vehicle for putting something out there that he couldn’t convince a majority of the committee to include in the main report itself.

Sent a link to Marcy so that when she arrives she’s ready for this crap.

It’s Byron. Of course it’s crap; he could barely manage even with cheatsheets on this topic on CSPAN.

Remember a few days ago, someone mentionned the missing Rove emails being available, and someone else asked what that was about? I never saw an answer to that question, but here’s a link to Greg Palast’s explanation of the found emails and the significance of the term “caging”:
The Goods on Goodling and the Keys to the Kingdom

Have a look!

TexBetsy @ 51

do-si-do @ 49

I need to agree with this. Thumbs up.

What about Edwards?

I am agreeing with the sentiment about HRC and Obama. My jury’s out for Edwards.

Someone should B-slap McCain about a nay vote is a vote to END THE OCCUPATION. not surrender.

Pachacutec: Your post in many ways is spot on, although I think it was an old fashioned political deal as opposed to a grand conspiracy. The Republican phones are off the hook against the immigration bill. Perhaps only 20% of the GOP base wants it. Yet the President is shoving it down the throats of his party largely because as a Texas governor he believes in it and was prepared to commit a great deal of capital to a bill he is accepting holding his nose. Like the TSA which he didn’t want unionized but accepted, he accepted the minimum wage increase which he bitterly opposed for only a 4 month extension of his warmaking funds. One might ask “why”? And the answer is in that immigration bill which he couldn’t get through any other way. This is the last reasonable date he can get the entire Congress to vote against their interests: yours on Iraq and his base on immigration. After this, the Democrats are going to be more resistant going into the ‘08 elections and after this GOP Congress critters and Senators couldn’t afford to campaign on a pro-immigrant bill. So…I think the grand bargain was “you (Pelosi and Reid) give me (Bush) four more months to try to make progress here and you guys get immigration which I also want but maybe not in the form I’m going to get it”. That’s what I think happened.

wgg: rogue scholar @ 48

@38, newspaperbrat says:
Buck up Buckaroo – the last 24-hours have been heartbreaking but as long as the Ned Lamont quality candidates are waiting in the wings we can and will prevail. Or so I ardently hope.

i ardently hope this doesn’t sound too snarky:

Ned Lamont is a Senator from WHICH state?
just askin

Ned Lamont won the democrats primary in CT, delivering shock and awe to Joe Lieberman, forcing him to run as an independent in the fall election. Dainty Barbara Boxer, against all reason, supported Lieberman and of course he was returned to the Senate for another miserable six years.

Ed*ard Teller @ 51

GSD @ 44

Are they dissappearing, quitting or getting killed?

-GSD

Quitting. Both mid-level commissioned and non-commissioned officers are leaving at the highest rates in about 35 years – ie, the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam debacle.

Ah yes. Making America strong again, eh George and Dick?

-GSD

Old Foreskin Luskin is back in action.

-GSD

I’m not happy with what transpired, but I’m not sure we should be as mad as much of the netroots seems to be. Of course we should be mad at the Steny Whores, the Lieberwhores, the kleptocrats with a D beside their name. But we knew pretty well who they were before, and few have given many indications they have changed much.

Pelosi did not have enough votes to override a veto, and I really doubt she had enough votes to even pass the same bill again. Yes, this was a defeat for most US citizens and the netroots, but really- how much better would the Dems look if they admitted publicly this was a defeat? I think very few reps would go along with passing nothing at all. Almost two thirds of D’s voted against the bill, and while it is reasonable for us to question if all of them were “really against it,” the public will mostly accept it, and it will be a mostly Repubilcan war.

If we work hard enough, maybe we can get “Iraq is now a Republican and DLC war” into the lexicon, thereby helping us defeat Liebercrat types.

I’m glad that at least the minimum wage made it in- they should have put a few more things in too. I’m not sure I’m upset with Pelosi or Reid on this- the margin in the Senate is too small, and very few were willing to vote for nothing at all. Keep our anger focussed on R’s and the Money Party Ds. The Money Party Ds will always be with us to some extent, but we need to reduce their power, and it won’t happen quickly.

OT – 747 from Dulles headed to Beijing has engine out – they are dumping fuel and will be landing back at Dulles…

Stoic @ 11

I’m pretty dispirited right now. My congressman (Elijah Cummings) and my senators (Mikulski and Cardin), all Dems, all voted to let Bush have his way. I AM SO SICK OF THIS, I can’t see straight.

I guess I’m too busy trying to pull the knife from my back to pay attention.

we must be neighbors. depressing, isnt it? when you cant depend on 3 pretty dependable Dems, who can you depend on?

btw, the old shell game that the House played is about the oldest game in the book. look like you’re busy and pretend you are doing the right thing, then slip in something you want under one shell while the mark (voter) is looking the other way.

Pach, you are so right. There is no reason the supplemental had to be brought up at all, never mind one with no strings attached. The Dems had all the power and they just gave it away.

A highly reasoned and significant post that should be required reading for all progressives.

Much to ponder here. Only if we identify the enemy can we even being to battle.

Bush fantasies are a threat to my children.

Great thinking!!!!!!

My email to Senator Durbin:

I was deeply disappointed by your vote supporting the sham of the Iraq supplemental.

Do not talk to me about how you support the troops. Acquiescing to leaving them in Iraq for a few more months where some will be killed, others wounded, and all separated from friends and family is heinous. Your vote would not have tipped the balance but you could have used it to make a statement against a failed policy and a senseless war. You did not.

Do not tell me that you oppose this war. You can not vote for the supplemental in its final form and be against the war. You can’t. The time for having it both ways is over. This is not about keeping your powder dry or waiting until September. It is about the here and now. You either stand with the 70% of Americans who oppose this war or against us. It’s that simple. There are no more free passes on this anymore.

Hugh @ 67

My email to Senator Durbin:

I was deeply disappointed by your vote supporting the sham of the Iraq supplemental.

Do not talk to me about how you support the troops. Acquiescing to leaving them in Iraq for a few more months where some will be killed, others wounded, and all separated from friends and family is heinous. Your vote would not have tipped the balance but you could have used it to make a statement against a failed policy and a senseless war. You did not.

Do not tell me that you oppose this war. You can not vote for the supplemental in its final form and be against the war. You can’t. The time for having it both ways is over. This is not about keeping your powder dry or waiting until September. It is about the here and now. You either stand with the 70% of Americans who oppose this war or against us. It’s that simple. There are no more free passes on this anymore.

Way to go Hugh!

((Hugh)) good work.

And thanks for keeping the list of scandals. It reads like, well, like a prelude to a declaration of independence or something!…

twolf1 @ 61

OT – 747 from Dulles headed to Beijing has engine out – they are dumping fuel and will be landing back at Dulles…

MSNBC cites a source saying that flames were visible from one engine.

Siun @ 46

This is why we have to watch very carefully when we get the “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” lecture …

This is the flipside of the single-issue voters that Kos and Armstrong covered in Crashing the Gates.

Being obsessed with single issues has fragmented progressive votes. The candidate has every vote right except the one for your pet issue and they’re tossed aside — leaving the Republican who votes in completely the opposite fashion the opportunity to jump in and take the race.

However in the case of the war, this is not a single issue; it’s many issues rolled up and fitting neatly under progressive values umbrella. The Iraq War represents a failure of diplomacy, a failure of intellect, a failure of values, a failure of the executive, a failure of oversight…this is not a single issue matter. Every single progressive should be committed to doing everything possible to end the war, including defunding — or they are not progressives.

And it’s time to defund them.

And it’s also time to put the screws to Republicans, particularly moderates. How can they possibly go along with the gross failures on so many levels that the Iraq War represents? How can they possibly want their name attached to this war in perpetuity?

tbsa @ 31

My Congressman also voted to extend the blood for oil in Iraq. (1 is a repuke) My Senators did not go along, I talked to a staffer in Boxer’s office this morning who said the Senator was very upset with some of her colleagues and that she wanted to send the original legislation unchanged back to the president.

and she was RIGHT! no issue matters more right now than the occupation of Iraq. not the minimum wage. not immigration reform. nothing. maybe Congress will pay some attention to the “purpose” of appropriations and put funds in the DOD budget only to bring them home. that’s our only hope. strong language with the force of law that prohibits Bush from spending a dime for any other purpose in Iraq after a date certain.

LoudounLib @ 69

twolf1 @ 61

OT – 747 from Dulles headed to Beijing has engine out – they are dumping fuel and will be landing back at Dulles…

MSNBC cites a source saying that flames were visible from one engine.

