Google
 
Web my-twocents.blogspot.com

Sunday, July 29, 2007

DC Elite Conventional Wisdom vs. Reality

One of the most frustrating things involving politics has to be how ideas and policies that by all evidence and common sense is wrong or radical, is trumpeted as "mainstream" and "acceptable" by media elites, who consider themselves, of course, also "moderates."

Yet how many times are we confronted supposed "moderation" that is completely at odds with what the majority of the American people want? I mean...shouldn't "moderate" and "mainstream" mean that majorities of the American people believe the same?

In the past this "moderation" was found in many debates:

The Social Security debate: Pundits and Commentators insisted that the Democrats must be "moderate," must be "bipartisan," and must listen to the American people and compromise with Republicans over Social Security. This "compromise of course would of completely destroyed the system and the defeated the purpose of Social Security but...that didn't matter.

Of course, most people sided with Democrats and their concepts but pesky facts like that are often overlooked or igored.

Iraq Withdrawal: Pundits have warned Democrats for a while not to push withdrawal too much. We were warned not to push to hard before the 2006 midterms or else the nation would punish Democrats...even though polling told the story that the Democratic message of withdrawing from Iraq was popular.
-----

These Beltway "Serious" People are have lived life so long in their Washington, or New York bubble that they lose touch with Americans at large. They think they are smart, educated and and so knowledgable of the world that they are just right about everything. They come to see their own opinions as what constitutes "mainstream" and "acceptable" and label anything that resides outside their limited scope as "radical," "naive," and "unserious."

It never occurs to them that they could be wrong, or that their ideas, or the ideas they accept as legitimate, are the ones who are "radical" and far out of the mainstream.

Barrack Obama's YouTube Debate "Gaffe"

This bring me to the recent CNN/YouTube debate in which the question posed was: Would you have talks with nations now considered Americas enemies in his first year? (paraphrasing)

[This I assumes means nations like Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and others]

Barrack Obama answered that he would talk to these countries without precondition because he does not subscribe to the view that talks are rewards for bad behaviour, but that they are neccesary tools to get "bad" nations to act in a manner that is "not so bad."

Hillary Clinton called this view "naive" and that she would not talk to these nations without some sort of preconditions before talks began.

These different responses highlight a vast difference between the two candidate as it refers to their different foreign policy philosophies.

The media elite, and Beltway conventional wisdom worshipers almost universally called this a "gaffe" on the part of Obama and agreed with Clinton that this only highlighted to the American people how naive and inexperienced Obama was in foreign affairs.

But this example only highlights how out of touch with "mainstream" these people actually are.

Glenn Greenwald of Salon points to us to just one of these Conventional Wisdom -machines poo-pooing Obamas view as "too left":

Chris Mathews Show, July 26, 2007


MATTHEWS: I share your sentiments. But as a journalist, I have to look at the politics of this thing. Your last words?

[Weekly Standard's Stephen] HAYES: I think if [Obama] continues down this course I think he's in serious trouble because it‘s unsustainable.

MATTHEWS: Too far left?

HAYES: Absolutely.


The opinion is crystal clear: Obamas ideas are essentially too radical, too extreme, to outside the mainstream for America.

So, how does the American people actually feel about this question?

A recent Rassmussen Report poll tells us that more Americans actually side with Obama on this question that Clinton:

Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say that the next President should meet with the heads of nations such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea without setting any preconditions. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% disagree while 24% are not sure.

That question came up during last Monday's Presidential Debate with Illinois Senator Barack Obama saying he would commit to such meetings and New York Senator Hillary Clinton offering a more cautious response. Democrats, by a 55% to 22% margin, agree with Obama.

So, polls tell us that, of the Americans who have an opinion, a majority side with Barrack Obama and his view. And importantly for the Democratic primary, most Democrats agree with Obama.

Yet, the conventional wisdom among the Washington opinion makers is that Obama made a "gaffe." That this highlighted a lack of knowledge of foreign policy, and that this was "too left."

Obamas views are too radical yet no word on the trully radical and horrendous policies and ideas promulgated by people who get on TV all the time. These ideas that follow are acceptable...

From the same Chris Matthews show we get crazy ass (but "serious") Stephen Hayes:

MATTHEWS: on Cheney, because Cheney is the kind of guy who represents to me the hard case. He‘s not going to go negotiate with anybody. Is it fair to say that Cheney would take the position, you don‘t deal with Ahmadinejad, for whatever reason, you don‘t deal with Castro, you don‘t deal with Kim Jong il or any of these guys. You stiff them. Is that the Cheney view?

HAYES: To play off of what Sally said, it actually is for the opposite point. You don‘t play with them precisely because it gives them respect. It gives them stature on the world stage that they don‘t deserve. Ahmadinejad, as Howard said several times—he‘s a holocaust denier.

That‘s crazy talk.—ridiculous, insane position.

MATTHEWS: Does that mean never talk to them?

HAYES: Yes, absolutely.

MATTHEWS: Then what do we do? How do we negotiate?

HAYES: We don‘t negotiate somebody who‘s denying the holocaust, with somebody who‘s killing our soldiers.

MATTHEWS: What do you do with them?

HAYES: I think you confront them. I think you confront them in a stronger way.

MATTHEWS: How do you do that? What should we do with Iran?

HAYES: Certainly we should be having units, at the very least, taking out the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who are killing our soldiers.

MATTHEWS: So we should cross the border?

HAYES: I think if we need to cross the border, we should cross the border? Yes.

MATTHEWS: You think we should be acting aggressively towards Iran?

HAYES: Yes.

The "acceptable" position, the position of many neconservatives who always get invited to national TV news shows is that we should not negotiate with out enemies because it would reward bad behavior. And Chris asks the million dollar question: "If we don't talk, what then?"

War of course you dumbass!! People who propose diplomacy are radical, and "too left," but idiots who argue for another war (and believe me the quickest way to get there is to listen to Stephen Hayes), with a nation several orders tougher and bigger than Iraq, while we are still bogged down in the first mistake those same neconservatives like Hayes got us into (Iraq).

This is not radicalism? Is this not crazy and insane positions?

But if you pay enough attention to the news you learn quick that proposing violence and wars as a solution to any problem will never get you labeled "radical." A hawk is just assumed to always be serious and smart. While those who see it different are always "radial" or outside the mainstream.

The only thing this incident really highlights is how out of touch or national "talking heads" are.


----

I happen to agree with Obama. It's much saner and more pragmatic foreign policy outlook, that is more likely to achieve progress. Clintons view is - sadly - not that far different from the current Bush stance on diplomatic talks with "enemies." They both wish for enemy nations to achieve several preconditions prior to engaging in talks.

This is silly in most cases because, especially when it comes to Bush, the preconditions are often demands that negotiations themselves are supposed to accomplish.

Like the precondition for North Korea to abandon its nuclear program prior to talks. Are you stupid!: You want North Korea to concede everything prior to talks. Needless to say they haven't been too successful until they finally gave up on those ridiculous preconditions.

