« Write To The New York Times Today | Main | What Democrats Should Be Doing, Part One »
Cutting, Running, Lying, Dying, Staying, and Paying
This week we've enjoyed seeing a number of new messages and initiatives on Iraq by Senate Democrats and others answering to indictment-free Karl Rove's remarks last week that an Iraq exit strategy was "cut and run".
Jack Murtha's lively reponse, "Stay and Pay" came Sunday on Meet the Press, where he excoriated Mr. Rove, his cavalier attitude towards our military from his position of priviledge behind a desk in the White House and the main portion of his anatomy that occupies his desk chair.
This week, Senators Feingold, Boxer and Kerry presented a joint resolution calling for phased withdrawal from Iraq. As Sen. Kerry put it, the current Administration's plan is: Lie and die.
Finally, Juan Cole summed up the Administration's strategy as "Stay and Stay. Spend and Spend."
The old traitor Karl Rove, who revealed the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame to the Iranians (and everyone else), castigated the Democrats' proposals as "cut and run." Rove wants us to go on spending $5 billion a month in Iraq, and to go on losing thousands of maimed young people.
Here are some other examples of cutting and running:
The United States withdrew from the Philippines in 1946.
Britain withdrew from India in 1947.
France withdrew from Morocco and Tunisia in 1956.
France withdrew from Algeria in 1962.
Rove only has two choices. He either has to agree that these withdrawals were a good thing, or he has to blame Britain and France for cutting and running. Does this mean he thinks the US should try to re-colonize the Philippines? Does he want France to take back over Algeria? By the way, neither India nor Algeria was stable when the colonial power withdrew.
We don't need to comment on where the cohesion of message is on the part of the opposition in Congress and elsewhere to the Iraq War. Yes, the verbs aren't exactly synched up. The opposition could be accused of not being unified on its plan, but the unification comes in the context and content of the message.
Change direction.
The messages say that if you are going to use the term "cut and run" for trying to find an exit strategy to a senseless, debilitatingly expensive and bloody war, we're going to start beating YOU over the head with your own syntax.
Because holding on to a bad decision based on faulty intelligence, continuing a conflict without an exit strategy, staying the course as a midterm political strategy to cover the working part of, well--what one sits on at one's desk is--bad judgement.
Lie and Die, Stay and Pay, Stay and Stay, Spend and Kill, Bomb and Neglect, is a call to the majority in Congress to stop thinking about re-election, saving face, saving pride, or saving one's job. Its about saving lives.
It's asking us to do the one thing we have not done in the whole dark mess we've gotten into with Iraq, and its a plea for us to return to common decency and common sense. It's called Listen and learn.
repost from end of previous thread and on topic!
I'm so tired of the republicans' politics as usual, and the main stream media's complicit responses.
Here's my email to the Today Show: (I'm so disgusted with this)
I was very disappointed in this morning's story by both Campbell Brown and Tim Russert regarding the Democrats plans to bring an end to the carnage in Iraq. There were two things that I found disturbing about this story. The first was that the exact same story - almost word for word - appeared in the New York Times yesterday. This leads me to believe that your "journalists" aren't doing their own work, but plagiarizing from the Times, which itself did a shoddy journalistic job with the article. The only other thing I can think happened is that Karl Rove sent both you and the Times the text of what you should say, and you went right along with that propaganda. Either option is unethical, unprofessional, and un-American.
The second and even more disturbing thing about the story was that your reporters, (and you, NBC, by allowing it), are politicizing and trivializing the Democrats efforts to stop our troops from dying for Bush's mistakes. The Democrats are offering plans and strategies, which we are certainly not hearing from the Republicans, and all you can talk about is that this person or that person might be running for president, and that the Dems can't agree on a plan. WHO CARES?????
The Dems are doing their work - offering plans to bring an end to this fiasco. I've heard NOTHING from the Republicans on a plan to end this mess. Just more politics as usual. And you and your network are contributing to the problem. I can't imagine the outrage and pain you are putting military families, and indeed soldiers, through by your trivializing of this issue. It is NOT about politics. It is about bringing the troops home at some point in the future.
You need to take your jobs and your repsonsibilities to the people of this country - and to our soldiers in Iraq - a little more seriously. This is not a game. It is not a joke. There is certainly nothing funny about it. Soldiers are dying every day and you are complicit in that when you trivialize the importance of the Democrats efforts to bring them home. Tim Russert and Campbell Brown, and NBC and the Today Show should all be ashamed. You've let your country down.
Wow, excellent letter Carol.
I wish that they would respond or that we could see their response when they read it.
Fe:
Great thread header! Thanks for the Listen and Learn link to HuffPo.
I heard Gary Hart speak at the TBA conference, and he was one of the most impressive people I heard. He is an expert on Homeland Security and Terrorism, and Co-Chairs the Coulncil on Foreign Relations task force on homeland security, which recently released its report "America - Still Unprepared, Still in Danger". He is not afraid to say what he thinks, and he really knows what he's talking about.
