Let's hope the MSM picks up on it. Nothing from them yet and this is a huge development. Anyway to get them to notice?
Posted by DPG at January 30, 2007 07:43 PMAll you who doubted...
I kept saying he was more thoughtful and intellegent and not an empty suit.
So you think 14 months to evacuate the troops is impressive?
What's wrong with now and turning Iraq over to the UN or another peacekeeping force?
Obama keeps lowering the bar in the tradition of GWB.
Posted by Alex at January 30, 2007 08:02 PMI have seen some very, very well-schooled constitutional lawyers argue that Congress may mandate troop recalls by law; I remain unconvinced. McCain is not a well-schooled constitutional lawyer.
Nonetheless, this is a good thing for Obama to do. If the constitutional issues ever make it court, it means he's done something extremely important. Unfortunately, that's not where this is headed. It's headed to the court of public opinion, where he knows that this is a bit of a gamble, but a gamble that positions him well to pick up campaign steam (especially with these "netroots" that people keep talking about).
Posted by dj moonbat at January 30, 2007 10:33 PMSo you think 14 months to evacuate the troops is impressive?
Impressive? Nah. But better than what's on offer from any of the other presidential candidates. Well, OK, there's Kucinich, who's probably preparing a time machine amendment to solve the problem of insufficiently speedy withdrawal.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 30, 2007 10:39 PMRedeployment or withdrawal from a civil war must be connected to "supporting the troops" and contrasted with the bush-cheney "hanging the troops out to dry" policies (poor plans, insuffienct equipment, stop loss scams, extended tours, etc.).
The motto should be "Enough Is Enough"
Posted by smooth at January 30, 2007 11:01 PMSpeaking of "enough", the always excellent Robert Scheer over at Truthdig makes another, compelling case for impeaching (cover your ears Slappy) George Bush.
A Case for Impeachment
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070130_robert_scheer_a_case_for_impeachment/
Not all lies are created equal. It is understood that there is a chasm of importance between little white lies and big black ones. Most would agree that lying about a consensual sexual affair, even by the president, is of significantly lesser concern than lying about the proliferation of nuclear weapons as an excuse to take the nation to war.
How then is it possible that a Republican-controlled Congress impeached President Bill Clinton over his attempt to conceal marital infidelity but that a Democratic-led Congress will not even consider impeaching this president for far more serious transgressions against the public trust? That is the question that arises from early revelations in the trial of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.
Posted by Christopher at January 31, 2007 01:01 AMWhy Congress will not impeach Bush/Cheney is the biggest mystery to me. They are required to by our Constitution. I will never understand, and they aren't giving any real explanation. The GOP certainly didn't hesitate.
Posted by Judith at January 31, 2007 01:14 AMAccording to ABC News this morning, when Bush was questioned about the poll that says 67% of the American people think he doesn't understand the average American, his reply was:
"Oh, I think they are just down about the War."
When asked why Americans feel that the economy isn't good, he repied:
"Oh, I think it's just the War. War is just so negative."
I guess this is his new mantra. There is nothing wrong in America, it's just "people are down about the War." God, how I long for an intelligent president. What a putz.
Posted by Judith at January 31, 2007 01:54 AMWhy Congress will not impeach Bush/Cheney is the biggest mystery to me. They are required to by our Constitution.
Lying the country into a war, war crimes, Katrina and domestic wiretapping.
The foundation supporting the ordering of the Article of Impeachment seem pretty clear.
But Judith, for reasons known only to her, Madam Pelosi says, "impeachment if off the table," and many people agree with her.
Posted by Christopher at January 31, 2007 03:37 AMWow, Obama can read polls and pander to the majority just like every other candidate! Sure looks like he's ready to be president. Look at all the worship! And since he's not president and has nothing to lose by promoting something he can't deliver, he's a PR genius. Sheesh.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 31, 2007 05:45 AMCoyote beat me to it.
It's legislation - which is pretty much empty words until the bill is passed, and then passed again once Bush vetos it, and then passed with the supermajority to override.
Obama has to get in there and PUSH now. I wait with baited breath.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 31, 2007 06:23 AMThe Democrats know the only way to stop Bush & Cheney from continuing on this destructive path is impeachment.
Yet, they do nothing. And Steve supports them like a head-over-heels schoolboy in love and talks them up like the best thing since sliced bread.
The Democrats need to grow some backbones fast.
Once again the labels like "Democrat" and "Republican" get people looking but not examining.
As far as Hillary or Obama goes, I'd vote for Hagel first.
Oh! More name calling!
