Impeachment and the Overton Window

Recommended at Daily Kos

Disclaimer: Some of my comments yesterday were obviously misconstrued by a few fellow kossacks. I tried to explain in a few comments but don’t know if it clarified things more than it muddied them. So now, in an effort that will no doubt muddy the waters even further, I will try to explain the big picture as to where I am coming from here.

Before going any further, I urge you to read this most excellent diary by thereisnospoon from last May. To me, this is probably the most important diary I have read here in terms of how to frame and move discussions forward. Or, if you want the more abridged version, you can get a definition here.

What I want to do here, is to point out that while this has been used to enormous success by those on the right, we should get ourselves more and more acquainted with it as we push policy and play our respective roles in steering the country in a more progressive direction. And we have our own case study right here, right now, as it relates to impeachment.

To understand my comments from yesterday regarding the “impeach now or else you do-nothing Democrats” comments made by a few, I will say two possibly contradictory things right up front: (1) I personally don’t agree with this line of thinking, and (2) I think it is both necessary and important that this line of thinking is out there (although I would prefer it without the “or else” part).

The Overton Window, in its’ briefest terms, makes the unthinkable thinkable or unpalatable more palatable. Per the wiki link above:

It describes a window of majority acceptable ideas in public discourse, from a spectrum of all possible options on an issue. It provides a plan of action to make the options one would prefer acceptable to the public by priming them not with the leaders of the political movement, but with media spokespeople.

The steps an idea takes to full legitimacy are roughly as follows:

- Unthinkable

- Radical

- Acceptable

- Sensible

- Popular

- Policy

It's a means of visualizing where to go, and how to assess progress.

As spoon mentions in his diary:

Systematically, piece by piece, the GOP takes what had been considered impossibly radical positions and makes them worthy of consideration just by talking about them--and then makes what had been considered outside possibilities truly possible.

---snip---

But the important thing to remember is that the Republicans are carrying out this same exercise with every public policy debate today--from invading Iran to making birth control illegal to eliminating Social Security. The once unthinkable becomes possible--and they don't care if they take some heat for it initially.

We need to recognize this – BOTH SIDES of this. The one side that, while something (i.e., impeachment) may initially be unthinkable or radical, if it isn’t talked about, then it will NEVER progress towards acceptable, let alone sensible or popular. Hell, without our pushing, we would never get to the point where Congress thinks it is acceptable to investigate. But we are there now with investigations. And while pushing for impeachment – and getting it to the point where it is not taboo for the public to hear it, think it, say it – is a HUGE step.

The key is to do it in a manner that continues to move the debate and process – not in a destructive manner (i.e., “impeach now” vs. “if you don’t recant your words that impeachment is off the table, we might as well abandon the Democratic party”).

We have seen the right do this with Social Security – look at how “personal accounts” or “privatization” made its way into public discourse. We saw them do it with the entire run up to the invasion of Iraq – the focus from bin Laden and Afghanistan turned to Saddam slowly, then once Saddam and Iraq became part of the discussion, the window shifted and gave the opportunity to shift it even more away from bin Laden and Afghanistan.

And we are seeing it right this very moment with respect to Iran and the escalation in Iraq. This diary by vernonlee from Friday gives a great example of the shifting rhetoric on Iran and Syria has entered the equation – at a time when the Iraq Study Group, as well as nearly 80% of the population polled feels that we should be negotiating with Iran and Syria.

We have to start using the Overton Window here on our side. Not just at Daily Kos, but in our daily discussions. But first, we need to keep our eyes open as to when it is being used by those on the right and not only point it out loudly and forcefully but counter it.

As for impeachment, or anything else that we want to push – we must realize that many many ideas and ideals start out as unthinkable or radical. I’ll copy a partial text of an email that I sent to spoon yesterday which will show you how it has worked so far on the impeachment side:

One year ago, nobody thought that anything would be investigated or that Bush would overstep. But we talked about it, and started to spread the word (and others caught on - many independently, but a good amount not independently of our efforts). And the public then became very interested in some levels of investigation. Of course, there were things that went on since then that changed the public's view, but it could easily have gone the other way.

Impeachment? One year ago you would have been laughed out of the room. Or even more recently than that.

Six months ago, noone really even thought too much about it. At least not seriously at all. Even the polls were qualified and iffy. And we were debating this quite loudly and angrily (still are....)

But now it is out there. People are talking about it with some level of interest, where it wasn't even in the vocabulary not too long ago.

So, where am I going with this? I think that there is a need to talk about impeachment. I think that it needs to get out in the public discourse. But I don’t think that it is at the “sensible” level yet. Maybe it is at the “acceptable” level already. The key is to move it along all of these levels until it becomes “policy”. To rush through it will defeat its purpose and will doom it to failure. That is true whether we are talking about impeachment, withdrawal from Iraq or anything else for that matter.

