Tweet
My son called me last night to wish me happy Father’s Day, and after we exchanged the usual pleasantries, one of the first things he said was how everyone seems to be very discouraged about the country, and especially let down about the direction we’re heading in Iraq. I’ve been feeling exactly the same way, and I don’t think this was a coincidence or genetically driven consensus. You see the signs everywhere, and the national polls indicate that less than 20 percent of the public believes the country is headed in the right direction, while nearly 70 percent believe we’re headed in the wrong direction. Those are astonishing, almost unprecedented numbers.
After their embarrassing retreat on the Iraq supplemental funding bill, and the drubbing they took in the polls soon after, Congressional Democrats are struggling with how to define a path out of Iraq, knowing that even in their own party, they still don’t have the votes or even a clear goal to end America’s occupation in that savaged country. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are promising to bring a withdrawal deadline and other measures before Congress soon, but I’ve read nothing that suggests the Democrats have a plan or a strategy that will result in a different outcome from the supplemental funding bill. If I’ve missed something, I’d sure like to hear about it.
Kathryn, RevDeb, Mr. RevDeb and I attended a community meeting in Natick, Massachusetts on Saturday to hear Senator Kerry speak and answer questions about Iraq. Our friend Ryan, a local blogger, had this insightful reaction, and another local blogger prepared a summary of Kerry’s opening statement and response to about a dozen questions. My own reaction is that our Senator was honestly struggling with how best to extract America from the Iraq quagmire, but I was dismayed to hear that Kerry was almost incoherent in explaining how this could be done.
I would have thought that a long-time member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the man who was the Democratic standard bearer in 2004, and someone who, shall we say, is sensitive to where the political winds are blowing, would have come prepared to answer the most predictable questions about Iraq. To be sure, he had a general position about the need to emphasize political/diplomatic versus military solutions, and he strongly favors a regional conference of neighboring countries to agree on regional security arrangements that would both support political solutions within Iraq and not spread its sectarian tensions further. But on how we get there with this Congress and this President, Kerry’s basic response was “we don’t have the votes; we need more Democrats in 2008.”
Senator Biden, appearing on ABC’s talking head show yesterday, echoed this general notion of helplessness, repeating the idea he expressed at the New Hampshire debate that we can’t get out of Iraq until we have a different President. If you start with that assumption (which I share until someone shows me another plausible scenario), then one can explain a vote for the supplemental funding bill if, as Biden does, one believes that’s the only way to get better armored vehicles to the troops who are stuck there. Since we can’t get them out, at least protect them better from IEDs. In that framework, Biden’s “wrong” vote becomes more logical and defensible than the “right” votes cast by Clinton and Obama. Biden is resigned that we can’t change the fundamental politics with this President, even with Bush at 28 percent. Is he right?
Democrats desperately need a framework that breaks free from this immobilizing logic. The stories from Iraq are about benchmarks going unmet, about increasing violence and mounting casualties. Yesterday, General Petraeus was Mr. Reasonable as he explained why we shouldn’t expect progress quickly and why we might need to be there for the next ten years or so, and how he’d give us an honest assessment in September. But the real world news is in today’s Washington Post, which features another devastating report from Anne Hull and Dana Priest on the traumatic head and mental injuries sustained by US troops. Read it slowly and then remember, that’s just our troops. There’s another set of stories about what this war is doing to the Iraqis.
Photo: US troops in Afghanistan, (Omar Sobhani/Reuters)
156 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
zunoed?
Mornin’ Scarecrow
Good morning Scarecrow!
Has a president of the United States ever just quit on his own? Could Bush be the first?
After 4 years of occupying a country, we can’t even control ONE CITY after all that time. Sick and embarrassing.
Scarecrow, I agree with you (and BTW, I’ve been blogging about the military/VA healthcare system failures,& root causes) (Hull and Priest are fishing in the right waters, but they don’t have the right bait), and the thing that has commonality with Iraq is the failure to bring robust diplomatic, negotiating and organizational development skills to foreign policy, to the Depts of State and Defense, and overall, it goes to the gutting of administrative government agencies of professionals and qualified staff in favor of political hacks. Those hacks are hatcheting away all of the vital support and operational structures needed to say, negotiate with Iraqi tribal leaders and sectarian leaders, the ability to install and support qualified healthcare professionals in sufficient number throughout the military and VA healthcare systems, and failure to allow sound practice to override political aim.
That means that Congress has two options: wait out the rest of the presidential term while continuing to sacrifice military personnel and all who are vulnerable in this country – workers, the poor, those who use the justice system, those who rely on the FDA for safe food and drugs, those who rely on the CDC for pandemic flu preparedness, those who rely on FEMA for disaster recovery, etc.
The other is to use the power of the purse and to stop funding the president’s misadventures. But that has to be done at 100% denial of funds. Republicans and Democrats would have to vote for the country over party. And we’ve seen the clear pattern – it’s always party over country. Every. Single. Time.
Oversight is at at least allowing the public to catch glimpses of some of the malfeasance, and this may have a mitigating effect on who becomes the next occupant of 1600 Penna. Ave. But methinks the damage to the country and Constitution is permanent, runs very deep, has fissured and fractures vital core functions, and may or may not be reparable.
So they all see the problem, the Nation wants out, we don’t belong there…so why cant they rise above politics and act.
Is everything about their re-elections?
Get Bush to get out of Iraq by making him pay for half the current cost of this war during whats left of his term or we end the war now. We tell the Blue Dogs Democrats do you want to get blamed for rasing taxes when a Democrat is President or do you want to tell an old grandma we have to cut social security? Do you want to get blamed for having to raise taxes the next time you run for reelection by the very same Republicans who spent all the Clinton surplus on LOOSING A WAR WITH A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY!
Good morning Scarecrow.
What you left out of the above report is how, should there have been walls in front of our seats at the forum, we would have beaten our head bloody as we listened to the Senator give non-answers to the questions he was asked. ( I will grant that many of the people in the audience ranted rather than ask questions, but . . . )
All in all it was a most dissatisfying afternoon, other than being in the company of friends.
The quagmire isn’t only in Iraq. It is in our House of Representatives and our Senate.
Unfortuantely, I think Biden is correct. As long as BushCo sits atop our guvmint, we’re basically f*ck’d. Vietnam was a quagmire and I have no idea what goes beyond quagmire.
But until we have an administration that can demonstrate to the rest of the world some contrition, some humility, some willingness to work and play well with others, we’re in this pretty much alone, the Brits and the “coalition of the paid” notwithstanding.
Even with a new administration, it will be incredibly diificult to extracate ourselves. The entire foreign policy structure will need to change and become inclusive, bringing all the countries including Iran, Syria, KSA, Kuwait, and all the many factions internal to Iraq. We will be having to get down on our knees and beg some of them for forgiveness (although with the world consensus that BushCo is filled with idiots we may be able to escape that one).
snowbird42 @ 7
Party over country – yes.
I think if the Dems had had the guts to send him the same bill or no bill after the first veto there would have been an opportunity to change the dynamics. But instead they bought into his bullshit and here we sit.
But on how we get there with this Congress and this President, Kerry’s basic response was “we don’t have the votes; we need more Democrats in 2008.”
No Mr. Kerry. We need less cowards and less whores.
Pach and I were watching Biden yesterday and Pach said, “they really believe this stuff.” They’ve convinced themselves that their delusions are reality.
I don’t have any particular insights as to why Democrats will not be stirred by the political winds on this front but a failure both of imagination and moral imperative in the face of Presidential obdurateness come to mind.
Come September 2007…
~the 104 acre US Embassy in Iraq will be completed on-time and under budget.
~the Democrats will be hashing out a new appropriations bill for Iraq. Will it include time-lines for withdrawal or will it be another shell game?
~Gen. Petraeus will tell us that he will be bringing troops home, but in reality, he’ll just be bringing home the troops who were part of the surge and will fake out the masses with his shell game, because troop amounts will be right back where we started, which won’t amount to a hill of beans.
I’m frustrated about all of this.
There must be WMD in Iraq, we’ve still got the receipt: Hunt for WMD in Iraq almost over. (Tell it to Cindy…*wink)
I recorded the event and sent the file to selise. I assume she will upload it for all to listen and weep.
Jane Hamsher @ 14
I got a similar feeling from Kerry. Much of the respect I had for him before this evaporated as he stumbled incoherently to explain why they are chasing their tails and make it sound like the right thing to do.
many thanks to RevDeb who recorded Kerry’s meeting for me since i couldn’t go…
i wonder if the incoherance isn’t due to internal contradictions (within the foreign policy elite, within the democratic party and even within their own minds).
most still seem to be attached to the notion of world-wide domination (or helpful hegemony – whatever you want to call it… it’s a modern version of white man’s burden). they’re having trouble reconciling a withdrawal from iraq with their visions of global hegemony.
and even with a majority of us wanting withdrawal, we really don’t have (yet) much political power – especially compared to the military industrial complex. what will a withdrawal do to profits? how many people will lose their jobs? ian welsh says we’ll have a resession if/when we withdraw.
we’ve gotten ourselves into a big mess… with no easy way out. and our poltical leaders aren’t yet leveling with us – because they can’t yet level with themselves.
Jane Hamsher @ 14
“failure of imagination” is exactly what we’re seeing.
