This is either total bullshit to keep their waning support from wandering off for good, or if accurate, a solid reason to strip them of leadership and influence.
They got snookered??? This, on the heels of Chuck Schumer claiming, with a precious dig of his toe in the carpet, that he was "hoodwinked" on two (count'em) SCOTUS seats.
Yes, TWO seats given given over to hard-right activist judges determined to roll back hard earned progress and the Dem response for swipecarding them, as it is on this FISA cave-in, is, "Whoops!"
These aren't isolated cases of being fooled, but a revolting list of failure going back right to the self-appointment -- the annointing -- of this administration. Clearly the Dems are complicit in these and pretty much every Repug travesty of the Bush era.
This wouldn't happen to not very bright members of middle school government and shouldn't be happening at this level even once.
Posted by Ellie at August 8, 2007 12:41 PMThe Dems have all the DINO blue dogs to deal with. I'm going to take these people at face value and believe that the want the same sort of autocratic, hierarchical social structure as the GOP members.
It's like when the Dixiecrats were in the Dem party. They blocked progressive domestic legislation but they were kept in the party because their votes were needed on other issues.
As for the senate, the Dems don't have functional control, only administrative.
I think that the Dems should have put off consideration of the bill until September, but what then?
The Dems can't get a better bill passed, vetoed and then get the veto overridden. They don't have the votes. So what would you suggest they do that can actually effect change?
I don't mind the bashing of the leadership, they deserve it. But useful commentary would offer suggestions along with criticism. Who knows some congressional staffer might even read the posting and learn something!
Posted by robertdfeinman at August 8, 2007 12:48 PMI hate to say that I told you so, but, I did. Last November and December, I believe I mentioned that the Republican Leadership was well versed in the rules and would romp over the Democratic Leadership. I seem to remember many of you nice people having many not nice things to say about me then. Oh well, I'm enjoying your majority. It seems to be working quite nicely for my side.
If the Pentagon wanted to silence Gen. Cordesman all they would need to do is order him to be silent. He's an honorable man and would surely comply with reason. The general also stated that leaving wouldn't be the best idea...
"The attached trip report does, however, show there is still a tenuous case for strategic patience in Iraq, and for timing reductions in US forces and aid to Iraqi progress rather than arbitrary dates and uncertain benchmarks. It recognizes that strategic patience is a high risk strategy, but it also describes positive trends in the fighting, and hints of future political progress."
And...
The new US approach to counterinsurgency warfare is making a difference, but it still seems likely from a visit to the scene that the original strategy President Bush announced in January would have failed if it had not been for the Sunni tribal awakening.
Luck, however, is not something that can be ignored, and there is a window of opportunity that could significantly improve the chances of US success in Iraq if the Iraqi government acts upon it. The US also now has a country team in Iraq that is far more capable than in the past, and which may be able to develop and implement the kind of cohesive plans for US action in Iraq that have been weak or lacking to date. If that team can come forward with solid plans for an integrated approach to a sustained US effort to deal with Iraq’s plans and risks, there would be a far stronger and more bipartisan case for strategic patience.
Your link Steve, not mine. Now you're trusting Senator McCain's military adviser. These two items do not differ all that much. they both seem to be saying we need to stay there...
"The US also now has a country team in Iraq that is far more capable than in the past, and which may be able to develop and implement the kind of cohesive plans for US action in Iraq that have been weak or lacking to date. If that team can come forward with solid plans for an integrated approach to a sustained US effort to deal with Iraq’s plans and risks, there would be a far stronger and more bipartisan case for strategic patience."
I would welcome this piece to be put along side of the Pollack and O'Hanlon work anytime. They reinforce each other's judgment. Thanks Steve for this one, it really does help America and my side as well.
Posted by peter at August 8, 2007 12:54 PMVideo: We’re making military progress, says … Dick Durbin? As seen on CNN this morning...
Senators Durbin and Casey are in Iraq, and were interviewed this morning by CNN's John Roberts (video below). Senator Durbin made the first attempt to recognize the success of the surge and dismiss it in one breath:
SEN. DICK DURBIN: There were two important parts of this story, the military type as Senator Casey said the men and women were doing their best and making real progress. We found that today as we went to a forward base. The fifth year of the war, it's the first time we're putting troops on the ground to intercept al Qaeda. There's another side to this story the Brookings institution shouldn't miss. As we are seeing military progress, any political scene is discouraging. We are seeing the al Maliki government once branded the government of unity coming apart. We are seeing Sunnis and others leaving and not becoming the stability of this country.