It is a process. Sometimes much longer than we would like it to be. But this process works. It has worked wonders for the republicans and neocons who have turned some completely unacceptable things into either “popular” or “policy”. And it will also work for us.

We just have to recognize it and use it right.

The central front in the...well, maybe not.

Front paged at Booman Tribune and ePluribus Media

While nearly everyone (rightfully so) is discussing the baffling decision to send more troops down the Iraq sinkhole, there has been some little noticed but still very important events going on around the world which are at the same time alarming and confirming of the canard which is the “Iraq is the central front in the war on terror™” and the “we are making the world safer” memes.

But nearly everywhere you look – and everyone that is willing to speak (including Negroponte) there is a bleak picture of the fruits of the neocons’ world domination folly. Of course, there is the news today of the attack on the US embassy in Greece, which thankfully caused no casualties. But, of course, since that was against American interests, it gets all of the press, while countless examples of rampant terrorism worldwide gets little notice.

That being said, it certainly does little to diminish the worldwide view that the US has become the biggest threat to world peace, or that Bush is the most dangerous man in the world – helping to put a bull’s eye on our backs, as well as on the backs of our “interests” and allies around the world.

In addition to the bombings in London and Madrid, there have been a great many alarming developments as a result of this needless false bravado and chest thumping done over the past few years. From Afghanistan to Pakistan to Europe to Australia to the Philippines to Somalia to the rest of the Middle East – there are increased attacks, larger numbers of deaths, more sophisticated attacks, and regrouping of terrorist groups.

And yet, none of these countries are named Iraq, which, as we all know, is the central front in the war on terror. And even Bush, in his infinite, er, “wisdom”, had this genius remark a few short months ago:

I know some in America don't believe Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, and that's fine, they can have that opinion. But Osama bin Laden knows it's the central front in the war on terror.

Funny, because if that is the case, then why do we see news like this:

Mr Negroponte told a Senate committee that al-Qaeda was still the militant organisation that "poses the greatest threat to US interests".

"They are cultivating stronger operational connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders' secure hideout in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Europe," he said.

Hmmmm…you don’t spell Iraq “P-A-K-I-S-T-A-N”. Or, of course, this piece of news, where the US launched an attack on “suspected al-Qaeda operatives” in Somalia (also not Iraq), but alas, missed the intended targets. But not to worry about those missed targets, right? No harm, no foul, right?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight……:

The principal aim of the United States air strikes in southern Somalia appears to have been the elimination of three al-Qaeda suspects held responsible for the 1998 bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The limited US operation was not part of the larger, Ethiopian-led military effort to topple the country's Islamist movement and rescue Somalia's pro-Western government -- and runs the risk of undermining it.

---snip---

But as in Afghanistan, the predominant US focus on its "war on terror'' objectives could prove counter-productive for international efforts to reverse decades of Somali violence, famine and despair. The European Commission was quick to voice such doubts this week. "Any incident of this kind is not helpful in the long term,'' a spokesman said.

And despite the interim government's support for the US action, Somali public opinion is unlikely to welcome this latest, crude infringement of the country's battered sovereignty any more than it has welcomed the Ethiopian invaders.

As for who is a threat to us, well it seems as though we may have a new “suitor” in Hezbollah after last year’s stellar diplomatic handling of the Israel/Lebanon situation by Rice:

In his annual review of global threats, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte highlighted an increasingly worrisome assessment of Hezbollah — backed by Iran and Syria — since its 34-day war with Israel last year.

“As a result of last summer’s hostilities, Hezbollah’s self-confidence and hostility toward the United States as a supporter of Israel could cause the group to increase its contingency planning against United States interests,’’ Negroponte told the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Of course, this could be just to bang the war drum against Iran and Syria, but it is out there in a way that it was not just a few years ago. But why stop there? Let’s see how much “safer” the rest of the world is from terrorism, including two countries that we have been heavily involved with over the past few years – Pakistan and Afghanistan.

First, Afghanistan. On the heels of yet another report of a suicide bomber near Kabul (which by the way, are tactics that were not used in Afghanistan until militants saw how “successful” they were in Iraq), we have some chilling news about attacks in Afghanistan this past year:

Taliban militants last year launched a record number of attacks in Afghanistan, and an estimated 4,000 people died in insurgency-related violence, the bloodiest year since the US-led coalition ousted the Taliban regime in 2001.

Afghan and Western officials say the militants operate from sanctuaries in Pakistan, but Islamabad insists it does all it can to stop them.