This difference in foreign policy outlook is not unimportant:

In fact I'm quite confident in saying that if it came down to a choice between Obama and Clinton, I would gladly choose Obama just on the basis of this issue. As it stands I'm not committed to any one candidate yet, but Clinton lost a lot of my respect during that debate.

-------------

Roundup

Larissa Alexandrovna of Raw Story does some original reporting and based on interviews with some former and and current intelligence officials, reports that the recent National Intelligence Estimate could be flawed.

Flaws and politicization of the NIE


Current and former intelligence officials say the Bush Administration's National Intelligence Estimate regarding terrorist threats to the United States does not provide evidence to support its assertions and may have inflated the domestic threat posed by the Lebanese political and military group Hezbollah, perhaps because it receives financial support from Iran.

According to the report, Hezbollah – a Shi'a Muslim group with ties to Iran that has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United States – may target the US domestically if the US poses a serious threat to Iran. But sources say the allegations about Hezbollah were simply "thrown in."

Speaking under condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, several intelligence officers asserted that the report was sloppy and lacked supporting evidence. "The NIE seems… fiddled [with]," regarding Hezbollah, one high-ranking CIA official said. "Whether it is or isn't is not really the point. The point is that nobody is ready to believe it." (snip)

An individual close to the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research told RAW STORY the document's assertions are not backed up by empirical or external evidence even in the classified version. In addition, this official explained, the information lacks context and does not prioritize threats.

Released last week, the NIE is a consensus view from all sixteen intelligence agencies and departments, compiled by the National Intelligence Council and signed off on by the agencies involved as well as by the Director for National Intelligence. The document represents the "official" intelligence community view on any issue related to national security.

Intelligence officials would not confirm whether the classified version contained dissenting views. However, several expressed concern that parts of the report may have been politicized.

A possibly politicized document coming from the Bush Administration...say it ain't so.

--------

Americans trust Democrats over Republicans on just about every issue -

When it comes to National Security, Democrats are now trusted more by 42% of likely voters, Republicans by 40%. This means that Democrats now enjoy at least a nominal edge on all ten issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports to gauge voters' trust of the two major parties.

In late June Democrats had the edge on nine of ten issues. At that time, the GOP had a single point advantage of the National Security issue. (snip)

The Democrats have also gained a little ground this month when it comes to the War in Iraq. Harry Reid’s party moved from a ten-point advantage in late June to a twelve-point lead of 47% to 35% in the new survey.

On another hot-button issue, Immigration, Democrats are now trusted more by 40%, versus 30% who trust Republicans more. This ten-point disparity is the second-largest we've seen all year. But another 29% don't find either party trustworthy.

Only Government Ethics and Corruption inspires higher levels of bipartisan distaste. Thirty-seven percent (37%) don’t notice any difference between the parties on the ethics front--among unaffiliated voters, that percentage mushrooms to 58%. Overall, Democrats are now favored by 38%, Republicans by 25%.

The GOP also lost ground on the Economy this month with Democrats now trusted more 47% to 38%. In June,the Democrats’ advantage was 47% to 40%.

Forty-three percent (43%) now trust Democrats more on Taxes, 41% trust Republicans more.

On domestic issues, Democrats enjoy the biggest advantage on Health Care and Social Security. Fifty percent (50%) trust Democrats more on Health Care, 33% trust Republicans more. On Social Security, 47% trust Democrats more while 34% prefer the GOP.

On Education, Democrats now have a four point advantage; on Abortion, a five-point advantage.

Good news, but I'm simply baffled why the American people throw in the Democrats as just as corrupt as Republicans. Dozens of Republicans have been investigated, arrested, charged with various corrupt practices yet Democrats are implicated too? My guess is that the high profile cases of Democratic corruption (such as William Jefferson) leave Americans with the false impression that corruption is equally a Democrat and Republican past-time. Or perhaps its just general disgust and cynicism when it comes to Washington in general. A "pox on both their houses" mentality...who knows.

---------

Pentagon makes contingency plans for a Iraq pullout - SecDef Gates responds to Senator Clinton's queries and confirms that there is in fact contingency planning being done for withdrawal scenarios. Honestly, I'm a little relieved even though I doubt they plan on using them anytime soon. At least they are not making the mistake done prior to the Iraq invasion where they totally discounted how difficult the invasion would be and so did not plan before-hand for anything but being "greeted with flowers and candy."

Needless to say, they were seriously caught with their pants down when Iraq didn't turn out to be such a cakewalk...

---------

That's all for today. I've been pretty lazy about blogging past few days...stuff just pops up. Little blogging tomorrow 'cuz I have to work so perhaps Tuesday.

Good night.



Tuesday, July 24, 2007

The Founders Feared an Imperial President

Yeah, I'm kind of lazy and in a bad mood today so...I'm not much in a thinking mood. So the whole post will be a roundup of interesting stuff from the past couple days.

Presidential Power
Just what the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War -

Adam Cohen does fine work in this piece.

The nation is heading toward a constitutional showdown over the Iraq war. Congress is moving closer to passing a bill to limit or end the war, but President Bush insists Congress doesn't have the power to do it. "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war," he said at a recent press conference. "I think they ought to be funding the troops." He added magnanimously: "I'm certainly interested in their opinion."

The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress's side.

What Bush wants and expects is a rubberstamp from Congress. As if he has ALL the power: To declare war, wage war, determine when to exit, and Congress simply provides funding. Oh no, not only does it provide funding, but it cannot use the powers of the purse as leverage to enforce its will or coerce the president to change policy.

Reality check Mr. President: Congress has the power to declare war, to ratify peace, to maintain, fund, and regulate, the armed forces of the US, and the Founders gave the Congress its funding powers precisely because it wanted to give the Legislature that leverage in order to check the power of the president (and the courts).


Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution's framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called "the foetus of monarchy."

The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe's history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings.


I liked this snippet

The Constitution does make the president "commander in chief," a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be "nothing more" than "first general and admiral," responsible for "command and direction" of military forces.

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush's assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly.


Mr. Cohen makes a great point on what the term "Commander-in-Chief" means, and how it is abused by this President in order to give him much more expansive powers than is rightfully his under the Consitutution. The man thinks he can strike Iran and Congress can in no way legislate or impede his ability to do so because it conflicts with his powers of commander in chief. But as Cohen notes: Commander-in-Chiefs is the highest officer and can execute wars already declared. But the Commander-in-Chief and thus the President does NOT have the authority to unilaterally and without the assent of Congress initiate war. Nor can he officially ratify Peace after a Conflict.

Those powers go to Congress. It is they who have legitimate right to dictate and determine when we go in and also they have a role to play in determining when we leave. And the power of the purse is but one of the consitutional arms given to Congress in order to enforce its prerogative on the President. COngress role is not simply to ruberstamp funding requests.

Give it a good read, its not that long.
------
Roundup

It seems our diplomacy around the world has been suffering due to the overriding attentions that Iraq garners from our leaders.