And he asked us to demand that Bush be removed from office.
I'm in - how about you?
John Kerry and Russ Feingold will be speaking on the floor about their Iraq amendment sometime after 9:30 this morning.
Votes are expected at approximately 11:00 a.m.
Examples of Art & Politics:
http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal
These are from the Solstice Parade we had here.
I was very proud of all the creative activism &
wanted to document it.
Feingold Calls Iraq War 'Fruitless'
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=439365
This war is what is obscene. Tired of hearing people try to justify atrocities by saying "Marines don't do that."
War is obscene.
Texas Redistricting ruling by Supreme Ct. to be released soon according to AP. With Alito and Roberts now on the Supreme Ct. many of us in Texas are not optimistic that they will do the right thing. If as expected the S.Ct. upholds DeLay's digusting practice I truly hope others here will join me in urging state legislatures in Ca. and New Mexico to follow the Court's guidance and do their own ReDistricting, a practice which to date they have refused to do. Mehlman is already whining and saying of course you can't do that b/c that would violate the same Voting Rights Act that Republicans refused to renew yesterday.
All human beings, when thrust into extreme conditions, are capable of extreme behavior.
If the morons running our country understood this simple fact, they would immediately appreciate why America's policy should always be that we go to war ONLY when we have to, not merely when we want to.
Haven't been able to get to the blog much lately, but was able to check in this morning for a bit.
Glad to see you wise and capable folks still doing what you do best: Dispell the rumors and spin, and get to the bottom of what is going down in the political arena.
Just from the few moments of television news programs I have been able to catch, it is apparent that Rover and gang are in full force to "sell their war" and their party. Someone said Dubya's poll ratings went up a bit.
To try to see some "real news" however has been tough - as there doesn't seem to be much on the major networks news broadcasts.
They are making a "HUGE" deal out of the immigration issue still. Anything to divert attention away from the corruption that is oozing out everywhere.
After all, it is election year.
Pleased to see you are all still consistent with putting it out there.
Fe,
Part of the point of knowing who read that document is to know who had the critical eye to a report with dubious contents. I agree the report was not of a high quality. Yet, in the documentary it was shown that even Bush was skeptical of the information that was presented to him and it was only after Tenet said, "Slam dunk" that he was willing to accept the CIA's report. Similarly Powell had significant reservations about the information presented to him. I wonder if we can find out which Senators read the report, and if they weren't skeptical - why not?
Posted by: oncall at June 21, 2006 08:39 PM
oncall:
I slept on your post last night, as well as my earlier response. Going over in my head what was said in "The Dark Side" and trying to reconstruct what happened in the period before and after the 16-word SOTU speech, what I want to add is that I think the factors weighing in on giving cred to the Iraq NIE and the vote to support the IWR were:
1) 9-11-influenced suspended disbelief on the evidence presented;
2) Powell's credibility from the first Iraq War;
Not that this excuses anyone who voted for it, given the faulty information. But I wonder if there are those among the anti-war left who are willing to go the next step and say: What's your personal post-Iraq recovery plan?
I would think that would first mean:
1) admit you made a mistake voting for it the first time;
then:
2) support a withdrawal (phased or otherwise, in a manner that proves you're not doing it just to save your political hide)
then:
3) work with other Dems and across the aisle amongst those NOT in lock-step with their party to find a solution to end US involvement.
Do we need to find those Dems who read and supported and smoke them out? I don't know.
My gut says perhaps the next step may need to come from the anti-war left to accept what happened in 02 with members of the party, but now pound on them to get it right THIS time and do the right thing.
It may be a symbolic gesture, but the vote today to support Kerry/Feingold/Boxer or Reed's amendment is going to be the litmus come re-election in 06 or 08.
It's going to take conscience. Not convenience. Will the Democrats stand up or get cowed by the Administration again?
But I wonder if there are those among the anti-war left who are willing to go the next step and say: What's your personal post-Iraq recovery plan?
Clarify:
I meant to say "Those amongst the anti-war left to ask Dem members of Congress who voted for the war about how they plan to get us out of it now?"
Very good thread header, Fe.
I am so thankful for Murtha. He's on top of his game.
Also very proud of Senator Kerry. So they accuse him of "campaigning". I told him right after '04 that I would support him and vote for him again if he stood up and fought from then until '08. He is showing he is consistent, and has "gonads". Very proud of him. Thank you, Senator Kerry!
*************************************************
DiAnne,
I am unable to send you an email from the computer I am on (my sis's in Reno), but can open webmail if you send me something at my reg email addy.
Can you drop me a line and tell me what the amendment Kerry and Feingold are presenting in the Senate proposes? I can pick up my webmail from this computer, but can't send new emails out (sis doesn't use Outlook Express).