In one of the links to Pelosi/Reid plans, there’s mention of a motion to deauthorize the occupation/war — the idea being that this is Congress’ exclusive province, and it doesn’t need Presidential signature. I like this idea a lot, not because I believe it would stop Bush from being CinC and doing what he wants but because it would take away from the courts (and the media) the notion that the continuing occupation has any legal basis. Bush has justified many things — warrantless spying, torture, etc, on the statutory authorization, so Congress should say, there is no further authorization.
Oh, and good morning everyone.
How was the meet up at TBA, Jane?
Perhaps the truth is that the Dems like the Rep’s believe that we must stay there for ever. For the oil.
They just havent gotten around to telling us.
As selise said the other day, the way we turn this and the economy around is aggressively promote and begin a program of R&D and manufacture of alternative energy source devices and products. The MIC would be the perfect venue for this to happen. But it would take far more will and forward thinking to move their brains from thinking about building fighter planes to thinking about building wind farms and solar collectors, etc.
RevDeb @ 17
good idea… will do so right now.
Jane Hamsher @ 14
The Ghosts of Vietnam.
selise @ 19
I agree with you and the next comment who said lack of imagination. The public opinion is so far ahead of the politicians on this I can’t figure out what’s keeping them from moving…lack of imagination and $elf intere$t are the only things that come to mind. This caution about re-election, if that is what it is, seems really misguided considering how disgusted people are.
“Festering sores brought a respite from Ward 53″
Little Relief on Ward 53
At Walter Reed, Care for Soldiers Struggling With War’s Mental Trauma Is Undermined by Doctor Shortages and Unfocused Methods
This may seem OT, but I think of it as a cautionary tale. This weekend Mr. Sunshine and I watched a film on Sundance Channel called Imagining Argentina.
A tough film to watch, a story of The Disappeared in Argentina. But given Lisa Myers reporting right now on the American held and treated as an insurgent in Iraq, the red flags shouting “it can happen here” are flapping fiercer in the winds of this demented war.
At the closing of the film text noted that Argentina’s trying to put the Disappeared years out of sight, out of mind…. will that be the DC elites’ attitude to the BushCo years?
Forget about war crimes, forget about lying to Congress, forget about gutting civil rights and Constitutional rights…. more cocktail weenies.
RevDeb @ 22
RevDeb,
This is from today’s NYTimes An attempt by Senate Dems to re-direct big oil tax breaks to renewable energy. As always, big oil is crying poor.
OT – i have the list of weekly congressional hearings to post… but it’s quite long, so i’ll wait until later in the thead.
There are lots and lots of things the Dems deserve criticism for. I find it ironic that the thing they get the most criticism for is the one issue where they’re are being (more or less) honest – they do not have the votes.
This gov’t was designed to move slowly. Even if the opposition party has control of both houses, it cannot set agenda. All it can do is stop the executive branch from starting something new. We have a very slim majority in the Senate – where the rules are much worse, b/c you can’t shove anything through the Senate without a super majority.
Even if they aren’t doing it very well, they are doing roughly the right thing – make noise on Iraq, keep trying to peel off a few Repubs on each round. Meanwhile in a flanking action keep the hearings going and pick off evildoers one at a time. That’s a battle where Dems can control the ground – they can’t on the war.
The picture is from Afghanistan, and I chose it to remind me that the lead story out of that war-torn country is the bombing of an Afghan school, killing seven children. We meant to bomb the buiding; we just didn’t know who was inside.
There was an excellent op ed in the Boston Globe a week back pointing out that incidents like this are an expected outcome from a policy choice of having too few ground forces and having to rely on air strikes, which in turn relies on local, and often faulty intelligence, etc. This op ed is well worth the read, explaining the difference between the US mission in Afghanistan (counter-terrorism) and the Nato mission there (counter-insurgency and protection of the Karzai government).
‘morning scarecrow and happy fatherd day 2 u
scary scenario but I really have to point out the following possibility….it’s not a long shot either;
the president is already setting the marketing dialogue up to up the anti, he’s preparing us for a perpetual war in Iraq
for instance, he’s getting patraus to say this is a 50 year undertaking…ten at the very least.
that is actually the dialouge these idiots are floating to their corporate media outlets
the president, by proclamation, has assumed the sole command leadership in the event of a national emergency, he can at any time delcare martial law, suspend the constitution, suspend congerss, suspend the senate, suspend election
it is gonna be VERY easy for the president to claim these powers if there is ANY catastrophy…for instance, if Israel breaks out a nuclear attack, or if say new york or california or some other central city is attacked hear on our shore
that said, never the less, the democrats must LAUGH IN THE FACE of anyone that suggests we are going to be in Iraq for 10 years
they have to LAUGH OUT LOUD, and they have to pepper their amusement by PUNISHING the administration for getting us involved overthrowing a country THAT HE KNEW POSED NO THREAT, THAT HE KNEW HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM
WE have to shape the debate, when they TRY to shape the discussion we LAUGH at their inept attempt to defend the president’s moronic military knowledge and the irresponsible decisions he made on behalf of the PEEnac
In Sept., it will be the Repugs who will be calling for Bush to get our troops out of Iraq because the surge didn’t work, and nothing has changed, but mostly because they’re scared what’s going to happen to them in 2008 if this war is still going on.
Congress has not fulfilled its obligations in a long time. They’ve issued subpoenas for a couple of people in the executive branch. If Bush tells them to fly a kite, they will probably go to court to enforce the subpoenas rather than see ignoring their subpoenas as ground for impeachment.
A similar thing happened in Vietnam. Our Supreme Court, more gutless wonders, never voted on the constitutionality of the war because they believed, perhaps correctly, Lyndon Johnson would change nothing if they found the war unconstitutional. They did not want to be exposed as powerless and they did not have faith the Congress (again through impeachment) would enforce their ruling.
Congress has the same fear. They cut off funds. Instead of the troops coming home, the war goes on. What then? I say impeach. (I know I sound like a broken record) If the Republicans choose what they see as their political interest over the national interest, so be it. At least George Bush’s lawlessness would be exposed. We the people might have to get off our asses and do something.
We might take heart from the immigration legislation impasse. Seems a groundswell of opposition from the folks back home, knocked it off the tracks (though that might be temporary).
How do you start a groundswell?
GordonM @ 30
If you’re correct, then you’d think the Dems would at least be able to explain it more clearly than they have. I think that’s what Kerry was struggling to say, while trying very hard not to say it straight out.
GeorgeSimian @ 34
look, we have to get this happening now, we have to deal with some of the republicans
we have to approach them and give them things like unchallenged election if they get on board with an impeachment
we can give them some pork, some law, and a virtually guaranteed win in the next election
we need just a few republicans, that’s it…we really have to start dealing now
RevDeb @ 22
I agree with you about R&D. My career has been in biotech, and regardless of how you feel about biotech in particular, what I have learned is that people in my field are outrageously creative and ingenious and finding an alternative energy source can be done. Unfortunately, I think there have been incentives against it (whether on purpose or not is another discussion). Craig Venter, one of the leaders of the race to decode the human genome, is now engaged in engineering a simple organism to convert sunlight into an energy source (like ethanol).
The sad thing is how many lives, and how much time, money and intellectual energy have been wasted.
sigh.
There’s some other options, mostly oversight options. One of the reasons that we can’t just pull out is that Bush has allowed a huge, multi-billion dollar army of contractors to sink their claws into Iraq. If the army pulls out, then no one is left to protect them and their financial interests. The longer Bush keeps us there, the deeper these claws go and the harder it will be to get out, as bad as it is now.
What needs to be done is continuing oversight into the lead up to the war, and the conduct of the war, more subpoenaes on confidential papers, more testimony by those who knew better, etc.
But the bottom line is, until the Democrats impeach Bush/Cheney, then there’s not much more that can happen. Someone has to take their power away. Without that, what can be done? These last two years of the Bush Administration could be the most damaging to the US and the world – unchecked, even by Repugs, unchecked by 28% ratings, unchecked by the DOJ – what is going to stop them?
perris — re the long-term occupation of Iraq — I think Kerry was buying into that, though he was so obscure about it I could be wrong. He seemed to be saying “we have to withdraw responsibly in ways that . . .” and all the objectives argued for a continued presence.
perris @ 36
I like it. Is this really how politics works? No wonder I’m so cynical.
RevDeb @ 22
i think we have to offer to buy off the MIC. tell ‘em they can have the $, but they’re going to have to focus on alternative sustainable energy for R&D and manufacturing. i’d like to see our military budget cut in half (half for legacy military and half for energy apollo project). oh, and put chuck spinney in charge of the budget. it will still be tough – but it’s the only possible way forward i can see.
Is it me or has Hagel disappeared from the airwaves? What happened to his outrage irt Iraq? Rove must have had some photos developed.
Scarecrow @ 40
well that’s the marketing strategy…convince Americans we can occupy Iraq succesfully
we can’t
we need to give back the vatican sized “embassy” we’ve built there, we need to federalize all companies that have stolen American treasure to build it
we need to reconcile…this means bringing the criminals that are resonsible for this theft to the bar of international justice
this is so funny scarecrow, funny in a disturbing way
remember humpty dumpty?
the author wrote that story for precisely the situation we are in today
no matter how many of the kings horses or the kings men we get, humpty dumpty is broken and cannot be mended
there will be a new humpty, it will not be mended by us, it will evolve and be born anew
Scarecrow @ 35
True. Unfortunately people like Kerry and Biden are such long time members of the club they’ve forgotten how to explain their oh-so-important jobs to us mere mortals. And I will definitely grant you that the DLC ones are habitually a good deal less than honest.
