« Home for the Holidays... | Main | Congressmen Injured in Iraq »
20 Things To Think About
In watching this morning's Meet The Press, I am struck by a number of things:
1.) If the Republicans want people to believe that they know what they are doing in Iraq, they need to get a better spokesperson than Sen. John Warner(R-VA). Warner just admitted that: We cannot maintain forces in Iraq over the next two years without fundamental changes, he doesn't trust the Pentagon's information so he does his own independent analysis, in his private meetings with flag officers he was told that they do not have enough troops in Iraq now and never have had. Further, he stated that "We need to do everything we can to help troop morale", ipso facto, troop morale is bad. And this is what the supporters of the war are saying?
2.) Biden: "The administration did not get serious about training Iraqis until the last nine months."
3.) They can't put more troops in now, because there is a "Bush-fullfilling prophecy" of 'If we put in more troops, we look like an occupying force, but we need more troops to mount a counter-insurgency'. Once again, there is an emergency, and the White House dithers, Bush dithers, and people die.
4.) In the coming months, more and more members of Congress and the Washington punditry will be calling Cheney a liar, and saying that he duped Bush with shaped intelligence about Iraq.
5.) Has the word "nuclear" actually become "nukuler", among even the educated sycophants?
6.) Biden does a good job of destroying the pre-war "Saddam had nuclear weapons" argument, and the argument that "members of Congress had the same intelligence" as the Bush administration. The Democrats should put him in front on this issue.
7.) Cheney shouldn't expect any support from any member of Congress, based on John Warner's non-support of him. Cheney is so radioactive at this point, Warner wouldn't even say his name.
8.) Somebody needs to push this question: If the U.S. Army can get seventeen-year-olds from East Bumbledirt combat ready in thirty-to-ninety days, what the hell have they been doing with the training program for Iraqis for the last two years? Shouldn't they have, say, a gazillion Iraqis combat ready by now?
9.) I have watched Warner and Biden so you don't have to. I want appreciation and maybe some money for that.
10.) The Round Table this morning is: David Gregory, Eugene Robinson, David Broder, and Judy Woodruff. The presence of Robinson and Gregory gives us something of a break from the usual Washington in-bred cocktail party kool kidz of the beltway crowd. But not much of one.
11.) David Gregory gives us a new phrase, "The Weekend White House", as in, "The 'Weekend White House' is making decisions about fighting strategy." Okay, this is the group that thought it would be a good idea to compare John Murtha to Michael Moore. Clearly, they are looking at nonsense fights in order to focus Americans on the nonsense, not the reality of the FUBAR in Iraq. So far, the public finds this strategy both distasteful and irrelevant. The "Weekend White House" is apparently on par with the phrase "Christmas Help".
12.) Given the troop rotation reality, we will be redeploying troops next year regardless of the situation on the ground. It will be up to both Democrats and Republicans to get in front of this fact publicly or get left behind politically.
13.) Hillary Clinton is looking like a big loser for her earlier statement on staying the course in Iraq. Iraq will be the needle to thread for any Democrat who wants to run for anything, be it President or dog catcher.
14.) From the Department of Ya Think?: Eugene Robinson predicts that Republicans will begin a campaign to lower expectations for what success looks like in Iraq. They are way behind the public on this, as Murtha pointed out last week.
15.) What is the essential truth in Iraq? What are the possible outcomes? Does anyone know? Can anyone define it? How can we expect the public to give support to any position, Republican or Democrat, when neither party can give voice to a position that sounds remotely coherent or reasoned?
16.) How insulated is the President from the reality on the ground in Iraq? What understanding does the President have of the situation in Iraq? Given the administration's campaign-style response to the worsening public opinion of their (mis)handling of Iraq, it is unclear that the administration understands the depths of the problems they are facing either here or there. Campaign rhetoric isn't going to get job done this time. People want answers, not slogans.
17.) From the Department of Repetitious Repetition: David Broder suggests that the administration needs to start leveling with the public. I want to know how he expects them to do that, when the President is kept so insulated from reality?
18.) Judy Woodruff: The bottom line on Iraq is: The Democrats face a dilemma, whereas, the Republicans face a crisis. Score one for Judy.
19.) IMHO, the fallout from Katrina will begin anew as the media starts a wave of heartbreaking stories of Katrina victims and what kind of Christmas they will be having. Hint: Think Charles Dickens.
20.) David Gregory: The White House/Plame leak activity refires anew with a new Grand Jury and Bob Woodward's consternating involvement. The White House will not be able to get out from under it.
In conclusion, there's a lot going on that we need to pay attention to: War in Iraq and calls for troop redeployment, Abramoff and the Culture of Corruption, L'Affaire Plame and its effect on the overall credibility of the two national newspapers of record, 2006 Elections and the Lord of the Flies Republicans, the ScAlito "White Guys RULE!" hearings, Katrina victims in the streets for Christmas, Willy Pete's use by the US Army (once the pictures hit the airwaves...), and THE DEFICIT. And then there's the list I haven't gotten to yet...
A Suggestion for DCP Regulars: Rather than trying to keep all of the balls in the air, folks might want to choose ONE topic to follow, dig in deep about, and report back on. This might be the best way to gather and then disseminate information. Just an idea. If anyone has a topic they would like to specialize in, please let us know in the comments section.
The four-day weekend rest was needed. There's a lot of work to be done. Tomorrow approaches quickly...
Here's a review of a book called "Critical Care" about the condition of the American health care system from dailykos diarist Kid Oakland.
It's a good review and highlights a book that should probably be on a "must read" list for all of us...
critical condition
by kid oakland
Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 11:48:11 AM PDT
If you want an example of something that's emblematic of what's broken in America, try health care.
Sure, our Republican colleagues will mouth the exact same tired language about "the excellence of our hospitals" and those dreaded "trial lawyers." Truth is, however, for twenty five years the United States, under Republican leadership and the hand of big business, has indulged in an experiment with allowing "market forces" to drive our health care system.
That experiment has failed.