At a time in which it is essential for the US to be mending fences and engaging in some global diplomacy, it is instead doing all it can to snub the entire world. And, as we ignore and snub nations in SE Asia, in Africa, and in Latin America, we also will see more an more nations turning away from the US. China, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela meanwhile do not hesitate to try their hand at diplomacy and "soft-power" and are making may inroads in all those regions.

Its not a zero-sum game so not all gains my these nations means it is to the detriment of the US, but its negligence of these regions is certainly reducing its influence in those regions and providing great opportunities for China and others to fill the gaps. We ignore the world at our own peril...
---------

Bush's incompetence gives Al-Qaeda new life- (Salon) ....Yeah, tell me about it

-----
Did we say September? I meant "NextSummer" *cough*

Unless Congress acts now or in September, it will come and go and the President will just keep moving that goal post back....and back some more. "Did we say September"? Who didn't see this coming?

A revised U.S. military plan envisions establishing security at the local level in Baghdad and elsewhere by next summer, it likely would take another year to get Iraqi forces ready to enforce any newfound stability, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

Known as the Joint Campaign Plan, developed in tandem by Gen. David Petraeus and his political counterpart in Baghdad, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, it reflects a timetable starkly at odds with the push by many in Congress to wind down U.S. involvement in a matter of months.

--------

Iraq Insurgent Groups Unite - Against Al-Qaeda and the US
-

Seven of the most important Sunni-led insurgent organisations fighting the US occupation in Iraq have agreed to form a public political alliance with the aim of preparing for negotiations in advance of an American withdrawal, their leaders have told the Guardian.

In their first interview with the western media since the US-British invasion of 2003, leaders of three of the insurgent groups - responsible for thousands of attacks against US and Iraqi armed forces and police - made clear that they would continue their armed resistance until all foreign troops were withdrawn from Iraq, and denounced al-Qaida for sectarian killings and suicide bombings against civilians. (snip)

Leaders of the three groups - who did not use their real names in the interview - said the new front, which brings together all the main Sunni-based armed organisations except al-Qaida and the Ba'athists, has agreed the main planks of a joint political programme, including a commitment to free Iraq from all foreign troops, rejection of any cooperation with parties involved in the political institutions set up under the occupation, and a declaration that all decisions and agreements made by the US occupation and Iraqi government are null and void.

The aim of the alliance - which includes a range of Islamist and nationalist-leaning groups and is currently called the Political Office for the Iraqi Resistance - is to link up with other anti-occupation groups in Iraq to negotiate with the Americans in anticipation of an early US withdrawal. The programme envisages a temporary technocratic government to run the country during a transition period until free elections can be held.

Like I said, even most Sunni insurgents have no love for Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Once we leave they will not take over the country. They want the US out...that's their friction with the US...its very presence in Iraq. It certaintly is a positive sign that they plan to hold talks with the US, but I seriously doubt that the transition from US occupation to free-Iraq will go that smooth. Although they claim to not be against working with Shia groups, they say they will not deal with Shia militias and groups because of their affiliation with this Iraqi government who they see as a puppet and embodyment of the US occupation.

In essence: Which Shia will they be OK dealing with? Who is left?

I don't know. At this point I still see a lot of chaos and civil war raging when the US leave...nothing so far tells me otherwise but you never know what kind of accomodation can be reached between now and our withdrawal.

----

And speaking of pulling our troops out...
Democrats vow to continue pressing ahead for US withdrawal from Iraq -

Good luck, and I mean that. It's going to be a bitch fighting Republican obstuction in the Senate in the form of the Filibuster.

They are, after all, on track to be the highest-filibustering most-obstructionist party in US history.

That's the Republican Party for ya!

Plus they have the gal to criticize Democrats for not being able to get things done!

It's like someone breaking you leg and then critcizing you for not being able to walk correctly.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 22, 2007

What Happens When We Leave Iraq?

Now that the war is turning into a political liability for Republicans and conservatives, a new justification for our continued presence has popped up:

We cannot leave Iraq or else Iraq will be controlled by Al Qaeda in Iraq and remain a safe-haven for terrorism. They will follow us home etc... etc...

This view of likely post-withdrawal scenarios is - in my view - informed by sheer ignorance about how the various sectarian actors in Iraq will react to the withdrawal of US troops and by a general ignorance of foreign policy and terrorism.

Not only is al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) a relatively small group in Iraq, it also responsible for a very small percentage of total attacks in Iraq. The bulk of the violence is due to the Sunni insurgent groups, and to the Shia militias.

Let me fill you guys in on something. Apologies because I know I've said this before:

Nobody in Iraq likes Al-Qaeda

-Sunni Insurgents
: Hate these foreign fighters (despite both of them being Sunni), distrust their motives. Many of the Sunni insurgent groups are ex-Baathists and Saddam loyalists. Islamic jihadists and Baathists hated each other in the pre-invasion era.

This fact explains why many of us doubters were simply baffled that Bush would claim that Saddam was harboring Islamic terrorists in his country. They were just as eager to kill Saddam as they were to kill Americans!!

Yet, up until now (in the post-invasion era) there has been toleration and cooperation between the Sunni insurgents and AQI. Why?

Because they have made a marriage of convenience to deal with the perceived 'greater evil' of the US occupation. But, make no mistake, there is no love lost between these two groups

As I noted in a June blog post (citing CNN):

U.S. forces have begun arming nationalist guerrillas and former Saddam Hussein loyalists -- and coordinating tactics -- in a marriage of convenience against al Qaeda radicals in one of Iraq's most violent provinces, senior U.S. commanders tell CNN.

This new alliance, a result of the deepening divisions among Iraqi insurgent factions, was on display earlier this week at a highway intersection in the town of Tahrir. There, a group of some 15 insurgents publicly chanted: "Death to al Qaeda."

"The al Qaeda organization has dominated and humiliated Sunnis, Shiites and jihadis. It has forced people from their homes. They can't get enough blood. They killed many honest scholars, preachers and loyal mujahedeen," one of the group's spokesmen read from a written manifesto.

It's a sharp turnaround from just two months ago when the same insurgent forces were focused on fighting U.S. troops and driving them out of
Diyala province, about 40 miles north of Baghdad.

No love lost there, yet they cooperated for reasons of opposing the US...except, some insurgent groups are now working WITH the US against AQI for the very same reasons. Some of these groups get arms and support, and they will use it against AQI (and inevitably, I believe, against Shias).

But the same article gives us reason for caution in this ugly alliance:

But while the marriage of convenience may be successful for now, Abu Ali and his followers seem to have no intention of making a lasting commitment to the Americans.

"After we are done with al Qaeda," Abu Ali says, "we will ask the Americans to withdraw from Iraq. ... If they do not withdraw, there will be violations and the American army will be harmed."

In other words - once they weaken al-Qaeda they will attack our troops again until we withdraw from Iraq.

Here's the funny thing: This 'enemy of my enemy' relationship that is still significant between Sunni insurgent groups and AQI is only made possible because of US troop presence in Iraq. If the US where to withdraw its forces from Iraq, the Sunni insurgent groups would quickly eliminate the Al Qaeda elements in Iraq.

----
What about the Shia?