If they’d let Feingold, Webb and a couple others do the talking I think the Dems would look much better.
I think we are in Iraq as much for the oil issues as for the Permanent. Bases.
We had the same discussions yesterday in my family. After watching Kerry in the Winter Soldier times (anyone have that video from his campaign, very good), it is really hard to hear that he is so incoherent now, or obscure/obtuse, whatever word one would use.
Perhaps the Democrats (Kerry, etc.) do not want to say that they are impotent with the numbers (50) they are working with.
I have thought that the Rs would peel back enough by September that another vote could be taken that would wind this down. Certainly our citizens are leading on the issue.
And with the surge underway, Kerry is not gonna say, “Who wants to be the last to die for this disaster,” or however that went. But it is down to that, IMO.
Has anyone found it ironic that the repubs constantly hammers dems for seeing “the war on terror” as a law enforcement issue rather than a “war”? It now appears that the “war” in Iraq has become just that, from Bing West SWJ:
GordonM @ 30
It would be beautiful to me if the democrats started hammering the subpoenas against the White House members next year to the point that they’re overwhelmed going into the election. Bush cannot pardon them if the trials are ongoing and go past January 2009.
Impeachment of any of them right now seems unlikely today, but if planned correctly, Americans will be applauding right up till election day 2008 and the republicans will be in the streets crying for the humanity of it all!
Hey, a woman can dream ya know….
Without the votes to override the veto which GWB is raring to use these days, I’m not sure either how much the DEMS can do. How frustrating it is to work hard, get consensus within your own party and yet get shot down because GWB will veto and the Republicans (until it suits their purposes) will back him.
Not that the DEMS are saints but it really seems that the Republicans only care about elections. Once in power, the good of the country is way down on the list of priorities. I live in Kentucky which means McConnell and Bunning. Bunning cares a little but McConnell cares nothing about the future of this country except as how it benefits the rich and powerful. A couple of years ago, when there was a real threat of shutting down programs like Talent Search and Upward Bound, McConnell’s response to a program advocate was, “Well, they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and not depend on these government programs.” Grrrr..
Biden is wrong as usual. He’s one of those creatures that thrives in a static atmosphere. I would love to see Kerry and others move forward on the question of Iraq and leave Biden-loving Biden behind.
Scarecrow @ 39
he sounds conflicted to me. he’s for a withdrawal, but his world view requires continued occupation and control.
The only candidates who are equivocating on what to do with Iraq are the ones who are getting campaign money from those who don’t want us out of Iraq. It’s that simple.
Hillary’s crazy. It’s fine if she wants to keep troops in Iraq for decades, but she’s probably thinking like a couple military bases. She can’t be talking about maintaining these troop levels for that long. So why doesn’t she say as much? Why does she allow herself to get caught up in this crap? And why did she say Bush’s war on terror was doing any good? That’s the one that really kills me.
Scarecrow, I remember you posted a link last Friday to an article in which congresscritters acknowledged the low polls were due to the failure to get us out of Iraq.
If low polls won’t do it, how else can we light a fire under their collective arses?
selise @ 23
here’s kerry, on saturday in natick. warning: 31MB mp3
The Democrats need to call the Repugs on their September bullshit. Between now and the July 4th recess they need to be very aggressive in their message and actions. They basically blew it up to this point.
To stand around looking at the broken pieces of the momentum they had, and whine about not enough votes etc, they demonstrate to the public exactly how the Repugs have cast them, weak and ineffective.
mui @ 53
Primary challenges. I’m serious.
KayInMaine @ 47
Hello from Sedgwick, Kay!
I agree completely. And Bush really ain’t the pardoning type, you know. It’s Cheney that wants Libby out of jail, and I wonder if having him there doesn’t help Bush/Rice keep Dick on a leash. Heh.
But you’re absolutely right that corruption is a much more important issue to the public than the Repub’s want to believe.
If it is impossible to bring any Republicans on board even this deep into disaster, the Democrats can bring some solidity and cover to the urgent necessity to extricate ourselves from Iraq by eliciting ideas from within the war machine.
If Congress hasn’t figured out how to minimize the damage we have done and dig ourselves out of this hole, it has the power to solicit expert testimony. It can call on former and current members of this and previous administrations and armed forces to describe how they would approach this goal: extricate U.S. forces and matétiel from Iraq. Set it before them the same way the invasion was set before them: 1 goal (get us out) and no alternatives. How do we do it? If Congress gets tied in knots every time the administration starts talking policy, focus on the logistics of leaving Iraq.
Narrowing the focus to what we can control, an open discussion might muddy the waters, but it would also flush away some of the garbage that has dammed up progress to date. Support the troops? Of course we do. That’s why we’re having this discussion. Democracy in the Middle East? Not for us to decide. U.S. credibility? Too bad Bush and Cheney destroyed it. Al Qaeda will follow us home? They’re already here; that’s how this whole mess started.
How do we get out? We can answer it later, after more death and destruction, or we can answer it now.
Good Morning Scarecrow!
The Democrats have been lacking imagination in how to frame the debate and how to move forward. They have have been immobilized by political fear…they are so afraid of how the Repugs will attach the failed war to them. Instead they should be using their energy to reframe the debate and to hammer home how Bin Laden is free to rome and Bush isn’t even looking for him anymore. And how can we even allow such a grossly incompetent administration to keep us tethered to this falied policy and war. If I was a Senator or Rep. I would be screaming about it on Hardball every night!
Jonathan Alter has a few good points in his article on how improtant it is for the Dems to reframe their argument against the war and how to frame their strategy. It’s worth a read.
I couldn’t agree more with his point about the Dems emphasizing going after Al Qaeda.
GeorgeSimian @ 52
You mean she wants to keep human targets in Iraq? Because that’s what it’s come down too.
mui @ 60
I don’t know what she’s talking about. She’s trying to sound tough to Repugs, I guess.
We have more than enough ammo for subpoenas to shut down Bush’s government on numerous fronts from Abramhof, to war profiteering, to human rights/war crimes, missing emails plus everything else thats going on. We can make them wish they ended the war when they had the chance!
egregious @ 56
I was also thinking some serious noise a la Matzzie.
GordonM @ 44
I agree that they need more of the freshman Congressmen/women & the not-so-senior leadership of Congress to take the lead in this…they still have enough imgaination to see the possiblilities and they still have balls!
“I am losing my mind more and more while I’m here,” he said.
in Ward 53
Hillary is DLC, which means she supports hegemony. A kinder, gentler hegemony (barf).
And with the surge underway, Kerry is not gonna say, “Who wants to be the last to die for this disaster,” or however that went. But it is down to that, IMO.
Actually, someone asked Kerry what happened to the man who said those words, and Kerry said “I’m still that man . . .” and then went on to say that things weren’t that simple. I don’t mind him telling us this is a really hard problem — that’s why it’s called a “quagmire,” but I want him to be able to explain how we get out, even if it’s complicated.
From today’s Boston Globe: Son’s Iraq stress trauma triggers father’s from Vietnam
mui @ 53
We don’t know what the low polls can do yet. Those are recent, and until then, the Dems thought they had the upper hand and the public was behind them. Now they see that failing to solve this can hurt them too, and their struggling for answers. I think we just keep the pressure on.
OT..Glen Reynolds at instapundit just claimed FDL called Lindsay Graham gay. He linked to pachacutec’s post of yesterday at 203PM as proof. I read that post, and all you said was that there have been whisperings about Graham.
dakine01 @ 10
Yup. The Civil-War-era Food and Forage Act gives Bush the right to simply take money at will from any other part of the government to feed to the Pentagon.
[on edit: Actually, turns out that it doesn’t — but Rummy’s been pretending it does, and goodness knows that BushCo’s got away with illegal crap before.]
clem @ 58
Unfortunately, this line of argument assumes that there is, in fact, some type of strategic objective to the war.. that shrub in fact HAS a strategy. I’m beginning to think that he doesn’t, and that the shrub war policy may be best summarized by another hapless (but far far more articulate) King George, during the final phase of an equally hopeless conflict in the last decade of the 18th century, parenthetical annotations mine:
“It was a joke to think of keeping Pennsylvania. There is no hope of ever recovering New England. [But I] am determined to never to acknowledge the independence of the Americans , and to punish their contumacy by the indefinite prolongation of a war which promised to be eternal.”
In other words, pure stubborness and the desire, for political ends, to prolong a war for the political advantages that that prolongaton brings…. just substitute Baghdad for Pennsylvania and, say, Anbar Province, for New England, and “failure of my policies in Iraq” for “independence of the Americans” and you’ve probably captured shrubs “strategy”. Logistics doesn’t matter in such a ridiculous scenario. Neither do American lives.
The State of Connecticut a few months ago on it’s own and to it’s credit, began to set up additional bed space and clinicians to handle the returning PTSD cases from Iraq of it’s own National Guard.
Waiting for the Decider to do the right thing is a bus that isn’t coming.
How about using this as an opportunity to truly test how much the the people of the US — especially the Republicans — support our contintuing debacle in Iraq, by instituting a tax increase equal to about 1/2 of the cost of the upcoming year. Maybe another percentage, maybe the whole cost, I personally believe it should be weighted to be paid most by those who can afford it.
We have borrowed the rest of the funds needed for this military extravaganza, essentially creating a debt for our children to pay. Isn’t it time for the “grownups” to pay our own way?