We pay more for drugs, basic care, and insurance than ever before. Due to an unchecked increase in the cost of catastrophic care and a change in bankruptcy laws, we are all more at risk of financial devastation when facing a serious illness. Many of us are less healthy. And all of us navigate a labyrinth of byzantine, hyper-duplicated and redundant bureaucratic formulas that consistenly favor profit over people.
Nothing exemplifies this better than the sight of millions of senior Americans struggling to read the fine print of the insanely complex new "Medicare Drug Plan."
Let's face it, health care is broken in America.
2004 saw the publication of Critical Condition: How Health Care in America became Big Business and Bad Medicine by famed investigative journalists, Donald Barlett and James B. Steele.
The book is now available in paperback and can be read in an afternoon or a plane ride. I highly recommend it.
read the rest of the review here...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/27/134811/62
I would also add the GAO report on the elections and what needs to happen ASAP. So far, the media has yawned and turned away...
(There is a short list of upcoming events/actions on the front page of this website as well).
Drink coffee today--rest is over.
Casey... Eternal gratitude for having watched Warner and Biden so I didn't have to.
Not that I would anyway, mind you. I find them all to be so utterly full of crap.
The Show Me State of Misery
White House claims 'strong consensus' on Iraq pullout
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House for the first time has claimed ownership of an Iraq withdrawal plan, arguing that a troop pullout blueprint unveiled this past week by a Democratic senator was "remarkably similar" to its own.
It also signaled its acceptance of a recent US Senate amendment designed to pave the way for a phased US military withdrawal from the violence-torn country.
The statement late Saturday by White House spokesman Scott McClellan came in response to a commentary published in The Washington Post by Joseph Biden, the top Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which he said US forces will begin leaving Iraq next year "in large numbers."
According to Biden, the United States will move about 50,000 servicemen out of the country by the end of 2006, and "a significant number" of the remaining 100,000 the year after.
The blueprint also calls for leaving only an unspecified "small force" either in Iraq or across the border to strike at concentrations of insurgents, if necessary.
Less than two weeks ago, McClellan blasted Democratic Representative John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), saying that by calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, the congressman was "endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore," a stridently anti-war Hollywood filmmaker.
Biden's ideas, relayed first in a November 21 speech in New York, however, got a much friendlier reception.
Even though President George W. Bush has never publicly issued his own withdrawal plan and criticized calls for an early exit, the White House said many of the ideas expressed by the senator were its own.
In the statement, which was released under the headline "Senator Biden Adopts Key Portions Of Administration's Plan For Victory In Iraq," McClellan said the Bush administration welcomed Biden's voice in the debate.
"Today, Senator Biden described a plan remarkably similar to the administration's plan to fight and win the war on terror," the spokesman went on to say.
He added that as Iraqi security forces gain strength and experience, "we can lessen our troop presence in the country without losing our capability to effectively defeat the terrorists."
McClellan said the White House now saw "a strong consensus" building in Washington in favor of Bush's strategy in Iraq.
The Biden plan calls for preparatory work to be done in the first six months of next year, ahead of the envisaged pullout. It includes:
- forging a compromise among Iraqi factions, under which the Sunnis must accept that they no longer rule Iraq and Shiites and Kurds admit them into a power-sharing arrangement;
- building Iraq's governing capacity;
- transferring authority to Iraqi security forces;
- establishing a contact group of the world's major powers to become the Iraqi government's primary international interlocutor.
The White House statement also embraced a Senate amendment to a defense authorization bill overwhelmingly passed by the Senate on November 15 that asked the administration to make next year "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty" thereby creating conditions "for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."
The measure was largely seen as a reprimand to the Bush administration often accused of lacking a viable strategy in Iraq.
But the White House insisted again the Senate was reading from its own playbook.
"The fact is that the Senate amendment reiterates the president's strategy in Iraq," the statement said.
The Bush administration has been steadily moving towards a drawdown of US troops in Iraq and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week spoke of a reduction in the US presence for the first time.
Her remarks contrasted sharply with her refusal last month to tell a Senate panel whether US troops would be out in a decade, acknowledging that insurgent attacks would continue "for quite a long time."
"In Iraq, unlike this country, nobody in the government seems to be saying that supporters of a timetable are cowards who cut and run at the first sign of trouble. On the contrary, timetables and deadlines seem to have earned wide support," a Milwaukee Journal editorial said this week.
"Recently, a group of about 100 Iraqi politicians -- Sunni Muslims, Shiites, Kurds -- gathered in Cairo under the auspices of the Arab League and, after three days of discussion, signed a memorandum that 'demands a withdrawal of foreign troops on a specified timetable, dependent on an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces,'" it noted.
"Establishing a reasonable target date for the withdrawal of US forces -- the end of next year, for instance -- would remind the Iraqis that it is up to them, not us, to defend their country."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051127/wl_afp/usiraqtroops_051127134715
It's a miracle! The Dems were prescient! They GUESSED AT THE PLAN!!
Oh my! How brilliant they are!
Remarkable, eh Karen?
The New Way Out
U.S. leaders finally have a coherent approach—but patience is wearing thin.
By Michael Hirsh, Scott Johnson and Kevin Peraino
Newsweek
Dec. 5, 2005 issue - Only a few months ago, the road from Baghdad International Airport to the Green Zone was a symbol of American futility in Iraq. When talking heads in Washington wanted to argue that the war was hopeless, they would simply point to "Ambush Alley."
How is it possible, the critics would say, that two long years after U.S. troops took Baghdad, soldiers, contractors and diplomats still had to make a "Mad Max" dash through this five-mile corridor just to get to the heart of the capital? If the U.S. Army couldn't secure such a vital chokepoint, it would never be able to pacify the rest of the country. But since August, without much public notice, the Baghdad highway has been largely secured. In April 2005, when control of the route was primarily American, there were 37 casualties. By October 2005—when Iraqi Special Police checkpoints were in the forefront—there was only one person wounded. The number of attacks plummeted, too, from 27 to eight. November has also been fairly quiet, says Lt. Col. Barry Johnson of the Multinational Forces in Iraq.