…they also said Dulles was in Maryland…

twolf, yep — they also usually say it is in DC. Living 5 miles north of IAD, I know it is not! ;-)

You’ve said some important things in this post, but I’d like to take issue with one statement: “We’re collectively, in the netroots, very good at documentation. I think we need to keep doing a lot of careful documentation.” I don’t disagree, but I would say it’s not much of a virtue. Personally, I love documentation. I vote on policy and I choose my candidates based on facts I believe to be true. But in America, that places me in an EXTREME minority.

As PhoenixWoman notes above me, “No content, just PR.” Sad, but true. It’s what wins elections.

Not to say we should ever stop documenting, or stop telling the truth, but it doesn’t usually result in votes, unless the documentation is salacious (e.g. Kolbe, Haggard, or, for that matter, Bill Clinton).

What’s the answer? For starters we need to get the Fairness Doctrine reinstated and put some teeth back in the FCC. Level the PR playing field, then start doing some PR.

LoudounLib @ 73

twolf, yep — they also usually say it is in DC. Living 5 miles north of IAD, I know it is not! ;-)

The breaking news banner said DC – so they got it wrong twice in the same story :)

it’s United flight 897

It’s bid-ness as usual in Congress. I am visiting friends in Steny’s district. In the county newspaper today, there is an article from Steny’s office… about $60 million of new defense spending for his district. Steny can be A***C’s boy as long as he sends the pork to the home folks.

Rayne @ 72

Siun @ 46

This is why we have to watch very carefully when we get the “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” lecture …

This is the flipside of the single-issue voters that Kos and Armstrong covered in Crashing the Gates.

Being obsessed with single issues has fragmented progressive votes. The candidate has every vote right except the one for your pet issue and they’re tossed aside — leaving the Republican who votes in completely the opposite fashion the opportunity to jump in and take the race.

However in the case of the war, this is not a single issue; it’s many issues rolled up and fitting neatly under progressive values umbrella. The Iraq War represents a failure of diplomacy, a failure of intellect, a failure of values, a failure of the executive, a failure of oversight…this is not a single issue matter. Every single progressive should be committed to doing everything possible to end the war, including defunding — or they are not progressives.

And it’s time to defund them.

And it’s also time to put the screws to Republicans, particularly moderates. How can they possibly go along with the gross failures on so many levels that the Iraq War represents? How can they possibly want their name attached to this war in perpetuity?

Rayne, would you ever run for office?

I think we need to keep doing a lot of careful documentation on all these players and forces. Most of all, no fandom or personality cults. It’s all about behavior, and being as ready to call bullshit as say “good job.” The moment we’re taken for granted is the moment we’re irrelevant.

Can’t be repeated too often.

Here’s Howie’s list:

Let’s look at the Democrats who have been endorsed by Blue America. These are the courageous men and women who voted against endless war and against Bush and Cheney and for the American people:
Mike Arcuri (NY)
Bruce Braley (IA)
Steve Cohen (TN)
John Hall (NY)
Paul Hodes (NH)
Jerry McNerney (CA)
Patrick Murphy (PA)
Jerry Nadler (NY)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH)

(Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the DCCC, voted against Emanuel, Hoyer, Bush and Cheney)

These are the freshmen supported by Blue America who stabbed us in the back and joined Emanuel, Hoyer and Cheney today:
Chris Carney (PA)
Kirstin Gillibrand (NY)
Ciro Rodriguez (TX)
Joe Sestak (PA)

The netroots community should find ways to let the Blue America candidates who showed some spine how much we appreciate their efforts. More importantly, we need to let Carney, Gillibrand, Rodriguez and Sestak know how little we appreciate their votes on this issue.

dear firepups – i need your help/input here….

i just got off the phone with congessman jim mcgovern’s press secretary. he’s sent me an email with his/jim’s explanation of the rule (yesterday’s house iraq supplement vote) and the vote for the rule (jim mcgovern is vice chair of the rules committee).

he’s said it’s fine to post it in the comments here (i didn’t tell him which blog *g*), but he’d like me to send him a link so he can read any discussion that follows. he’s agreed not to sock puppet and to protect my anonymity.

so, are you ok with that? should i go ahead and post it here and send him the link?

it’s an interesting view and i’d like your help evaluating it.

what say you all?

Keep your eye on Dodd. I think he is going to start gathering steam among the netroots….

do-si-do @ 54

twolf1 @ 42

Leahy, Specter Want Rove To Hand Over Emails

More sandpounding.

Ready the torpedo tubes. Fire off the subpoenaes!!

Loved the videos today. Condolences to those with connectile dysfunction. I used to be one.

Luskin will plead the 5th…

selise @ 82

so, are you ok with that? should i go ahead and post it here and send him the link?

It’s information and we deal in information.

Hugh @ 84

It’s information and we deal in information.

that’s my take also, but i’m not sending a link w/o everyone here knowing about it (and being ok with that). i’ll wait a few minutes and if there are no naysayers, post the contents of the email.

Here’s Webb’s explanation

Webb: The Democrats Are A Senate Minority On Iraq — Blames Lieberman
Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) put out a statement explaining his vote for the Iraq bill last night: “I worked very hard to try to persuade the Democratic leadership to include clear, restrictive language in this Supplemental. I did not succeed, and was disappointed in many of the provisions that remained. However, we are working under the reality that, on the issue of Iraq, this Senate does not have a Democratic majority. From the outset, we are a minority of 49, given Senator Lieberman’s position on the war. This reality dictates our conduct. On the one hand, I find myself unable to vote against a measure that is necessary to fund our troops who are now in harm’s way. On the other, I will not relent from my continuing efforts to bring this occupation to an end.”

Hugh @ 68

My email to Senator Durbin:

I was deeply disappointed by your vote supporting the sham of the Iraq supplemental.

Do not talk to me about how you support the troops. Acquiescing to leaving them in Iraq for a few more months where some will be killed, others wounded, and all separated from friends and family is heinous. Your vote would not have tipped the balance but you could have used it to make a statement against a failed policy and a senseless war. You did not.

Do not tell me that you oppose this war. You can not vote for the supplemental in its final form and be against the war. You can’t. The time for having it both ways is over. This is not about keeping your powder dry or waiting until September. It is about the here and now. You either stand with the 70% of Americans who oppose this war or against us. It’s that simple. There are no more free passes on this anymore.

Great job on the e-mail…
“O, ’tis the cunning livery of hell.”

Measure for Measure, III.i

Selise—

I would be happy to have Rep. McGovern here at FDL.

Pach:

Appreciate your comments and wanted to tell you that I am not the least offended, for what it’s worth.

“New York buildings are very high,
and not at all offensive” — Lou Reed

Having lost their majorities in the House and Senate in 2006, the Congressional GOP was permitted by the victors to make American war policy yesterday; no amount of lipstick can make that pig less porcine. How is it possible that a Rubber Stamp GOP, whose members bowed in fealty to Dear Leader for six years became MORE POWERFUL when they lost in November, having disgraced themselves with their ethical and oversight lapses?

Just imagine what Newt Gingrich could accomplish against a President polling below 30%! The GOP is laughing at our leaders’ attempts to spin this to their base: “We did exactly the opposite of what you elected us to do, having promised you otherwise — please send us more money so we can capitulate again in September!!”

And when September rolls around, and the GOP decides it has had enough of this war, will they share the credit with Madame Speaker and Majority Leader Reid? As if. Besides, September’s closer to election day 2008 — no one’s gonna vote against the regular DoD budget or against an Iraq supplemental. Yesterday was our only chance. It’s gone now.

I hope the Democrats have some interesting interactions with voters over the Memorial Day recess and district work period. And that they realize this betrayal may keep them busy next spring fighting spirited primary challenges to their supposedly “safe” seats.
===============

Is that rain?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Why, no, it’s Rahm and Harry, pissing on yer leg!!
================

raven @ 86

Here’s Webb’s explanation

Webb: The Democrats Are A Senate Minority On Iraq — Blames Lieberman
Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) put out a statement explaining his vote for the Iraq bill last night: “I worked very hard to try to persuade the Democratic leadership to include clear, restrictive language in this Supplemental. I did not succeed, and was disappointed in many of the provisions that remained. However, we are working under the reality that, on the issue of Iraq, this Senate does not have a Democratic majority. From the outset, we are a minority of 49, given Senator Lieberman’s position on the war. This reality dictates our conduct. On the one hand, I find myself unable to vote against a measure that is necessary to fund our troops who are now in harm’s way. On the other, I will not relent from my continuing efforts to bring this occupation to an end.”

egregious – what do you make of Webb’s statement?

raven—

Thanks for the info on Senator Webb’s vote. I know that he is working very hard to keep us out of Iran as well.

egregious @ 88

Selise—

I would be happy to have Rep. McGovern here at FDL.

that would be great! but it’s not mcgovern – it’s his press secretary.. who will probably only be lurking.

at some future point i could ask mcgovern (maybe with howie’s help?) but only if jane et al. wanted to do that…

npb—I didn’t panic about Webb’s vote, I know what he believes and knew he would be able to describe the situation in a way that made sense.