Senator Casey joins in a moment later:
ROBERTS: I understand all of that. Everybody in the Democratic Party is saying the surge has failed. Senator Casey, do you agree with your colleague there are some signs of military progress here?
SEN. CASEY: Sure, there are, John. We have said in the beginning, our troops are doing their job.
Then Senator Casey complains that President Bush refuses to change course, and is offering the same old policy -- which by his own admission is yielding progress, and which he points out that he opposed:
SEN. CASEY: [continuing] The problem here is the president of the United States continues to insist on a stay the course policy, no change in direction, no sense the American people can determine there's a light at the end of the tunnel. That's why i think there's a bipartisan agreement right now to change the course. I think the president should listen to the will of the American people
ROBERTS: Senator Casey, you supported this bill to bring troops home. Have you seen anything to change your mind on that while you're there?
SEN. CASEY: No. I supported Levin-Reid and I voted initially, way back in the beginning of the year, against the surge. I think they're the right votes and continue to be the right votes. We have to make sure that the diplomacy and the political work that's done in Washington, as well as in Baghdad, what we're seeing now is the Iraqi government officials have left, we're seeing Sunni representatives have walked out and are boycotting. So the political work in Baghdad and Washington has to match the courage and the dedication of our troops. We haven't seen that yet.
Senator Casey's position--put succinctly--appears to be 'There is progress; there has been for some time. I opposed the switch to the current policy and I can't understand why the President won't change it.'
That argument won't fool anyone. Anyone with a television or internet access knows that Democrats have argued incessantly that Iraq in general and the surge specifically are failures. For them to suddenly acknowledge progress--and to pretend that they've been talking about it for a while--is silly.
It's hardly the sort of argument that will sway the American people to oppose a policy that is having success--success that seems to be recognized more each day.
Watch the interview; it runs about http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/democratic_leaders_move_the_go.asp
"Your side" is apparently brain-dead, peter. How can you possibly advocate this unwarranted nightmare?
Posted by tempus at August 8, 2007 01:36 PMStrategic patience? We've already bankrupted ourselves morally and financially. What kind of "victory" is strategic patience going to bring? Oh, right. More money for defense contractors and their pet politicians right up until the American economy collapses.
Posted by dalloway at August 8, 2007 01:36 PMPeter, Cordesman isn't a general.
He also says that the surge hasn't succeeded and that any success so far has come from the Sunni tribesmen going after Al Qaeda in Anbar, not from our efforts. He says that the only case that can be made for "strategic patience" now is in the hope that the Al-Maliki government makes political progress. Peter, what do you place the likelihood of that at? 50%? 25%?
Let's face it. The next (Democratic) president will have to clean up Bush's disaster here and will spend a good part of their first term getting us out of Iraq and back into fighting and killing Al Qaeda. If that is something you are proud of as a GOP stalwart, then grab a rifle and head to Baghdad.
Posted by Steve Soto at August 8, 2007 01:37 PMThey got snookered??? Are you f*cking kidding me??? I hate having my intelligence insulted! Seven years later and these people got duped??? Give me a f*cking break!
Posted by Judith at August 8, 2007 01:49 PM"The Dems can't get a better bill passed, vetoed and then get the veto overridden. They don't have the votes. So what would you suggest they do that can actually effect change?"
Congress needs to get away from the idea that no bill is passed that the Dems want unless it is veto proof. They need to pass good legislation even if it is by a one vote margin and then send it on to the President. Then if he vetos it, they need to paint the President as obstructionist and evil. Then wait a while and send the same bill back to the President again. If the president vetos a bill, they need to say he is thwarting the democratic voice of the People. If they do this enough, he will have to begin signing bills. I think the people like the fact that the Congress represents them. I think the people are believing less and less that the president represents the people.
Just do not pass bad bills anymore even if all of the important bills passed get vetoed. This is especially true with funding bills.
Posted by Nobody at August 8, 2007 01:52 PMrobertdfeinman @ 12:48pm
I wish I knew as more about the workings of govt -- particularly given the reluctance of both parties to operate transparently and be honest with their constituencies -- to be more specific.
As it stands and merely going by their actions and words, I'd ask them to acquit their duties more diligently, ethically, honestly and transparently. It's a good start and would eliminate much of the steaming pile of crap that pours out of the hallowed halls of power daily.