The Shia loath AQI. Unlike the Sunni insurgent groups, the Shia militias have no significant reason to even cooperate with AQI. AQI is a Sunni jihadist extremist group who loves to kill Shias as apostates and untrue Muslims.

There will be no tolerance - and indeed there is none now - for AQI among the Shia groups in Iraq.

The Kurds?

The Kurds similarly have no need or love for AQI. They have a slightly-more-stable enclave in the north of Iraq and have no need for the chaos that AQI is known to bring. They will find no shelter and no love among the Kurds.

Conclusions

Lets be clear, there will be no good options in Iraq. There will be no magical solution, no course of action, which will lead to anything but some levels of significant violence even civil war in Iraq. That outcome is unavoidable whether we stay in Iraq or leave; And indeed, such outcomes are the inevitable product of our own initial mistake of invading Iraq, and subsequent mistakes in managing the occupation. We are stuck in a scenario with very few options and none of them good; some just less bad.

If we withdraw from Iraq - and I think we should - there will be violence in Iraq but that is unavoidable. But the United States can take a bad outcome for the US and make it less bad by withdrawing.

As long as the US remains in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Iraq will retain a safe-haven, a training ground, and a recruitment tool from Iraq. Every day that we remain in Iraq is a day that we allow al-Qaeda a base, a day we boost its recruiting, a day that we do precisely what it wants us to do.

In addition withdrawal will benefit the US by freeing up our military and giving it time to recover, by relieving some of the heavy strain on the budget from the billions we spend per month on the war, and freeing up the US to concentrate on international jihadist terrorism aimed at us. The Iraq War has been a heavy chain around our neck and a source of anger and resentment from the international community...only when we finally leave can we ever hope to begin repairing our standing and relationships with the globe. That, I fear, will take years or decades...

------

So what does the Pentagon itself believe will happen in case of a US withdrawal?

The Washington Post recently ran an article detailing the results of a recent Pentagon "war-gaming" of just such an outcome. It's important to note that they did not find that Al-Qaeda would control Iraq.

Here's what they did find:


If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."

The ugliness really is unavoidable at this point.

What is perhaps most striking about the military's simulations is that its post-drawdown scenarios focus on civil war and regional intervention and upheaval rather than the establishment of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq.

For Bush, however, that is the primary risk of withdrawal. "It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda," he said in a news conference last week. "It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan."
This lack of concern for al-Qaeda creating some permanent sanctuary likely stems from the knowledge that they are a relatively small groups in Iraq, and that they are not likely to survive long after the Americans leave.

The United States needs to withdraw all its troops from Iraq. From a range of options that are all bad, it is the lesser evil and one that will harm the United States the least.

We must bring the troops home

------------

Roundup

Iraq

Turkey Threatens Iraq Incursion - Yet another complication for the US mission in Iraq. I've followed the rising tensions between Iraq and Turkey due to Kurdish rebel groups attacking Turkey and taking refuge in Northern Iraq.

Turkey has warned that it could send troops into northern Iraq after today's general elections if talks with Iraqi and US officials fail to produce effective measures against Kurdish rebels based there.


I'll update if anything happens...although if it did I'm sure it would be plastered on the TV all day.

Analysis: GOP Senators nervous about the war (Associated Press)
- I'd be nervous too if I were them. It's a good read but there are several parts of this article that deserve special comment

Asked whether they believe that the war was mismanaged Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) replied:

"The strategy we had before was not the right strategy," he told reporters at midweek. "We should have had a counterinsurgency strategy."

By his remarks, Bond made it clear he meant the strategy was wrong from the time Saddam Hussein was deposed until this past January, when Gen. David Petraeus was installed as top military commander. That's a span of nearly four years.

Asked who bore responsibility for the error, Bond said, "Ultimately, obviously, the president."

Should any blame fall on Congress — under Republican control the entire time?

"Congress was not running the war," Bond replied.

He's right in that the war was indeed mismanaged and that the US should have focused more on counterinsurgency tactics from the get-go. [As an aside, I'll add that counterinsurgency tactics would not have assured success, and at this point it is too late and too chaotic for those tactics to change the situation]

What riles me up is that they seek to place all blame with the President for not changing tactics but the Republican Congress had 4 years to pressure for change...so why didn't it?

Quite simple: They didn't think they had the wrong strategy. Or, they were too cowardly or afraid to criticize the war strategy. In fact, they went out of their way to attack Democrats and others who argued that this war was being mismanaged. It's insulting for these Republicans to now try and skirt away from some of the blame for the disaster.

Here's another thing that got my interest:

"Today's mission is focused on al-Qaida," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., reflecting what other administration allies in Congress say privately.

In this view, the main U.S. military focus should be on preventing Iraq from falling under terrorist control. One Republican senator, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the shift in talk of a military objective was a prelude to a change to a strategy that would pull U.S. troops back from a civil war between Sunni and Shiites.

But focusing attention on al-Qaida raises familiar questions: Were terrorists present in Iraq before the 2003 invasion and what would happen if U.S. forces departed?

According to several officials, Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and McCain engaged in a brief, impromptu debate touching on that point recently at a private meeting of the rank and file.

Voinovich said the Sunni and Shiites in Iraq would together drive al-Qaida from their country if the U.S. were not there. McCain took the opposite view. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, noting that the meeting was private.

The Republicans are focusing now on keeping al-Qaeda from controlling Iraq. Yet it seems clear that it is our very presence in Iraq which is allowing al-Qaeda to retain Iraq as a base. You see the problem don't you.

-The invasion of Iraq introduced terrorism to Iraq that was not present before
- The presence of al-Qaeda that the Administration made possible is becoming the rationale for our continued presence in Iraq.
- Our continued presence ensures al-Qaeda retains its base in Iraq, thus ensuring our continued presence. Go back to step 2.

It's a goddamed vicious cycle of idiocy that feeds off of its own idiocy to create more idiocy that...well you get the point.

-----

What's is even more frustrating is that Republican Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) seems to understand that Iraqi's will eliminate al-Qaeda after a US withdrawal, and that is good.

But, why, Sen. Voinovich, if you do understand that do you refuse to vote for Senator Harry Reeds binding withdrawal timetable resolution? Why do you proclaim you want a change in Iraq policy yet opt to vote against an amendment which will do just that?

Cowardice

Senator Voinovich and other 'Waverers In Name Only' (WINO's) want the political cover of saying they split with the President and took a stand against the war by supporting bills and amendments by "moderates" in the Senate which would not force the President to change anything. That is cowardice, and that is playing politics with the lives of our soldiers. They want the credit for being anti-war, without doing anything substantive to ensure that the war come to an end.

And they are angry because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed is not giving them the chance to get that political cover: After those WINOs refused to help him beat the Republican Filibuster of his amendment mandating withdrawal (added to a Pentagon bill), he shelved the whole Pentagon bill (along with the other toothless "moderate" amendments) that those moderate Republicans and Democrats hoped would give them political cover.

So...now they get voted no on the Iraq withdrawal, and they are denied their political cover. So, if they really want to reduce the pressure on them from Americans they will just have to play ball with Reed and vote on his amendment next time he brings up the Pentagon bill...or else he'll do it to them again.