Time extremely limited to browse and research right now, but am very curious.
Thank you.
"Withdrawal is not an option...," declared Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee."
Are they sure they really want to be telling voters that in November? This absolute statement conveys that American troops will be stationed in Iraq indefinitely. Not even an option? They have made their bed..now we must tell voters that withdrawl is no longer even an option as long as Republicans are in control of Congress. Not even an option, has an intersting ring to it, especially when they retort cut and run.
Dropping in from NYC (One more day to go!)
Statement by John Kerry on the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer-Leahy Amendment
Below is a statement from John Kerry on his amendment to redeploy U.S. combat forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, with a rapid reaction force staged elsewhere in the Middle East. Troops to conduct targeted counter-terrorism operations, those essential to finish training Iraqi security forces, and those needed to protect U.S. personnel and facilities would remain in Iraq.
13 Senators voted for the amendment today.
“This vote today was a dramatic step forward in forcing a Congress that shares responsibility for getting us into Iraq to take responsibility for finally getting the policy right in Iraq.
“It was a vote to do what’s right for our troops, our country, and Iraq. Our numbers are growing and our ability to apply constant pressure to change course is stronger than it was just a week ago.
“Setting a deadline to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq is necessary for success in Iraq and victory in the war on terror. Iraqi politicians have proven they only respond to deadlines - a deadline to transfer authority, deadlines to hold two elections and a referendum, and a deadline to form a government. Now we need another deadline to get Iraq up on its own two feet. Our troops have done their part, it’s time for the politicians in Iraq and the United States to do their job.
“Half the names on the Vietnam Wall are there because old men in Washington were too proud to admit a mistake, so they kept sending young men to stay a course they knew was not working. ‘Stay the course’ is not a strategy for victory in Iraq and the War on Terror. This administration is wrong. It is time to get Iraq right.”
# # #
DiAnne,
Nevermind. (duh)
Just saw above that I can go in and read the proposal from the thread header, which I will now do.
"Withdrawal is not an option..," declared Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.
Are Republicans ready to make that commitment, are they sure they want to be telling voters its not even an option?
Not even an Option has a pretty good ring to it when they retort cut and run. OK then its baked now, as long as Republicans are in control, Withdrawl is not even an Opton. To me that says they will never ever consider it, sort of like Bush's dad saying no new taxes, ever, and we see where that strategy got them in '92.
They have made their bed.. now lets remind voters that withdrawing troops is indefinitely not an option and that as long as they are in control of Congress they will remain permanently in Iraq, forever. There is officially absolutely no flexibility in that position, forceful but dumb.
sorry it didn't post at first so I reiterated my post.
Breaking News Alerts -
Senate defeats Iraq withdrawal plans
By Vicki Allen | June 22, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic plans to start the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq as senators cast votes expected to resonate in November elections to determine control of Congress.
Republicans, embracing President George W. Bush's policies in the war that has caused his approval ratings to plummet, defeated two Democratic amendments to start the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
A nonbinding resolution broadly backed by Democrats that urged Bush to start withdrawing troops this year but without setting a deadline for completion failed 60-39. Six Democrats and one Republican crossed party lines on the vote.
Another amendment to put into law a plan to start withdrawing combat forces immediately and complete the process by next July failed 86-13.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/22/senate_defeats_democrats_iraq_withdrawal_plans/
DCP folks and lurkers,
St. Paul is calling your name...July 21st! Do you hear it calling?
It's saying, come talk about taking back our country in between a little this and that...
"Withdrawal is not an option..," declared Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.
Bill, so when are you enlisting?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13477664/
There's a vote there too.
The Senate needs to hear from us, folks. LOUDLY.
Posted by: karen at June 22, 2006 12:53 PM
212-224-3121
Please post around the web. Let them hear our outrage! Include the Republicans.
HOW THE MSNBC POLL STANDS NOW:
Live Vote
How would you vote on today's two Democratic proposals to withdraw American troops from Iraq? * 2323 responses
I'm with Sens. Kerry and Feingold -- set July 1, 2007 to bring the troops home.
35%
Sens. Levin's and Reed's approach of urging the president to redeploy by Dec. 31, but not setting a hard date is a better idea.
18%
The United States is committed to bringing democracy to Iraq and we have to see the mission through.
39%
None of these approaches satisfied me.
8.3%
Not a scientific survey. Click to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding.
Arrghhh.
So that means all the propaganda in the media last week about them killing number one Al Qaeda
operative in Iraq (for the six hundredth time) worked? And don't forget, they announced they have a NEW NBR ONE Al QAEDA OPERATIVE in Iraq now.
It smells.
Truth:
That's an early on poll. Go over there and refresh to see if its changed.