Send the next bill authorizing funds for Iraq with a specific provision for this tax increase to pay for it. Create the proper meme by quoting liberally from the Administration talking points about fiscal responsibility.
This is an opportunity we shouldn’t pass up to reverse some of unfair tax policy implemented by GWB.
I also think the language of the bill should include the thought that Congress authorizes money to “support the troops in a new mission, that of charting the best way (for our troops and Iraq) to get our troops out. We will no longer authorize money for the current failed policy, a policy which cannnot work, even with hundreds of thousands more troops.”
Ron Feinman
I have been essentially away from FDL and the Internet, TV, and newspapers for the past nine days. This is not the kind of news I wanted to hear about Iraq.
Has there been any good news in the past week or so that I might have missed, e.g. oversight, Gonzalez resigning, Libby going to jail?
Scarecrow—
ygm
selise @ 50
I think you’re right. He wouldn’t frame it that way; he takes Powell seriously when he said, “you break it, you own it.” So solving the Iraqi’s problem becomes our problem. Kerry is not alone in taking what they regard as a responsible, moral view. At the same time Kerry did cite the studies that our presence is making things worse. He hasn’t reconciled these conflicting perspectives.
my discouragement with the democratic congresss isn’t just limited to iraq.
whatever happened to the stand alone bill on “do not attack iran w/o congressional approval”?
the trade negotiations bs.
the immigration kabuki.
the lack of action on global warming (and WTF with the stupid biofuel idiocy?!).
in each case…. the spin is covering up reality. who will talk to me truthfully?
Quzi @ 64
Patrick Leahy has seen what a freshman can do, and has worked in some creative ways with Whitehouse on the USA firings. Leahy’s at least one senior leader who isn’t threatened by some new blood and new approaches.
More like that, please.
The root problem is this: The candidates and supporters are fighting each other over every available dollar to get elected in 2008. The owners of those dollars are the same people who bought the last gang of crooks (TWICE). Any money put forth through the budget process to “end” this war is being used to PROLONG it. Kerry knows this, is he or Biden or any of these professional pols going to stand up in front of voters and explain that one? I didn’t think so.
I’ll correct Kerry (mp3 thanks to Selise): No American soldier should shed blood for the purpose of
Iraqi politiciansCheney & contractor friends making gobs of money.KayInMaine
I am not certain if you have to be indicted to be pardoned, but you don’t have to be convicted
http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1…..260039.htm
Impeachment is the only cure – and it is a long slog to impeach 2
Blub @ 71
I didn’t write it quite the way I should have: “focus on the logistics of leaving Iraq.”
Sorry about that.
The Democrats need to be more honest with themselves. Their situation is like getting a family to openly deal with its alcoholism. They are intervening with a family member who is violently denying he has a problem, and who has the power and will to exhaust his family’s resources in order to avoid admitting his failures.
Admit that we’re working with a political version of the above. Express a frank, “I don’t know. We haven’t been running the administration, much remains hidden from us, but here’s where we’d start.”
That would at least acknowledge that the gorilla is in the family living room, breaking all the furniture. Next, expose the denials, projected anger, hypocrisy and lies of the drinking dad. Record of his string of wrecked cars, broken legs and broken glass, stolen cash and credit cards, and missed birthdays and baseball games. That would open the doors of reality, if not for dad, the family, and empower them to stake their claims on what they want.
Right now, we have several older siblings vying to replace a drinking dad. None of them have the power yet. Anyway, they need to start their own families, not step into dad’s shoes. They should acknowledge that, and hammer home their own language. Reframe the questions into something closer to reality than the lies and euphisms of this Eron-like, “outlandlishly successful” administration.
Beyond that, take the gloves off. The polls confirm that Americans are way ahead of Congress in accepting what we need to do with the war, healthcare, tolerance for the poor, the immigrant, the out of work, or the gay & lesbian. So, model a return to a civil Civil Society; discard the one built on Karl Rove’s Iago-like perversion of relationships whose primary goal is to ensure his irreplaceability.
Bush’s war gives Democrats a chance to say the unthinkable: the truth. Americans have no intolerance for buying weapons systems instead of mental health care and body armor. No tolerance for political retribution instead of common sensical justice. No tolerance for imperial ambitions built on torture and war. We’re going to get out and get back to basics.
neurophius @ 74
Libby’s going to jail. Oversight’s been entertaining, but nobody has budged. Gonzo is still da man.
perris @ 32
And while they’re laughing, the man is left with every bit of dictatorial power you mentioned and he just has to react to ANY INCIDENT and sign the papers that end this republic while the democrats laugh.
Pathetic. These Democrats deserve no excuses made for them, we shouldn’t be rationalizing their cowardly behavior, we shouldn’t be wringing our hands and banging our heads against walls because our “senior statesmen” sound adrift in la-la land when trying to talk about getting out of Iraq with honor.
We didn’t go in there for honorable reasons, why should we hesitate getting our kids out of their waiting until we can find an honorable way to end our occupation?
There isn’t one. End this fucking war or pay dearly in 2008 when Bush and Company engineer an event that allows them to pre-empt the elections.
It’s coming, they are doing it right out in the open, and we’re all distracted by these games that are being played in Washington.
Quzi –I couldn’t agree more with his point about the Dems emphasizing going after Al Qaeda.
But what happens if the Administration claims that the enemy in Iraq is almost always al Qaeda — that’s what they’ve been saying for months, and we heard it from Petraeus yesterday. If the focus is on fighting al Qaeda, well, we need tens of thousands of US troops to do that.
I think this is a trap for Democrats. No one asks about the morality/wisdom/legality of using someone else’s country to wage war against some vaguely defined group we declare to be our enemy but who is fighting us primarily because we are there. That’s a recipe for perpetual war and occupation.
Mp3: Kerry not answering the question from Chris to my liking. He almost nothing to say about the death of 100,000 plus civilians in Iraq, except to bat around numbers. (?!?)
I can’t do much linking right now I’m in the middle of a chat but go to raw story and you’re gonna see a lead where some of the pictures are of fathers being forced to sodomize their children
I also saw the interview where daughters are raped in front of the parent
this needs to go viral…the president was told these things before the pictures were released, so was rumsfeld, when they said they knew nothing about it till it wen public that is a lie
this really needs to go viral…even the base will call for impeachment if they find out the president knew fathers were forced into sodomzing thier sons and forced to wathc their daughter get raped
Prairie Sunshine @ 27
Well it is certainly a common human method of dealing with unpleasantness. I personally think that the Reconciliation Council approach taken in South Africa was healthier, but what do I know?
Scarecrow @ 76
this is understandable… and i think i’d have more compassion for his turmoil if he wasn’t claiming to have all the answers and to be our leader in foreign policy. listening to the recording, i though he sounded like he was talking down to the people in the audience… instead of listening to them (even the rants). it was aggravating.
or Truth and Reconciliation Council, wasn’t it? First you had to admit what happened.
the issue is not whether we have the votes to force a withdrawl it is to continue to put pressure on republicans by forcing them to confront the views of their constituents vis-a-vis the war. i give it two more rounds
Sounds good to me.
earlofhuntingdon @ 83
Well put!
Woo hoo! Love it!
we have to approach them and give them things like unchallenged election if they get on board with an impeachment
we can give them some pork, some law, and a virtually guaranteed win in the next election…..
————-
We’ve already given them a free hand with this country by not aggressively going after the stolen elections, the torture issue, the MCA, the outright crimes being committed whenever an administration official testifies under oath, etc.
You deal with traitors by arresting them, bringing them to trial, and punishing them, usually by a capital sentence.
The other ways aren’t allowed to be spoken about here.
Scarecrow @ 86
I think therein lies the problem… the debate is complicated by the willingness of the administration to just make up whatever “facts” vis-a-vis AQ are convenient for its argument of the moment. Thus, practically any Dem response to rethug national security policy means walking into a a rethug “trap” as you put it, because the admin will always be in a position to lie about what is really happening out there, and what it’s actions or even strategies are.
I think our leaders just need to come up with a coherence policy framework of their own and stick to it, regardless of what shrub says are the challenges of the moment. Responding to shrub’s day-to-day pronouncements about Iraq or the War on Terror is pretty much like dancing in quicksand.
selise @ 90
Yes I agree. Selise. His “answer” to Chris on the death of civilians made me cringe. Kerry needs to listen to constituents better.
mui @ 87
yeah. how the hell is it that he doesn’t know the number from last year’s lancet paper? that’s the only study i know of to determine the number of deaths we’ve caused.
and he has no right to blame iraqi policians. pot, meet kettle.
his lack of humility and sense of responsibility for what we’ve done to the iraqi people is breathtaking.
selise @ 90
yes – he can’t let go of the possibility of running again, so this was about him, and not the country. He talked about his plan, not the Democrats’ plan.
I my view, one of the reasons Bush feels immune to any pressure is that they believe the courts and the media are on their side. Subpoenas? They can and will ignore them. Passing ’sense of Congree’ legislation? He will ignore that too.
The courts (most specifically the Supreme Court) will side with him every time. And the dems know it. Leahy knows they will never, ever answer a subpoena.
Does anyone think Harriet Meiers will testify in open congress under subpoena and under oath? I don’t.
however, I still think the best way now is to keep putting the pressure on investigations. And contrast these investigations against when republicans invesitgated Socks the cat.
