Q: And waterboarding is or is not torture?
HOEKSTRA: There is a wide range of waterboarding. I’m telling you, that I know waterboarding was used, Shep. I’m not mincing words. I’m saying that I believe the techniques used in 2002, in 2003, which included waterboarding in a specific format that I’m aware of how they used it, that I believe that was consistent with U.S. law.
BLITZER: So, are you telling your angry base out there in the Democratic Party that wants to see this war over with, wants to see the U.S. troops home, that you, as speaker, there's nothing you can do, you have to just throw your hands up and say...
PELOSI: No. I didn't say that at all.
BLITZER: ... given the legislative problems in the Senate and the president's stubborn refusal to back down, that there's nothing that you can do?
PELOSI: How could you have ever gotten that impression?
BLITZER: All right, well, tell us...
PELOSI: What I have said, for those who pay attention, is that we will hold this administration accountable time and time again for the conduct of this war in Iraq.
BLITZER: But you could in the House of Representatives use your power of the purse, the money, to stop funding the war if you really wanted to.
PELOSI: I wish the speaker had all the power you just describe. I certainly could do that. That doesn't bar the minority from bringing up a funding resolution. They have their parliamentary prerogative as well.
Pelosi: So what we have done is to send bills that limit the mission, to limit the time there, to redeploy the troops. And last week, I believe, was a turning point in the congressional debate on Iraq. I think we changed it going in by putting a bill on the president's desk.
Since May until now, we haven't been able to put something on the president's desk.
BLITZER: Because of the Senate. That's what you're saying.
PELOSI: Because of the Senate. The 60 votes.
But last week we were really optimistic that the Senate would at least support the readiness of our troops. The Webb resolution, Webb amendment to the defense bill was a resolution that said the guidelines of the Defense Department, the same amount of time in war, you have the same amount of time at home to regroup, to retrain, to recover, to be with your family.
BLITZER: It didn't have enough votes.
PELOSI: When they rejected that -- it had enough votes to pass and in a bipartisan...
BLITZER: But not to beat a filibuster.
PELOSI: But it did not have enough votes to be heard, to be heard so that a majority, a bipartisan majority of the Senate could have sent this to the president's desk. We have been trying to reach out, as the American people want us to do, in a bipartisan way, to build a bipartisan consensus to redeploy the troops out of Iraq safely and soon.
BLITZER: You know your base is really frustrated. Really angry...
PELOSI: I'm frustrated myself.
Irrelevant comparison to Gingrich shutdown. (2+ / 0-)
And frankly, I'm sick of people making it. Gingrich shut down the government because he wanted to cut funding to Social Security, a popular program. How is shutting down the government (if that is indeed what it comes to) because you want to cut funding to an unpopular program, i.e., a war that two-thirds of the American people hate, an equivalent?
As to your second point, if there is a standing filibuster (whatever that is) in the Senate against any timetable/redeployment bills, the correct response is not to cave in to the minority when two-thirds of the American people are on your side. The correct response -- if you are sincerely against this war, which I doubt Democrats are -- is to counter with a standing filibuster against any bills without a timetable/redeployment component..
BLITZER: But holding the president accountable, I just want you to explain, what does that mean? Besides just complaining and holding hearings? Specifically, is there anything else you can do?
PELOSI: Well, holding hearings and the oversight that we have on the corruption in contracting in Iraq, the hearings that we're holding and the harm to the readiness of our troops that the president is causing with his obstinance in this war in Iraq.
Ever since the dull thud of Don Imus crashing down from the high media heavens back to earth began to reverberate through the punditosphere - all the little trained monkeys whirling the crank on the Right-Wing Werlitzer have been quaking in their boots and coming unglued.
Since these guys apparently love the Bruckheimer, they needed to find a villain to paint all their troubles upon. It wasn't long before they found a suitable scapegoat - thanks to the ever helpful Drudge - that patsy was of course...George Soros.
Just one small problem, all of their current troubles aren't Soros doing, but are simply their own damn fault!
Limbaugh has turned practically into a raving lunatic over the fact that David Brock's Media Matters has been quoting him accurately.