Dear Karen,
Just hours ago, the Senate voted on the Kerry-Feingold proposal to redeploy American combat troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007. Thirteen Senators voted for it.
It was an important step towards ending the administration's aimless, open-ended course in Iraq and having Iraqis stand up for Iraq.
When Jack Murtha stepped up to the challenge of leadership in the House on Iraq, he was alone. Last week, 140 House members voted to support his leadership.
When we in the Senate began the fight to change course in Iraq, we too were almost alone. Today our numbers grew -- and that is progress you made happen.
First and foremost, Russ and I thank you for your support. Over the last few weeks, hundreds of thousands of you have joined our effort to bring our combat troops home. Once again, the johnkerry.com community has shown its deep commitment to fighting for a better course for America.
We ask you to join us now in honoring the strength and leadership of the Senators who stood with you:
Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), co-sponsor
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), co-sponsor
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Please call, write, or email these Senators and acknowledge their leadership on Iraq.
Let me be absolutely clear. Russ Feingold and I would have forced this vote even if the outcome were going to be 98 to 2. Ending the Bush administration's disastrous approach to this war isn't about counting votes. It isn't about legislative strategy or electoral calculation. It's about applying constant pressure to change a broken course.
It's about utterly rejecting the desperate tactics of cowardly political operatives like Karl Rove who, as John Murtha pointed out, have no qualms about telling our soldiers to "stay the course" from the comfort of their air-conditioned offices at the White House.
It's about doing what's right.
Karl Rove may worry about losing votes. It's our job to worry about young Americans losing their lives. It's our job to provide a new vision that offers real security for America while giving the Iraqis their best chance for a stable Iraq.
I will keep doing what's right on Iraq, and I won't stop until our troops are home and the future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people.
I know you'll keep working right alongside me.
Sincerely,
John Kerry
How my senator voted:
http://conrad.senate.gov/~conrad/releases/06/06/2006622703.html
And here's what's really frustrating...
Al Qaeda was not active in Iraq until after the US invaded and settled down to its incompetently-run occupation.
Now it's the best recruiting tool and training ground they've ever had, all courtesy of the Bush administration and the Republican-run Congress.
---
Just a little aside, I know that I read a lengthy, somewhat scholarly article prior to the invasion that made this point as one of several points against invading Iraq. I don't know who wrote it or where it was published but I would dearly love to find it again. If you know of something that might fit this bill or you run across something, please pm me in the forum with the url.
Seems to me that the writer had some sort of association with either the intelligence or diplomatic communities.
Many thanks,
dw
UPDATE
How would you vote on today's two Democratic proposals to withdraw American troops from Iraq? * 3965 responses
I'm with Sens. Kerry and Feingold -- set July 1, 2007 to bring the troops home.
33%
Sens. Levin's and Reed's approach of urging the president to redeploy by Dec. 31, but not setting a hard date is a better idea.
18%
The United States is committed to bringing democracy to Iraq and we have to see the mission through.
40%
None of these approaches satisfied me.
8.6%
Not a scientific survey. Click to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13466498/
Not only was Al Qaeda not active in Iraq, but sectarian violence was not a feature of Iraqi society before Bush's invasion. Yes, the Sunnis enjoyed a privileged status in Iraq - but as I understand it, Sunni-Shiite relations on the local level were quite cordial. Sunnis' routinely married into Shiite families, and Iraq nationalism was strong.
This invasion brought sectarian violence to Iraq, and now that this violence has arrived, and so many innocent Iraqis killed, we cannot realistically expect its departure until the point where one side is utterly triumphant, or both sides have lost so many that the desire for revenge has been drowned by the blood of the innocent.
Madness, utter madness.
oh, please, please, stop me from spending on wasteful policies like the Medicare prescription Drug Bill that I insisted on, I just can't control myself unless you give curious george more power, whine the Republican House today.
Here's a very thoughtful essay on the demise of conservatism. The author makes some interesting points.
George Bush and the Setting Sun of Modern Conservatism
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/22/91340/7798
From Dan Froomkin today at WaPo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
"A senior adviser to Mr. Bush said the White
House had concluded that it was better to plunge aggressively into the debate on Iraq than to let Democrats play upon clear, public misgivings about the war. 'This is going to be a big issue in this election,' said the adviser, who was granted anonymity in exchange for agreeing to describe strategic considerations about the war. 'Better to shape and fight it -- as good and strongly as you can -- than to try to run away from it.' "
Per latest poll, Cantwell is losing any lead over McGavick in Washington state. Tragic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-slater/why-do-democrats-let-bush_b_23490.html
Why do Democrats let Bush Define the Terror Issue?