There is nothing anybody can do to stop Bush/Cheney as long as they control the DOJ. We have to take some of their power away. We have to impeach Gonzo. Even then, do you think he’s not going to just show up to work the next day? They’ll take it to the Supreme Court – and guess what – they own that too.
selise @ 98
congressional hearings weekly update.
part 1, the highlights:
1) Continued oversight of the DOJ with Thursday’s Senate Judiciary committee’s hearing to examine the Civil Rights Division; and House Judiciary committee’s hearing on the U.S. Attorneys Controversy.
2) Tuesday’s Senate Intelligence committee’s previously delayed hearing on the nomination of John Rizzo for CIA general counsel. if the committee is doing it’s job Rizzo will be questioned very closely on his knowledge and responsibility for the creation and current status of our programs of redition, torture, investigating journalists who report on this issues, and more (background: here, here, here, and here).
3) Thursday’s hearing on GITMO by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe looks like something i’d like to watch (members include Dodd, Feingold, Clinton and Kerry)- but the Commission doesn’t have a webpage i can find, so no webcast… i’m going to call c-span to request that they cover it (hope you will too).
part 2, the list:
lots of congressional hearings this week. here are my top picks for the week (longer list here, and links for complete list here):
Tuesday, Jun. 19, 2007
9:30 am – Senate Armed Services
Business meeting to consider the nomination of Preston M. Geren, of Texas, to be Secretary of the Army.
2 pm House Judiciary – Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Hearing on: War Profiteering and Other Contractor Crimes Committed Overseas
2:30 pm – Senate Intelligence
To hold hearings to examine the nomination of John A. Rizzo, of the District of Columbia, to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Wednesday, Jun. 20, 2007
10 am – Senate Rules and Administration
To hold hearings to examine S.1285, to reform the financing of Senate elections.
10 am – Senate Environment and Public Works – Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the Environmental Protection Agency’s response to 9-11, focusing on lessons learned for future emergency preparedness.
2:30 pm – Senate Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine pending judicial nominations.
Thursday, Jun. 21, 2007
10 am – Senate Judiciary
Business meeting to consider a variety of matters, including: the nomination of Leslie Southwick, of Mississippi, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, and possible authorization of subpoenas in connection with the investigation of the legal basis for the warrantless wiretap program.
10 am – Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
To hold hearings to examine the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, focusing on the implications for United States human rights leadership.
12 pm – House Judiciary – Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
Hearing on: The Continuing Investigation into the U.S. Attorneys Controversy and Related Matters
2 pm – Senate Judiciary
To hold an oversight hearing to examine the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
Congress will be focusing on the energy bill this week. NPR has a handy summary of what’s in the Senate and House versions.
New thread upstairs
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..s/#respond
selise @ 77
Selise: Much of that is pretty simple: It’s called “not having enough votes to override a veto”.
As for biofuels: While relying on corn or sugar ethanol is indeed stupid (though considering how Midwest farmers have been taking it in the shorts for the past few decades — until ethanol came along they weren’t getting diddly per bushel, barely enough to make operating costs — I understand why they like it), switchgrass ethanol is very sensible: more efficient and a truly neutral carbon footprint.
The thing is that there isn’t One Single Magic Bullet: Solar alone won’t save us, and biofuels alone won’t save us, and wind alone won’t save us, and tweaking efficiency alone won’t save us. But doing all of that together? Yeah, that could save us.
Scarecrow @ 20
It was lots of fun. Atrios was there, Gina Cooper, Jeffrey Feldman, DiHinMi, Cenk Unger, Donna Edwards, Jim Dean, Matt Stoller, Teacher Ken and a whole lot more. I sent an email out about it to the FDL Facebook group and we’re going to be posting photos over there, just because we don’t want to take space up from news here at FDL.
Scarecrow @ 103
I don’t know whether an impeachmenet would be successful in removing him, but I agree Congress should start. If nothing else, it might serve as a deterrent against Gonazales enabling even more outrageous actions at DoJ.
selise @ 98
Oops. And yet you’d agree that he can be influenced more than say, HoJoe? I really, really hope so.
Oh, yeah: Amy Klobuchar’s pushing a switchgrass-as-biofuel bill right now in the Senate. So something’s being done on that front.
perris @ 88
Sy Hersh on Blitzed Sunday was excellent. He stressed over and over that Bush and Rummy saying they didn’t see the pictures is parsing the truth to cover a big lie.
They didn’t need to see the pictures. They got vividly descriptive text of what the pictures showed.
Christy has a new thread.
Prairie Sunshine @ 111
ok, somebody with editing skills needs to edit the most importan parts of that interview and post youtube
then EVERY SINGLE PROGRESSIVE BLOG NEEDS TO EMBED
we need the base to realize they are supporting a monster…BELIEVE me, they will climb on board to get rid of him if we can edit that right and POST it everywhere, on the right wing blogs, on our blogs, EVERYWHERE
james @ 85
Amen Amen!
Phoenix Woman @ 106
not having enough votes is NO excuse for bullshitting me. i am sick of being lied to.
and biofuels is stupid – feeding our autos instead of people while clear cutting rain forests to grow palms for oil – that’s whats happening. it would be better to just give the farmers $. better yet, give the farmers $ to put up wind mills in their corn fields. but as environmental energy policy? i’ve seen nothing in support and lots to suggest it is BAD policy.
The DC DEMS are waiting for what?
If you want to be in Congress then do what that requires–
Tell the truth. Explain the truth. Tell more truth.
Lead. Lead harder. Then lead more harder still.
Take the risk of taking risks–you may indeed end up not getting re-elected but you must take the risks,do what is right and worry a whole lot less about DC parlor games and being at DC court. It really is that simple.
Before November 2006 the DC DEMS said they were in the minority and so had no power.
After November 2006 they are now the majority and now say we are not powerful enough.
My BS-o-meter is going off.How come?
Go after the Bush/Cheney tax cuts and hit them where they don’t like getting hit.
Make Bush/Cheney pay for this war they started with a national war tax levy and re-instated draft call-up. Call their bluff. Expose the hipocrisy thay cower behind.
They really do have weak spots. Really.
This is not that hard to figure out.
Stop playing the DC dosey-doe game.
Stiffen up. Fight. Fight harder.
If the GOPER’s can get away with being so wrong/inept then why can’t the DC DEMS get away with being right/competent?
If the DC DEMS are not able to do what being in Washington DC is about after winning big back in November 2006 then perhaps the bunch of them should get out and go sell cars,mow lawns or fix appliances.
Because they are failing at doing what needs to start being done in WashDC.
Get going or get out.But do something.
You know, Scarecrow, I don’t believe the problem is the frame. I think the problem is that some leading Democrats don’t want to get out. If they had wanted to see an end to this occupation, they would have made a lot of noise about the construction of permanent bases, and the decision to create an embassy that is clearly designed to serve as the quarters for a ruling occupier.
But because nobody will have an honest discussion about this–the pretense that the idea of a long-term occupation is just now occurring to people is an embarrassing bit of BS–we are trapped in a situation where the majority of our elected officials want to proceed with an indefinite occupation because they see the alternatives as worse. It could be they see the potential for chaos in the event of a American departure or it could be they fear once more being labeled “weak.” I don’t know.
I do know that saying we have to wait for a new president is a cop out. Bush needs congress to take affirmative action to fund the occupation. This nonsense about needing sixty votes needs to be stopped now. He cannot veto every spending bill and continue this war. Standing up to him would be popular and would demonstrate strength. I can only conclude that a number of our elected officials are using the president as an excuse to continue a policy that they support, but can’t give voice to.
More here. [Blogwhore warning]
mui @ 109
absolutely yes. but that’s a pretty low bar. the depressing thing is i think that kerry is much better than most.
Scarecrow @ 112
wow, right on topic with where this thread evolved…will epu post upstairs
jayackroyd @ 117 –
i think (and fear) you are exactly right.
Prairie Sunshine @ 112
They didn’t need to see the pictures…BECAUSE THEY GOT WHAT THEY ORDERED from people they selected for that very purpose.
These sick f*cks are the face of the Republican Party. We need to be pointedly asking the base why they implicitly approve of this behavior on their behalf, although the answers we get are likely to be just as sick and effed up. But unless we regularly and systematically ask why they are the party of torture, they aren’t going to ever grok that it’s not acceptable.
selise_106
I couldn’t agree more with your stand on the environmental bill. Cell phone companies pay big money to farmers to put their towers on the farmer’s land. Why not do what you suggested with windmills?
Scarecrow @ 87
My thoughts are that we shouldn’t have given up on going after Bin Laden. And going after Al Qaeda is not limited to Iraq — in fact — if we withdrew troops, I believe the Shiite would rise up against Al Qaeda there. And our troops would no longer be sitting targets.
We would still need minimal troop levels in surrounding countries. We should seek diplomacy and help from the surrounding countries.
I don’t think this is a trap. I think it is about reframining the debate, the strategy and the national security of our country. The Democratic Party needs to take hold of the public debate and frame it in their terms — not BuhCos.
MP3 at ca. 27.41.
Question: Telling Iraq how they should go and what they should do with their own country. How is that freedom?
Kerry: They elected a government.
Questioner: No they elected a government we wanted them to . . .
Kerry: I never said anything about the oil . . .(Questioner: Why NOT?!) They came out and voted in huge numbers and the Sunni did not. They wrote their constitution and agreed to their constitution but haven’t lived up to it.