What changed? A key difference is the 70 or so Iraqi Special Police who have operated those 24/7 checkpoints along the road since June, Johnson says. The Iraqis play a key role that Americans couldn't, and they're backed by two Iraqi Army platoons that conduct operations along with units of the U.S. Third Infantry Division. There are no more U.S. checkpoints. "It simply would have produced more targets," says Johnson. In a TV interview last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice cited the highway as a place where, along with parts of the north and south, Iraqis are "stepping up" and their American mentors are "actually seeing them hold territory."
Piece by painful piece, this is the new American plan for succeeding in Iraq—and, just as important, for getting out of Iraq. Move in, clear the area of insurgents, and then hold it with an increasing proportion of better-quality Iraqi troops. That will allow the benefits of peace and reconstruction to flow in. Military commanders say their old "whack-a-mole" approach—hitting towns to scatter insurgents, then moving on—will continue through the all-important Dec. 15 election for the first permanent Iraqi government. But a dramatic shift will take place in the new year, with U.S. forces trying to give more responsibility to their Iraqi counterparts.
Granted, the Baghdad airport road is one tiny piece of a country still beset by more than 500 attacks, on average, each week—a steady rate of horror and chaos that's been unaffected by elections and other "breakthroughs" U.S. officials have pointed to with hope. Yet it is ironic that just as the debate over what to do about Iraq has reached a shrill climax on Capitol Hill, the Bush administration has, at long last, quietly developed a coordinated, coherent strategy on the ground.
Actually, Washington's main contribution has been to get out of the way. The new approach is the result of long negotiations between Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, and Gen. George Casey, commander of the Multinational Forces. Their overall strategy: on the military side, "clear, hold and build" while training up Iraqi forces; on the political side, wean Sunni leaders from their support of the insurgency, buying them off with incentives tribe by tribe and village by village; and on the U.S. domestic front, appease rising outcries for withdrawal by reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq to under 100,000 troops—hopefully by midterm Election Day 2006. "There is an idea that there is no plan, and we believe we do have a plan," Khalilzad told NEWSWEEK. "We've worked very hard in the last four months to come up with a plan, and we're talking about how to communicate that more effectively to the Congress."
more... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10219753/site/newsweek/
Posted by: monkey at November 27, 2005 03:25 PM
Those guys are so FOS my computer is starting to stink.
As regards to mamdames post on the prior thread, Posted by: madame defarge at November 27, 2005 02:41 PM, I think that as long as the message remains clear that Buscho is a bunch of liars we will be able to convince the public that no matter what the administration claims, it deserves the harshest of punishments even if there is no impeachment.
I think the two points noted above actually dovetail very well. Duplicitous self aggrandizing is something that is as politically popular as kicking puppies.
There are no more U.S. checkpoints. "It simply would have produced more targets," says Johnson. In a TV interview last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice cited the highway as a place where, along with parts of the north and south, Iraqis are "stepping up" and their American mentors are "actually seeing them hold territory."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sorry Condi,
You have told far too many tall tales for George and Dick and you are willing to lie to advance your agenda. You have zero credibility with me. Anything that comes from your mouth will be muted by me.
BTW: Regarding Condi Rice -
Shockingly and disgustingly, Rice is being pushed by Time magazine for "Person of the Year". See my post in the FORUMS section under ACTION.
"There is an idea that there is no plan, and we believe we do have a plan," Khalilzad told NEWSWEEK. "We've worked very hard in the last four months to come up with a plan, and we're talking about how to communicate that more effectively to the Congress."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Are you kidding, Zalmay??? You have just recently managed to come up with a "plan"?? It is about a year too late, wouldn't you think??
This one is for you, Ralph, that Biden's speech was 11/21, but Kerry's plan, Strategy for Success in Iraq, was spoken at Georgetown on 10/26, before becoming the Senate S1933.
Just a factual clarification that their Pentagon plan mirrors Kerry's, but without the substance. They often introduce something to make us think they are doing more than they intend. Smoke and mirrors.
And Casey, thanks for terrific run-down and watching MTP for us. David Gregory has always tried within WH constraints. George didn't like him speaking French in France, so it was downhill for him in assignments, I think. But Russert ever fair? Don't think so.
Agree Karen that the GAO is unpoliticized proof that all is wrong with our voting. As much as I dislike Wal-Mart and think fair trade coffee a good idea, wish our progressives would get more agitated about our voting.
Four-day weekend? Did somebody have a four-day weekend?
Marjorie G,
I HOPE that the list is not either/or. I think Casey's point is well-taken--there are plenty of issues to go around here.
Over the next few weeks, as the holiday madness overtakes us (I celebrate Christmas as the end-of-the-paper-grading season myself), each of us really does need to attend to one or two issues that are going to affect us deeply in January and beyond. As in, hit us over the head, bite us in the a**, trip us up, etc, etc...
I plan to work on helping to plan the national event DROWN OUT THE BUSH REGIME for the SOTU address--partly because it has some artistic imagination and I'm a sucker for an opportunity to engage performing artists in anything political.
But I am also going to be pushing the GAO report wherever I can.
That does not mean I think ANY of the other issues are less important; in fact, the war, NOLA, the environment, and education are also at the top of my immediate concerns; especially because they directly affect my loved ones.
But that is why we began this learning community--so no one of us has to do all the heavy lifting. We are smart, informed, energized, caring citizen activists. Keep bringing the info here--we can, together, do what none of us can do alone.
2.) Biden: "The administration did not get serious about training Iraqis until the last nine months."
I heard THAT excuse about a year ago.
4.) In the coming months, more and more members of Congress and the Washington punditry will be calling Cheney a liar, and saying that he duped Bush with shaped intelligence about Iraq.
Can someone please tell me why they will be doing this? Because it is true, or because it takes the heat off the real offenders?