On the April 16 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called Media Matters for America "Stalinist" and part of the "Clinton machine agenda." He further falsely asserted that Media Matters receives funding from philanthropist George Soros and that he is "not demeaning people on this program in any way."
The Soros/Media Matters canard has been picked up by Micheal Savage.
On the April 13 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage said of Media Matters for America: "They're people who attack me. It's run by a homosexual activist who hates anybody in the media who does not kowtow to the homosexual agenda."
"They've held themselves up as somehow above the fray, only looking for fair-mindedness in the media. It turns out that they are, in fact, funded by one of the most vile anti-American creatures in the world, George Soros."
And Tammy Bruce...
"In order to be able to even go after Republicans eventually, or conservatives, these far-left forces need to purge our own House of Democrats like myself who speak the truth and will confront them on what they are. That's why Imus had to be eliminated and that's why they went after him first. And now they'll proceed down their list."
"I have lived on the other side of the gun barrel pointed by Media Matters for America for the better part of three years, and I know what it feels like when a bunch of crackpots with keyboards pull the trigger, backed by millions upon millions of dollars in funding from George Soros."
I suppose now that Don Imus is gone, (Media Matters has) assigned the vegan lesbian transsexual 'interspecies erotica' devotee they had monitoring the Imus show to monitor my site."
And Tom (Dead Crook Walking) Delay...
"George Soros, upset with the slight inroads conservatives have made recently, has funded an organization called Media Matters for America, led by liberal muckraker David Brock."
And of course, Bully O'Lielly who actually displayed an elaborate flow-chart of how Soros has allegedly used shell organizations to secretly funnel money into Media Matters for his "smear" operations.
It's not like Billy ever said that poor people were "irresponsible and lazy" - except that he did.
And it's not like he ever claimed that the Iraqi people were "Prehistoric". Except for when he did.
But here's the thing, even if Billo's Magic Flow-Chart-o-Doom is correct -- So Fucking What?!
It's not like Right-Wing crackpots like Sam Fox with truck loads of cash to burn on smearing Democrats like John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi would ever be rewarded with something like - being nominated as Ambassador to Belgium, Right?
It's not like a nutbag religious zealot like the Rev. Sun Myung Moon could ever buy a major american newspaper in the Nation's capital and use it's online edition to promote right-wing lies and propaganda about Democratic Candidates for President, eh?
And it's not like multi-billionarie Rupert Murdock would ever buy an entire Cable News Network, and install Karl Rove's former deputy Roger Ailes to operate and manage it by sending out daily marching orders on how the news will be spun that day, would they?
Oh, It's not like millionaire Richard Mellon-Scaife didn't fund a project designed specifically to destroy Bill Clinton through his magazine The American Spectator (Which ironically used to employ one David Brock!) did he?
Oh yeah, they all did!
The only problem with the Fox/Moon/Murdock/Scaife v Soros analogy is the teeny, tiny, infitesimal little fact that SOROS DOESN'T FUND MEDIA MATTERS either directly or through intermediate organizations. Even the Politico has had to admit it in a printed retraction to a Tom Delay Op-ed.
A column in Tuesday's Politico "How Good Is America's Campaign Coverage" by Tom Delay contained an error. George Soros ha s not funded the organization Media Matters for America.
Opps!!
As was shown so brilliantly by Bill Moyers last night on the PBS documentary "Buying the War" the need for journalist who actually Do Journalism is increasing everyday. The tendency to just be lazy and "go with the flow", the paralyzing fear that these people have to "go out on a limb" is crippling our Democracy.
Just look to the example of the false premise behind the very first question in last night's Democratic Debate.
Do you agree with Sen. Reid that the "Iraq War Is Lost"
The simple truth is that Reid didn't say just that, he also said...
"The (Iraq) war can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically, and the president needs to come to that realization," Reid said.
Reid said he did not think more U.S. troops could help. "I think (the President's Surge has) failed, I say that without any question," he said of the troop increase.
So the more accurate question would have been "Do you agree with Sen Reid that we can't win the Iraq War Militarily?"
And considering the fact that this is exactly what Henry Kissenger, Gen Petreaus and what the Iraq Study Group has said...