Questioner: They don’t have voice. Their people have died in huge numbers for our cause.
Kerry: They have not listened to advice. (Iraqi gov.)
Questioner: We have no reason to be there. It was based on lie. What are we being lied to now?
Kerry’s answers are terrible.
Questioner: What the heck are we going to do with the conflict between Kurds and Turkey.
Kerry: doesn’t believe that Kurds are going to strike out at Turkey. (or v.v.?)
mui @ 125
cringe inducing
Oh crikey. Kerry on Kurds and Turkey. This is an old, old feud. He thinks can do a jiffy pop conference and solve all that? Talk about negotiations with Turks/Kurds for next 20 years after we get the hell out of there, and I will be more inclined to believe in a solution, although I am not sure there is one.
Kerry thinks the differences between Democrats on Iraq running for prez, is “very, very slight.”
If the problem is our reluctant, blind, and chicken Dems in congress, let’s get busy on finding progressive candidates to oppose them in primaries.
Cocoordinator for vet group: [quotes Kerry from past, eg: How can you ask a man to be the last man to die for the state?] Today I ask the same to you Sen. and ask why the Dem leadership sold out and caved into Geogre Bush and given it the money to proceed [wild applause]. I ask Dem leadership & you why Congress did not use the only power it had which was the power of the purse to end the war. I ask why Dems are using cynical political ploy to get more Dems elected at the expense of thousands American lives and tens of thousands if not hundreds of Iraqi lives. I ask why do lead Dem prez candidates all talk of leaving tens of 1000s troops in Iraq? Why Dems insist in oil benchmarking quotes, which is written in English by the Bush administration and amounts to US oil companies stealing Iraq’s oil. (applause) Why are you not the opposition party and not another wing of the corporate party? You said those things ‘71 and run as far from it ever since.
Kerry: [totallly rattled] I don’t run from anything. Let me make that clear. What’s happening in Iraq is worse than what happened in Vietnam. I did stand up and take on leadership. There were 14 of us and I stood with 14 and taken leadership . (applause).
[Garbled exchange]
Sir, come back I am happy to answer. you ask 15 questions at once. . . .
Why don’t you read my statement before you ask those kind of questions.
Ass. Kerry sucks.
The problem the democrats face is not complicated. To some extent, it’s of their own making.
There is not going to be a “good” ending in Iraq. Bush and the republicans who created this nightmare can’t provide one, and neither can the democrats, especially, those who helped enable it.
And they made political hay in the mid-terms by letting the voters think they could “end it”. Doesn’t matter whether or not they actually STATED that; they implied it.
But they left out that the “ending” is very likely to be at least as bad as what is happening in Iraq now, and probably, worse.
No candidate that I’ve heard, has said those things. The “frontrunners”, Edwards, Clinton, and Barak, by inference, are saying:
“I can straighten this out”
It’s bullshit. They can’t. But they haven’t got the political and intellectual courage to speak the truth to the american voters; that it’s practically certain that Iraq is going to break up into at least 3 separate entities, and NONE of those “states” is going to be user-friendly to america collectively, nor to the Fortune 500. And the break up may, probably, WILL, involve civil violence even worse that what is going on there now.
I think the main issue at this point, is this:
Are american blood and money going to continue to be used, for the next 17 months, to try to stave this off long enough to allow george bush and the republicans to get out of town and dump the flaming shitbag in someone else’s lap?
If that IS the case, then let the republican party be at risk of extinction, from their cowardice at not holding george bush and the petro-turds, responsible.
And let the democratic candidates say so.
snowbird42 @ 7
Snowbird, I wonder and wonder about this. I have about concluded that it is just an excuse. It would seem obvious that when most of the country wants out of Iraq, the way to get more Dems elected is for Dems who have been elected to be seen vigorously working toward getting us out.
Why is this not happening?
Always remember, that any proposal which is simply “troops home now” or so foth ignores the logistical reality of a phased withdrawal. The nuts and bolts of a withdrawal are essentially a military equation to work thru.
So far, and back in early February, Joe Sestak submitted a detailed plan which, had it been approved, would have finished up withdrawal by December. It was a solid plan. It “appears” to have died in committee…not sure on what happened.
Chris Dodd also has a plan, to be introduced this month, which calls for final withdrawal in March, 2008. The Dodd plan also seems to be based on sound military reasoning.
The Democrats need to move off dead-center on “troops home” chants, and form….a battle plan! A detailed withdrawal plan which has sound basis in military logistics realities. Both Sestak and Dodd are on track here. Hammer out the plan, get the PR machine going, educate Americans as to what the plan is….and then put it into a vote.
Let the R team back-peddle on why such a plan doesn’t work, won’t work, etc. Make THEM defend the status quo. Once this plan is put into writing, every D team presidential candidate can/should be simply asked “do you support “the plan”, yes or no?
Every D team member of Congress should be asked the same question. Once we have a plan which conforms to military reality of the logistics of withdrawal, then we can proceed forward. But we first have to have a “plan”….a battle plan, a single document which details the nuts and bolts of withdrawal.
Again, both Sestak and Dodd have such plans.
Ghostman
I have never really liked the word “troops”. It sounds objectified, and far from human. I think this actually benefits Bush and the military. It takes heat away from them for having cost so many deaths of American men and women.
I haven’t read any of the comments yet, although I did read the entire post.
It pisses me off no end when anyone, the writer of this post included, says the Democrats have no plan to end the war. It’s not our war.
However, this –
They should just go for broke. The Democrats have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain by pushing, pushing, pushing it down the throats of the Republicans until they swallow.
Wordsmith, agreed. Ghostman at 133 talks about such plans, but that is not the point. In fact, it is the commander-in-chief’s job to organize a retreat, not Congress’. How it works is we tell our reps what we want, they the Pres and he’s supposed to do it.
But still, I’d trust Sestak’s or Dod’s retreat plans before I’d trust Chimpy’s.
It pisses me off no end when anyone, the writer of this post included, says the Democrats have no plan to end the war. It’s not our war.
The point is not that there is no such thing as “a plan” for withdrawing US soldiers. As Ghostman points out at 133, there are proposals for that, and some Democrats have proposed them, to their credit. The question I’m asking is whether there is a plausible political strategy that can gain both Congressional and White House approval (or Congressional mandate to force acceptance) for any of these plans? I don’t see one. That is what I mean by the absence of a plan to avoid what happened on the supplemental funding bill.
I hear proposals to attach withdrawal deadlines to appropriation bills, but I don’t hear about what happens next after a presumed veto and the absence of votes to override. I don’t hear how the Dems increase the number of votes for override, other than watching while things just get worse and worse and hoping that changes votes. That may well happen, but if the strategy is to just wait and watch Republican/Bluedog Dem votes switch as hundreds are killed, we ought to be clear about that.
Or, if the strategy is, just say, “no more funds” and “we’ll keep saying that even if Bush vetoes,” then what is the strategy for holding on during the likely backlash? During the debate on the supplemental, the Dems just waited for something to happen, and it didn’t; they got their bluff called. Once that happens, you can’t bluff again without aces. What now?
When the two sides stop lying about why we’re still in Iraq today, we’ll be out of Iraq. Tomorrow!
Or: “All I got for my lousy vote was more bullshit.”
The U.S. wants their money and they want their oil and they will fuck over everyone and anyone of us until they get it.
So we’ll all just have to sit there bleeding, while the mercenaries keep the pot boiling and our surging troops “buy more time”, until Parliament gives it all up.
Until we elect the right President.
The current U.S. leadership, especially in Congress, do not allow others, especially those of a darker skin tone, to have wealth unless it suits their interests.
But the sad twist here is that now that we the voters have propped up the likes of Reid, Lieberman, Schumer, Hoyer, Lantos and Emanuel, Kerry and others of the true Left may can’t/won’t speak the truth, I think,
because it would fatally wound the Democratic party. In a very critical election year.
But my Red Flag has shot up recently about something else.
In the 12 years past some of the Dems policy fumbling was so pathetic and blatant, many wondered if the DLC gang didn’t orchestrate it on purpose. Their concerns revolve only around their own asses, literally.
But are they doing it again??
The same Dems of olde are still in charge and back to similar pathetic behavior. But the stripping of the very serious Iran and Iraq provisions was possiblly a fatal slap to the Dems supporters.
Read this stupid demeaning comment given by the Majority Leader of the United States Senate to cover their asses on the public’s discontent:
Rahm, Schumer Pelosi and Hoyer too have come out spouting similar gibberish.
My question is this:
Are they, and other key players in the DLC, trying to deliberately discourage the ‘Left’ ? Is it possibly an insider strategy to keep down voter turnout?
Think about it.
How many of Cindy Sheehan’s supporters will vote or help Dems next year?
Remember. This ‘TERROR’ stuff brings home the bacon for them too.
??
http://www.reuters.com/article…..edType=RSS
Once Bush vetoed the original funding bill, the ball was in the Democrat’s court — find a way to finance the troops! We had to put the onus for not funding the troops back on Bush. We couldn’t avoid passing a funding bill, but we should have passed a bill essentially identical to the first bill.
We were in a contest of chicken with Bush and we let him win. Anyone who thinks this provides an argument for electing more Democrats to Congress is absurd.
“A plausible political strategy”…..
No, I don’t either – but that’s all it is.
Quite simply, it’s a game. It’s just a game. Call it what you will – strategy, game plans, tactics. It’s a game.