I know I am asking for a bit much, here, but I am very curious to know what y'all think about the Cheney blame game.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at November 27, 2005 05:37 PM
Truth,
You know that I have always thought that George Bush was a simpleton and he is being played as the patsy. Yet, Cheney will never get what he deserves for his crimes against this country. Not my Vice-President posted Syndney Blumenthal's piece from Salon the other day, and I was impressed that Cheney was able to collect sensitive information about pontential Vice-Presidential candidates and then maneuver himself into the Vice-Presidencey. His collection of dirt about other politicians will make it nearly impossible for him to be brought to justice.
Cheney *is* one of the real offenders-don't forget it. He represents fascist corporate America at its worst. The most I can hope for is that his defibrillator has a short circuit.
Besides what I just posted, I would like to add that there is a benefit for the corportists to have a "blame game". It keeps them out of the spotlight. Cheney reminds me of an idealogue on par with Goebbels or Goering. He is willing to take any form of abuse or punishment in the name of "the cause".
Transcript of Wolf Blitzer speaking with Seymour Hersh ...
BLITZER: And just ahead, with pressure growing here in the United States to withdrawal American ground troops from Iraq, is the administration considering a new military strategy, namely an air war?
We'll get answers from Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh. He has new information.
He'll reveal what he's learned about the Bush administration's plans for a stepped-up air war in Iraq. You're watching "Late Edition," the last word in Sunday talk.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against the terrorists.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: President Bush resisting, for now, calls to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Welcome back to "Late Edition." Joining us now is The New Yorker magazine staff writer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh.
His new article details where the Iraq war might be heading next, as well as what motivates President Bush in the war on terror. Seymour Hersh, thanks very much for joining us. Welcome to "Late Edition."
SEYMOUR HERSH, "THE NEW YORKER": Glad to be here.
BLITZER: All right. Before we get to some of the specifics, Ayad Allawi, these comments he makes in the new issue of "The London Observer" basically saying some of the torture, some of the issues that are going on in Iraq today are as bad if not worse than under Saddam Hussein. In this new article, you report that he has emerged as what you call the favorite of Washington in the run-up to the elections in Iraq.
HERSH: And of England and Tony Blair. Yes, absolutely. I think he's the dark horse. We'd like him to take control.
He's a secular -- I think the worry is obvious that everybody's getting aware more and more that we're on the edge of a civil war if we're not in one already. And he's seen as somebody that can support or get some support from the Sunnis, and also because he's a Shia, he can also get support there, secular, not religious.
BLITZER: He's popular in Washington and London. But the question is, is he popular in Iraq? Because he didn't do well in the last elections.
HERSH: Despite our best efforts, we pushed hard for him both legally and illegally, as I wrote earlier. And I think we're prepared to go all the way again. One doesn't know. One doesn't know, by the way, whether these elections have much meaning anyway in terms of what's, you know, what's really happening around the edges. I say it is a civil war there. And it's not in our hands, I think, very much.
BLITZER: Well, if they could get a lot of Sunnis to participate in these December 15 elections, as well as the Shia and Kurds, who are already participating, that would be a welcome, that would be a positive move.
HERSH: The biggest "if" in the world now. If.
BLITZER: You're skeptical that the Sunnis will come aboard.
HERSH: I just think -- I think it's really bad out there. I think it's, you know, if you look at the -- it's just real simple. You don't have to be much of a genius to figure it out, we're almost -- it's Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving of '04, it was much worse than at Thanksgiving of '03.
It's now Thanksgiving of '05, and it's much worse there than it was last year. How is it going to get better next year? What magic is there?
BLITZER: Well, we'll see what happens with these elections. Listen to what the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, told our correspondent John King earlier this week. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: I suspect that the American forces are not going to be needed in the numbers that they're there for all that much longer because the Iraqis are continuing to make progress in function. Not just in numbers, but in their capabilities to do certain functions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Pretty upbeat statement from her.
HERSH: Well, you know, what I was writing about in The New Yorker this week is our plan is to pull out American troops if we start to do that. And I think the president probably will next year. But the war is not going to slow down. We're going to increase the pace of air operations. There's going to be more bombing in direct support of Iraqi units now.
BLITZER: Let me read to you what you write in The New Yorker magazine, the article entitled "Up in the Air." "A key element of the drawdown plans, not mentioned in the President's public statements, is that the departing American troops will be replaced by American airpower. Quick, deadly strikes by U.S. warplanes are seen as a way to improve dramatically the combat capability of even the weakest Iraqi combat units."
Explain what you're hearing from your sources. HERSH: Oh. It's very simple. That we have a lot of units in Iraq that are not very good. And if we're going to put...
BLITZER: Iraqi units.
HERSH: Yes. Right. American -- not American.
BLITZER: Ground troops.
HERSH: Absolutely. Not very competent. Very weak. And if we must -- many of them Shiite, many of them controlled by militias. I mean, they're not necessarily loyal to any particular regime. And if we pull away the American ground support and the American air support, they're in trouble.
But if we -- we can take out troops if we increase air. In other words, the temple of air bombing, bombing's sort of the unknown story right now. We don't know how many bombs are dropped, where. Nobody reports publicly as they did, Wolf, in Vietnam.
During the Vietnam war, we got a daily total of how many missions, sorties per day, how much tonnage. We have no idea here how many bombs are actually dropping every day and where. But the idea is, you increase the pace of the bombing. And that will make an inadequate Iraqi unit be able to stand up a little bit, certainly against the insurgency. That's the thinking.
BLITZER: And then you go on to write this: "The prospect of using air power as a substitute for American troops on the ground has caused great unease. For one thing, Air Force commanders, in particular, have deep-seated objections to the possibility that Iraqis eventually will be responsible for target selection. 'Will the Iraqis call in air strikes in order to snuff rivals, or other warlords, or to snuff members of your own sect and blame someone else?' another senior military planner now on assignment in the Pentagon asked."
Your concern, specifically, is that American air power, which can be decisive, clearly, is going to be used for untoward, for bad purposes.
HERSH: It's not my concern. It's the concern of many senior generals in the air business, you know, in the Air Force. And planners, because they say, this is, you know, the power of American air is enormous. And the idea, it's, and it's, this is a skill.