"The bipartisan Iraq Study Group has concluded that the President's Iraq policy has failed and must be changed. As the November elections clearly demonstrated, that is an assessment shared by the American people.
"If the President is serious about the need for change in Iraq, he will find Democrats ready to work with him in a bipartisan fashion to find a way to end the war as quickly as possible.
So, the answer should be a no-brainer.
Y'know - something pithy like "Hell YES!"
Outlets like Media Matters are vital at pointing out these repeated gross failures by the mainstream media to simply report the truth, whether Soros or his reported shadow puppeteer - the dastardly Hillary Rodham Clinton - are behind it all or not.
The fact that the wingnuts are having fits worrying about how stupid MMFA is going to make them look, after they say something ridiculously bigoted, vile and profane - yet again - is just icing on the cake.
Vyan
Labels:
Daily Show,
Dailykos,
Democrats,
Demoratic Congress,
GOP-TV,
Hate Speech,
Neo-Cons,
Republicans
December 1970. P.L. 91-652 — Supplemental Foreign Assistance Law. The Church-Cooper amendment prohibited the use of any funds for the introduction of U.S. troops to Cambodia or provide military advisors to Cambodian forces.
December 1974. P.L. 93-559 — Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. The Congress established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within six months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year.
June 1983. P.L. 98-43 — The Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983. The Congress required the president to return to seek statutory authorization if he sought to expand the size of the U.S. contingent of the Multinational Force in Lebanon.
June 1984. P.L. 98-525 — The Defense Authorization Act. The Congress capped the end strength level of United States forces assigned to permanent duty in European NATO countries at 324,400.
November 1993. P.L. 103-139. The Congress limited the use of funding in Somalia for operations of U.S. military personnel only until March 31, 1994, permitting expenditure of funds for the mission thereafter only if the president sought and Congress provided specific authorization.
Counter-insurgency operations require at least 20 combat troops per 1000 people in a given area. And look closely. That's not just military personnel, but combat troops.... [Yo]u'd need 120,000 combat troops to mount real counter-insurgency operations just in Baghdad. We currently have 70,000 combat troops in the whole country. So concentrate all US combat personnel in Iraq into Baghdad. Then add 20,000 more 'surge' combat troops. That leaves you 30,000 short of the number the Army thinks you'd need just in Baghdad.
There is some alarming rhetoric in the press surrounding the President's "new-way-forward-in-Iraq" speech that will take place on Wednesday. Mr. Bush has been crafting a revitalized Iraq policy over the last two months; he's made some tough decisions and brought in a new team. Some of what he's considering looks promising, and there are some impressive new eyes on the job. But the entire effort may be doomed before he even opens his mouth by the way it's being framed in the media:
This is our "last try" in Iraq. (see here, here, here and here for examples).
Actually, they don't call it our last try in Iraq--it's Mr. Bush's last try, but for a moment let us entertain the fantasy that we're in this together as a nation.
As a nation, we need to recognize that defining the current strategic shift in Iraq as some sort of last gasp is insane, not to mention self defeating.
It's just like the "timetables" people keep arguing about--we might as well rent billboards all over Baghdad telling insurgents that if they just keep their heads down for the brief period that we're sending in the additional 10,000 troops or whatever the number will be, they'll be fine. Because this is it. The last try. There won't be any more attempts to move them after this.
Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military lead>ers, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.
Such billboards might come as a relief to a war-weary public as well. Let's wrap this up, and go back to raising the minimum wage and taxes on "the rich" to assuage our consciences as the stock market goes ever higher. Let's not bother with that messy business so far away. It's such a downer. We'll give it one last try, and then pull the plug.
No number of troops can solve this problem. The only way to hold Iraq together and create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully and to forge a sustainable political settlement. Unfortunately, this administration does not have a coherent plan or any discernible strategy for success in Iraq. Its strategy is to prevent defeat and hand the problem off when it leaves office.
Meanwhile, more and more Americans, understandably frustrated, support an immediate withdrawal, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war.
Both are bad alternatives. The five-point plan Les Gelb and I laid out offers a better way.