Let the cowards flail in the wind.....






Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Dems calling the GOP's Bluff: time to pull out those cots!!

The Republicans have threatened to filibuster the Reed-Levin Amendment in the Senate which would require that troops begin to be withdrawn from Iraq within 120 days of its passage, so....Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed is calling their bluff. Senator Reed says, you want to filibuster, well we are going to be here in the Senate for the next 30 hours straight debating this thing!


Senator Reed on the Senate floor:

It would be one thing for Republicans to vote against this bill. If they honestly believe that “stay the course” is the right strategy — they have the right to vote “no.”

But now, Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end.

They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.

They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces.

I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down.

If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday.

The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.


Damn straight! My previous post explained a bit what a filibuster is and how it allows a minority in the Senate to obstruct the majority by not allowing an up-or-down (51 vote threshold) vote to even take place. [Just in case you need a refresher...or you can google 'filibuster']

Bob Geiger has an excellent more detailed post on the procedures involved with the filibuster, but this is something that I liked:

Reid could hold the Senate in continuous session overnight Tuesday and into midday Wednesday unless Republicans agree to a simple-majority vote on Reed-Levin.

Senate Democrats will then be prepared to take to the floor and speak all night and, if their Republican colleagues do not remain in the chamber, invoke ongoing quorum calls and other procedural maneuvers to force GOP members back to the Senate floor.

With the whole specter of cots being dragged into Senate cloakrooms and the pure theatrics involved, I'm hopeful this will shine a white-hot spotlight on the Senate's Republican leadership and show Americans how the GOP doesn't truly support helping troops and their families at home or extricating them from pointless involvement in the Iraqi civil war.

I'm very impressed by the Senate Democrats, this was the right move to take and I have no doubt that their decision was done in no small part due to the large pressure that the Left blogosphere has been putting on them to do just this.

In essence, every time Republicans try to leave the Senate, Democrats will call for a quorum call forcing all Senate members back into the chamber. Kind of like repeatedly waking someone up every time they are close to dozing off. Do I think it will work in making Republicans allow a simple up-or-down (51) vote on the amendment?

I don't know, but I'm leaning against it (I really hope I'm wrong). I think the GOP may just weather the storm, but it will not be without great cost to themselves politically.

Lets be clear: The Republicans are right - This is political theater. But like I just heard Political Analyst Bob Schneider say on CNN: In politics and in Washington, theater is real.

The media FEEDS on theater, and the Democrats understand that right now. They know that the media is going to be all over this story - covering it a lot - for the 30 hours that this fight will go on. This thing is gold for them. So for Democrats this is 30+ hours of news coverage and media attention that will serve to highlight ever more vividly how it is the Democrats trying to do the will of the people and bring our troops home, and it is the Republicans who are doing all they can to keep our troops in harms way.

Imagine the rhetorical club Democrats can use in the future to punish these Republicans for their support of bad policy and for preventing our withdrawal: Republicans are so wedded to this war, so out of step with the well-being of the US that they would go as far as spend 30 hours straight in the Senate to prevent our troops from coming back home safely.

It's all part of that calculated Democratic strategy of ratcheting up the pressure on those "on-the-fence" Republicans and those "I'm up for re-election" Republicans to defect to the Democrats Iraq plans. I said before that it is up to Democrats to facilitate punishing Republicans who support bad policy.

It appears the Democrats are doing just that.

-------

Roundup (interesting things from the past 4 days)

Iraq Prime Minister: Iraq can manage without U.S. - Fine. Can we leave now Mr. President? So lets see the score:

The American people: want out
The Iraqi people: want us out
The Iraqi govt.: don't mind our departure
The US govt: wants to stay

3 to 1. You know what that means with this Administration: We lose

-----

Actually, not only does the Bush Administration want us to stay in Iraq, there are indications that come September they will actually send even more troops. A larger 'surge' in other words.

(07-16) 14:19 PDT BAGHDAD, (AP) --

The U.S. military is weighing new directions in Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his "surge" strategy needs a further boost, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace revealed that he and the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force are developing their own assessment of the situation in Iraq, to be presented to Bush in September. That will be separate from the highly anticipated report to Congress that month by Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for Iraq.

The Joint Chiefs are considering a range of actions, including another troop buildup, Pace said without making any predictions. He called it prudent planning to enable the services to be ready for Bush's decision.

They call it prudent contingency planning in case President Bush sees a need for it after the 'Surge's' more comprehensive progress report due in September.


Come on!! Who actually believes that any report coming from the Bush Administration this September will say anything but what they feel is necessary to say in order to maintain (and in this case further escalate) our presence in Iraq.


Like the flawed and dishonest Iraq Progress report released this past week, the report in September will fudge figures, distort reality, and lower the bar of what is 'progress' in order to claim that there is some progress due to their surge (where there is actually none).


They will then claim that these optimistic signs of progress prove that the surge is making progress in Iraq, and that they will say is why they will need an 'even bigger surge' to make even bigger gains.

*sigh* It appears we live with a government whose governing philosophy is based around the idea of "when your stuck in a ditch, keep digging"

-----

Some of those Iraqi police we train use their skills to....attack US soldiers
- not surprising when everyone wants you out

According to a U.S. Army investigation, the Iraqi Police assisted a brazen January assault on U.S. troops in the southern city of Karbala -- an attack that a U.S. military spokesman tied to Iranian operatives earlier this month.

And they tried to blame Iran for the attacks too. I'm not surprised: We are so many factions in Iraq it's not even funny. Then we act surprised when they use that aid to harm us.

----

Israel/Palestine

Fatah Militants renounce Israel violence in exchange for safety
- Good news certainly, yet its a fragile accord that requires concrete steps on the part of Israel in return or else this deal will break down.

This deal for the militant wing of Fatah - the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade - to eschew violence against Israel is an attempt to give the moderate, political elements of Fatah a chance to forge a more lasting peace with Israel diplomatically. The militants (amazingly) are giving the moderates in Israel an in Fatah, a chance to make progress.

As I heard one of those Fatah militant say on CNN, the ball is now in the Israelis court. They must take steps to halt settlements (even remove many from Palestinian territories), they must take genuine steps that show that there is promise in diplomacy. That a 2 state solution still is possible. If Israel does that it can help improve the situation for both the Israelis and Palestinians.

Do not waste that opportunity, do not listen to your right-wing hawks....You may not receive another such chance for peaceful resolution.

-----

Now, in some near-panic-inducing news....

The Guardian (UK) reports that internal debates on whether to strike Iran have shifted in favor of hawks like Dick Cheney

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

That last quote is very scary. Condi Rice is losing the policy debates in the White House...

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

This administration is determined to mistakenly strike Iran. The article mentions that one of the reasons for the rush is that Bush does not believe any Presidential successor, Democrat or Republican (likely Democrat though :) ) will deal with Iran correctly.

If by correctly he means, fucking dig ourselves even further in a ditch in another hopeless war...than, yeah he might be right.