People talk in terms, to me, the Air Force planners, of the exquisite nature of air bombing. The idea that you're going to turn over this control, this kind of force, to Iraqi units who can be penetrated by the insurgency, that have a lot of internal battles, as I say, many are militias. And they have problems that other people and other militias -- who knows what will motivate them?
BLITZER: So your concern is the spotters on the ground, the people who are going to be targeting, finding targets are going to be Iraqis as owe opposed to Americans. HERSH: It's the concern of a lot of people in the Pentagon. They'll tell you no, that they're going to be joint units. The Pentagon will officially say there's going to be joint units, Iraqi and Americans together. But eventually we know it will evolve into Iraqis calling in targets.
And it's not just spotting. We use a lot of sophisticated laser guided weapons and you have to have somebody on the ground to actually do a strike or illuminate a target with a laser beam for the plane to come in. And as I've had people in the Air Force say to me, what are we going to be bombing? Barracks? Hospitals? You know, who knows who's going to be telling us what to do?
BLITZER: So what you're hearing is that the U.S. air power, the U.S. Air Force, they're getting jittery even thinking about the fact that they may be called in to launch air strikes based on what they're getting from Iraqis on the ground.
HERSH: It is good to know there is a lot of ethics in the Air Force. There's a lot of guys that are, that drop the, they know the force of the weapons they have, and they don't want to be responsible for bombing the wrong targets. They don't want non-Americans telling them what to do. This is a real doctrinal issue that's being fought right now in the Pentagon.
BLITZER: In this new article you have in The New Yorker, you also write this about the president: " 'The president is more determined than ever to stay the course,' the former defense official said. 'He doesn't feel any pain. Bush is a believer in the adage, "People may suffer and die, but the Church advances." ' He said that the president had become more detached, leaving more issues to Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney. 'They keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway,' the former defense official said."
Could you be more specific on this former defense official?
HERSH: Sure, in this day and age, Wolf. No. I mean, that's -- we're having a war over sourcing right now.
BLITZER: But this is someone who had day to day or contact, direct contact with the president?
HERSH: Suffice to say this, that this president in private, at Camp David with his friends, the people that I'm sure call him George, is very serene about the war. He's upbeat. He thinks that he's going to be judged, maybe not in five years or ten years, maybe in 20 years. He's committed to the course. He believes in democracy.
HERSH: He believes that he's doing the right thing, and he's not going to stop until he gets -- either until he's out of office, or he falls apart, or he wins.
BLITZER: But this has become, your suggesting, a religious thing for him?
HERSH: Some people think it is. Other people think he's absolutely committed, as I say, to the idea of democracy. He's been sold on this notion.
He's a utopian, you could say, in a world where maybe he doesn't have all the facts and all the information he needs and isn't able to change.
I'll tell you, the people that talk to me now are essentially frightened because they're not sure how you get to this guy.
We have generals that do not like -- anymore -- they're worried about speaking truth to power. You know that. I mean that's -- Murtha in fact, John Murtha, the congressman from Pennsylvania, which most people don't know, has tremendous contacts with the senior generals of the armies. He's a ranking old war horse in Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The generals know him and like him. His message to the White House was much more worrisome than maybe to the average person in the public. They know that generals are privately telling him things that they're not saying to them.
And if you're a general and you have a disagreement with this war, you cannot get that message into the White House. And that gets people unnerved.
BLITZER: Here's what you write. You write, "Current and former military and intelligence officials have told me that the president remains convinced that it is his personal mission to bring democracy to Iraq, and that he is impervious to political pressure, even from fellow Republicans. They also say that he disparages any information that conflicts with his view of how the war is proceeding."
Those are incredibly strong words, that the president basically doesn't want to hear alternative analysis of what is going on.
HERSH: You know, Wolf, there is people I've been talking to -- I've been a critic of the war very early in the New Yorker, and there were people talking to me in the last few months that have talked to me for four years that are suddenly saying something much more alarming.
They're beginning to talk about some of the things the president said to him about his feelings about manifest destiny, about a higher calling that he was talking about three, four years ago.
I don't want to sound like I'm off the wall here. But the issue is, is this president going to be capable of responding to reality? Is he going to be able -- is he going to be capable if he going to get a bad assessment, is he going to accept it as a bad assessment or is he simply going to see it as something else that is just a little bit in the way as he marches on in his crusade that may not be judged for 10 or 20 years.
He talks about being judged in 20 years to his friends. And so it's a little alarming because that means that my and my colleagues in the press corps, we can't get to him maybe with our views. You and you can't get to him maybe with your interviews.
How do you get to a guy to convince him that perhaps he's not going the right way?
Jack Murtha certainly didn't do it. As I wrote, they were enraged at Murtha in the White House.
And so we have an election coming up -- Yes. I've had people talk to me about maybe Congress is going to have to cut off the budget for this war if it gets to that point. I don't think they're ready to do it now.
But I'm talking about sort of a crisis of management. That you have a management that's seen by some of the people closely involved as not being able to function in terms of getting information it doesn't want to receive.
BLITZER: Seymour Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine, and we have to leave it there.
Thanks very much, Sy, for joining us.
HERSH: Thank you.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/27/le.01.html
I know Mr. Halliburton/Corporate America is not a "nice" man.
I guess he figures he can afford to be thought of as the "bad guy", since they will never be able to get him.
I was curious because normally the real culprit is well hidden beneath a pile of patsys and stool pigeons.
To give Cheney the bonafide title of the "Dark Lord" serves another purpose, too, perhaps. If enough people equate the name Cheney with the dark deeds instead of the GOP, they might think the dark deeds go with Cheney when he "retires".
Was curious as to why they would blame the actual culprit for a change.
I will give the Salon article another read, too.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/27/le.01.html
Posted by: monkey at November 27, 2005 06:16 PM
O. M. G.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at November 27, 2005 06:18 PM
Truth,
You answered your own question. IMHO, it is because he is retiring that he will take the blame.