When's recess? That's the best time to conjure up the meanest insults!
If you feel the need to make me your boogeyman Christopher go right ahead. Your angst is misplaced however. The Congress is having a hard enough time just agreeing on a non-binding resolution regarding escalation that 'doesn't sound to harsh toward the president'. But Speaker Pelosi could singlehandedly bring down Bush and Cheney if she wanted to!
And, ya know, if I wasn't standing in her way.
Posted by snark at January 31, 2007 06:29 AMAs long as Repubs continue protecting this authoritarian rogue regime, the remedies of the constitution cannot realistically function and there isn't a great deal of point in acting like they are a possibility.
The difference between Nixon and Bush is that Repubs refused to protect Nixon just to save their party---they put party over country. Today's "conservatives" Repubs simply won't do that, despite all the evidence of actual lawbreaking and constutitional abuses by this "president".
The Repub senators are failing the country, not the Dems---who, it seems to me, are at least trying to confront Nero and are being met with Repub opposition and dilution.
Posted by euzoius at January 31, 2007 06:46 AMwhoops---I meant that Repubs in '74 put country over party.
Posted by euzoius at January 31, 2007 06:48 AMI'd vote for Hagel first.
Which is probably why the candidates aren't pandering too much to the netroots. Too easily swayed by speechifying, and no loyalty.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 31, 2007 07:37 AMObama calling for withdrawal by March 2008? Why get excited about waiting more than a whole goddamn year to withdraw? Obama is not serious. He should join Feingold who is calling to end funding for the occupation in six months!
Posted by fafnir at January 31, 2007 07:48 AMYup, a paragon of progressive ideals that Chuck Hagel!
Posted by snark at January 31, 2007 07:48 AMEdwards has called for de-funding and the immediate withdrawal of 50K troops.
That sounds more, uh, audacious than Obama's "plan."
And more realistic too.
Come on, Barack. I like you, but you're playing with the big boys now, and you're gotta swing harder than that.
Posted by God Of War at January 31, 2007 07:58 AMYesterday, at TPM Muckraker, folks were shouting "Webb for President" because he wrote Condi a letter, asking for a yes or no on whether Bush could invade Iran or not. I know we haven't heard straight talk from politicians since...(McCain) forever, but I'd like just a little more substance than someone saying the right things to get a headline. When the whole Democratic party is behind one of these grandstand ploys, then I'll be impressed.
Again, from Josh Marshall, re: namecalling -
You address them by what they consider to be their name. In the ordinary course of life, when people do otherwise, we rightly recognize that they're trying to pick a fight or demean the person in question.
It is, as Matt points out, another illustration of the 'bitch-slap theory of politics'. You assert dominance over someone by mangling their name and continuing to do so even after the correct pronunciation or style is pointed out. It's right off the schoolyard and it's no surprise that it's a stock and trade of this president.
And certain commenters...
Posted by iamcoyote at January 31, 2007 08:01 AMI should add that Webb doesn't seem to be grandstanding, he's actually doing his job. And so far, he's not running for prez.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 31, 2007 08:08 AMI disagree that this is a good idea. Did you see the video of the guy attacked by the cougar or whatever it was? He didn't sloooooooooowly pull his arm ooooooooout of its mouth, then sloooooooowly walk away - getting maimed the entire time.
He made a quick move to free himself, then ran away.
We need to pull out a significant number of troops now to show we're serious, then get the rest out. If you plan poker, you know that 1/3 of the pot is a mentally "significant" bet. We have 150,000 troops right now, so we need to pull out 50,000 now and redploy the rest to a few bases. Then, get the rest out over the next 12-18 months.
Posted by Robert P. at January 31, 2007 08:13 AMPelosi could drive impeachment by strong-arming some Republicans if she wanted to by reminding them that they had losses last year and that supporting Bush and Cheney with their war will result in more losses for them. The Nixon parallel should be enough to get a number of Republicans over to the middle and the Dems side for impeachment.
Yet she doesn't.
Then she and the Dems are as bad as the Republicans for leaving the troops in harms way.
Posted by Alex at January 31, 2007 08:58 AMPelosi could drive impeachment by strong-arming some Republicans if she wanted to by reminding them that they had losses last year
Who knew the 'pukes don't read the papers! Shit, Alex, you better write Pelosi right away and tell her so, she's missing a golden opportunity.
Really, folks, how the hell are we all supposed to convince people to vote democratic, when you blame the dems for all the shit the 'pukes have done these past 6 years? Have you learned nothing this past decade?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 31, 2007 09:13 AMIt'd be much better if we could send all our politicians to Iraq or Afghanistan to fight alongside the troops.