I'd be more specific but I've got a job to fill, a family to tend and my own destiny to seek: all of which are made more difficult by the sacks'o'crap in power for me to do their jobs too.
Posted by Ellie at August 8, 2007 01:52 PMI hate to say that I told you so, but, I did.
Only a neo-con could celebrate the trashing of their Constitutional rights. Go figure.
Let me translate what Stoller explained:
"You must keep clapping for Tinkerbelle!!! It was Mike McConnel's fault! He is the most powerful legislator out there....uh, well, he controlled everything, like a God! Princess Sparkle Pelosi just couldn't keep the House together, and Senaturd Reid swooned like a Southern Belle with the vapors at a cotillion when he explained 'Wha, we jus din't hay-ave thuh voates. Ah'm swoonin!'"
So, keep clapping for Tinkerbelle, Dems. Your right arm extended patriotic goose-stepping is needed to keep Tinkerbelle's little light going!!! Think I'm being harsh? The new improved warrantless wiretaps are now being brought to you by Democrats. Thanks, comrades!! We don't have to do a damn thing! Just keep telling us we have to be patient. Sheesh!
And why would Princess Sparkle Pelosi and Senaturd Reid really do this?
Was it "Security" lobbys? http://www.retail-leaders.org/new/resources/Coalition%20letter%20to%20Senate%20July%2027%20FINAL.pdf Security lobbys.
Reids son-in-law making assloads from data companies as a lobbyest.
Or plain old assloads of money lobbys? http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/11/MNGEJLMT8E1.DTL&type=printable
The new US approach to counterinsurgency warfare is making a difference,...
Don't read any European papers. You seem happiest when you can make your most ignorant statements.
Posted by phidipides at August 8, 2007 01:55 PMSorry Steve, always thought he was military. Anyhow, I still respect his word and vision.
"Cordesman challenged a study in The Lancet, a British medical journal, which concluded in 2006 that 600,000 Iraqis had been killed in the war. "They're almost certainly way too high," said Cordesman, who added that the study was published to affect the upcoming midterm elections." From Wikipedia
The longer we're there, the calmer the atmosphere will be for the political solution to come about. We're still in Bosnia. Seems that place is out of the news for quite a while. Has the political solution come about there. If so, why are we still there. We had our first loss there just a few years ago. I've seen nothing on this site campaigning to bring our heroes home from there.
The fact that you want ME to carry a rifle is laughable. Sure should bring more questions about your judgment.
Posted by peter at August 8, 2007 01:56 PMThe Dems allowed themselves to be bullied, and have shown the Repugs exactly how to win in 2008. The Dems will be on the defensive forever because they don't know how to stand their ground, let alone attack. We're looking at the Dems not winning the White House, but losing control of Congress.
Posted by at August 8, 2007 02:05 PMPrincess Sparkle Pelosi is too busy here...
Pelosi arm-wrestles over cash for the House gym
After dueling with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) to pass a renewable energy bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) faces a wrestling match with another rogue chairman. And this one can bench-press 265 pounds.
Pelosi is set to square off against Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), the power-lifting chairman of the House gym committee.
Important stuff needing her attention.
Posted by peter at August 8, 2007 02:06 PMSorry "nobody" but you can't govern by pique. Passing the same bill over and over again will never happen. It would make the Dems look like fools (OK, bigger fools).
The usual technique is to tie a desired piece of legislation to a bill that can't be vetoed (like an authorization or appropriation bill), but Gingrich tried to play hard ball and he ended up with egg on his face. So I don't think that the Dems want to take the chance.
The truth is that progressive Dems don't have a majority in either house. Guys like Jim Webb used to be a Republican. He may have some populist ideas but in a sane world he would never have run as a Dem. The Dems are so desperate that they will take in anyone who can win. The result is a timid, centrist policy.
I don't know how to push them further to the left, that's why I would like to see some practical ideas.
Posted by robertdfeinman at August 8, 2007 02:23 PMWe need Democrats along the line of FDR, Truman, and Kennedy, not progressive Democrats. Real Democrats work with Republicans to build compromises. Progressive Democrats seem to like being like George W Bush's "You're either with us or against us". You hate the moniker but thats what you're saying all the time. So be like Bush, Vote for Progressive Democrats only! Run Progressives against incumbent "Blue Dogs" so we can be sure they vote our way only. It worked so well against Joe let's do it all over.