WOW - THIS EXCERPT IS FROM THE ROLLING STONE ARTICLE ABOUT THE RENDON P.R. FIRM. Look at how closely Judith Miller was working with the administration:
The INC's choice for the worldwide print exclusive was equally easy: Chalabi contacted Judith Miller of The New York Times. Miller, who was close to I. Lewis Libby and other neoconservatives in the Bush administration, had been a trusted outlet for the INC's anti-Saddam propaganda for years. Not long after the CIA polygraph expert slipped the straps and electrodes off al-Haideri and declared him a liar, Miller flew to Bangkok to interview him under the watchful supervision of his INC handlers. Miller later made perfunctory calls to the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, but despite her vaunted intelligence sources, she claimed not to know about the results of al-Haideri's lie-detector test. Instead, she reported that unnamed "government experts" called his information "reliable and significant" -- thus adding a veneer of truth to the lies.
Her front-page story, which hit the stands on December 20th, 2001, was exactly the kind of exposure Rendon had been hired to provide. AN IRAQI DEFECTOR TELLS OF WORK ON AT LEAST 20 HIDDEN WEAPONS SITES, declared the headline. "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer," Miller wrote, "said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." If verified, she noted, "his allegations would provide ammunition to officials within the Bush administration who have been arguing that Mr. Hussein should be driven from power partly because of his unwillingness to stop making weapons of mass destruction, despite his pledges to do so."
This one is for you, Ralph, that Biden's speech was 11/21, but Kerry's plan, Strategy for Success in Iraq, was spoken at Georgetown on 10/26, before becoming the Senate S1933.
agitated about our voting.
Posted by: Marjorie G at November 27, 2005 04:57 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
WELL SHIVER ME TIMBERS!!!!
GOOD FOR KERRY!!!
GOOD FOR BIDEN!!!
You keep those dates handy for '08.
I am 100% in favor of plans - especially plans made by Democratic Senators who are eyeing the presidency.
Here is what Mr. Kerry does not have that Rep. Murtha does (nota bene):
Quoting Hersch:
"We have generals that do not like -- anymore -- they're worried about speaking truth to power. You know that. I mean that's -- Murtha in fact, John Murtha, the congressman from Pennsylvania, which most people don't know, has tremendous contacts with the senior generals of the armies. He's a ranking old war horse in Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The generals know him and like him. His message to the White House was much more worrisome than maybe to the average person in the public. They know that generals are privately telling him things that they're not saying to them."
Ralph, after bashing me a few times to my home email, not nice, you blocked my last of my many conciliatory responses and e-address. I am just wondering what brings on the temper tantrums, and what we can do to point you in another direction.
Let's look at all the plans, Kerry's included, as a step forward and move on. A military person, such as Murtha, is not advocating leaving tomorrow. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some back room planning to have him out front, as unassailable a critic as he is. Just a thought.
ralpheh--you do not know who else has friends in the military who may be giving information.
I was quite impressed with the thoroughmindedness of Kerry's plan as outlined in the Georgetown speech. It was quite detailed. One of the major features was the distinction between the ground troops (he believes they need to be gotten out immediately) and the officers/advisors (who need to focus on training the Iraqis). I suspect Murtha is not the only one to be the ear of those inside.
Remember that JK spent a good part of September over there...
Mercenaries purposely make sick video (with Elvis soundtrack) of civlian killings
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/27/172747/10
From the Sunday Telegraph (UK): (for more, go to Kos)
A "trophy" video appearing to show security guards in Baghdad randomly shooting Iraqi civilians has sparked two investigations after it was posted on the internet, the Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
The video has sparked concern that private security companies, which are not subject to any form of regulation either in Britain or in Iraq, could be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Iraqis.
No wonder people strung them from bridges
Here is the company with the mercenaries (contractors) who made the sick video - they beat out Dyncore (friends of Bush), the company who sent mercenaries to Kosovo and they got away with rape because they are under no legal jurisdiciton, not that of the hosting country and not that of the US and not that of the military.
--
Pentagon circles the wagons around 'Spicer' deal
By Ray O'Hanlon, Irish Echo, November 17-23, 2004
The U.S. Department of Defense is standing behind its decision to award a
major security contract in Iraq to a company run by a controversial former
British army officer.
The decision apparently removes all impediments to a $293 million payday
for Tim Spicer, commander of the Scots Guards at a time when the regiment
became embroiled in a controversial killing in Belfast.
The Department of The Army has written to five U.S. senators stating that
the decision to award the contract to Aegis Defense Services last May was a
"well founded" one.
The army's endorsement of the contract follows a separate decision by the
Government Accountability Office to deny an appeal by a rival U.S. company
for the contract, one of the largest tendered by the U.S. government for
private security work in Iraq.
It was that protest, brought by Texas-based Dyncorp, that put the Aegis contract on hold and resulted in an investigation and legal determination by the GAO, the congressional and federal government financial and legal watchdog formerly known as the General Accounting Office.
ralpheh--you do not know who else has friends in the military who may be giving information.
I was quite impressed with the thoroughmindedness of Kerry's plan as outlined in the Georgetown speech. It was quite detailed. One of the major features was the distinction between the ground troops
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I couldn't care less whose plan it is to get out of Iraq - Kucinich's, McGovern's, Kerry's, Biden's, or Murtha's. Just that we start getting out....
If you really want to get picky - Rep. Lynne Woolsey CA offered a withdraw proposal last spring. Then Kucinich, Ron Paul, Walter Jones, and Abercrombie offered a withdrawal proposal in June.
BTW Most experts agree that after we leave Iraq things will get messy. IMO it will probably be like Vietnam.
Kerry coulda come out with his plan in August during the Sheehan Stand-off. Nope he waited...
Kerry coulda come out with his plan in September during the March on D.C.. Nope he waited.
When Libby was indicted, Kerry coulda etc....
You get the idea!!!
Ralph, there are many reasons why plans for policy shifts happen when they do. We can't know.
All I ask, and bet there are many others who would wish, that you tone down the hate and certainty that you know all.
This is supposed to be a place for discussion, not barbs thrown out to see what sticks.
Thanks.
Enough of the Kerry bashing, you get the eyed deer?
Dean could have been taller, but nope.