We need a campaign to publicly denounce the DLC as the neocon wing of the Party and A*IP*AC as anti-semitic. They’re the ones behind this. Even those who aren’t members of the DLC can succumb to threats from the pro-zionist lobby. They are illegally influencing American politics. It has to stop.

selise at 82 — I think that is fine. But be forewarned that I have a Libby update coming very shortly. Not that this thread will close — it won’t — but I just wanted to give you a heads up that this was coming. *g*

I’d love to see McGovern’s response, frankly.

Enlightening post, Pach. I hadn’t noticed the “Corporate” party on ballots before, but, it turns out, they’ve been there all along, huh? This explains much.

God, this is depressing. I returned my solicitation from the DNC today. I did not take them up on using my own postage (”You will save us much-needed funds”). I returned the “Vote Democratic” bumper sticker, after changing it to “Vote for the Courageous.” And, I hand wrote over Howard Dean’s form letter:

“I support and vote for the courageous, not for the party. The pathetic performance by Democrats in the recent blank-check Iraq funding bill was anything but courageous. Quit talking. Take some bold actions. Then, maybe we’ll talk again.”

Elliott @ 79

Rayne, would you ever run for office?

Not until my kids are out of school. I owe it to them to be here; my spouse is a senior executive who travels a LOT, need at least one parent on the ground within reasonable commute distance for the kids’ benefit. (Some of those lousy family values the Repugs deride us about, you know?)

But in the mean time I am doing what I can for local and state candidates. Helped county commissioners and state house/senate seats last cycle, will probably be dedicated exclusively to a state house candidate this next year on website/IT stuff (and I cannot freaking wait to get started).

It’s all good, though, because it teaches me how to do a better job if I should ever run. I wouldn’t mind some day being nothing more than “senior advisor to the President”. ;-)

Jukesgrrl @ 76

You’ve said some important things in this post, but I’d like to take issue with one statement: “We’re collectively, in the netroots, very good at documentation. I think we need to keep doing a lot of careful documentation.” I don’t disagree, but I would say it’s not much of a virtue. Personally, I love documentation. I vote on policy and I choose my candidates based on facts I believe to be true. But in America, that places me in an EXTREME minority.

As PhoenixWoman notes above me, “No content, just PR.” Sad, but true. It’s what wins elections.

Not to say we should ever stop documenting, or stop telling the truth, but it doesn’t usually result in votes, unless the documentation is salacious (e.g. Kolbe, Haggard, or, for that matter, Bill Clinton).

What’s the answer? For starters we need to get the Fairness Doctrine reinstated and put some teeth back in the FCC. Level the PR playing field, then start doing some PR.

YUP! You got it! But looks like we’re gonna have to wait until hell freezes over first.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 95

selise at 82 — I think that is fine. But be forewarned that I have a Libby update coming very shortly. Not that this thread will close — it won’t — but I just wanted to give you a heads up that this was coming. *g*

I’d love to see McGovern’s response, frankly.

thank you christy – didn’t want to overstep here.

egregious – what do you make of Webb’s statement?

Remember, this is a guy that blames the anti-war movement for “losing” Vietnam:

To be sure, Kerry deserves condemnation for his activities as the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). In the early 1970s, this small organization — never more than 7,000 veterans out of a potential pool of 9 million — became the darling of the anti-war movement and the liberal media. Its activities went far beyond simply criticizing the politics of the war to repeatedly and dishonestly misrepresenting the service of Vietnam veterans and the positive feelings most felt after serving.

Kerry and his VVAW compatriots portrayed their fellow veterans as unwilling soldiers, morally debased and haunted by their service. While this might have fit a small minority, the most accurate survey, done by the Harris Poll in 1980, showed that 91% of those who went to Vietnam were “glad they served their country,” 74% “enjoyed their time in the military” and 89% agreed with the statement that “our troops were asked to fight in a war which our political leaders in Washington would not let them win.”

Kerry’s own comments were filled with hyperbolic exaggerations that sought to make egregious acts seem commonplace. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 1971, he testified that fellow veterans had routinely “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.” With those words, he defamed a generation of honorable men. No matter how he spins it today, at a minimum, he owes them a full and complete apology.

I sent money to his campaign because Allen was so much worse but neither Kerry or any of the rest of us from the VVAW owe any apology to any goddamn one. Don’t let Webb fool you about who he really is.

UA flight has landed safely at Dulles and is heading for the gate.

Phule posted this on one of the threads yesterday:

Simple Political Advice for our Democratic Party:

If the GOP supports it, it’s probably not a good idea.

If the political consultant also supports it, you’re doing something wrong.

And if Bush is happy about it, you’ve F*cked up.

It pretty well covers what happened.

selise @ 86

Hugh @ 84

It’s information and we deal in information.

that’s my take also, but i’m not sending a link w/o everyone here knowing about it (and being ok with that). i’ll wait a few minutes and if there are no naysayers, post the contents of the email.

I’m OK with it, but it isn’t my blog. Perhaps an email to the hosts and hostesses directly might address your reservations?

read yer post, Pach.

not gonna read comments before i 1st go out on a limb with ya…

OFFENDED??? Are you kidding? I kept waiting for the punchline…

More like feeling honored that you, on a regular basis, come clean with the kind of honesty you, and we, would like to see in our congresscritters.

If you meant to dampen my faith in your skills, courage &/or personal ethical standards, you failed miserably.

lead on, noble warrior ;->

Ooh…Libby update!! Woohoo!! Did you bring some smack for Byron York, Christy? or did you hazard a guess about Libby being incarcerated while waiting on appeal??

It’s like a mini-Christmas, can’t wait to open the next post!!

Rayne @ 98

Elliott @ 79

Rayne, would you ever run for office?

Not until my kids are out of school. I owe it to them to be here; my spouse is a senior executive who travels a LOT, need at least one parent on the ground within reasonable commute distance for the kids’ benefit. (Some of those lousy family values the Repugs deride us about, you know?)

But in the mean time I am doing what I can for local and state candidates. Helped county commissioners and state house/senate seats last cycle, will probably be dedicated exclusively to a state house candidate this next year on website/IT stuff (and I cannot freaking wait to get started).

It’s all good, though, because it teaches me how to do a better job if I should ever run. I wouldn’t mind some day being nothing more than “senior advisor to the President”. ;-)

Well that’s really nice to hear, I figured you were running a hectic household so it wasn’t something for right now; but you sure would be a great candidate or advisor.

Rayne at 106 — Oh, did Byron write something about Libby? I missed it, if so.

egregious @ 89

Selise—

I would be happy to have Rep. McGovern here at FDL.

The same with Chris Carney, Kirstin Gillibrand, Ciro Rodriguez and
Joe Sestak.

newspaperbrat @92 quotes Webb: On the one hand, I find myself unable to vote against a measure that is necessary to fund our troops who are now in harm’s way. On the other, I will not relent from my continuing efforts to bring this occupation to an end.”

egregious – what do you make of Webb’s statement?

i’m not the addressee of this query, but it seems to me that Webb has learned that all-too-vital parliamentary tactic: oppose something before you approve it/approve something before you oppose it.

works SOOOOO well…

btw, though Webb is a huge improvement over Macaca (probably he’s not a raving racist, for example), he’s no friend to/ally of any progressives…or of the progressive/liberal agenda…

.
/

New thread upstairs…

i called congressman mcgovern’s office this morning and eventually talked with (and received an email from) mcgovern’s press secretary about the rule vote yesterday on the iraq supplemental. i’ll be sending the link to mr. mershon, so he may be lurking:

The rule that provided for consideration of the supplemental included language that guaranteed that in September the House will vote – again – on Mr. McGovern’s language mandating a withdrawal date. In other words, supporting the rule guarantees that the House will have another opportunity to vote on Mr. McGovern’s bill to end the war. Additionally, Mr. McGovern is the Vice Chairman of the Rules Committee. Part of his responsibility is to work with the leadership to keep the legislative process moving.