Posted by peter at August 8, 2007 02:35 PMPeter, getting a read on where you stand is a challenge. You support Bush and his rigidity, and yet you say Democrats should elect centrists who aren't rigid and not progressives who would stand on their own principles?
Don't you see how easily some of us could conclude that all you want are a bunch of DINO rubber-stampers?
Posted by Steve Soto at August 8, 2007 03:01 PMSteve, let's try this. A president presides or commands. They need to decide and stick with their decisions. Congress needs to work for the people and work together. The people want transparency and they want a team approach. We need transparency to make this work. Partisanship during the campaign. Team when they meet together. Let's get something done period. We have many problems that needs attention. They go for years before someone finally comes around and looks into them.
What was it Senator Kennedy did many years ago, maybe 1978 or 79. He had an education bill, not perfect, maybe 60% of what he wanted. He wanted the whole tomato and waved it off thinking he could get to it next year. Never happened, took W and 'no child left behind' to get any attention again. In the meantime, children suffered.
Why is it that the TEA supports Democrats ALL the time and our education system keep failing? Democrats ran the majority for the most part till 1994, yet our ed system was failing, falling apart. They still support y'all, and they still are failing. Republicans want children to be well educated too. We want physics and chemistry and math taught as well as other subjects. It's not all about abstinence and the Bible. English, history, the arts, a well rounded education is important. The TEA should not be looking to only one party all the time. There's not any competition and that's not healthy for our republic.
Special interest, unions, lobbyist, PACs, 527's, the alphabet soup. Earmarks need to be reformed. What they passed last week wasn't reforming it was window dressing only. We need to see what it's for and who supported it. They shouldn't be hidden away in some fine print. Ethics reform, real ethics reform is needed too. These people need to respect each other and be respected by the people.
Now, I'm sure someone would say, "well your side did this, or acted this way. Why shouldn't I get to do the same thing?" We both seem to firing at each other while we're circling the whirlpool. We're both sinking. That's why Congress is thought of so badly. We're both at fault. We really are. Somebody has to be the first or we all suffer. The question is who.
The 109th Congress didn't do a very good job. The 108th was a little better, but not much. 107th was good. So far the 110th is pretty bad. The people's business just isn't getting done, period. These people are taking days to make a chess move and the move they make is just awful. The idea of throwing more money at a problem doesn't solve the problem. DC has the highest dollar amount per student spent and has one of the worst accomplishment rates.
2.4 trillion in revenues, 16 to 18K per working person! I know my taxes aren't near that. So somebody has to be offsetting me. Fair share, what is that. What percentage equals a fair share? Seems we find it easy spending somebody else's money. It so easily done and "it only cost this much."
We need a better job done in Congress. How can one complain about the Iraqi Congress when ours is about as bad. They see ours taking a break in August so they mimic ours. Sure we don't have a battlefield out the front door like they do, but...
Maybe i'm rambling again, seeya.
Posted by peter at August 8, 2007 05:53 PMI respect Matt Stoller, but reading his version of this event, I don't believe a word of it. He's been told a charming fairytale. The leadership couldn't anticipate this? They couldn't keep up with unfolding events, follow news editorials? A failure of leadership, House and Senate? A cascade failure across the whole leadership? Bull shit.
I don't think we can expect any better or any different from the House or Senate leadership, come September. They enabled this. They are on side for this. How does a president with crashed poll numbers, like George Bush, win this kind of political coup? Not by accident!
How does Bush, with an administration like his, keep accumulating this kind of power?
Seymour Hersh is right; we are witnessing a fundamental collapse. In an interview in the latest Adbusters magazine (# 73), contributing editor Deborah Campbell asked Hersh, "Why do you think the Bush Administration keeps getting away with this kind of behavior?"
(She had asked with respect to the ill treatment by Rumsfeld's Pentagon of General Taguba, after the General's report on Abu Ghraib, but Hersh responded in a broad manner.)
That's a question you really have to direct at the Congress and at the mainstream press. Maybe we're just inured. There's just so much of this. When you have such a lack of, you know, the word that's never mentioned anymore is morality, and across the board you basically have people that are diminishing values, diminishing the constitution. To me it shows just how fragile the whole society is. These guys come in and we've had a collapse of the military, collapse of Congress, collapse of the press, collapse of the federal government. It's pretty shocking how easily it slips.Posted by Copeland at August 8, 2007 06:13 PM
Thanks Steve. Now you have to answer the question of what's in it for them?