-----

North Korea shuts down Yongbyon nuclear reactor. Congratulations Mr. President we finally got back to where we started in the Clinton Administration

Don't get me wrong, this is very promising news but Josh Marshall of TPM does a great job explaining how this barely starting from square one. Here's a great snippet.

The first thing to say on North Korea is that it's very good news that the North Koreans have again shut down the Yongbyon nuclear reactor. This is the facility that has been the center of nearly all the trouble over more than a decade now. And the IAEA has now confirmed that the plant has been taken off line, though negotiations will now begin on securing a more permanent shuttering of the facility. The Times calls the deal a "hard-won, yet fragile diplomatic victory for the Bush administration."

And so it is, sort of.

But here's the thing no one should forget: it's taken the Bush administration six-plus years to get things to where the Clinton administration had them when Bush took office.

Let's review: the Clinton administration had a deal with the North Koreans in which the US -- actually a consortium of the US and its allies -- gave fuel oil and a promise of diplomatic normalization for the North Koreans to shutter their plutonium-producing nuclear facility. The Bush team called this appeasement and set-up deliberately scuttling that deal, which indeed happened. The North Koreans proceeded to get back into plutonium production big time. And it's now assumed that they made a few actual weapons with the stuff. Realizing that they'd shot their mouth off with no idea what an alternative policy might be for the Korean Peninsula, they eventually started creeping their way back to the Clinton policy, to which point they have now arrived.


Sooo in conclusion:

So, back to where we started, only now the North Koreans probably have several nuclear warheads instead of what was probably none in early 2001.

Good day folks!








Friday, July 13, 2007

Bush & Iraq: Lowering The Bar And Still Failing

No doubt many of you have already read or seen news reports about the "mixed" progress in Iraq according to the Iraq Progress Report that the Bush Administration compiled for Congress.

Iraq has achieved only limited military and political progress toward a democratic society, the Bush administration said Thursday in a report that became prelude to a House vote on ordering a U.S. troop withdrawal by spring.

''The security situation in Iraq remains complex and extremely challenging'' the report concluded. The economic picture is uneven, it said, and the government has not yet enacted vital political reconciliation legislation. (snip)

Describing a document produced by his administration at Congress' insistence, he said there was satisfactory progress by the Iraqi government toward meeting eight of 18 so-called benchmarks, unsatisfactory progress on eight more and mixed results on the others.

Now, by itself this and taken at face value, these "mixed results" add up to a picture of failure. Simple math tells us that 8 out of 18 is below even 50% and technically an F if in school. They manage to effectively demonstrate that the much vaunted 'surge' that was supposed to have created much progress by now, is already failing to meet most of its benchmarks -- And this is if we take their report at face value.

But we shouldn't take this report at face value.

The New York Times July 11th edition notes that:

[The Administration] will qualify some verdicts by saying that even when the political performance of the Iraqi government has been unsatisfactory, it is too early to make final judgments, the officials said.

The administration’s decision to qualify many of the political benchmarks will enable it to present a more optimistic assessment than if it had provided the pass-fail judgment sought by Congress when it approved funding for the war this spring.


The Times article cites other experts and reports from outside the White House which (surprise surprise) are a lot more bleak in their assessments of progress

Administration officials said the Pentagon had been much more willing than the State Department and the White House to make hard and fast calls about whether Iraqi progress was satisfactory.

An assessment of political progress provided to the House Armed Services Committee by Thomas Fingar, the deputy director for analysis at the National Intelligence Council, painted a much bleaker picture than the White House report, saying there were “few appreciable gains.”

The Washington Post on July 8th highlighted this trend of the White House lowering the bar in order to present a much more optimistic case than would otherwise be justified. It appropriately dubbed it "Shaving the Yardstick" for Iraq gains.

As they prepare an interim report due next week, officials are marshaling alternative evidence of progress to persuade Congress to continue supporting the war.

"Alternate evidence of progress"!? They couldn't meet the criteria of progress so they are arguing for these alternate evidence in order to pass off failure as "mixed results."

Understanding the "mixed results" of the Administrations Iraq Progress Report is only possible once you understand how the administration got to those "mixed results."

The picture the Administration painted wasn't all too rosy to begin with, but it is in reality a lot worse.

In reality the situation is a lot bleaker and most if not all of those benchmarks are rightfully "failures." But, most of the media is parroting the report as "mixed results" so, in that sense, the Administration has achieved its small victory in terms of framing the progress report of its "surge." Because mixed results still sounds better than failure. A small but significant victory for White House propagandists but I cannot say it's going to do much for the White House, nor will it help stem the tide of increasing pressure on Republicans to abandon President Bush on his war.
------

My previous posts detailed some of the progress of Democrats (and some Republicans) to pass legislation to help end this war and overcome the Presidential veto pen.


In order to overcome the President's veto, Congressional Democrats must peel off enough Republicans to form a 2/3 majority in each Chamber of Congress. In other words it will become law without the signature of the President.

But...what if binding withdrawal legislature (with teeth) is not enough? What if its not enough to pass a law - even overcoming the Presidents veto? There are indications that President Bush will defy the law if tries to compel him to bring the troops home.

Back in late February of 2007, the Associate Press wrote:

WASHINGTON: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled U.S. Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.

Not just veto, but, one law, he would defy the law. That I believe would become a constitutional showdown. Honestly, I'm not one of those people who throws around 'impeachment' often but this would definitely push me to support it. Not that there aren't plenty of other crimes and abuses that justify the impeachment of both the President and the Vice President, but its one thing for it to be justified, and another for me to promote the action. Defying the law to keep troops in Iraq would be one of those things that would bring me over the edge, and I think it would become politically tenable too.

The American people would definitely support it once they see how a law was passed (finally) to bring the troops home, and the President illegally stands in the way to keep them there.

I found this interesting from Condi Rice:

"I would hope that Congress would recognize that it's very important for them to have the oversight role," Rice said. "But when it comes to the execution of policy in the field, there has to be a clear relationship between the commander in chief and the commanders in the field."


The White House seems to believe Congress' only job is to shut up and provide funding for the war, as if Congress is somehow constitutionally impotent on matters of war and peace. But this is far from the truth.

The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and thus can direct the armed forces once war has been declared. But we must remember that the Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility of initiating war. In other words Congress has a legitimate role in determining policy as it regards initiating war and ending them. Generals determine strategy and tactics in a military campaign, but they cannot tell anyone when we leave or when we stay. That is up to our civilian leaders, including Congress.

It is completely consistent and proper for Congress to legislate whether we should stay or leave Iraq, and there is ample history of Congress exercising those very powers in past conflicts. Perhaps the President believes he is the sole arbiter of foreign policy and our involvement in wars, but he is very wrong.

If he defies Congress, he and his vice president should be stripped of their Office by Congress.
------

The Roundup

Who says the House isn't doing anything? - attempts to dispel the notion that the Dem led House has achieved nothing. In fact it has achieved a lot, and to the extent that it hasn't is due to Republican obstruction. Guess who is group trying to drill this myth into Conventional Wisdom?