Well, there are our buddies in Pakistan again. Seems like Pakistan can be called the “central front in the war on terror™”. Except that they are our bestest buddies:

"Pakistan is our partner in the war on terror and has captured several al-Qaeda leaders. However, it is also a major source of Islamic extremism," Mr Negroponte said in written testimony submitted to the Senate committee.

I guess that whole “countries that harbor terrorists” only matters when that country doesn’t actually harbor terrorists.

Back to Pakistan though – a recently released report indicates that this “non-central front” had a pretty bad year, from a terrorism standpoint:

Terrorist attacks killed almost two people a day in 2006, with Balochistan and the country's tribal areas becoming the worst trouble spots.

These are the findings of a research study conducted by an independent think-tank, Pak Institute for Peace Studies, which found that the overall security situation remained extremely precarious in the previous year.

According to daily 'Dawn', the government blamed the terrorist attacks on insurgents in Balochistan, the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces, and sectarian militants.

According to the research study, 657 terrorist attacks, including 41 of a sectarian nature, took place in the preceding year, leaving 907 people dead and 1,543 others injured.

And lookie at who shows up again – the Taliban (who we “crushed” in 2001, right?) and al-Qaeda (you know, the ones who actually carried out the 9/11 attacks here in the US).

Not to be forgotten is a recent report which suggests that 2007 is going to be a “fun” year for terrorists in Europe:

London-based political risk analyst Exclusive Analysis Ltd. has warned of more terrorist attacks in Europe, although actions are likely to be smaller and aimed at a broader range of targets.

In giving key forecasts for 2007, Kirsten Parker, director of analysis at Exclusive Analysis, said that there was a higher probability that large plots would be foiled in the United Kingdom. “However, we expect more smaller attacks in the U.K. with a broader target set,” she added.

Speaking at a seminar hosted in London by the International Underwriting Association, Ms. Parker also warned that France is more likely to experience terrorist attacks, noting that the Algerian terrorist group known as GSPC (Groupe Salafiste pour la Prédication et le Combat) has taken a more global view. Adding that Italy and Germany were also targets for Islamic terrorists with transport in particular being a target.

Of course, since Germany is part of that “old Europe” then they don’t really count. And since the attacks are more likely to be “smaller”, then that won’t really count either – you know since we don’t do body counts.

And last but certainly not least isn’t just a threat of imminent attacks by Australia but actual attacks in the Philippines where bombs hit three cities in the region:

The bombings on Wednesday evening occurred in three cities - General Santos, Kidapawan and Cotabato - in the southern Philippines. Police said eight people were killed in the attacks, which also injured dozens of others.

---snip---

No group has claimed responsibility for the latest attacks, although police officials in the southern Philippines were reported saying Thursday that the Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah were likely suspects because, according to one official, the groups were behind similar bombings in the past. Jemaah Islamiyah is the Southeast Asian terror network that originated in Indonesia and was said to be responsible for the Bali bombings in 2002 that killed more than 200 people, many of them foreigners.

Central front, my ass. Terrorism and attacks are occurring all across the globe, and incidents are up everywhere. The only way we, or anyone will be “safer” is when we get these lunatics out of power.

Just why the [poopy]* should we trust you THIS time?

Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing

* Hat tip to the folks at Redstate for the generic, um, “euphemism"

I have long thought of this administration as the “Max Power” administration, for the following Simpsons’ reference:

Homer: Kids, there's three ways to do things. The right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way!
Bart: Isn't that the wrong way?
Homer: Yeah, but faster!

That about sums it up – not just fucking things up in a grandiose fashion, but doing so faster than even imagined. Katrina. No Child Left Behind. Clear Skies Initiative. Cutting and running from Afghanistan. Dropping the ball on and before 9/11. The economy. Healthcare. Social Security. And every single step on Iraq.

The credibility was gone long long ago. And on Iraq, it wasn’t even there from the start. Lies about yellowcake. Lies about aluminum tubes. Lies about the “stockpiles of WMDs”. Lies about ties to 9/11. Not listening to our generals about how many troops to send initially. Not listening to the Joint Chiefs of Staff about not disbanding the Iraqi Army. Not heeding the warnings about the consequences of not having any post-invasion plan. Not heeding the warnings about the potential for a civil war. Denying all responsibility for everything that was happening, all while pretending that everything was just peachy. And so on, and so on and so on.

Frankly, I didn’t even watch the speech last night – no need to. And I’m not going to dissect it here either, as that was and will be done by many others. No, what I want to do is ask one simple question – to Bush, to the war cheerleaders, to the wingnuts, to Holy Joe, to the talking meatsticks and those who have been proven to be 100% wrong on each and every thing that they have said or done – all while mocking those of us who were right and calling us traitors or terrorist sympathizers or “haters of America”: Why the fuck should we trust you once again when you couldn’t have been more wrong on everything, and are only proposing more of the same approach that failed countless times already?