~~~~~
Excellent reading! I've said the same: terrorists are not an organized army representing another country; they are criminals!!! There is no "war on terror" - there's only the paranoid phrase used by Turd Blossom, The Cretin, Dead-Eye Dick, Rummy, Condisleazy, and others in the administration to keep a chicken$h!t population controlled (like they're really paying attention to politics when more people vote in American Idol contests than vote in elections). There may be a war on international crime and international criminals whose acts can leave people feeling afraid if what the criminals do happens too close to them, but feeling 'terrorized' is only the 'collateral damage' to the criminal act committed by individual criminals (who really are few in number, compared to the number of people in the world). The repeated brainwashing mantra of 'terror, war on terror, terrorists' only serves to make otherwise paranoid people - and the media! - scared of their own shadows for no good reason, other than uneducated frightened masses are easier to control: do this or the terrorists will get you (vote for me or the terrorists will get you). It's a bogeyman scare tactic!!! The 'war on terror' is bogus. After watching that Frontline piece on Dead-Eye Dick, I realize this administration has politicized the CIA and the FBI, so I'm not sure how effective those law enforcement agencies are nowadays; no one in the administration is letting them do their jobs, and no one in the administration is listening to them when they do find correct information anyway.
OT, but letting you DCPers who also go to Firedoglake that Jane Hamsher's mom passed away today.
Christy Hardin Smith has a thread up for those who want to send a message of condolence to Jane at:
www.firedoglake.com
DICK CHENEY'S LAST THROES
Stephen Elliott, AlterNet
What, exactly, do Republicans mean by 'victory' in Iraq, and how will we know when we have won?
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/37874/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The initial invasion and the current OCCUPATION of Iraq were actions that are WAR CRIMES by Nuremberg and Geneva Convention rules (among other conventions and treaties broken by the Chickenhawk-in-Chief), and the attack he ordered was illegal under the US Constitution anyway (only Congress can declare war, even if they gave up their power to DumDum in 2001 and let him bully them into supporting his stupid war based on LIES).
As I see it, there isn't any way to "win" a war that was based on LIES, and is a WAR CRIME to begin with....! (And did I mention that having the concentration camp at Gitmo on a US military base is also a WAR CRIME, just as illegally sanctioning torture anywhere by a "leader" of this nation is a WAR CRIME?!?)
Solution: (1) Put the guard and reserve troops on the next military transport planes out of Iraq and Afghanistan (they don't want us there, and their low-tech guerilla warfare is working better than any high-tech military weapons anyway); it took mere hours to fly our guard and reserve troops over there, it would take mere hours to fly them home. (2) Redeploy the regular troops elsewhere to other US military bases. That shouldn't take more than a couple of months to accomplish, tops. (3) IMPEACH the bam dastards in *our* White House!!! (4) Send the whole Bu$h administration to The Hague to be tried for WAR CRIMES, starting with Bu$h, Cheney, Rummy, and Condisleazy. (I, for one, am sick and tired of their threats to every other country in the world - their threatening and bullying words are going to start another war, and because of them, other nations might decide to pre-emptively attack the US, imitating Bu$hCo's illegal WAR CRIME; they need to shut the hell up for a change and stop telling other people 'do as I say, not as I do.' They may endorse PNAC principles to rule the world, but the rest of the world will stop them if we can't keep our own in line and acting legally, morally, and responsibly.)
Our members of Congress (both Dems and Repubs) should be ashamed of themselves for financing DumDum's wars on "emergency spending legislation" and for enacting legislation that takes away our rights and privileges as citizens, not to mention fleecing our money via corporate-written laws regarding prescription meds and Medicare (among other unwise legislation). Seriously, all Congress would need to do is refuse to fund DumDum's wars, refuse to pass "emergency spending legislation." Congressional members have been cowed by empty rhetoric that calls those who want to end DumDum's war unpatriotic. They need to throw the adminsitration's WAR CRIMES in their faces and stop being cowed by the schoolyard bullies. We remember 9/11; we're over the grief and the criminals died with the victims so there's no one to prosecute; time to move on and stop talking about it like we're in a state of morbid grief. If Congressional members are taking PAC bribes to enact such idiotic legislation, they need to stop (we can make sure they are not elected this fall and in '08, too, if they don't apologize for their participation in Bu$hCo WAR CRIMES by financing his stupid war and getting so many people killed - our own as well as the people in nations invaded and now OCCUPIED).
There is no way to "win" anything when WAR CRIMES have been committed. Now, can we talk about IMPEACHMENT?!?
Posted by: Fe at June 22, 2006 12:18 PM
Fe,
Who can disagree with such well thought out logic? I agree with you that there had to be some suspensions of disbelief at that time. However, there were some Senators who voted no to give the President the authority to use military force.
Yet, you are right. Many Senators have publically stated their regret for supporting the motion. I wonder how many Dems today voted not to support one of the proposals? It is those Senators who should be shamed into defending their decision not to support a change in policy.