The Democrats don’t even want to say the word ‘LIE’ – this administration LIED about the reasons for going to ‘war.’ They’re not even called on that much.
So…I would guess it’s up to the people – again.
I guess you’d have to define what you mean by “plausible,” Scarecrow. Do you mean “easy” or “well-understood”? If so, yeah – the “easy way out” with the “not enough votes to override” excuse for Biden and all the other Democratic Members of Congress is to pretend the President (and his party) controls all the power.
But HE. DOES. NOT. So says our Constitution. Because the war powers of Congress have been allowed (by Congress, with encouragement and pressure from all presidents and the corporate media) to wither on the vine for decades now, it will not be easy (moral courage-wise) to reclaim them and reaffirm them. But it MUST BE DONE. [And it need NOT be done via legislation to repeal the AUMF which would require a veto override. I don’t believe Reid or Pelosi have moved beyond the legislative approach to assert the inherent powers of Congress as Governor Richardson has proposed.]
So – I do not agree with that terribly unAmerican assumption that it’s all in the President’s hands, now and in the future. It is misleading, false, and very, very dangerous to our Republic. I want the people in their Congress to be in control of their own destiny when it comes to our foreign policy, no matter how large our military might has grown. [I do absolutely agree with your elaboration @ 137 about the necessity for a coherent strategy to actually achieve a united caucus goal that will help end hostilities in Iraq. Otherwise, we’re just being conned by the leadership about their next ‘effort’ to end the occupation. And thank you so much for attending and reporting on that Kerry appearance. The reaction and informed involvement of the audience heartens me a little, at least.]
As I’ve said (to the extent of abusing bandwidth here, apparently) Richardson’s suggestion of asserting the Legislative Branch’s inherent authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 is absolutely a “plausible,” not to say vital, way for Congress to declare an end to our occupation of Iraq as of a date certain, with a simple majority vote in both houses. Period. [It has the further profound benefit of rebalancing and separating the power in our federal government to the original balance and division of power that our Founders designed and intended to preserve by way of our Constitution.] Clause 11’s powers are similar to, but easier to invoke with a simple majority than, impeachment – which I believe we understand to exist as an inherent power of Congress simply because it has been used within our memories, unlike the similarly-inherent and plenary war powers of Congress, which were last invoked to declare World War II.
I won’t repeat the details of the proposal again, which Governor Richardson’s overview summary explains so well, but I believe it is a very important one, and far, far more valid and healthy for our democracy than the political cover excuses that experienced senators such as Joe Biden (who must and ought to know better), and now disgustingly John Kerry, are spinning.
P.S. Absolutely right, Jane @ 14, selise @ 19 and jayackroyd @ 118. As selise said @ 99:
That goes, I’m afraid, for a large majority of our Congress. I’ve definitely detected such an attitude in Dick Durbin and Carl Levin, among others. How low and how ugly.
Wordsmith, WADR, if the democrats CAN force troop withdrawals by themselves, without the names of the republicans who have, nearly unanimously, supported the shitmire, they have a TON to lose.
What is going to follow troop withdrawals in Iraq, no matter WHOM triggers them, is about 90% sure to be horrific in the short term, and
miserably complicated and “bad” for us and the region, in the long term.
If the democrats are stupid enough to want the denouement of george bush’s bloody soap opera solely on THEIR bartab, then they deserve the political disembowelling that Rove and the GOP will give them.
Again: Bush and the GOP mid-wifed this Rosemary’s Baby. At the moment, parentage for the little horned one is not at issue with most american voters; but if the democrats pull the republican’s ‘nads out of the fire, and insert their own, Rove and the warbots will dance naked in the halls of congress,while they crank up the “defeat-from- victory-snatch” agitprop.
If you, or anyone else on here thinks that what is going to follow our withdrawal will be tolerable or explicable, to the world and to american voters; pleaseGod, put up the happy scenario by which this will come to be.
pow wow — for context, see my response to Jane at #20. I like the idea of Congress deauthorizing the war; the argument that Congress has the power to do this, and doesn’t need the President’s signature, is very appealing. But I don’t believe that alone would end the occupation, and I have my doubts about what the Robert’s court would do with this if Bush ordered the military to proceed and ignore Congress’ action. There is a huge risk that should not be discounted.
Tanbark (@ 142), I don’t know where you get your certainty that what will transpire after we leave will exceed or even match what is happening now to the Iraqis in Iraq – to innocent civilian and to not so innocent alike. And to the extent that there is such continuing violence after we leave, the role we have played and continue to play to train, arm and incite violent Iraqi actors will only increase, the longer we remain as an unwelcome occupier in Iraq. I respectfully suggest that you may be buying the conventional “civil war” spin too unquestioningly.
We are hearing almost nothing about the actual realities of Iraq in our corporate news or from Congress or the President. The Republicans in Congress are still raving that A-rabs on camels will swim the oceans to chase us down in our homes if we leave, for crying out loud.
MILLIONS of Iraqis are displaced inside and outside Iraq. But why? Because our occupation is keeping a damper on the ‘inherently-inevitable‘ slaughter of Iraqis by fellow Iraqis? Or because they are caught in the cross-fire between our forces and those Iraqis resisting our forces? If we can’t be confident of the answers to those questions, we can have no certainty about what will transpire when we leave, unless we are convinced that Sunnis will kill Shia and vice versa, no matter what. I don’t believe that. We’ve already seen evidence that Shiite, Sunni and Kurd can cooperate in their parliament to peacefully vote to try to get us out of their country.
But in the end, who are we to ignore the will of 4 out of 5 Iraqis? They want us GONE. Aren’t they the best judge of their own future, violent or otherwise?
And as for avoiding ‘taking the blame’ because only Democrats will vote to do the good faith moral, legal, Constitutional, and humane thing for our fellow human beings, as an American I’m willing to take that “blame” any day of the week, in the name of democracy both here at home and in Iraq, civilized behavior, and international law. But then, I don’t consider myself entitled to Iraqi oil, mideast domination, or to defend Israel’s neocon government at the cost of all others and to any extreme, as do so many of those who perpetuate the brutal injustice of our violent occupation of the Arab, Muslim nation of Iraq.
Scarecrow @ 143
I certainly understand your concern, Scarecrow. That is the cautious, careful approach many politicians would no doubt take. But I’m afraid we are beyond ‘cautious and careful’ where the defense of our Constitution (and country) is concerned. It’s very likely that taking the Clause 11 approach would, in effect, as you suspect, require the Judicial Branch to force an end to the occupation (or not) by ruling as to whether the Legislative Branch or the Executive Branch is in the right, under the Constitution.
But as I see it, if we’re going to cede our Congressional Clause 11 war powers to the Executive anyway, by refusing to end funding for the occupation [beyond a date certain or otherwise, and because we can’t override a veto of an AUMF legislative repeal or binding timelines, and won’t impeach either], aren’t we ‘already there’ in terms of the dread of a corrupt Roberts Court ruling that would eliminate the Clause 11 war powers of Congress?
I’d rather know that those war powers are obsolete, irrelevant and repealed, out in the open, than to assume that is so by the defacto acting-out of that scenario, as Congress is doing, and has been doing in less dire circumstances for years. After all, if the Roberts Court came down on the side of the Executive Branch with regard to Iraq, we still have the option of a Constitutional amendment to re-claim the ‘declaration of war’ powers for the Congress, and somehow I think the country would be very much inclined to re-instate them as our founders clearly intended, without delay.
Beyond that though, the Congressional war powers are so clearly stated, and so clearly founded in our revolutionary history, that it would take an awful lot of obvious manipulation to declare them suddenly powers of the Executive, even for Alito and Scalia. In short, I’m not sure we’d ever get a better test case, even with the flawed Supreme Court we must contend with, than the one that presents itself with a Clause 11 showdown about the occupation of Iraq.
Tanbark @ 142
And you’re ‘jumping me’ because – WHY?
I don’t know what WADR indicates. Is it an acronym?
Tanbark @ 142
And you’re ‘jumping me’ because – WHY? I don’t know what WADR indicates. Is it an acronym?
This entire fiasco means absolutely NOTHING to many members of Congress. It really is a game of who has the wherewithal to do whatever to prove no point. The insularity of Congress, the White House, those living in D.C. who think ‘the world’ is that place is unbelievable.
Does it matter that Iraqis are suffering? No because if those who are still there had the wherewithal, they’d would probably seek safety elsewhere (perhaps).
So the U.S. should just stay indefinitely because we don’t want to lose power in Congress? We don’t know what will transpire if & when troops are pulled out of Iraq so we can never leave? Yeah, yeah – whatever.
congressional democrats do have somewhat limited power to change things at the moment.
but
there is one thing they do have they were born with -
voices.
they need to use those voices persistently, daily, to criticize bush and to explain democratic alternatives.
those voices can provide the leverage and the power the democrats now lack, but they have to be raised in protest.
the congressional democrats need to establish a day-by-day commentary to the public (and the media)
with rotating democratic congressmen -
waxman, leahy, conyers, kennedy, nadler, schumer, maybe byrd, et al.
in short, they need to create their own noise machine to counter the msm/republican noise machine that is the only source of information americans hear these days.
the dems need to focus on accurate criticisms of the bush administration’s
and accurate descriptions of democratic alternatives-
none of the evasive, dishonest, partisan rhetoric we get daily now from the white house and the rnc.
by nature, congressional democrats are not to keen on doing a lot of speaking out publicly since that usually just helps bog down legislative negotiations.
but these are unusual times,
and the democrats in congress are the only spokespeople the party (and the american public) have at the present.
the main stream media have abandoned the nation in favor of corporate well-being.
the democrats in congress need to get on this NOW
and
keep at it for the next 1 l/2 years -
each day a press conference.
each day a specific topic
each day a congressman talking about:
- the bush bush admin’s dishonesty in dealing with specific policies or programs in the foreign affairs realm
- the bush admin’s incompetence in carrying out specific policies and programs in the foreign affairs realm
- ditto the admin’s dishonesty or incompetence for policies and programs in domestic affairs.
it astonishes me how oblivious the congressional democrats seem to be about the importance of telling their side of the story.
they need to stop wringing their hands
and start using their voices.