Maybe they'd do something then instead of trying to get face time on the tube for their own personal gains...like Obama, McCain, Rodham, etc.
Btw Steve, if you're endorsing candidates like Obama for their sheer brilliant ideas that take 14 months and another 10,000 troops' lives, then why not do like NASCAR and put an Obama or Rodham sticker on your front page so readers know where you stand as far as endorsements.
Posted by Alex at January 31, 2007 09:14 AMSome of us are wise enough to know that there isn't that much difference between the Dems and Reps where politics are concerned.
The Dems came into power last year because of the war and yet they're letting it drag on.
That's why they need to be held to a higher measurement than what Bush and Reps have been held to the last six years.
People won't trust the Dems until they start getting the troops out of Iraq. Otherwise their 08 gains won't be there.
Posted by Alex at January 31, 2007 09:19 AMPeople did not vote for the Dems so they would start an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. To believe that they did is about as delusional as believing that there is overwelming popular support for impeaching Bush.
Posted by snark at January 31, 2007 09:37 AMSome of us are wise enough to know that there isn't that much difference between the Dems and Reps where politics are concerned.
So, you were one of them Naderites that put Bush in the white house in the first place, huh? Yeah, we should listen to you... wise one.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 31, 2007 09:38 AMHow long have the Democrats controlled congress?
Are we letting the corporate media hype get to us?
Would exposing the bush-cheney-repug lies and crimes be more effective over the long run than impeaching a discredited administration. The right investigations could open independent voter eyes for a long time.
Iraq is an example of what losers create. Cheney has never done anything right. The Iraq disaster can not be fixed immediately. We are not talking about going to Burger King to order a number 2.
Posted by smooth at January 31, 2007 11:00 AMAwww now Coyote. Even I voted for stiff as a board Gore in 2000. My feeling was why tinker with success from the Clinton-Gore years. And besides. I did my homework and knew that Bush was a disaster for Texas (paying for public schools with strip club taxes...is there no shame???? hehehe, those poor girls working hard for their money and $5 Lone Star beers...dammit man, have you no empathy???? hehehe). Which is why I called it correctly when i nicknamed him George W Hoover.
But. Nader speaks the truth when he says he says he wishes we had two parties. I also support Kucinich too. At least he's serious about cutting the funding issue.
Besides, they're Democrats in Name Only since most of us are liberal Republicans and the Democrat Party is where we landed.
Ten (and a half) reasons why Republicans—yes, Republicans—are the best party in bed By Anonymous
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you’d think Democrats would be better in the sack, because they’re usually, well…better human beings in general. Plus, they’re so em-oh-tional and sen-sitive and they genuinely care about your day. And how you feel. And how you felt yesterday. “Is there anything you need?” they whimper. Oh, shutthefuckup! This is sex we’re talking about! After numerous years of intensive research on both sides of the aisle—and sometimes in the aisle—I am here to report that Republican men (except the closet cases) are infinitely better to have sex with. Here’s why.
1. NO CONSCIENCE!
A Republican man will never whine in the middle of the night—let alone in the middle of screwing you—about the girlfriend/wife/whatever he is “devastating” by sleeping with you. He just does it. It’s all about him—he needs to be the best you ever had, and that can be a good thing if your getting off is contingent on his. He doesn’t even stay for breakfast. (Though if you do make him breakfast, he is eternally grateful and will go down on you for another several hours.) One word: pancakes!
2. NO TEARS!
A Republican man will never, ever cry. Not on election night (no matter what happens). Not when you’re breaking up with him (what, you think he cared?). Not even when he’s having “a problem I’ve never had before, really, I’m not kidding, I swear.”
3. A SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE
I’ve dated Democrats whose nights have been ruined (forever!) due to some stupid-ass comment by Bill Frist on Hardball. I’ve watched them go all mopey, argue with the TV…and then their little weenies disappear. Not so with GOPers. Republicans, particularly when naked, do not want to sit around and talk about Social Security privatization. Or Iraq, for chrissake. Or why (oh, boo hoo, get over it!) Kerry lost. They don’t even want to sit around naked and talk about George W. Bush. They just want you to sit on them.
4. A SENSE OF HUMOR
Republicans are happy to watch Jon Stewart with you. They think he’s a riot. They don’t parse every word he says in an effort to figure out if “The Huffington Post” will approve. They just laugh, pour another cocktail, and decide upon which couch they will fuck your brains out after the show.