Do we need to smoke out the Dems who read the report and voted to support the President in '02? Not now, but when they decide to run for office (whichever one they choose), I think they should be made to defend their decision - if they did indeed read the report. If they can't honestly and effectively defend their decision, one has to seriously reconsider their support for that candidate.
Does anybody have a list of which Senators voted w/ Levin? I saw the list Karen posted.
Watada refuses to deploy with other soldiers in unit
No charges filed yet
Army 1st Lt. Ehren K. Watada of Fort Lewis refused today to deploy to Iraq with his fellow soldiers of the Stryker brigade.
Fort Lewis officials said Watada was not present for his unit's "manifest call" to depart for Iraq at 5:13 a.m. today and remained at his battalion's headquarters.
No charges have been filed and none will be until the commanding officer has a chance to review the facts of Watada's case and consult with the post's staff judge advocate.
Watada, meanwhile, has been ordered to remain on duty at his unit's area and not to leave Fort Lewis.
Watada is the first U.S. military officer to publicly announce his intentions not to serve in Iraq. Watada has said that he does not conscientiously object to war but considers Iraq an illegal war. He says it is his duty to decline to serve and that he wants to resign from the Army. The Army has turned down his requests to resign.
Meanwhile, soldiers from Watada's unit were bused from Fort Lewis to adjacent McChord Air Force base at 6:45 a.m. to depart on schedule for Iraq. In a prepared statement concerning Watada's failure to report for deployment, Fort Lewis officials said those going were "honoring their obligation to the nation as thousands of soldiers have done before."
The Stryker brigade consists of nearly 4,000 troops.
http://www.seattlepi.com (mainpage)
oncall:
Reading through the blogs today on the vote it just struck me that the Democrats ARE SO CLOSE to breaking through the Rove-controlled narrative of "cut and run".
This near breakthrough has the personal added effect of thrilling me to no end and frustrating me to pieces. The Dems need to close the gap on what they say and what the press says of THEM. Today looks alot better than other days in the past.
As for your question on which Senators voted with Levin, I will endeavor to retrieve in a subsequent post.
In terms of accountability for their actions, you're right. Its time to give these Senators a shakedown in 06 and 08 when the time comes. Let them all draw a lesson from Lieberman, who by the way got an endorsement from Coulter today.
"Frontline" documentary makes case that Cheney used 9/11 to go to war
Last week's grim milestone of 2,500 American military deaths in Iraq will look even grimmer after tonight's "Frontline" documentary, "The Dark Side."
The damning 90-minute exposé (10 p.m. PBS) stops short of laying those bodies at Vice President Dick Cheney's feet. But it does finger Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — through more than 40 interviews with CIA veterans, journalists, politicians and others — as the ones who ignored, suppressed and manipulated intelligence after the 9/11 attacks to lead us into war with a country that had nothing to do with our attackers.
And you wonder why the GOP hasn't exactly been a sugar daddy for public television.
Comedians have made countless Darth Vader jokes about Cheney, but the film's title is no joke about The Force. It's from Cheney's own words about America's response to terrorists: "We have to work the dark side, if you will. We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies."
But apparently he didn't use the actual intelligence from the agencies.
The CIA and its then-director, George Tenet, knew immediately that al-Qaida in Afghanistan was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and said so. But author James Bamford says that while the Pentagon was still smoking, Rumsfeld said, "We've got to see, somehow, how we can bring Saddam Hussein into this."
"The Dark Side" claims that 9/11 provided Cheney and Rumsfeld with a pretext for achieving their longstanding ambition to go after the Iraqi dictator and to boost executive power that they'd seen diminish ever since their days as allies in Nixon's administration. As consummate political infighters, they resented and continually undermined Tenet — a sports-loving man's man who had become pally with George W. Bush.
The CIA repeatedly insisted that there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaida, and Tenet explicitly warned that invading Iraq would "break the back" of our counterterrorism effort. Tenet even ordered the agency's records scoured 10 years back for links. CIA vet Michael Scheuer, who led that effort, says, "There was no connection between al-Qaida and Saddam."
But Cheney, the chief architect of the war on terror and the most powerful vice president in U.S. history, had made up his mind, according to "The Dark Side." CIA vets say Cheney and his now-indicted chief of staff, Scooter Libby, made unprecedented trips to CIA headquarters to pressure and "harangue" analysts who were compiling the National Intelligence Estimate. Analyst Paul Pillar, one of its primary authors, says he regrets his role in the hastily prepared, fatally flawed document, which was "clearly requested and published for policy-advocacy purposes ... to strengthen the case for going to war with the American public."
The apparent circularity of the pro-war machinations is especially disturbing. Then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller would get off-the-record info from the White House about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, print the claims in Sunday's paper, and then Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and others would cite the articles as evidence on the Sunday talk shows to justify the invasion.