Defeating the rule would have accomplished nothing. The fact of the matter is that there exists a majority in the House to continue to give the President the authority – no strings attached – to continue the war. We can be as unhappy as we want about that fact, but it is a fact. Defeating the rule could have allowed the Republicans to bring a no-strings-attached supplemental resolution to the floor WITHOUT the guarantee of a later vote on Mr. McGovern’s language, and WITHOUT the domestic spending priorities (veterans health care, the SCHIP children’s health care funding, an increase in the minimum wage, etc.) included in the bills that passed last night.

Two weeks ago, 171 members of the House (169 Democrats and 2 Republicans) voted in favor of Mr. McGovern’s bill. This was an excellent vote, but it is 47 votes short of a majority in the House. We hope to use the time between now and September to build on that number. I personally believe that the best use of time and resources for those of us committed to ending this war in the coming months will be to try to get as strong a vote as possible on the McGovern language.

Hope this is helpful.

Michael Mershon, Press Secretary

U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)

New York Times

Report: Iraq Problems Were Anticipated

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: May 25, 2007
Filed at 1:48 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. intelligence analysts predicted, in two papers widely circulated before the 2003 Iraq invasion, that al-Qaida would see U.S. military action as an opportunity to increase its operations and that Iran would try to shape the post-Saddam era.

The top analysts in government also said that establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a long, turbulent challenge.

Democrats said the documents, part of a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation released Friday, make clear that the Bush administration was warned about the challenges it now faces as it tries to stabilize Iraq.

”Sadly, the administration’s refusal to heed these dire warnings — and worse, to plan for them — has led to tragic consequences for which our nation is paying a terrible price,” said Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

But some Republicans rejected the committee’s work as flawed. The committee’s top Republican, Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, said the report’s conclusions selectively highlight the intelligence agencies’ findings that seem to be important now, distorting the picture of what was presented to policymakers.

…

Christy — he’s at the Corner, dissecting Valerie Plame in multiple parts. (There are times when I wish she could use some of her training for purposes other than personal protection…this is one of them.)

Wonder if this is preemptive innoculation against the sentencing outcome in the near term…? How Rovian.

edit: hat tip to Attaturk, who shared this link asking for Plame-oholic feedback, and to Peterr for first response.

btw, fresh thread, for the Libby Trial-a-holics in the audience.

if everyone hasn’t already left this thread for the next, i’d love to know what you-all think about mcgovern’s explanation.

am i nuts to think it might make sense? or should i still be pissed about the rule and his support of it?

wgg: tokin liberal @ 110

newspaperbrat @92 quotes Webb: On the one hand, I find myself unable to vote against a measure that is necessary to fund our troops who are now in harm’s way. On the other, I will not relent from my continuing efforts to bring this occupation to an end.”

egregious – what do you make of Webb’s statement?

i’m not the addressee of this query, but it seems to me that Webb has learned that all-too-vital parliamentary tactic: oppose something before you approve it/approve something before you oppose it.

works SOOOOO well…

btw, though Webb is a huge improvement over Macaca (probably he’s not a raving racist, for example), he’s no friend to/ally of any progressives…or of the progressive/liberal agenda…

.
/

Roger that! Is it time for Friday afternoon rock and roll?

Rayne at 114 — Sounds to me more like a pre-emptive strike on keeping Corner readers from picking up her book. I’ll take a look…

Stoic @ 11

I’m pretty dispirited right now. My congressman (Elijah Cummings) and my senators (Mikulski and Cardin), all Dems, all voted to let Bush have his way. I AM SO SICK OF THIS, I can’t see straight.

I guess I’m too busy trying to pull the knife from my back to pay attention.

Try Trent Franks, McCain and John Kyl.

Raven, were you alive in ‘68?

given your spew at 102, i am inclined to doubt it.

i was a member of VVAW, and we numbered in the hundreds at UNM, which was NOT a hotbed of protest (until ‘70/kent state/cambodia)…

as to the ’slanders’ of which you accuse Kerry, i guess you never heard of the other Kerrey’s exploits, or those of the Tiger force, or the dozens of other ops designed to terrorize the vietnamese into acquiescence to our invasion…

nice revisionism, pard…
.

TexBetsy @ 53

Career fed employees are quitting ALL agencies at alarming rates. EPA, FDA, all of them.

so-o-o… is the federal govt going to become a branch of Regent U?

wgg: tokin liberal @ 121

Raven, were you alive in ‘68?

given your spew at 102, i am inclined to doubt it.

i was a member of VVAW, and we numbered in the hundreds at UNM, which was NOT a hotbed of protest (until ‘70/kent state/cambodia)…

as to the ’slanders’ of which you accuse Kerry, i guess you never heard of the other Kerrey’s exploits, or those of the Tiger force, or the dozens of other ops designed to terrorize the vietnamese into acquiescence to our invasion…

nice revisionism, pard…
.

Sorry man, that was Webb’s quote. I was making a point about who he is. I was in the 7th ID Korea 67-68 and 1st Signal 68-68 RVN. VVAW Champaign-Urbana Chapter and Dewey Canyon III. Sorry I was unclear, he still pisses me off. I see no diff in his stance and that of the Swifties. How was the Nam, predicated on a fabrication different from Iraq? ‘Course you know the answer, it isn’t.

wgg: tokin liberal @ 109

newspaperbrat @92 quotes Webb: On the one hand, I find myself unable to vote against a measure that is necessary to fund our troops who are now in harm’s way. On the other, I will not relent from my continuing efforts to bring this occupation to an end.”

egregious – what do you make of Webb’s statement?

i’m not the addressee of this query, but it seems to me that Webb has learned that all-too-vital parliamentary tactic: oppose something before you approve it/approve something before you oppose it.

works SOOOOO well…

btw, though Webb is a huge improvement over Macaca (probably he’s not a raving racist, for example), he’s no friend to/ally of any progressives…or of the progressive/liberal agenda…

.
/

Perhaps, but in my experience as a widow of an Army officer who served in Viet Nam I have enormous admiration for Jim Webb and most especially his no nonsense transformation from Republican to Democrat. He is a good and brilliant man and would never let the troops down under any circumstance, nor the American people.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 114

btw, fresh thread, for the Libby Trial-a-holics in the audience.

i think that would be almost all of us!

i’ll check back later to see if anyone has any comments on mcgovern’s explanation of the rule vote.

Perhaps, but in my experience as a widow of an Army officer who served in Viet Nam I have enormous admiration for Jim Webb and most especially his no nonsense transformation from Republican to Democrat. He is a good and brilliant man and would never let the troops down under any circumstance, nor the American people.

I respect your position. However I think the idea of “letting the troops down” is pretty subjective. There are plenty of folks who think the only way not to let the troops who have died down is to keep it up until we “win”.

(Webb) is a good and brilliant man and would never let the troops down under any circumstance, nor the American people.

looks to me like he did BOTH with a single vote yestiddy…that’s purty good shootin’
./

Open italic tag at 102. Thanks, Mods.

[Mod: that was fixed a while ago, try refreshing the whole page, thanks]

there should be no doubt that there are many “forces” aligned against “the people”, most of which “forces” have significantly greater influence on politicians than there constituents. Most politicians come around and talk to their constituents only long enough to get elected. Just look at LIEberman, he lied profusely to get elected and now does exactly the opposite of what he promised while trying to get elected.

Just for the record the Army did it’s own investigation of atrocities and found they were much worse than had previously been thought. If this is the case just what was it that the VVAW said that slandered the troops?

LA Times August 2006

In early 1973, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Creighton Abrams received some bad news from the service’s chief of criminal investigations.

An internal inquiry had confirmed an officer’s widely publicized charge that members of the 173rd Airborne Brigade had tortured detainees in Vietnam.

But there was a silver lining: Investigators had also compiled a 53-page catalog of alleged discrepancies in retired Lt. Col. Anthony B. Herbert’s public accounts of his war experiences.

“This package … provides sufficient material to impeach this man’s credibility; should this need arise, I volunteer for the task,” wrote Col. Henry H. Tufts, commander of the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division.

Now, declassified records show that while the Army was working energetically to discredit Herbert, military investigators were uncovering torture and mistreatment that went well beyond what he had described.

The abuses were not made public, and few of the wrongdoers were punished.

Mr. Mershon,

Thanks for joining the conversation here.

If your explanation of why some Democrats voted the way they did yesterday is correct, then it seems to me the ultimate solution is for us to elect better Democrats.