First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border security and the distribution of oil revenue.
Yes, Mr. Bush has played into this meme by making his protracted deliberations so very public, which has fostered the image of a rudderless administration casting about for a magic-bullet solution--and so allowed the press to cast this as a sort of Custer-at-Little-Big-Horn style last stand. And you may argue that in the world of the newly-Democrat congress, this is Mr. Bush's final practical opportunity to act in Iraq before the close the purse strings on him. Fine. Let them try. And if the President allows this to happen his legacy will take the beating it deserves, as will his country. He is, after all, still president, and it is beholden on him to keep trying.
As citizen of this country, win lose or draw on this particular effort in this particular front of the war, I can only pray that it is not our "last try." I for one hope that Mr. Bush will be successful with this strategy--but even so, casting it as a "last try" is delusional. Because even if we succeed here and drive them out of Iraq, the enemy will not stop trying. And in this context, our "last try" will be followed by only one thing. The end.
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden (D-DE) said yesterday that he believes top officials in the Bush administration — “maybe even including the vice president” — have “privately concluded they have lost Iraq and are simply trying to postpone disaster so the next president will ‘be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof,’ in a chaotic withdrawal reminiscent of Vietnam.”
"I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost," Biden said. "They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy -- literally, not figuratively."
Bush, on other hand, understands that the only acceptable exit strategy is victory. To that end, Bush should do more. He should send substantially more troops and insist on a change of strategy to allow a real counterinsurgency and prevent civil war.
Last night on ABC News, newly elected Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) said she would support funding for 20,000-40,000 more troops in Iraq because President Bush “is the commander in chief. …We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision.
Although the new Congress should not refuse to provide the funds that the troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan need, it can place an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number.
"There is nothing a United States Senate can do to stop a president from conducting his war," Biden said. "The only thing that is going to change the president's mind, if he continues on a course that is counterproductive, is having his party walk away from his position."
Biden said that Vice President Cheney and former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld "are really smart guys who made a very, very, very, very bad bet, and it blew up in their faces. Now, what do they do with it? I think they have concluded they can't fix it, so how do you keep it stitched together without it completely unraveling?"
When we asked about the likelihood of the president sending additional troops to Iraq, Murtha was adamant. "The only way you can have a troop surge," he told us, "is to extend the tours of people whose tours have already been extended, or to send back people who have just gotten back home." He explained at length how our military forces are already stretched to the breaking point, with our strategic reserve so depleted we are unprepared to face any additional threats to the country. So does that mean there will be no surge? Murtha offered us a "with Bush anything is possible" look, then said: "Money is the only way we can stop it for sure."
And how do the country's major papers opinion pages handle this historic moment? They don't. No mention at the LA Times, and WaPo features another George Will set of prevarications running the gambit from the New Deal worsening the Depression to the fact that minimum wage workers really aren't poor.
Actually, the NYT does feature a column about Nancy Pelosi, from the always odious David Brooks, this time adding a dash of sexism to his usual drivel.
Airhead? Party planner? Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for so minimizing the achievements of this talented politician. Would David Brooks ever discuss another, male politician in these terms? Would David Brooks ever ask if a prominent Republican, say George Bush, was an airhead?Some people believe that Pelosi is an airhead, but that is wrong. Some people believe she is a radical San Francisco liberal, but that, too, is wrong. The main fact to know about Pelosi is that she is a creature of the modern fund-raising system. Some politicians rise because they run political machines. Some rise because they are great communicators. Pelosi has risen because she is a master of the thousand-dollar-a-plate fundraising circuit....
She paid her dues selecting party favors, arranging seating charts (after that, legislation is easy), and laying thick dollops of obsequiousness on cranky old moguls and their helmet hair spa-spouses. She has done what all political fund-raisers do: tell rich people things they already believe, demonize the other side, motivate the giving with Manichaean tales of good versus evil.
One paper, fittingly Ms. Pelosi's hometown paper, the San Francisco Chronicle rightly recognizes the import:
NANCY PELOSI'S election as speaker of the House will bring a moment of history today, to be followed by 100 hours of furious legislative activity.