Ralph, there are many reasons why plans for policy shifts happen when they do. We can't know.
All I ask, and bet there are many others who would wish, that you tone down the hate and certainty that you know all.
This is supposed to be a place for discussion, not barbs thrown out to see what sticks.
Thanks.
Sorry, strange message after I posted-and got duplicated.
Yes .. it does not matter who gets credit .. we need to extricate ourselves from Iraq. It's not just the military - it's the contracts and contractors (aka mercenaries, hired guns, goon squad, whatever)
Very high-ranking military ethicist commits suicide -
Why does a US military ethicist commit suicide in Iraq? "A note found in his trailer seemed to offer clues. Written in what the Army determined was his handwriting, the colonel appeared to be struggling with a final question.
How is honor possible in a war like the one in Iraq?"
"A USIS contractor accompanied Iraqi police trainees during the assault on Fallouja last November and later boasted about the number of insurgents he had killed, the letter says. Private security contractors are not allowed to conduct offensive operations.
In a second incident, the letter says, a USIS employee saw Iraqi police trainees kill two innocent Iraqi civilians, then covered it up. A USIS manager "did not want it reported because he thought it would put his contract at risk.""
In his column in The Guardian on November 22, George Monbiot asks: So the question has now widened: is there any crime the coalition forces have not committed in Iraq?
So it was only natural that Westhusing acted when he learned of possible corruption by U.S. contractors in Iraq. A few weeks before he died, Westhusing received an anonymous complaint that a private security company he oversaw had cheated the U.S. government and committed human rights violations. Westhusing confronted the contractor and reported the concerns to superiors, who launched an investigation.
In e-mails to his family, Westhusing seemed especially upset by one conclusion he had reached: that traditional military values such as duty, honor and country had been replaced by profit motives in Iraq, where the U.S. had come to rely heavily on contractors for jobs once done by the military.
You can read more at the LA Times website or kos.com or uruknet.it.
Enough of the Kerry bashing, you get the eyed deer?
Dean could have been taller, but nope.
Posted by: monkey at November 27, 2005 08:57 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
KERRY IS A DEMI-GOD
FORGET THE PRIMARIES - HE'S DA MAN!!! 2008
BIG JOHN - HE HAS PLANS AND HE IS TALL.....
When did His Highness offer THE PLAN again?? October 21?????
HOLY MOSES!!!! WHAT A GUY.... Kerry can see right into the future
NEW RULE:
Edited - please keep it positive
Yes policies are always shifting - like the shifting sands. There is ambiguity everywhere - even in a Murtha speech. So much grey area in politics these days.... so confusing... did Bush lie about Iraq??? or did he merely exaggerate??? we may never know the answers to these questions...
Ralph, we don't always have to discuss Kerry, but sometimes he's newsworthy. He does good works.
I can't let unfounded pot shots go unanswered, just because you are angry and feel empowered by a keyboard. You stop, I'll stop.
And Marjorie, also please monitor people who insist on repeatedly posting it caps.
Napolean Deanamite
Monkey, you're always deliciously clever, so I don't know if your last comment was critical of me, or not.
Personally, I wasn't thrilled to have Ralph's tirades to my home email, all in caps.
College frat or military? This has now been shown on American tv, apparently - naked soldiers fighting each other while wearing only arm protectors.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1652414,00.html
We need to take to the streets again in US & UK, to protest this war!
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1652414,00.html
I want to know what people think about the practice of "babooning." Click on the link.
Ralpheh
John Kerry told me that he reads this blog and he has a DCP t-shirt which I gave to him, so maybe you'll be hearing from him. I have also seen Howard Dean 5x and shook his hand, seen Dennis Kucinich 2x and shook his hand. I was on the same airplane to London as Dick Gephart and shook his hand, as he came out of the toilet. I met Al Sharpton at the Boston airport. They're all good (sort of), but no demi-gods.
DiAnne
Makes sense that all our commiserating and bonding over the internet, in our cozy home offices, prevents our taking to the streets.
January is the month to take to the streets. See the front page.
There isn't a war I haven't protested.
US may use planes as substitute for troops in Iraq
Jamie Wilson in Washington
Monday November 28, 2005
The Guardian
The Bush administration is considering a plan to put America's awesome airpower at the disposal of Iraqi commanders, as a way of reducing the number of US troops on the ground. The plan is causing consternation among commanders in US air force, who say it could lead to increased civilian casualties and lead to airstrikes being used as means of settling old scores.
According to an article in the New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh, the possibility of using airpower as a substitute for American troops on the ground has caused unease in the military, with air force commanders objecting to the possibility that Iraqis will eventually be responsible for target selection.
"Will the Iraqis call in air strikes in order to snuff rivals, or other warlords, or to snuff members of your own sect and blame it on someone else?" a senior military planner told the magazine. "Will some Iraqis be targeting on behalf of al-Qaida, or the insurgency, or the Iranians?"
With the White House under increasing pressure over its handling of the war in Iraq, senior administration figures are for the first time signalling the possibility of significant troop reductions. In a departure from previous statements the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said last week that the training of Iraqi soldiers had advanced so far that the current number of US troops in the country probably would not be needed much longer.
However, there remains scepticism about the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from the 160,000 US troops in the country. Under the plans reported in the New Yorker, air power will be used to try to fill the gap left by troop reductions. But with the insurgency operating mostly within urban environments, and planes relying on laser-guided bombs directed from the ground to try to avoid collateral damage, there are fears that turning the process over the Iraqis could lead to increased civilian casualties.
"The guy with the laser is the targeteer. Not the pilot ... The people on the ground are calling in targets that the pilots can't verify. And we're going to turn this process over to the Iraqis?" a former high-level intelligence official said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk
Time for a John Kerry post:
Hastert Disputes Comments by Kerry Made During Political Appeal
WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 - Representative J. Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, is taking issue with a political appeal sent out by Senator John Kerry, saying the senator falsely accused him of labeling Representative John P. Murtha a coward.