I must apologize up front for not knowing your posting protocols or how to navigate this site, being old, ignorant, and nearly blind to boot, but here goes anyhoooo,,,
I am first and foremost an extreme ANTIFASCIST in the strictest meaning of the term: to wit, a fascist by any other name is still a fascist!
CASES IS POINT:
1. Every Bush in public life starting with PRESCOTT AND THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE KETTLE OF SNAKES ARE FASCISTS!
2. Dick Cheney and family, regardless of sexual preference, marital status or lack there of are included, as is Karl-”MC”-Rove and his staff. You can run down the roster of the “BUSHIES” and include them all at your leisure.
3. Now comes KISSIN’ JOE LIEBERMAN, Zell Miller, Steny Hoyner, Raum Emasculated, and the rest of “the let us make a dealers” in both houses of congress….all of those who vote with the BUSH BASTARDS AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY…..and all of whom belong in the same pit of FASCIST VIPERS, no matter what they call themselves.
To a more practical point, I AM GOING TO EXERCISE MY ITSY-BITSY POWER OF THE PURSE BY REFUSING TO SEND A DIME TO ANYONE FDL DOES NOT HAVE ON THEIR “WORTHY OF SUPPORT LIST” AND TO HELL WITH THE LIARS OF “THE PARTY”!

wgg: tokin liberal @ 121

Raven, were you alive in ‘68?

given your spew at 102, i am inclined to doubt it.

i was a member of VVAW, and we numbered in the hundreds at UNM, which was NOT a hotbed of protest (until ‘70/kent state/cambodia)…

as to the ’slanders’ of which you accuse Kerry, i guess you never heard of the other Kerrey’s exploits, or those of the Tiger force, or the dozens of other ops designed to terrorize the vietnamese into acquiescence to our invasion…

nice revisionism, pard…
.

Any chance you got my explanation?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 115

btw, fresh thread, for the Libby Trial-a-holics in the audience.

arent we all. btw, I liked what Jon Stewart said about the Dems last night (there’s an FDL connection)- paraphrased: and the Dems rooted around in the drawer and found… wait for it… a RUBBER STAMP! guess the Republicans left one just in case.

selise @ 117

if everyone hasn’t already left this thread for the next, i’d love to know what you-all think about mcgovern’s explanation.

am i nuts to think it might make sense? or should i still be pissed about the rule and his support of it?

selise,
FWIW, I think I understand where they’re coming from but the bottom line is, given the current attrition rates, something on the order of five hundred US troops are going to die in Iraq and probably five times that number wounded before they vote again. This is on top of countless Iraqis killed and wounded and displaced.

While he’s worried about the political maneuvering and gamesmanship far too many folks will not be coming home ever again.

wgg: tokin liberal @ 120

Raven, were you alive in ‘68?

given your spew at 102, i am inclined to doubt it.

i was a member of VVAW, and we numbered in the hundreds at UNM, which was NOT a hotbed of protest (until ‘70/kent state/cambodia)…

as to the ’slanders’ of which you accuse Kerry, i guess you never heard of the other Kerrey’s exploits, or those of the Tiger force, or the dozens of other ops designed to terrorize the vietnamese into acquiescence to our invasion…

nice revisionism, pard…
.

tokin, u better duck.

TiredFed @ 136

wgg: tokin liberal @ 120

Raven, were you alive in ‘68?

given your spew at 102, i am inclined to doubt it.

i was a member of VVAW, and we numbered in the hundreds at UNM, which was NOT a hotbed of protest (until ‘70/kent state/cambodia)…

as to the ’slanders’ of which you accuse Kerry, i guess you never heard of the other Kerrey’s exploits, or those of the Tiger force, or the dozens of other ops designed to terrorize the vietnamese into acquiescence to our invasion…

nice revisionism, pard…
.

tokin, u better duck.

Nah, I did a shitty job posting it, I would have reacted the same way.

cajun @ 129 –

i don’t think we’re going to be hearing from mr. mershon today. he just wanted to see what we thought…

i really appreciate the detailed and quick response to my call today. so many of our reps ignore us (unless they are asking for money).

was hoping to get some feedback from others… but perhaps i shouldn’t have used epu-land for this…

Getting out of Iraq is just the beginning of a lot of hard work. Meanwhile, continuing to kill and maim the innocent, continuing to destroy a sovereign nation, continuing to put our children and grandchildren in harm’s way for the sake of these criminals is unconscionable.

Gawd, I’m so sick of this.

dakine01 @ 133 –

he said, if i understand correctly, that the funding was going to happen anyway – too many Ds and Rs are for it.

only 142 votes against yesterday.

and 280 votes for continued funding of the occupation.

do you think mcgovern should have voted against the rule?

raven @ 137

TiredFed @ 136

tokin, u better duck.

Nah, I did a shitty job posting it, I would have reacted the same way.

Considering it’s Memorial Day I’ll be importunate and re-recommend “Sir! No Sir!”, a documentary about resistance to the Vietnam War from within the armed forces (it’s in large part about the VVAW). It will leave you shaken.

brendan @ 141

raven @ 137

Nah, I did a shitty job posting it, I would have reacted the same way.

Considering it’s Memorial Day I’ll be importunate and re-recommend “Sir! No Sir!”, a documentary about resistance to the Vietnam War from within the armed forces (it’s in large part about the VVAW). It will leave you shaken.

Winter Solider is also available.

selise @ 140

dakine01 @ 133 –

he said, if i understand correctly, that the funding was going to happen anyway – too many Ds and Rs are for it.

only 142 votes against yesterday.

and 280 votes for continued funding of the occupation.

do you think mcgovern should have voted against the rule?

Much was made of the rule but you said no Democrats voted against it. Doesn’t that make the rule seem less important in retrospect?

juslin @ 25

i confess i dont know what steps to take now… clearly we must act but damn if i know what to do – and i’m tired too

I really think its taking to the streets. I’m not sure how, but I’m looking.

tbsa @ 31

My Congressman also voted to extend the blood for oil in Iraq. (1 is a repuke) My Senators did not go along, I talked to a staffer in Boxer’s office this morning who said the Senator was very upset with some of her colleagues and that she wanted to send the original legislation unchanged back to the president.

Feinstein votes yes.

There were seven D votes against the rule.

The question for Mr. McGovern and all the leadership is how willing they are to actually back up the “stop the war” talk with uncomfortable votes. The rule allowed the bill to come to the floor … and gave W a blank check. If our goal was to stop the war, we would have forced the issue … over and over. There was no requirement that a bill be passed.

raven #142:

What left me literally “shaken” about this movie was the fresh horror that our government could send an army of draftees, ordinary citizens unprepared for and undesirous of war, to do what we did there…and then see our politicians, our media, and a large proportion of our fellow citizens slander them or efface or any memory of what they did to resist.

The moral idiocy of Webb’s statement is shocking. I believe is in politics precisely to end this war, but it shows you that people can have a loyalty to the military that trumps loyalty to the country, not to say loyalty to humanity.

The late comedian Bill Hicks summed it up best:

“I’ll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. ‘I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.’ ‘I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.’ ‘Hey, wait a minute, there’s one guy holding out both puppets!’”

brendan @ 141

Much was made of the rule but you said no Democrats voted against it. Doesn’t that make the rule seem less important in retrospect?

no, seven house dems voted against it. here’s the link. here’s scarecrow’s explanation.

brendan @ 147

raven #142:

What left me literally “shaken” about this movie was the fresh horror that our government could send an army of draftees, ordinary citizens unprepared for and undesirous of war, to do what we did there…and then see our politicians, our media, and a large proportion of our fellow citizens slander them or efface or any memory of what they did to resist.

The moral idiocy of Webb’s statement is shocking. I believe is in politics precisely to end this war, but it shows you that people can have a loyalty to the military that trumps loyalty to the country, not to say loyalty to humanity.

As you may be able to tell, it still pisses me off and I joined! I don’t live in Virginia but I did donate to Webb because I so disliked Allen but I am not fooled. That statement was during the last presidential but read ” Fields of Fire” and “A Country Such as This” to get a feel for his philosophy. Not that he’s any different than most Annapolis/USMC officers.

Sorry to take a while in responding.

Where to begin? Withdrawal language will come up anyway in September with the Defense Appropriations bill. Withdrawal language in a separate bill is a sideshow distraction. It will allow Republicans and spineless Democrats to vote against it without consequence. There are also the questions of what would happen to it in the Senate. I suspect another McConnell filibuster. Even if it were to survive that and pass, Bush would veto it. And if it is so far from a majority now, it is unlikely in the extreme that McGovern will get veto proof majorities in both Houses in a couple of months.