While Tenet and Secretary of State Colin Powell had strong reservations about Iraq, sources quoted in "The Dark Side" say the two eventually caved in. Tenet, says former weapons inspector David Kay, "traded integrity for access" to power, while Powell was ultimately a team player.
"The Dark Side" is especially timely in light of those who persisted in equating the Iraq war with the fight against terrorism in the debate leading to last Friday's pro-war House resolution.
(snip)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003072094&zsection_id=2002113064&slug=cheney20&date=20060620
Posted by: oncall at June 22, 2006 06:18 PM
Ed Schultz was "courting" North Dakota's Senator who voted NO for the IWR and was the last one to speak before the war. BUT now HE says, "We have to stay there without a deadline..." He voted no on Kerry's bill and I believe he voted yes on Reid's bill. (Conrad? Is that ND's name?)
I can't even explain how t'd off I am at Ed Schultz today.
Poll: Santorum Approval Rating Declines
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062206E.shtml
Senator Rick Santorum's approval rating has skidded to a four-year low, the latest sign of distress for the outspoken conservative and ally of President Bush, according to a poll released Wednesday.
Offshore Drilling Bill Advances in House
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062206F.shtml
Legislation that would end a quarter-century ban on drilling in most of the Outer Continental Shelf advanced in the House on Wednesday. The measure would allow oil and gas development in restricted offshore waters unless a state prohibited it.
AT&T Revises Privacy Policy, Says Owns Customer Data
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062206L.shtml
AT&T said on Wednesday it was revising its privacy policy, explaining to customers that it owns their phone records and can hand them over to law enforcers if necessary.
GOP Lawmakers' Profits Are Scrutinized
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062206P.shtml
House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Reps. Ken Calvert and Gary Miller say that they were securing funds their home districts wanted badly, and that in no way did the earmarks have any impact on the land values of their investments. But for watchdog groups, the cases have opened a fresh avenue for investigation and a new wrinkle in the ongoing controversy over earmarks - home-district projects funded through narrowly written legislative language.
Ray McGovern | Next Victim: Iran or North Korea?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062206R.shtml
"The question today is whether that war-decision-then-intelligence sequence remains in effect as President Bush's advisers weigh whom to attack next," writes Ray McGovern, former analyst for the CIA.
Le Monde | Demanding Allies
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062206H.shtml
Le Monde argues that the US and Europe are firmly united in their determination to eradicate "warrior jihadism," but divided by tactics, specifically US abandonment of international law and the laws of war, and its decision to invade Iraq. Europeans must be "demanding allies," it contends.
{{{I have a problem with this section of the first sentence by the author of the Le Monde article: "a real declaration of war by al-Qaeda on the United States" --- al-Qaeda is NOT a nation, so it technically has no power to declare war on the US. It is an organization of criminals.... Otherwise I agree with quite a bit of what the author has to say.}}}
Perhaps it wasn't the most original gift for a Texan who owns a ranch, but the boots Hungary's prime minister gave Bush aren't average cowboy fare.
They are handmade replicas of the type worn by the country's hussars _ the fabled light cavalry that made Hungary a feared battlefield adversary for centuries until the advent of heavy artillery.
(Associated Press)
Huffington Post blogger blocked
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1803833,00.html
Wild story!
new law will give Bush more power to change laws passed by Congress - almost like one in 1998 that was declared unconstitutional
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5905515,00.html
Hail to the Thief
Fox News Debunks Santorum's WMD Claims:
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060622_fox_news_santorum_wmd/
with video
Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at June 22, 2006 12:08 PM
Amen to that. That's the crux to me.
Chuck in Houston
Posted by: Ira at June 22, 2006 12:26 PM
Ira, I like where I think you are going with that -- if withdrawal is not an option, then we better dadgum well figure out who got us into such a mess and why and run them off and try a different approach. How can it not be an option after three years?
Chuck in Houston
Hey Truth:
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at June 22, 2006 01:05 PM
The King is dead, Long Live the King!
Chuck in Houston
Fe:
That bit in your post, which I read to be a Juan Cole citation, and which addresses the issue of all these "cut-and-runs" that turned out OK (India, Phillipines, etc.), seems to me to be a very important point.
And let's take another one -- Vietnam. We "cut-and-ran" from Vietnam after having killed some 50-thousand of ours and, I don't know, close to a million of theirs, and destabilized the region for a decade afterwards (Pol Pot), and, at the end of the day, it was our enemy (Vietnam) that took out Pol Pot and today Vietnam is NOT in any respect a country where we are worried about "failed state" type terrorist havens. As usual, you are really on to something and thank you for a very good post.
Oh, and lets not forget, when the Brits cut and ran from these shores back in 1783 (I think it was), well, in retrospect, that was the smartest thing they ever did for their OWN national interest.
Chuck in Houston
In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.
[Chorus:]
We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.
We looked down the river and we see'd the British come.
And there must have been a hundred of'em beatin' on the drum.