First, let's pause to recognize the historic significance of the first woman and first Californian to assume a position that will put her second in succession to the presidency of the United States....
“By reaching out to Congressman Goode I’m not trying to be accepted, I’m trying to build bridges. In this world there are too many misunderstandings. I want to put a human face on things,” explained Ellison.
It looks as if Virgil Goode's attack on Rep. Keith Ellion's use of the Koran for his swearing in hasn't gone over well with at least one of his constituents: Goode's district office in Charlottesville, Virginia, was vandalized. A local paper called The Hook reports that his office window sported a curious new addition: The word "BIGOT" stenciled on it in gold paint. Interestingly, the word was very carefully stencilled on, just under his name and title and in a similar shade of gold, so as to make the word "BIGOT" look almost like an official part of his job description. Asked by the paper if it might be a reaction to his anti-Muslim comments, a Goode spokesperson declined to comment. View a picture of the vandalized office here.
I was born in 1988. I was 12 years old when President Bush was "elected". I will cast my first vote in the 2008 election. I've chosen my first diary to talk about the political attitudes I've observed among people my age.
I live in an area that's predominately well-educated and liberal. Most young people in my area are deeply politically-engaged. Since we've been politically aware, the American political system has been dominated by the incompetence of the Bush administration. One might expect such a repulsive executive would lead to outrage among the youth, just as Nixon and the Vietnam War did for our parents' generation. Instead, it's lead to widespread apathy and detachment.
The situation we find ourselves in is one that's so enraging, so insulting to intelligent observers that there's no action strong enough to act as an appropriate response. Instead of taking to the streets with signs and songs, the youth has taken no unified public action. We lack the Kennedys (both John and Bobby), the MLK, the Malcolm X to guide our responses. Basically, we lack inspired leadership. So instead of becoming politically active, students grumble about Bush while planning to become investment bankers.
I was born in 1963, just a scant month before John Kennedy was shot to death in Dallas, TX. He remains a hero in my household to this very day, as does his brother Bobby and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. All of them, along with Malcolm X, had been murdered by the time I was five years-old in 1968.
Although many remember the 60's a the time of "Kum-bah-yah", brotherly love, and massive Washington Protest the reality at the time was very different. After the killing the John, the shooting of Martin caused the nation to erupt in flame. The Original King Riots burned dozens of cities across the U.S., as peoples hope which had been ignited by Jack, Bobby and Martin was violently extinguished.... King was assassinated and cities across America engulfed by riots. Brown may have singlehandedly saved Boston from burning. A day after the April 4 murder, he was scheduled to play a concert there. Nervous city fathers proposed cancelling the show until wiser heads pointed out that angry ticket buyers would definitely cause mayhem.
Brown arranged with the local public television station to broadcast the concert live, and he went on the radio to urge fans to stay home and watch it for free. The city's black neighborhoods were eerily quiet as a moist-eyed Brown took to the stage of the Boston Garden and punctuated his funky soul tunes with remembrances of King and appeals for calm.
The day after the Boston show, Brown flew to Washington D.C., which had been badly hit by riots. Once again, he took to the airwaves to appeal for restraint and to declare that education and ownership were better ways to seek justice.
But at the time, the bitterness and cynicism only grew strong. Woodstock gave way to Altamont and Kent State. The fun and free-loving hippies gave way to violence of the Manson Family and The S.L.A. Hippies gone Wild and not in a nice info-mercialicius I'm ready-for-the-money-shot kind of way.
Eventually Martin's call for strength through non-violence was overtaken by the Militance of the Black Panthers and the American Indian Movement (who actually took armed control of Alcatraz Island for nearly two years from 1969-1971).Policy-wise, no leader has articulated a position that engages the youth enough to activate us. Try chanting "In 3 to 5 months we want a plan to evaluate the effectiveness of our presence in Iraq!" It doesn't work, and we haven't seen an alternative.
This administration has silenced the opposition to such an extent that young progressives don't know what opposition looks like. This does not mean mainstream liberals are free from blame. If we use the current Democratic establishment as a model, opposition looks a lot like equivocation, which is not something that teenagers respond well to.