“Defeating the rule would have accomplished nothing” is obfuscation. It would have forced lawmakers to vote on the whole supplemental package, not weasel about how they voted only for the bits they liked and voted against the bits they didn’t. Voting for the rule to ensure reconsideration of the McGovern language in September is more obfuscation. McGovern could have worked with the House leadership to get such reconsideration. But let’s be clear any deal for a stand alone withdrawal bill would be symbolic at best. It’s chances of becoming law now or in September are zero.

What Democrats need to do is stick withdrawal language in the Appropriations bill itself and make clear it is not coming out under any circumstances ever. Then they need to send it to the President and tell him they are doing this not just in their own names but in the names of the 70% of the American people who support them.

Dianne Feinstein voted to continue funding the war. A war that has brought billions of $$$ in military and civilian infrastructure contracts to her hubby, billionaire financier and war profiteer Richard Blum. Feinstein was the chairperson and ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction, voting on appropriations that gave contracts to her husband, and therefore too herself, until she resigned the post when her connections to Perrini and URS started to surface, and her ethics where being challenged. But by then, Perrini and URS had given her and her husband many millions in income from the war, and from taxpayers. This is one link, there are many more.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n…..E_ID=54932

selise @ 149

brendan @ 141

Much was made of the rule but you said no Democrats voted against it. Doesn’t that make the rule seem less important in retrospect?

no, seven house dems voted against it. here’s the link. here’s scarecrow’s explanation.

Why did all the Republicans vote against it?

SeamusD @ 152

Dianne Feinstein voted to continue funding the war. A war that has brought billions of $$$ in military and civilian infrastructure contracts to her hubby, billionaire financier and war profiteer Richard Blum. Feinstein was the chairperson and ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction, voting on appropriations that gave contracts to her husband, and therefore too herself, until she resigned the post when her connections to Perrini and URS started to surface, and her ethics where being challenged. But by then, Perrini and URS had given her and her husband many millions in income from the war, and from taxpayers. This is one link, there are many more.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n…..E_ID=54932

Now there’s a source, Drudge busy?

raven @ 154

SeamusD @ 152

Dianne Feinstein voted to continue funding the war. A war that has brought billions of $$$ in military and civilian infrastructure contracts to her hubby, billionaire financier and war profiteer Richard Blum. Feinstein was the chairperson and ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction, voting on appropriations that gave contracts to her husband, and therefore too herself, until she resigned the post when her connections to Perrini and URS started to surface, and her ethics where being challenged. But by then, Perrini and URS had given her and her husband many millions in income from the war, and from taxpayers. This is one link, there are many more.
worldnetdaily link

Now there’s a source, Drudge busy?

Here’s a more neutral source, sans accusations, but draw the inferences you wish:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..310531.DTL

Here is someone drawing those inferences:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/49970/

selise-
i think you would have gotten more feedback had the timing been different.

priority one according to the majority of american voters is–
stop the war now. whatever they need to do, to do that, is what they should be doing.

and they aren’t.

condi rice said on charlie rose that we have no intentions of leaving.

then innocently said that they need to pass oil bill……..the oil should belong to the iraqi people, not our corporations………i hope iraq wakes up and refuses to sign it. and votes for us to get the hell out of their country.

so, what are the dem’s saying when they vote to stay? well, what she said, that’s what they are saying to me. that we’re not leaving and their oil belongs to us.

and our congressional representatives should never use the word war, the war is over, we are now occupying iraq and that is the word that should be used, occupation. that is what we are doing.

SeamusD:

Not nice to be gratuitously accused of trollery, huh?

brendan @ 151

selise @ 149

no, seven house dems voted against it. here’s the link. here’s scarecrow’s explanation.

Why did all the Republicans vote against it?

here’s david sirota’s explanation. (and more from him here)

brendan @ 153

Why did all the Republicans vote against it?

Games. They knew it would pass so it allowed them to appear principled and not engaged in fudgery. Then, of course, they made use of this flimflam just as the Democrats did.

Ed*ard Teller @ 81

Here’s Howie’s list:

Let’s look at the Democrats who have been endorsed by Blue America. These are the courageous men and women who voted against endless war and against Bush and Cheney and for the American people:
Mike Arcuri (NY)
Bruce Braley (IA)
Steve Cohen (TN)
John Hall (NY)
Paul Hodes (NH)
Jerry McNerney (CA)
Patrick Murphy (PA)
Jerry Nadler (NY)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH)

(Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the DCCC, voted against Emanuel, Hoyer, Bush and Cheney)

These are the freshmen supported by Blue America who stabbed us in the back and joined Emanuel, Hoyer and Cheney today:
Chris Carney (PA)
Kirstin Gillibrand (NY)
Ciro Rodriguez (TX)
Joe Sestak (PA)

The netroots community should find ways to let the Blue America candidates who showed some spine how much we appreciate their efforts. More importantly, we need to let Carney, Gillibrand, Rodriguez and Sestak know how little we appreciate their votes on this issue.

Rodriguez was the first to benefit from publicity of a Bush Kiss (Bush smooching Henry Cuellar – a sellout dem). I guess George is pretty good with that tongue. Ciro must have fought to get his chance at Bush’s oral probe.

Hugh @ 159

brendan @ 153

Why did all the Republicans vote against it?

Games. They knew it would pass so it allowed them to appear principled and not engaged in fudgery. Then, of course, they made use of this flimflam just as the Democrats did.

Thanks, selise. Here’s the strange explanation from Sirota: “All the Republicans will likely vote no – they want an open debate because they somehow think reiterating to America their steadfast support for the Iraq War is good politics.”

brendan @ 157

SeamusD:

Not nice to be gratuitously accused of trollery, huh?

I ain’t accused nobody of shit.

Hugh @ 149 –

big tent democrat at talkleft has been arguing (if i understand correctly) for a bill to be passed with some limited funding (say through march ‘08) accompanied by a statement from the leadership that there will be no more funding (for the occupation) after that date. they will use all available options to block further funding. so, bush has the money, but he also has a deadline.

that always made sense to me. force and end to the occupation, but do it in a responsible fashion that allows planning for an orderly and safe withdrawal.

i wonder why our congressional leadership did not attempt somthing like that – if they they are really committed to ending the occupation.

dmac @ 154

selise-
i think you would have gotten more feedback had the timing been different.

yeah, but then i would have been messing with the thread. comments will be open for a day, hopefully people will stop by to read, and maybe comment.

brendan @ 157

SeamusD:

Not nice to be gratuitously accused of trollery, huh?

Especially when there are many more reports of her treachery. Feinstein is one of my Senators, so I watch pretty closely. She is a manipulative member of the plutocracy, and doesn’t belong in any leadership position, or in Congress at all.

the three group analysis is ok, as far as it goes
the point I think we really need to take into consideration is this:

the biggest, and therefor most important voting group is the “whatever” group. This is the group that will play along with the high school type petty games of inclusion/exclusion and
“look at him, he’s not like us” games when they have full bellies and cheap gas. This group is what gave the big push in the approval ratings for Bush after 911.

this same group becomes the “my life sucks, and it’s your fault” group when the s*** hits the fan. And the s*** is hitting the fan now.

now that “Kansas” is wide awake from a tight belt and a growling stomach, alliances need to be made. This group doesn’t really care that much about hating gays/women/liberals. They just want their lives to go smoothly. They just want a chance to live their lives in peace and whatever prosperity they can find.

now that we have the power, we need to give back to the “my life sucks and it’s your fault” people and make them into “whatever” people who remember that the Dems made it a little easier for them to get food in their bellies (and insurance on their kids!)

so
your analysis is ok
it’s a little weedy
it’s a little inside the beltway
just
don’t forget the “my life sucks and it’s your fault” group
they tip the balance
and they can be ever go grateful, if you give them justice and a hand.
I know this because my life sucks
and I’m not sure whose fault it is
but I’m looking around to find out whose
and when I do, you can bet that I’ll be at the polls with bells on to vote against those who made my life suck…and for those who helped me and my kids, even if they only helped a little.

raven @ 162

brendan @ 157

SeamusD:

Not nice to be gratuitously accused of trollery, huh?

I ain’t accused nobody of shit.

You looked at his link and were dismissive of it, defending Feinstein by implication. Feinstein’s not all bad, but she’s been bad on the war, and it’s worth amplifying, particularly now, that she and her spouse feed at the trough.

selise @ 163

i wonder why our congressional leadership did not attempt somthing like that – if they they are really committed to ending the occupation.

The short answer is they don’t trust each other and they don’t trust us. So they inch toward a hard, fast decision without actually getting there. We will see what we see in September.