"Senator Kerry's comments used for campaign fund-raising purposes are simply over the top, extremely inappropriate and factually incorrect," said Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for Mr. Hastert, referring to a Nov. 18 e-mail message sent out to supporters of Mr. Kerry by his political committee.
But an adviser to Mr. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he was comfortable with his characterization of the speaker's reaction to a call by Mr. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The adviser, Jenny Backus, said Republicans were trying to regroup after early criticism of Mr. Murtha, a decorated Marine veteran, backfired.
"There is no question that the Republicans mounted an attack on John Murtha," said Ms. Backus, a consultant who works with Mr. Kerry on his Web site. "They are trying to rewrite history."
The back-and-forth illustrates the continuing political turmoil sparked by Mr. Murtha's proposal and how it has evolved into a proxy for dueling party positions on Iraq. It also shows that Mr. Kerry absorbed some lessons from his 2004 presidential campaign, when he was criticized as not responding quickly enough to attacks on his own service in Vietnam by a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
In the e-mail message to supporters the day after Mr. Murtha's announcement and a subsequent barrage of hostile Republican reaction, Mr. Kerry referred to his own experience. "You and I have to make it absolutely clear that we won't stand for Republican 'Swift Boat' style attacks on Jack Murtha," he said.
"Dennis Hastert - the speaker of the House who never served - accused Jack Murtha of being a coward," Mr. Kerry said as he listed Republican attacks on Mr. Murtha.
Ms. Backus said that comment was based on news reports and the general tone of an initial statement released by the office of Mr. Hastert, Republican of Illinois. It said that America "must not cower" in fighting the war on terror and that Mr. Murtha and other Democrats "want us to wave the white flag of surrender."
But Mr. Bonjean noted that Mr. Hastert did not use the term directly about Mr. Murtha and expressed his strong respect for the Democratic lawmaker while simultaneously differing on Iraq policy. In his blog, Mr. Hastert wrote last week: "I need everyone to understand that I have known Congressman Murtha a long time. He's a good man."
Mr. Bonjean also responded to the assertion by Mr. Kerry and others that Republicans who did not serve in the military have no credibility to take on Mr. Murtha. "One does not have to serve in the military to recognize that the policy of retreat and defeat is the wrong approach," he said.
Ms. Backus disputed the claim that Mr. Kerry was taking advantage of the fight over Iraq policy to raise money for his political operations. She said that the "make a contribution" tag at the end of the e-mail was standard on such messages and that the body of the e-mail message said nothing about seeking donations.
She said she was surprised that Republicans want to keep "reminding people of their attacks on Mr. Murtha. The energy they are spending on this could be much better spent bringing the country together behind a strategy on Iraq," she said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/28/politics/28hastert.html?adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1133150705-Zb+86/dyxy5d6GjVobfB+g&pagewanted=print
Good Morning, Bloggers:
EB GILL has won the Cheney contest, and there's trouble in *official Washington* paradise. Check out the front page for upcoming events we can all be part of.
Hey Guys how ya all going from Down Under, Good I hope. Think this will go anywhere?
November 27, 2005 -- Top US Army officer dealing with ethics issues in Iraq found dead last June in trailer near Baghdad Airport -- a victim of one of the Bush administration's infamous "suicides." According to an article in today's Los Angeles Times, Col. Ted Westhusing, a professor at West Point and himself a West Point graduate, and the Army's top expert on military ethics, was found dead in his trailer near Baghdad Airport last June. At the time of his death, Westhusing was investigating a private military contractor (PMC), US Investigations Services (USIS) of Virginia, for fraud and human rights abuses. USIS is financially linked to The Carlyle Group, the same company that is accused by U.S. Special Forces vets who served in Iraq of shipping deadling binary VX nerve gas to Saddam Hussein in 1988 and 1989.
Westhusing's family and friends are rejecting the Army's determination that Westerlung took his own life. The Army based its decision on a "suicide" note said to be written in Westhusing's handwriting. Westhusing served with Special Forces units in Honduras, South Korea, and Italy.
Col. Ted Westhusing, suddenly commits "suicide" in Iraq while investigating private security contractor linked to The Carlyle Group. The road to the House of Bush is littered with the bodies of "suicide," plane crash, and gunshot victims.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
Ralph, we don't always have to discuss Kerry, but sometimes he's newsworthy. He does good works.
I can't let unfounded pot shots go unanswered, just because you are angry and feel empowered by a keyboard. You stop, I'll stop.
Posted by: Marjorie G at November 27, 2005 09:52 PM
And Marjorie
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
You are quite right. We don't very often talk about John Kerry and his losing 2004 campaign here at DCP. We almost never talk about John Kerry. Certainly I don't talk about JOhn Kerry. And I know that you frequently resist the temptation to talk about John Kerry - as much you would like to talk about John Kerry.
Not talking about John Kerry is a good thing here at DCP.
Time for a John Kerry post:
Hastert Disputes Comments by Kerry Made During Political Appeal
WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 - Representative J. Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, is taking issue with a political appeal sent out by Senator John Kerry, saying the senator falsely accused him of labeling Representative John P. Murtha a coward.
"Senator Kerry's comments used for campaign fund-raising purposes are simply over the top, extremely inappropriate and factually incorrect," said Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for Mr. Hastert, referring to a Nov. 18 e-mail message sent out to supporters of Mr. Kerry by his political committee.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
"not my president" said that Kerry is not a Demi-God. He is wrong. This article proves, definitively, that Kerry Is A Demi-God.
Does anyone have another post about John Kerry?
Perhaps we need a entire blog devoted just to Kerry here DCP.... just a thought - you know, Kerry 24/7
ralpeh,
I think, if you really want to discuss the 2004 election and Sen. Kerry's current proposals so much, you will find a vitriolic, but obsessed stream of discussions at Daily Kos or Demcratic Underground. You can vent your frustrations over there anytime.
Here, we like to discuss actions that need to be taken. We don't give a rat's ass who thought of what first. We just want to be part of the solution.
We also spent a great deal of time post-election going over what we, who saw many things first hand, thought went wrong and what we thought worked well and should be done again. Most of us feel quite finished with those discussions.
Focus on solutions.