This has continued today and is why we see such virilent attacks on the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Bev Harris, Joseph Wilson, Larry Wilkerson, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, Howard Dean, The Jersey Girls, The Dixie Chicks, Pink, Neil Young, Ward Churchill, Jay Bennish, Harry Belafonte, George Clooney, John Murtha and John Kerry, They wish to hide and distract from the fact that we have already had massives rallies over both Immigration as well as World Wide Protest Against the War involving nearly 10 Million people!January 10, 2003: In Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, California, at the two largest peace rallies, the crowds were urged on by international peace activists, religious leaders, members of Congress, actors and musicians.
At least tens of thousands of people rallied on the Mall in Washington, and a similar-size group crowded downtown San Francisco.
Consider this a plea for real leadership. For someone who unifies all progressives and liberals and gives us a war to fight. For a party that eschews infighting and incrimentalism in favor of real change. For a movement that sweeps up all of us with its fervor. Because if it doesn't happen, the future will be a dark one indeed.
No-one in my day-to-day life, with the exception of my wife, happens to feel or express modern issues nearly as deeply as myself. Rather than discuss the issues of the day this Christmas, my choices were to either listen to my cousins smack-talk each other while playing Madden '07 on their playstation in the bedroom- or the menopause/breast cancer conversation taking place with my mother and her siblings in the dining room. Anyone whose views would tend to lean to the hard-right has long been excised from my life - I don't really need to any freepers in my world.
So I had a beer, then another...
And then I came back here - to our virtual rally. Like the bad-ole days of Cointelpro we have the FBI and NSA tapping our phones, we have the threat of being called "traitors" simply for pointing out that the Iraq War was the wrong cause and is now lost - we face accusations of being kool-aid drinking "haters" for simply documenting the Bush Administration crimes. We face losing our freedom and being thrown into Gitmo for being "aidders and abetters". A bit of stealthiness is now essential.
It is here we find solace and an oasis from the fear-mongering and pandering of the corporate media.
It is here that we plan, that we strategize, that we become and help shape the leaders of tomorrow, rather than waiting around for them.
The Reich-Wing did their worst against us this year - and it was largely through our efforts, the Netroots, the small donations and the efforts of the people on the ground - that we fought them back and took over both houses of congress.
We - the Citizen Media - are the ones now driving our own ship of state. Forget "Free Speach Zones" - we tell our Representatives exactly where they should go, not the other away around. Our "Leaders" are now Kos, Joshua Micah Marshall, Arriana Huffington, Digby, Media Matters, Truthout and Thinkprogress. Our leaders are Us.
So I welcome Readhead to Dkos - and others who feel similarly - but I also make a request of them. Instead of looking to guidance from others - Be ready to become the leader that you most wish to see, because that's what the future will ultimately demand from all of us.
We all have a responsibility, not just "them" - that's what Democracy truly means.
And for all those who are too busy playing with their X-Box and planning their investment portfolio - at least they won't be standing in the way as we change the course of this country.
Vyan
Oh yeah, making predictions is a dangerous business - just ask Bill Maher.
And finally, New Rule, in two parts: A) You can't call yourself a think tank if all your ideas are stupid. And B), if you're someone from one of the think tanks that dreamed up the Iraq War, and who predicted that we'd be greeted as liberators, and that we wouldn't need a lot of troops, and that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, that the WMD's would be found, that the looting wasn't problematic, and the mission was accomplished, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that things would get better after the people voted, after the government was formed, after we got Saddam, after we got his kids, after we got Zarqawi, and that the whole bloody mess wouldn't turn into a civil war...you have to stop making predictions!
Aint that the truth?
I know I should heed Maher's advice too, but I just can't help myself - so here goes...
Democrats are going to take BOTH HOUSES. Say it, see it - believe it!
Doesn't that feel good? Just take a moment and bask in the possibilities.
.
.
.
.
Ok, moment over.
The one thing we can't afford is overconfidence. The Repubs have the cash on hand to still do some damage on November 7th, even though by all rights - based on their policies and governing - they shouldn't have a prayer of surviving as the majority in either house.
How bad does it have to get before America throws these bums under the bus?