I agree that there are reasonable and responsible ways of managing a withdrawal. It is just that there seem to be so few adults left in Washington.

Siun @ 144

There were seven D votes against the rule.

The question for Mr. McGovern and all the leadership is how willing they are to actually back up the “stop the war” talk with uncomfortable votes. The rule allowed the bill to come to the floor … and gave W a blank check. If our goal was to stop the war, we would have forced the issue … over and over. There was no requirement that a bill be passed.

it does seem like there is a desire to end the war, so long as it’s not uncomfortable….

it think people can be against continuing the occupation – but that doesn’t mean it’s as high a priority with them as it is with us.

i do not know how high a priority jim mcgovern places on ending the occupation – but his recent endorsement of senator clinton for president does not give me warm fuzzies.

brendan @ 167

raven @ 162

I ain’t accused nobody of shit.

You looked at his link and were dismissive of it, defending Feinstein by implication. Feinstein’s not all bad, but she’s been bad on the war, and it’s worth amplifying, particularly now, that she and her spouse feed at the trough.

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you were a mind reader.

brendan @ 167

raven @ 162

I ain’t accused nobody of shit.

You looked at his link and were dismissive of it, defending Feinstein by implication. Feinstein’s not all bad, but she’s been bad on the war, and it’s worth amplifying, particularly now, that she and her spouse feed at the trough.

Thanks raven. I probably could have picked a better link. Googling her name with war profiteer yields 64,400 hits. Maybe there’s SOMETHING to this issue, ya think.

Everyone,

You amaze me, you do the very thing the right wing does when it does not get its way. They do not have the votes, Hillary told you that a long time ago but you refused to hear. Obama has said absolutely nothing to make me vote for him and I’m African American. The Country is in an illegal war and this President was given the power to do what he is doing. Congress gave it to him and the American people endorsed this war in the beginning when it looked like everything was going their way. Stop whinning and grow up! You need to watch the following Senators: Susan Collins, Sununi (not sure about the spelling), Senator John Warner, and Senator Olympia Snow, and if they don’t wind up recalling Joe Leiberman. I believe they will be the next ones on the hit list from their perspective States. As the Scripture, “Wait to see how the matter will fall.” Be patient. I know our soldiers are dying every day. I believe that in the end all of these people will be put to shame when the truth comes out!!!!!!

Thanks!

/bwall

SeamusD @ 171

brendan @ 167

You looked at his link and were dismissive of it, defending Feinstein by implication. Feinstein’s not all bad, but she’s been bad on the war, and it’s worth amplifying, particularly now, that she and her spouse feed at the trough.

Thanks raven. I probably could have picked a better link. Googling her name with war profiteer yields 64,400 hits. Maybe there’s SOMETHING to this issue, ya think.

jesus, I just tried to make a little joke, damn

Hugh @ 166

selise @ 163

i wonder why our congressional leadership did not attempt somthing like that – if they they are really committed to ending the occupation.

The short answer is they don’t trust each other and they don’t trust us. So they inch toward a hard, fast decision without actually getting there. We will see what we see in September.

I agree that there are reasonable and responsible ways of managing a withdrawal. It is just that there seem to be so few adults left in Washington.

i think that makes sense. but it doesn’t necessarily reflect well on our congress – or on us, the citizens.

well, thanks for the conversation… at least for now, i’m going to hold off on my pissed-off LTE re the house rule. will sleep on it and see what i think tomorrow (very little sleep last night, i was so upset)

…will keep stopping back here, in case anyone else joins in.

Hugh @ 168

selise @ 163

i wonder why our congressional leadership did not attempt somthing like that – if they they are really committed to ending the occupation.

The short answer is they don’t trust each other and they don’t trust us. So they inch toward a hard, fast decision without actually getting there. We will see what we see in September.

I agree that there are reasonable and responsible ways of managing a withdrawal. It is just that there seem to be so few adults left in Washington.

selise,
Hope you see this. I agree with Hugh’s explanation of how the procedural vote was McGovern obfuscating the issue. That was the point I was trying to make by saying the political gamesmanship while people are dying. He should have voted against it again and again and again. Instead he played a game to justify himself. Not honest and not to be trusted.

My $.02

Hugh @ 168

selise @ 163

i wonder why our congressional leadership did not attempt somthing like that – if they they are really committed to ending the occupation.

The short answer is they don’t trust each other and they don’t trust us. So they inch toward a hard, fast decision without actually getting there. We will see what we see in September.

I agree that there are reasonable and responsible ways of managing a withdrawal. It is just that there seem to be so few adults left in Washington.

I think there’s another factor in this division. Some Democrats, disproportionately powerful ones, wanted the war in the first place and want the occupation to continue in a reduced, or at least less visible way, “over the horizon”, or whatever euphemism they want, if need be. Rahm Emanuel is not a dummy and so I don’t think stupidity or cupidity or timidity explain his tactics. Hillary Clinton saw the invasion, I’ll guess, as the fruition of her husband’s policy of seeking “regime change” in Iraq. Wesley Clark can tell you where her money comes from. Joe Lieberman was our Vice-Presidential candidate was supported against Lamont by our party. Was this just an idiosyncratic choice by Al Gore, or something forced on him.

If they didn’t want or expect a continued occupation, wouldn’t there be some effort to defund permanent bases, or at least noise (Kerry mentioned this in a 2004 debate, but never pursued it)? (Dodd is against: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..46563.html)

LibertyLee @ 58 – Sounds as plausible to me as many other theories at this point…

selise @ 113, thanks for pursuing and posting Mershon’s explanation.

I question why McGovern’s frozen-in-stone proposal is the only separate occupation end-date bill the House will (apparently) be allowed to consider going forward. Does the rule allow for changes to be made to the already-defeated McGovern language to accommodate those in the House and Senate who might be inclined to support it with a little tweaking (if only to give them cover for changing their minds)? If not, it very much sounds like what Hugh describes at 151 — a wishful-thinking sideshow for some PC PR and not much else.

Mershon said:

Part of [McGovern’s] responsibility is to work with the leadership to keep the legislative process moving.

McGovern managed to insert one of his own priorities into the “legislative process” rather successfully it appears, while keeping that process “moving,” so I think that comment sort of elides the main question here, which is one of priorities.

I’m at a disadvantage (as are most of us here, I assume) because I really have no clue about what this $100 billion dollar supplemental is actually, specifically funding. As I understand it, these supplementals allow vagueness that the regular appropriation bills don’t, but I don’t know how much detail is known to Congress about the specifics of spending in the supplemental. Supposedly we are spending $2 billion a week on Iraq and Afghanistan. At that burn rate, we’d need another $32 billion for June through September – so what’s the extra money for? I believe the MRAP vehicle funding is in there – a new capital item, not an operating budget expense. But perhaps new infrastructure and equipment expenditures are where the bulk of this funding is going.

Nevertheless, we were aware that this supplemental gave the Congress leverage that they would not otherwise have had, to start to end the occupation. But Congress couldn’t wait to get rid of that unwanted leverage in the end, apparently, and like Pachacutec, I really want to know who drove that debate in the Senate and House leadership besides (I assume) Hoyer and Emanuel.

Bottom line, though for every Member of Congress right now: the American people aren’t buying the cover stories for why we went in, and why we are staying in Iraq (see dmac @ 156 about the oil-theft bill).

We simply cannot make sense any longer of this insane drain on our federal treasury, brutally-ineffective use of our military, and callous disregard for the violence we have unleashed on the Iraqi people, because the explanations Congress, the President and the media try to give us to rationalize that insanity just don’t add up.

Just one example: the “Iraqi civil war.” Putting aside the fact that our unwanted presence in Iraq is fomenting that conflict, it seems to be becoming clear (unless you only listen to the Pentagon, perhaps) that the real struggle in Iraq is one between nationalists trying to save a strong central government in Iraq, and separatists supported and encouraged by the American occupiers (and by Senators like Joe Biden). The nationalists also want Iraq to own their own oil, and the separatists are willing to transfer control to multinational oil companies in exchange for regional autonomy over oil fields. But the rampant disinformation and misinformation, and plain ignorance and laziness of Congressional thinking on Iraq help make everything a giant muddle to those of us looking on from outside the halls of power. And, increasingly, that muddle seems to be a deliberate attempt to obscure the true motives driving our presence in Iraq.

“Iraq’s resistance groups have offered a series of peace plans that might put an end to the country’s sectarian violence, but they’ve been ignored by the U.S.-led coalition because they’re opposed to foreign occupation and privatization of oil.”