Yes. The very Republicans who are doing all they can to make sure the House achieves little. Their Senate counterparts are even more obstructionist than House Republicans. In the Senate the Republicans have the Filibuster -- the reason why a lot of Democratic proposals in the Senate cannot pass.


To most Americans, they don’t look very busy. In fact, recent polls put their job performance rating at close to an all-time low.

But the reality — at least in the House — is that federal lawmakers have held more votes on legislation and other matters in the first six months of this year than they did during the entire 2006 session of the Republican-controlled 109th Congress. That was when GOP leaders decided to defer action to the 110th Congress, now controlled by Democrats, on most of the 2006 spending measures.

-----

Report: Al-Qaeda has regained its full strength - I thought the war on terror as waged by Bush-boy, and especially his precious Iraq invasion where supposed to have critically wounded and hurt the terrorists. What happened? *sigh*


Its not only that they are back to full strength, because in my view they are now much more sophisticated and deadly than before. The Iraq war has formed and trained the next generation of jihadis in newer and more advanced terrorist tactics, urban guerrilla tactics, explosives technology and use. In essence, today's jihadi is much more advanced than those pre-Iraq war, and they are already spreading those deadly new skills and tactics worldwide into other hotspots.

In addition, the Iraq war itself has proven to be the most effective "recruitment tool" to date for the cause of jihad and al-Qaeda. Lets just say that al-Qaeda has found an ally (although they are certainly so unwittingly) in President Bush and his neoconservative allies. Ironic huh?

I think the old Cold War-era term "useful idiots" is quite appropriate here...
------

Moderate Dems and Republicans put out weak and toothless Iraq Amendments
- These loser moderates are feeling the pressure to 'do something' about Iraq yet don't really want to do anything that is actually substantive for fear of being associated with the anti-war caucus in Congress.

So what do they do? Put out a proposed amendment with is not binding and will change absolutely nothing. What cowardice! No one will fall for this crap except for the moronic "cool kids" and "serious people" of the Washington Punditocracy and elite media. These "serious folks" will love how bipartisan this crap is...It matters not how awful and useless the legislation actually is.

Worse than useless, if Bush for some reason signs this (knowing its not binding), it gives him some political cover and relieves some pressure.

Senator Lugar bailed on legislation to actually end the war, and instead choosed to pay lip service to change in Iraq with this sorry amendment.

Here a little more about the emerging Gang of 13 'moderates' and their plans
- Douches. All of them - republican and democrat - douches.

Good night folks.

Congressional Democratic Iraq War Bills - Update

My previous post made mention of several Democratic proposals aiming to end our occupation or at least prevent further escalation of it.

At the end of the post I predicted that a lot of those Republican "defectors" would fail to have the courage to put their money where their mouth is and actually do something to end the war by voting in favor of these Democratic proposals. I wanted to be wrong....

And it seems, I was wrong about a lot of them (so far).

The Webb Amendment referenced in my previous post was defeated but there were 7 Republican defections.

As anticipated, Sen. Jim Webb's troop-readiness amendment just failed to overcome a GOP filibuster, garnering 56 votes, just four shy of the needed 60. But Webb did manage to peel off seven GOP votes:

Chuck Hagel (co-sponsor)
Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Gordon Smith
John Sununu
John Warner
Norm Coleman


This outcome might require a bit of explanation because some of you might be asking: "How does an amendment with 56 aye votes fail (out of 100)?

To put it simply, this is technically not a vote for passage of the actual amendment. The Republicans filibustered the amendment. They moved to keep the debate on the bill to go on indefinitely in an attempt to keep the amendment from actually being voted on (which can win with a simple 51 vote majority).

Here's the rub, in order for the amendments supporters to defeat the filibuster it has two options:

1) It can wait the Republicans out: In order to maintain a filibuster the GOP has to actually have people talk, talk, talk, talk for the whole time it filibusters. I've heard of examples of cots and blankets in the hallway, taking shifts etc...all to maintain a filibuster.

The pro-amendment group may simply try and wait them out until they give up the filibuster, but this is very time consuming and makes it impossible for the Senate to deal with any other pressing matters and bills.

2) Amendment supporters can call for an motion to end debate (kill the filibuster) and begin voting on the amendment BUT...That motion requires 60 votes to succeed. That is why a filibuster is such a useful tool for a minority party in the Senate. Because with as little as 41 Senators it can effectively stop the majority from passing legislation it does not like - by never allowing the bill or amendment to be voted on in the first place. Most times, when there is failure to kill a filibuster the amendment is withdrawn for practical purposes.

So...that explains why the Webb amendment failed with 56 ayes.

But there is nonetheless reason for optimism from this vote. It garnered more votes (more GOP defectors) than the same type of amendment last time around. So the trend is of more republicans in the future defecting...all the Dems have to do is continue to re-introduce these things until we have enough.

These Republicans should be commended for finally taking a stand for a correct policy but special criticism should go to the cowards who didn't have the fortitude to do more than talk:

Senator Richard Lugar, and Senator Voinovich. Especially Sen. Lugar after his big speech about changing our ways in Iraq and his change of heart...He was too cowardly and weak to do anything the first time Democrats tried to end this war, and now he's shown himself once again to be a man of little courage and integrity.

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe should be further praised for co-sponsoring an Iraq Pullout Bill

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine will co-sponsor a Democratic troop-withdrawal amendment that would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq by April 30, 2008, CNN learned from an aide Wednesday.

The senator from Maine became the second Republican to sign on as sponsor of the proposal by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, and Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, that calls for a withdrawal to begin within 120 days of the bill’s passage. Gordon Smith, R-Oregon, also backs the measure.

Good to hear. I'm not completely sold on these "defectors" quite yet though. Voting for the Webb Amendment requiring more rest and better readiness for troops (indirectly scaling back our 'surge' by consequence) is one thing. But how many of those who vote 'aye' for the Webb amendment will vote for something more direct and substantive such as withdrawal timetable, funding cuts to force withdrawal, and war deauthorization?

There may be a couple 'defectors' who support it, but how many more?

--------

That handles the Senate side yet the Democrats of the House of Reps are also doing their best on the Iraq issue:

Just yesterday the House passed a Democratic plan to withdraw US troops (Associate Press)

The measure passed 223-201 despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September. (snip)

A few hours after Bush's remarks, the House plunged into debate over legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days, and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.

Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to retain ANY residual force in Iraq so I'm not completely square with this plan. Those residual forces will remain targets in Iraq, only there will be so few of them that they will be at even more of a disadvantage. In other words this residual force will find it hard to carry out their limited mission of protecting US assets. Withdrawal is good, but for the love of God leave the residual force language out of this or you risk making those troops who do stay behind easy targets.

It would all be vetoed anyways.

But the pressure is on and all those Republicans up for re-election know that their no votes will be used against them come election time. Imagine the ads:

-- Senator "X" claims he supports our troops, yet he voted against legislation that would have ensured that those troops would be in maximum fighting condition before returning to Iraq. He voted against yada yada, he voted against yada yada.