Unable to actually campaign for anyone other than Dennis the Menace Hastert the President took his "message" directly to the people this Sunday with an appearance on This Week (Counterpointed by John Kerry who also appeared)
BUSH: Frankly, I hear disparate voices all over the place from the Democrats' side about Iraq. We got some saying: Get out. The person I ran against in 2004, Senator Kerry, said at a date certain, time, withdraw.
We got one of the top leaders in the House said: Let's move troops to an island and maybe respond from there.
I would suspect most voters are going to be saying: What is the plan? Or most voters will be saying: How come the majority of Democrats voted against the detainee program where we're going to question high-value detainees to determine whether they've got information necessary to protect the country?
STEPHANOPOULOS: You've used some pretty tough rhetoric, though. You said this election's a choice between Republicans and Democrats who want to wave the white flag of surrender in the war on terror.
Can you name a Democrat who wants to wave the white flag of surrender?
BUSH: I can name a Democrat who said there ought to be a date certain from which to withdraw from Iraq, whether or not we've achieved a victory or not. And I...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is that surrender?
BUSH: Yes, it is, if you pull the troops out before the job is done. Absolutely, George.
Kerry in response...finally using the "L" word.
In an exclusive appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., rebuked President Bush's assertion that those who advocate a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq are supporting "surrender."
"That's reprehensible. It's a lie," Kerry said.
Yes, it is a lie. Kerry went on to explain that calls such as his and Senator Feingold's for a Date Certain on removing our troops should not be cast in stone. But that this was "the stick" to be used to push the Iraqis to govern and protect themselves. Kerry was right during the 2004 election that we need to set goals for the Iraqis and gives those goals consequences - and he's right now.
"I think you have to be more blunt: I think you have to say, 'No young American is going to die or give their life or limb for Iraqi politicians who refuse to compromise,' " Kerry said. "They have to want democracy for themselves as much as we want it for them."
Of his date-certain approach, Kerry argued, "You have to set a date because it's the only way to get Iraqis to respond," adding, "The date is not a date in a vacuum. I mean, I'm not stupid."
Kerry later summed up the situation.
"Either they resolve the political differences within this year because they want to, or they don't want to. If they don't want to, there's nothing American troops can do," he said.
On the issue of whether Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War - Bush:
STEPHANOPOULOS: I know you don't think that Iraq is in the middle of a civil war...
BUSH: Right.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... Right now.
BUSH: Right.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But whatever you call it, aren't American men and women now dying to prevent Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other?
BUSH: No. George, I -- it's dangerous. And you're right, no matter what you call it.
Kerry:
"The president just misled America again in that interview," he said. "Al Qaeda is not the problem in Iraq."
Kerry added, "The violence in Iraq today, George, is between Shia and Sunni; this is a civil war."
Bush:
The fundamental question is: Are we on our way to achieving a goal, which is an Iraq that can defend itself, sustain itself and govern itself and be an ally in the war on terror in the heart of the Middle East.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It seems like, every month, we're going farther from that.
BUSH: Well, I don't know why you would say that. I mean...
STEPHANOPOULOS: The casualties are going up.
BUSH: ... if that's the definition of success or failure, the number of casualties, then you're right. But that's what the enemy knows. See, they try to define success or failure.
I define success or failure as to whether or not the Iraqis will be able to defend themselves. I define success or failure as whether the unity government's making difficult -- the difficult decisions necessary to unite the country.
I define success or failure as whether schools are being built, or hospitals are being opened. I define success or failure as whether we're seeing a democracy grow in the heart of the Middle East.
Well, since the Iraqi government can't even pick up the bodies -- let alone open new schools, new hospitals and fresh new shopping malls - in the President's own terms, this isn't a "success"
BUSH: Because a democracy in the Middle East, a society based upon liberty, will be a defeat for the terrorists, who have clearly said they want a safe haven from which to launch attacks against America, a safe haven from which to topple moderate governments in the Middle East, a safe haven from which to spread their jihadist point of view, which is that there are no freedoms in the world; we will dictate to you how you think.
You mean a safe haven like say - our "ally" Pakistan? By the way - how's that Afghanistan thingy coming along?