The full story behind that summary is here:

http://www.alternet.org/story/52135/

brendan @ 175

I think there’s another factor in this division. Some Democrats, disproportionately powerful ones, wanted the war in the first place and want the occupation to continue in a reduced, or at least less visible way, “over the horizon”, or whatever euphemism they want, if need be.

but why support the occupation?

do you think that it’s pressure from the “military-industrial complex”? $120 billion is a lot of money….

or maybe they really believe in the neo-con fantasy of a century of world-wide domination through military force?

or maybe it’s pressure to force the privatization of iraq’s oil – that the dems put in as a benchmark!?!

i just don’t get it… i’d really like to know what and who is behind the support for this debacle. and the house rule didn’t help enlighten us.

Latest FaBlog: Fait Divers — Enough!

pow wow @ 176 -

thank you, excellent analysis. priorities indeed.

… and thank you for the link from Raed Jarrar – makes me want to run screaming from the room. wtf are we doing?

P J Evans @ 104

Phule posted this on one of the threads yesterday:

Simple Political Advice for our Democratic Party:

If the GOP supports it, it’s probably not a good idea.

If the political consultant also supports it, you’re doing something wrong.

And if Bush is happy about it, you’ve F*cked up.

It pretty well covers what happened.

“F*cked up”? or just outmuscled. I blame the triangulating Dems who made this deal with Bushie Repubs.

Of course, were we really so naive as to believe this would never happen?

We keep fighting and clearly recognize our enemies, regardless of labels or public approval ratings. They know we’re here. They’re responding in some part to our political moves. And, they are the ones in the administration who are in serious trouble.

I mean, if even God is on our side and makes birds poop on Dubya…

selise @ 113

The rule that provided for consideration of the supplemental included language that guaranteed that in September the House will vote – again – on Mr. McGovern’s language mandating a withdrawal date.

This, I understand. Why oh why couldn’t the Dem leadership have explained the political realities honestly like this, instead of just saying “it’s a victory!”? I suspect that fully half of the outrage and anger that I feal is because the Dems were lying about what happened by saying it was some great success, rather than saying the truth — it was a defeat, but not a total one so have hope?

Thank you, McGovern’s PR man. More of this, please.

FIREDOG IS RIGHT ON THE MONEY!

And remember this: It’s a fact that Reid and Schumer lied and deceived everone to keep Lieberman in. They specifically worked to keep OUT another anti-war vote! WHY?

Knut Wicksell says:
May 25th, 2007 at 9:55 am

Hey to Knut in Sedona, from Sedona:
This is actually Rick Renzi’s district, (#13 on the most corrupt list!), who’d have been thrown out long ago but for an administration who packed the FEC and judiciary with citizens who unfortunately are dead blind on their Right side.
Also only the property owners are wealthy and they like Renzi don’t live here!

He buys his seat with 98% of his money coming from out of state. Our Az Daily Star listed his contributors as:
(and this is hysterically true)

“…Peabody Coal ..blah.. blah..(all big corporations)…and …1 guy from Flagstaff”!)

Back to the main subject…how do we help Gov. Dean and Russ Feingold, who work the 50
state strategy to find good progressive candidates, without helping the Schumers, Hoyers and Emanuels
????

What we must do is identify the Cheney Democrats within the party and then expose them and their military industrial connections to the public.
How many of Clinton’s backers know that she was on the Wallmart Board or that her handlers are Cheney Democrats.
Basically we need candidates with no connections to the MIC

not to be completely lame, but i was glad to see the minwage thingy go thru.

just out of curiosity… help me here… anybody know WTF kind of name “Steny” is? seems to be at least as fabricated as his hair-hive-ho…

I have put together a list of 39 Dems who in the 109th Congress voted for the bankruptcy bill and against net neutrality. Any suggestions of other votes that would help identify the corporatists in our midsts?

George Lucas warned us.

http://scorpionbowl.blogspot.c…..rwell.html

SeamusD @ 171

brendan @ 167

You looked at his link and were dismissive of it, defending Feinstein by implication. Feinstein’s not all bad, but she’s been bad on the war, and it’s worth amplifying, particularly now, that she and her spouse feed at the trough.

Thanks raven. I probably could have picked a better link. Googling her name with war profiteer yields 64,400 hits. Maybe there’s SOMETHING to this issue, ya think.

Google “George Bush” wonderful president hero. You get 571,000 hits. Your point?

seepeesate @ 183

selise @ 113

The rule that provided for consideration of the supplemental included language that guaranteed that in September the House will vote – again – on Mr. McGovern’s language mandating a withdrawal date.

This, I understand. Why oh why couldn’t the Dem leadership have explained the political realities honestly like this, instead of just saying “it’s a victory!”? I suspect that fully half of the outrage and anger that I feal is because the Dems were lying about what happened by saying it was some great success, rather than saying the truth — it was a defeat, but not a total one so have hope?

Thank you, McGovern’s PR man. More of this, please.

I agree. I also called McGovern’s office on the day of the vote and congratulated them on getting the bill voted on, even though it ultimately was defeated. They sounded happy that someone noticed. We need to find a way to reward the Reps that are giving us straight talk and working behind the scenes to do the right thing.

Check this out:

http://tinyurl.com/2kmyrq

It’s not complete, yet, but it’s a start. And, it’s depressing.
K

Thanks for this thread, Pachacutec, and for your sage analysis. Thanks also to TeddySanFran, PowWow and Selise for telling it like it is. I’ve been so angry the last few days, I hardly recognized myself–picking fights over at DemocraticUnderground, with people who see EVERYTHING in partisan terms. Got to support “our Democrats” no matter what they do. I’m usually the peaceful one–telling everybody that our democracy wasn’t destroyed in a day, and won’t be repaired in a day, and to be patient and persistent, like Nelson Mandela and like the South American leftists who are at last creating democracy in that continent.

But all I could seem to do, this week, was contribute to everybody’s already acute demoralization by dwelling on the split in the Democratic Party between the grass roots and the leadership, made FINAL this week by the leadership.

I don’t think I’ve felt so bad since March 2003 and the invasion, with Bush & Cabal running the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq and slaughtering some half a million innocent people.

This discussion has helped me to recover my more analytical self, and to regain some perspective. Thank you for that.

I just want to say one thing: When our Democratic leadership cries “we don’t have the votes,” we need to ask, “who’s fault is that?” If the American peoples’ votes were all counted in a way that everyone can see and understand, then Congress would be representative of the American people and would be acting in our interest. Our Democratic leadership supported the conversion of our election system to electronic voting run on “trade secret,” proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, in highly insecure, easily riggable voting machines and central tabulators.

That was the betrayal hidden beneath the radar of the American people in the same month as the IWR, October 2002. The main Democrat leading that fascist coup–secret vote counting!–was Sen. Christopher Dodd–the one who colluded with the biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress (Tom Delay and Bob Ney) to get it done. Dodd is a real snake-in-the-grass, coming on all pious now, and against the Iraq War. Ha! But they all voted for it, and support it to this day.

Secret vote counting by rightwing Bushite corporations.

Everybody is sensing that SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG. And this is what it is. 75% of the American people opposed to the Iraq War and wanting it ended, and Congress votes to ESCALATE it–to give George Bush, for godssakes, another ONE HUNDRED-PLUS BILLION DOLLARS, in yet another “supplemental” bill, to kill more people in a war that never should have been.

Our leaders are no longer beholden to us. They are beholden to Diebold and ES&S and their far rightwing billionaire underwriters.

That IS the problem.

And it’s useless to complain until we do something about it.

It is not the only problem in our election system, but it is the coup de grace–the democracy-killer.

And everything our Democratic leadership says NOW is irrelevant. The IWR and the “Help American Vote Act” were one and the same coup.

A percentage here, a percentage there, a flipover of the vote where necessary–shaping Congress for the war profiteers on a bipartisan basis; putting the name ‘Democrat’ on people who are simply fascists (and sometimes good liars); giving the American people the illusion of democracy.

Oh, I think the American people surprised these bastards a bit in ‘06, trying to get themselves a real Congress. But what did we end up with? 60/40 for the war, whereas in 2002 it was 75/25. An improvement, but still. And the American people have surprised even me–who never lost faith in them–by their incredible resistance to war propaganda. 56% just before the war. 75% now!

It is to defeat this great, peace-minded, American progressive majority that Diebold/ES&S secret vote counting was devised.

So, when our Congressional leaders tell us “we don’t have the votes,” bats fly out of their mouths. Even the ones who spout antiwar rhetoric, and piously vote against the latest lard for the war profiteers, are lying.