Politician's first priority is to get re-elected. I don't think Pelosi or Reid are in any danger, but if they get ahead of their fellow legislators they better have some quo to go with the quid.
Others may be reluctant to get into a brawl and I also think there are a fair number of DINO's who basically agree with the GOP.
Perhaps the Dems will come back all energized and ready for battle, but so far the signs are not encouraging. They may even be letting things get worse just so they stand a chance of a bigger sweep in 2008. This is, or course, a horrible ethical position to take, but we are talking about politicians here, after all.
Posted by robertdfeinman at August 8, 2007 06:24 PMPer the FISA vote and what to do about it, a couple things:
1) It's increasingly obvious, especially if you look at the timelines at firedoglake, that the Dem leadership pushed this crap through. Not the rank and file ('scept them Blue Doggies). THE LEADERSHIP. So let's not throw the party out with the leadership, okay?
2) What to do is simple: start openly questioning these people (Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, Slaughter--rules committe chair) why they think eviscerating our rights as citizens is such a cool idea. Do it early and often. Do it as much as possible.
Oh, it was Conyers that moved to suspend rules on the "good bill" in the first place, so perhaps we should ask him as well.
Folks, no one got "snookered." No one is that stupid. No one, save a few dozen Republicrooks, anyway.
If you think back a few years, you'll notice a pattern in the excuses that follow every time Dems help out BushCO in their desire to establish a Counter-Intelligence State.
"We're so scared of the GOP!"
"We're so scared of the press!"
"We're so scared of (insert boogeyman of choice here)!"
"We didn't know what we were doing. We may be naive!"
"We're just idiots!"
"We didn't mean it.... really!"
And like wife batterers everywhere, the old standby (drum roll please):
"We'll never do THAT again!"
How long are you going to believe that?
Posted by Rick at August 8, 2007 08:46 PMHappy Anniversary!!!
NIXON RESIGNS
August 9, 1974
Thirty-three years ago today, the second most corrupt Republican president in American history resigned in disgrace, edged out in Republican corruptness by our current Republican president, George W. Bush.
Anyway, Cinemax is rerunning "All the President's Men." It is a potent reminder of how far Republicans will go to gain and retain political power, including illegally using our national intelligence agencies for partisan political purposes.
Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer and all the mad-dog Blue Dog Democrats should be forced to watch "All the President's Men" to help them understand the criminal mind-set of certain Republicans.
I'm certain they will sit there and realize that they are watching a movie from the 1970s about Watergate that perfectly depicts the "culture of corruption" Republicans of today, using the same criminal tactics, with the only difference being that the names have changed.
And if the Democratic leadership won't willingly cooperate in viewing "All the President's Men," then they should be strapped into a chair like in "A Clockwork Orange," have their eyes forcably kept open, and be made to watch hour after hour after hour...until it finally dawns on them how gravely in danger our democracy and our liberties really are.
Posted by The Oracle at August 9, 2007 01:58 AMToday's NY Times has an article which sums up the whole situation. The Dems follow a center-right agenda and get screamed at by the blogosphere. But at the end of the day the outraged liberals stick with them, where else can they go?
There was a short mention of going after the blue dogs, but many of them are in such conservative districts that I don't think a more liberal candidate could win in a primary, let alone the general election.
The Lamont revolt didn't do anything to Lieberman except, perhaps, make him more conservative.
Posted by robertdfeinman at August 9, 2007 06:39 AMpeter: "The fact that you want ME to carry a rifle is laughable. Sure should bring more questions about your judgment."
For you it is so easy for others to fight the war you "support." Just what are you willing to sacrifice for your war of aggression against Iraq? Willing to pay higher taxes? Or just charge on Bush's Chinese Express credit card? So far over 3600 Americans have sacrificed their lives, 10s of 1000s of Americans have been gravely wounded, thus 1000s of American families have been destroyed. And over 600,000 Iraqis have died since Bush lied this country into war.
"Cordesman challenged a study in The Lancet" Really? Since when did he become a medical epidemiologist?
"The longer we're there, the calmer the atmosphere will be for the political solution to come about." Yeah, it's gotten calmer every day for the past 4 years.
"We're still in Bosnia." And how many Americans have died in Bosnia? How many IEDs are going off every day of the week?
I am so tired of pants-pissing right-wing cowards.
Posted by Gay Veteran at August 9, 2007 09:37 AM