"generic region" deserves a Senator/Representative who does more than pay lip service to our troops.--

I'm sure the professional will do a much better job, but I know that this is the direction that Democrats will hit Republicans.

Like I said before: If you support bad policy, why shouldn't you be punished politically for it.

And we should help facilitate that punishment.

This post is more focused on the domestic politics of the Iraq Debate, but tonight I'll have more on other aspects of the Iraq catastrofuck

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

This Is What I Like To See Democrats!!!

I like my Democrats strong. I want them to be tough and show backbone when dealing with Bush and dealing with Republicans.

I want more of this. And I may not be so understanding if you guys cave again.

Behold, a 'handy dandy' guide (thanks Spencer Ackerman of TPMCafe) to 'All the Democrats' Plans to End the War'


Readers: Here's your Election Central guide to all the possible legislative initiatives to end the Iraq War that are being worked out behind the scenes by Dem Congressional leaders and may be launched in the coming days.

Today Act II of the Democratic Congress' efforts to end the Iraq war kicks off in earnest -- beginning this afternoon, when the defense authorization bill goes to the Senate floor for two weeks of debate.

Democrats intend to turn the measure into a referendum on Iraq by introducing a whole series of Iraq-related amendments to the $650 billion defense bill, which sets Pentagon policy priorities for the next year. Each of these amendments is designed to rein in President Bush's conduct of the war and to force Senate Republicans to take a stand on the war and testing Bush's remaining political capital.

Here is the first example:


(1) Legislative Mechanism: The Webb Troop-Readiness Amendment

How it Would Work: Spotlighted by EC last month, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) will propose a troop readiness measure increasing the amount of time active and reserve forces spend at home between deployments. While the precise numbers are unclear, if it passes, it will prevent the Pentagon from relieving units rotating out of Iraq in the spring with active-duty forces who haven't been home at for at least as long as their last tour, and three times as long for reservists. Due to the strain the four-year war has put on the military, Webb's amendment would very likely stop the surge by early 2008 and prevent any future escalation.

Likelihood of Passage: Reid will introduce Webb's amendment this afternoon. It's similar to a legislative gambit in the House by Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) that garnered fierce and successful opposition. Democrats don't expect that to change.

Political Purpose: Webb thinks that highlighting the stress that the increased operational tempo puts on the troops is the most favorable way for Democrats to frame the issue, even if GOPers accuse him of trying to get out of Iraq through the back door of deployment scheduling. Here the real target of the amendment may not be Senate Republicans or President Bush, but Defense Secretary Bob Gates, who's bringing deployment stress issues to bear on this week's internal administration deliberation on the surge. Watch for what Webb's fellow Virginia senator, defense lion John Warner -- who's uncommitted as to whether he'll seek reelection next year -- says about Webb's bill as a barometer of GOP defection.

The amendments range from the above one of requiring troops to have rest equal to their deployments thus indirectly making the current surge impossible to maintain. Others include cutting funding for war and forcing a withdrawal in that manner, or specifying a withdrawal timeline, or deauthorizing the war authorization the Congress gave in 2002.

Take a read. Needless to say there are various ways Democrats hope to wind down and end our involvement in Iraq, although even Mr. Ackerman notes that a lot of these ideas may not likely succeed. What they will likely succeed in doing is putting more pressure on Republicans in Congress who are face now and will face more political pressure from their continued support of this war.

I believe the hope is that by continually forcing this issue, and forcing politicians to take stands on them, these amendments and future amendments will get more and more support as more and more Republicans 'defect' and vote to save their sorry asses.

Do I expect that the Democrats will be successful in the short-term? No.

What I do not want to see - and what will disappoint me - is the Democrats not following through with this strategy. They have to continue to hold the President and the GOP's feet to the fire.

They will suffer many failed amendments, they will likely also get stopped by presidential vetoes, but they cannot give up because of that like they did last time. They have to keep coming back, keep raising the issue, keep introducing these amendments and bills and holding these jokers' feet above the fire until we finally have the votes to make something stick.

This is the most pressing issue for the American people today...Democrats owe it to them to be strong and persevere. America wants you to succeed.

And speaking of Democrats getting tough...

A couple weeks ago I blogged on House Democrats' (led by Rahm Emmanuel) attempts to cut funding for the Office of the Vice President due to his dubious legal argument that he was not in the Executive Branch. All so he didn't have to comply by EO rules that forced him to allow the National Archives to audit and see if his office is handling classified documents properly.

Who wants to bet they are not btw.

Anyways, the Democrats failed to get the amendment inserted 2 weeks ago, but they managed to insert the language this time in the Senate

If at first Rahm doesn't succeed, try, try again in the Senate.

This afternoon, a Senate appropriations panel chaired by Dick Durbin (D-IL) stripped $4.8 million out of Vice President Cheney's budget for not complying with security rules for classified information. The move -- on a day consumed by Iraq -- came two weeks after a previous effort in the House by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) failed. It's unclear if the move will survive a full Appropriations Committee vote, but if Cheney wants his money back, all he needs to do is allow the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office to perform a few unobtrusive inspections. Don't hold your breath, though.

How long that language survives is up in the air but...here's hoping. Still, nice move.

But it doesn't end there because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had a few choice words for the President over the jump in the monthly cost for the Iraq war:


As we reported below, a new Congressional analysis shows that the cost of the Iraq War has jumped to an astounding $10 billion per month -- a fact that is certain to be picked up by Democrats and wielded like a mace against Bush and the GOP over Iraq.

Well, it's already started. From a statement just uncorked by Nancy Pelosi on the war costs:

“Think about what $10 billion a month would mean to protecting Americans from terrorism, improving security at our ports and airports, and increasing border security. Think about what $10 billion a month would mean for the 47 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, for the survivors of Hurricane Katrina, and for the education of our children. Think about what $10 billion a month would mean to lowering the deficit so that future generations are not burdened with debt.

“The American people are outraged at the Bush Administration’s misplaced priorities -- that is why Congress will hold the Administration accountable with votes this month to end the war and redeploy the troops. This will include a vote on legislation to begin redeployment of our troops within 120 days and to conclude by April 1, 2008, with the exception of those remaining in Iraq to fight terrorists and protect our diplomats.

“The date-certain legislation gives our Republican colleagues another opportunity to join Democrats in heeding the wishes of the American people, who want to wind down this war and bring our troops home.”



Greg Sargent raises the question about those supposedly defecting Republicans on the Iraq War.

They talk about wanting a different direction but, like Sen. Lugar and the other's: Where the hell where you a little while back as the Democrats struggled to build a veto-proof legislation that would have ended this war. Lugar - according to his own accounts - decided to turn away from the war weeks prior to his speech declaring it, yet....that time coincides with the time he could have actually done something to help end the war.

I've heard enough mouth-flapping from these Republican politicians, it's time to take practical steps to put your damn money where your mouth is.

Will they step up and prove they want change or will they be "Defectors In Name Only."


Sargent, like myself, is leaning towards the belief that the DINO caucus is and will be alive and well when the moment of truth comes.

Prove us wrong. I want to be wrong.