They stepped so high and they made the bugles ring.
We stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing.
[Chorus]
Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets 'til we looked 'em in the eye
We held our fire 'til we see'd their faces well.
Then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave 'em ... well
[Chorus]
Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.**
We fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down.
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round.
We filled his head with cannon balls, and powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind.
[Chorus]
Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.**
Artist/Band: Classic Country
Lyrics for Song: Battle of New Orleans - Johnny Horton
Lyrics for Album: Classic Country: 1950-1964
Chuck in Houston
Chuck how about comparing Withdrawl is not an Option to the Absolutely No New Tax Pledge. My logic chuck is that that frame would tie Republicans in absolute Knots of Inflexibility and unreasonableness. While a slim majority support a timeable to withdraw, I doubt that there are many Republicans who would like to hear Frist's position that Withdrawl Is Not Even an Option. By his logic the only option is to stay in Iraq forever, do they think any American wants that, without even considering what the Arba world would think of the US having a permanent base in Baghdad. You could then conclude from that pledge that Frist believes that our soldiers will be permanently stationed in Iraq. No New Taxes got George H. Bush in deep doo doo. Why can't we turn that pledge that Withdrawl is not even an Option into that same type of unreasonableness. If its not an Option chuck then that means it can't even be considered, or am I missing his point? I say its a major blunder on his part that if spun correctly will put the RNC in an untenable election year position, i.e Republicans don't ever want to resolve Iraq, under any scenario.
Ira:
Exactamente. If withdrawal is not an option then somebody (and I know who) seriously screwed up and we need to re-examine some basic assumptions as a nation. We missed that reality-check in 2004 and we dare not miss in in 2006 and 2008.
Chuck in Houston
Also, Ira:
And that "somebody" is our CINC and all his facilitators and hangers-on and enablers and otherwise fellow-travellers.
Chuck in Houston
Accountability. Personal responsibility. GOP: Get your arms around those concepts!
Anyway, Ira, keep on keeping after them. I'm in this fight too. I hope to kick-in in a couple of months. I just hope there is a place on that wheel for a neophyte like me to lend a shoulder.
Chuck in Houston
chuck as of this evening I am officially booked 6 weeks in Cleveland where I hope to work with some fellow bloggers to take DeWine and Blackwell down. We definitely need to get together before I leave if you have any Ohio thoughts. Good to see you and family settled in. You have great valuable technical skills that any campaign would be lucky to have. For one I will be nagging th hell out of fellow bloggers to help with GOTV in Ohio using free cell phone minutes, maybe you can help with that endeavor. Those activites should probably be done away from the dcp site, maybe we can brainstorm the best way to accomplish.
Ira,
Count me in for those calls from my free cell phone minutes. I think you have my e-mail address. If not let me know.
Ira:
Roger that. I'm closing on a house tomorrow and in general all is in flux but we have lots of time till November! I personally think that October will be the key month, as folks are kind of burned-out.
Chuck in Houston
CHUCK!!
Great to see you back and bueno suerte on the house.
ChucK:
FYI, I am studying for my course in construction law. Taking class all day Saturday for the next five weeks. Its good to know chapter and verse for the job.
Wow. I am so happy to see the activism here!
There is a lot we can do, together.
Thank you all.
Molly Ivins | Bush's Hawaiian Education
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0622-24.htm
Common Cause: New Report Shows 17 States at High Risk for Election Results Compromised Due to Electronic Voting Machine Problems
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0622-02.htm
How a Coalition of Bloggers is Turning the Democratic Donkey
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0622-02.htm
World Scientists Unite to Attack Creationism
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0622-03.htm
fe good luck on your exam. Here in Texas Bob Perry of the famous Swiftboat financiers has so crafted our state construction laws that builders are essentially judging and arbitrating their own workmanship and stacking the arbitration panels. We essentially have no construction law protections left, only builder protections. We also have one sided buyer pays builder's atty fees provisions if my clients dare challenge shoddy workmanship.Hope where you are there is at least a modicum of consumer rights left. I am sure that Bush would love to take Texas construction and consumer laws national.
Ira:
I'm enjoying this law class immensely.
CA Business and Professions Code, Civil Code and Public Contracting Code is consumer-protection driven.
We've learned from collapsed roofs, fire sprinklers that were pasted onto ceilings, and expensive new boilers in schools that don't work during the rainy wet weather months--that bad construction kills. Particularly in a state where the seasons are not winter, spring, summer, fall, but rain, earthquake, drought, and fire.
Hate to make a generalization--is it only Texas that seems to pride itself on unconscionable law? Why bother to have a law to begin with? What are the lobbies that are driving this anti-consumer legislation through the Assembly and Governor's Office? Are these all Perry's buddies?
Good to know you're an owner/buyer counsel. It will be good to parlay construction law related questions between blogs. ;-)