5. FOREPLAY
Democrats often need something incredibly erotic—like Meet the Press—to get revved up, particularly on a Sunday morning (there are only so many sections of The New York Times). Republicans, on the other hand, don’t even need Fox News to get it up. They understand that foreplay is about sex. And lots of it. Democrats are too busy checking if the condoms you keep in the jar by the bed are good for the environment. And by the time they figure that out, we’ve all lost our erections.
6. SIZE
It is absolutely, positively, 100 percent true that Republicans have bigger dicks. Just ask Lynne Cheney. (Dick is the Liam Neeson of Washington!)
7. EFFICIENCY
Republicans are much more likely to whip their dicks out during the cab ride back from dinner. (This is not an urban myth.) They are also more inclined to get started in the elevator, pin you against a wall, do you on the kitchen sink, wherever. Democrats bring jammies, spend at least twenty minutes prior to “sex time” doing God knows fucking what in the bathroom, and then emerge with a big grin that says: “After all I did for you supporting equal pay and abortion rights, the least you could do is make love to me.” Democrats always think you owe them. Republicans, because they’ve never done a goddamn thing for you, have no such delusions.
8. LARGESSE
Republicans have great taste in restaurants and will never make the wussiest of pre-date proposals: “You pick.” They understand that a woman wants a guy who knows how to pick a restaurant by himself. And who doesn’t feel the need to tell you what Zagat said about it before you get there. A Republican also knows how to order wine without getting all prissy about it, never dissects the bill (they don’t even look at it!), and will never, ever—ever—say, “Well, yes, I think that’s fair; your half comes to $39.25, but you had one more drink than I did,” if you offer to pay. They won’t let you think about offering to pay. This is so sexy! The best part: There’s never any guilt involved; we all know they got their tax break.
9. WOOING TECHNIQUES
Republicans will never send you group e-mails that consist of the entire text of Al Gore’s last speech (that was “woefully underreported” but “I knew you’d want to read it in its entirety”). Or the sign-up sheet for Democracy in Action, or whatever the hell those weirdos from the Howard Dean campaign are up to now. Or forms to send your congressperson because something terrible is happening to some woman you don’t know in Niger. (And you’d better send it to a hundred more friends or her labia will be removed tonight!!!) Nah. Republicans send e-mails that say: “I can’t wait to eat your pussy.”
10. NIGHTSTAND READING
You will never hear a Republican say, “Let’s just cuddle and read The New Yorker tonight.” They understand you do not want reading materials in bed. You want a man.
10.5. THE BIG CAVEAT
Yes, Republicans are the better lay—but only the Republicans you’ve never heard of. The more prominent they are, the less fuckable they are. The opposite is true of Democrats. Think about it. Is there any woman on the face of the earth who wouldn’t fuck Bill Clinton? (Didn’t think so.) But with a gun to your head, could you even think of doing Santorum? DeLay? Lott? Yuck, yuck, yuck! Okay, with a gun to our head, we might do W. And Cheney. Definitely Cheney. As long as we’re blindfolded. (But that’s okay. Republicans are into that, too.)
Uh, okay.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 31, 2007 01:41 PMWow, I think Alex knows what (s)he is talking about. I have always maintained that I'd like to meet a dem with a brain and a republican with a heart.
Dems don't win elections because they are looked upon as such wimps. Alex testifies to that.
Bush won in '00 and '04 because he likes and wants to be on top. And the nation said, "yes" but doesn't enjoy being screwed by him. Well...nation, make up your mind.
That said we have to wonder why Kucinich, and Feingold who is calling to end funding for the occupation in six months, are not on top :-).
People (even if they themselves are wimpy) like people who stand for something, win or lose. What do (Ms.)Clinton, Obama and Edwards stand for?
Perhaps law-makers (including Gore) do not understand 'executive' qualities. They are always trying to be PC. Gore is becoming attractive now, becoz, he is his own. Perhaps, it is too little, too late.
Gore walking away from FL and Kerry walking away from OH are signs of weakness. Forget that Congress **could** have nullified the Supreme Court in '00 if it came to that.
What if we had a 'constitutional crisis'? It can't be worse than many things we see in Russia and China today. Also, how we would **ever** know, that our constitution is 'crisis proof', if we don't have one, and come out ahead?
There is another evidence why law-makers can't cut it.
Contrast that with Mr. Clinton, who answered, "It is possible to give the middle-class a tax-cut and still balance the budget" no matter what the question was.
No wonder governors and generals win presidential elections. So let's get some 'action' folks and dump these 'talking' folks.
Alex, wow, again!!
Posted by grinner at January 31, 2007 10:24 PM