“so discouraged about the country”. Less than 100 years ago millions died in WWI. At least that many die in 1918 of the Great Influenza. Millions die in WWII. Tens of thousands die in Korea and Vietnam, and you pathetic panti wastes are depressed and discouraged because you can’t bring an end ot the war in Iraq. I hope you yellow bellies never get the full scope of government you want because you couldn’t stomach any real conflict with the Islamo-fascist who want to kill us. Thank god a few blue dogs still see the danger we face.
Stu dog @ 149
I’m sorry, but I worry about someone who cannot spell this – panti wastes – correctly. Let alone the inaneness of the logic…..
Wordsmith@work needs to become the next prez & fix everything…
Framework:
Democrats in Congress write an appropriations bill that specifically covers the projected expense of removing all of our troops from Iraq. No timetable. No benchmarks. Just a troop “escrow account” covering the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. A support-the-troops “escrow account” that remains on “standby” until the order is given.
Then, when the next Iraq Occupation funding bill is considered, the “culture of corruption” Republicans cannot claim (though you know they will anyway) that Democrats, in attempting to stop the war by defunding it, are somehow leaving our troops in harms way in Iraq, especially if a deadline is approaching at which time presumably funds will run out, like the scenario that unfolded recently.
No, the Democrats can say. Money has already been appropriated to cover the expense of getting our troops out of Iraq as safely and expeditiously as possible, and if Bush doesn’t sign the future appropriations bill, for whatever reason, then the war in Iraq will end (for U.S. ground forces at least) and the money set aside in this troop “escrow account” can be used to extract them.
Of course, Bush probably will veto this appropriations bill that solely covers the expense of gettng our troops out of Iraq, but I’d love to hear him try to explain how his veto supports the troops, since all thie Democratic-initiated bill does is pay for getting our troops out of Iraq, when that time comes.
Unless, Bush (at least during his last few months in office) has no plans to ever remove our troops from Iraq, and could give a damn about actually supporting our troops, which this Democratic-initiated bill would do.
OrionATL gives a great framework. Just have a voice and reinforce it each day. Worked well for Karl Rove and Tom DeLay. Did we like Newt, no, but he was clear about what he thought. Democrats seem to be afraid to say what they believe. Triangulation doesn’t inspire passion. And ultimately leaves you out of power. FDR was radical and unafraid.
Wordsmith: WADR means “with all due respect”.
The reason I “jumped” you is because, like most of the people who post here, you don’t want to talk about the events that are most likely to happen when our troops start to draw down.
Again: When you guys keep hammering the dems to start forcing troop drawdowns, with NO help from the people who sent them, you are saying that you believe what follows in Iraq will somehow be to the political benefit of the people who have opposed this war from the start. I think that is nonsense, and I challenge you again, to put up the logic behind that belief.
You guys have been bashing Pelosi and the democrats like you were republicans. I’m asking:
Why do you want the democrats to let bushCo off the hook for the end result of what is almost certainly coming down the pike in Iraq, at the same time, putting themselves (and us) ON the hook? IF they do it, in 2008, we could lose everything we’ve gained.
I promise you, Karl Rove has wet dreams about having the democratic congress unilaterally force troop withdrawals on george bush, while he and the repubs shreik that what follows is all the democrats’ fault.
If, between now and the 2008 elections, Pelosi and company somehow ram that down bush’s throat, the results in Iraq will be so violent, and so pregnant with more and worse complications, that it will be worth 25 percentage points to the GOP in the elections.
And, PowWow, I’m not asking because I want the troops to STAY. I’m asking because I think the “ending” is going to be so violent and so bad, that if the democrats don’t wait for events and voter-pressure to force the GOP to at least join them in forcing bush to start bringing the troops home (remember, he can do this with the stroke of a pen. No dealing required. No “bipartisanship” needed) thkey will be committing political suicide.
I’m also asking you guys for YOUR post occupation scenarios, because there is not the slightest reason that I see, to believe that the Joint Mesopotamian Chorus of Sunnis and Kurds and Shiites will start singing Beethoven’s “Ode to Kumbayah”, when the troops there now, start leaving, and the lid really comes off the civil war that bush has created.
Question: Do either of you think Iraq is going to stay together if bush doesn’t keep troops there to enforce that totally bogus “unity”?
Please tell me that you don’t believe that. :o)
And if you admit that partition is what’s for dinner, then will you, or anyone else posting here, tell us why you think that what follows a Kurdish takeover of Kirkuk and it’s environs, with all those oil reserves, in the north (remember the constitutionally-mandated referendum on that, for later this year?) and the results of this or that militia taking control of the even larger reserves in the south, with all of the economic power that both takeovers will entail, is going to be something that won’t cause HUGE ongoing problems for the region?
I very much want the troops home.
Yesterday.
I wanted them never to be sent, I’ve been fighting the good fight for 4 and a half years, but bush has created the goddamndest Hobbesian La Brea-east imaginable, and the blame for it HAS to go to the republicans, and it WILL go to them…IS going to them…(SEE: the mid-terms) Why in plu-perfect hell should the democrats rescue them from having to take responsiblity for what is nearly certain to happen in post-occupied Iraq?
Unfortunately, it IS a game of chicken, and we have to play it.
Happily, we have much the bigger and meaner truth-bird. Let’s not break his leg before we throw him in the ring. :o)
As ol’ Jerry Lee used to say:
” ‘hink about it…”
Yes, sorry, Tanbark @ 154, I do have high hopes that Iraq will successfully retain its current boundaries intact under the governance of a strong central government made up of Sunni, Kurd and Shiite working together, provided that Iraq retains control of its oil wealth on a national, not sectarian, basis, and that ‘interested outside players’ like the U.S. don’t continue to sabotage (yes, sabotage) the efforts of the Iraqi nationalists who are trying to achieve that end (nationalists among whom I count al-Sadr, but do not count al-Maliki). For more on the nationalists vs. the separatists, see these articles:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/52135/
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/53230
Honestly, I think the sweetest short-term revenge for the Iraqis against the United States and Britain would be to quickly transition to a peaceful, cooperative post-occupation state – to ‘one up’ us but good, as it were. There will obviously and definitely be challenges to achieving that – such as the criminal gangs now emboldened, armed and roaming, the foreign fighters and Al Qaeda remnants who are now experienced guerrilla fighters, much lingering resentment from families of victims of the revenge killings of Shiite and Sunni fighters and the other lawless contingents who have simply been able to take advantage of the chaos that our failed occupation has spawned.
But the Iraqis know that they have a rare opportunity, post-occupation, to come up with at least a semi-democratic form of government, with the finances to back it up and spread the wealth to all, that has been denied to them for far, far too long.
I don’t think they’ll blow that chance in any more unnecessary bloodshed and violence. And as with all overseas news aside from Israel/Occupied Territories, the American media will quickly drop Iraq from the news without a backward glance, once U.S. troops have left the country (see Vietnam). Our corporate media, our president, and many in Congress really don’t give a damn about what happens to the Iraqis themselves, once “our interests” are taken out of the equation. That reality will only help Iraq to do its own thing in peace, and I believe such an outcome is very much within their grasp, once they’ve transitioned to civil order, without us.
But there’s a mighty big caveat at the top: provided that Iraq is not forced to give away most of its oil wealth to foreigners and in the process divide in three. The longer we try to keep our boot on their throats to force that imperial outcome, the longer the fighting will continue and intensify. John Kerry seems desperate to redeem some value for us from Iraq in honor of the lives already lost there. But I’m afraid that’s a fool’s errand – there won’t be any making of silk purses out of this sow’s ear, for us [except perhaps for re-establishing the preeminence of our Congress in matters of war by a Clause 11-type Constitutional showdown]. But Iraq can and will rise again, I believe, if we just let it, after executing as graceful an exit as we can manage, while working to bring Iraq’s neighbors into negotiations with the legitimate representatives of the Iraqi people.
Shorter me, @ 155: I think you have ahold of the wrong end of the stick, Tanbark, in thinking that our presence in Iraq is an effort (or intended) to unite the country against the forces of separation and sectarianism. I see it just the other way around: we are sabotaging and ignoring efforts (like those of the Iraqi parliament) to successfully unite Iraqis against our presence and our (oil-grab and Middle East-bases) agenda, while working diligently to enforce a three-way divide in territory, power and oil revenues, so as to prevent a powerful, united Iraq from re-emerging atop their sea of oil. As our forces (and the Green Zone Government) are mostly hunkered down in isolation from Iraqis, I don’t see how we could be doing much “uniting” (or protecting of civilians) even if that was our actual agenda over there.