As Kerry made plain, the path to creating a stable Democracy with Iraq (or Pakistan or Afghanistan or anywhere else) means doing something this Adminstration is absolutely incapable of doing - employing effective Diplomacy.
They refuse to pay attention to tensions and issues between Shia and Sunni, still claiming that the big bad bogeyman of Al Qaeda is behind everything that is wrong in Iraq even though according to General Abizaid - there are only about 1000 Al Qeada fighters IN Iraq.
The President claims that those who simply wish him to abide by the FISA law and prefer that we honor our international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions -- are somehow "soft" on terrorism, although the Whitehouse can not name a single Democrat who doesn't want us listening to Al Qeada's communications or to lawfully interrogate detainees.
Republicans have made this theme "The Stakes" central to their campaign to retain control of the House and Senate and so far this strategery has been a total bust.
Protecting America isn't the issue - the issue is what America becomes in the process of protecting itself. The only way to bring this Administration to heal before 2008 is for Democrats to take over Congress and start implementing some freaking oversight.
It's clear that Bush with his suddenly frequent TV appearances (including O'Reilly) as well as Veep Cheney last night on Hannity and * are simply trying to keep the happy talk flowing to the base.
Never mind about Foley, Hastert and that "idealistic liberal with the brain tumor" David Kuo. Everything will be just fine tomorrow - bet you're bottom dollar Daddy Warbucks.
Yeah, right.
You can see the desperation in Tony Snows eyes as he puts on his dog and bone show at the White House. (Here ya go Stretch - Fetch This Quote) Just take a look at some of his more recent nutball statements.
It's "Silly and Gratuitous" to ask Bush if he made any mistakes with North Korea. (Yeah, it's not like they suddenly got The Bomb on his watch or anything....)
"Please show me where the NIE says were not winning" (How about where it says "If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide." on Page 1 or "We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives." on Page 2!)
"Saddam had a relationship with Zarqawi because he was in the country." Which is sort of like saying Bill Clinton had a "relationship" with the Unibomber since they were both in the country at the same time too, and y'know Clinton was like trying to capture the Unibomber just like Saddam was trying to capture Zarqawi. (But then again, we probably shouldn't give the Wing-nuts too many bright ideas when it comes to Clinton smears - so you didn't hear that one from me ok?)
Sniff. Smell that? That's fear baby. Pure and undiluted.
But it's not like the media is really doing much to get the truth out:
Chris Matthews : Nancy Pelosi is too "scary" and "San Francisco" to be on 60 Minutes.
Nicole Wallace on the CBS Evening News: Polls show people don't want Democrats to Control Congress. (Except that they Do by a margin of 57 to 40%)
CBS reported the Barron's study which allegedly indicates that Repubs will keep both the House and Senate, but failed to mention the inconsistencies in thier methodologies. (It's almost as if they were gaming their methods to produce a desired outcome - shocking for a GOP friendly paper isn't it?)
And let's not even get into what Faux News has to say.
Despite all this and all the BS and psychoticbabble coming from the Wingnut Brigade - CQPolitics currently shows just 8 Democratic House seats in potential "jeopardy" by merely leaning Democratic:
Zero Democratic seats show No clear winner. Zero are leaning Republican.
Compare that to 1 Republican seat where a Democrat is currently favored:
Five more that Lean Democratic
Nineteen with No Clear Favorite.
And an additional 21 that only Lean Republican.
I'm not expecting Democrats to run the table, but if they do that's a 36 seat pickup. Ouch!
The picture in the Senate isn't so clear. Democrats are at risk in New Jersey where there's no clear favorite in the Menendez race.
Republican Senate Seats Leaning Democratic.
Republican Senate Seats with No Clear Favorite
Republican Senate Seats Leaning Republican.
Losing Menendez would be a major blow, but it's still possible for Democrats to reach the magic six if they can knock out Senator Macaca-witz in Virginia.
Unless there's a huge series of election night upsets across the country - Democrats are standing on the verge of gettig it on!
I for one, though not overconfident, have my sunglasses ready for that dawn. Just in case.
Vyan