The Wall Street Journal has a pretty decent article called ”Bush’s Iraq Plan Faces Obstacles on Two Fronts”. And while it may be behind a subscriber wall, I’ll reproduce a couple of points here that prove how much of a disaster this is – before the first troops even touch ground in Baghdad:

Still, the administration's ability to control events on the ground in Iraq is rapidly diminishing, and it's far from clear that the strategy will find enough support in either Baghdad or Washington to have much chance of success.

Mr. Maliki has long opposed the deployment of additional U.S. forces to Iraq, and his government crippled earlier U.S. efforts to stabilize Baghdad by failing to deliver the Iraqi security forces it had promised and by refusing to allow a crackdown on the Shiite militias responsible for much of Iraq's current violence.

Now, maybe it’s just me here, but if the plan is to “secure Baghdad” from the violence and crimes that are rampant, isn’t that a job for the police, not the Army? When there are riots, do we call in the military, or do we have the police come in? And wasn’t the stabilization of Baghdad supposed to have been taken care of the last time that we were promised that the 75,000 troops in Baghdad would stop the violence. And that was nearly 8 months and thousands of bombings ago.

I forget where I saw it (but would give props to whoever pointed it out) but there are around 37,000 police in the NYPD, which is the largest police force in the US. This is for a city that is a fraction of the size of Baghdad and even in its worst years can’t even be compared to any one day in Baghdad. So even if we had all 150,000 of our troops in Baghdad as well as all of the Iraqi “troops”, and it was their job to actually act as police – isn’t there still the small matter of Iraqis wanting us out of Iraq, Maliki not wanting a troop escalation and Iraqis (both Sunni and Shiite) thinking it is just fine and dandy to attack US troops.

I guess the approval of attacks on US troops is one thing that Bush can say that the Sunnis and the Shiites agree on.

Two other points that come in the WSJ article which show just how little thought has gone into this “plan”:

A senior Bush administration official described the new push to bring order to Baghdad as Iraqi-planned and Iraqi-led, with American troops in support roles. To assist the Iraqis, the U.S. will increase the number of embedded U.S. advisors that live and fight with Iraqi soldiers.

---snip---

Senior U.S. military officials, who remain skeptical about the Iraqi Army's abilities and Mr. Maliki's will to take tough stands, downplayed the Bush administration's suggestions that Iraqi forces would be in the lead initially. Instead, they suggested U.S. troops would take the more prominent role until the situation was stable enough for Iraqi troops to move to the front. "We first have to set the conditions for an Iraqi-led defense of Baghdad to work," said one senior military official involved in planning the operation.

---snip---

But the surge of about 20,000 more soldiers -- all the overstretched U.S. military can provide – is far less than what most proponents of a "surge" have called for. Hawks like Sen. John McCain and Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, have called for a minimum of 30,000-35,000 soldiers to stabilize Baghdad.

So the military isn’t even agreement with the administration on who is to take the lead. The thoroughly unqualified “architechts” such as Kagan don’t agree with the level of troops in this escalation. Maliki has more loyalty to al-Sadr (unless Makili is truly hating his job so much that he would buck al-Sadr and risk losing his life), since al-Sadr is a big political backer of Maliki.

There is also, with this complete lack of credibility here – the question of “what is your plan B for if this doesn’t work?” While we are still subject to “Democrats have no alternative” whines like this:

Most reckless is the contention, also by Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi, that "it is time to bring the war to a close." No one serious -- not even the Iraq Study Group -- believes that the war will end if we leave.

---snip---

If Congressional Democrats want to be constructive, they can insist that Mr. Bush and his generals truly implement the strategy he is now endorsing.

Oh, I see – so Democrats should go along with a “repackaged” failure of a plan to be “constructive”. And that if “we leave then the war won’t end”. Well, guess what, brainiac – if we stay, the war won’t end either. In fact, under the same tired plan – it will get worse than if we leave and leave smartly.

Or this lovely “trust us” outlook:

President Bush's challenge last night was to convince Americans that his new plan to secure Iraq won't mean risking more lives on a conflict that critics say has become "unwinnable." We think he offered compelling reasons for skeptical Americans of good faith to back him, but the key will be deploying enough forces to accomplish the task.

---snip---

With the new strategy, new forces and new generals President Bush is putting in place, we have a fighting chance to create a virtuous circle whereby better security leads to more anti-insurgent cooperation from the public -- which in turn leads to still better security. If Congressional Democrats have better suggestions, we'd love to hear them. But the one "strategy" that simply isn't credible is the idea that anybody's interests would be served by a hasty U.S. exit from Iraq.

Well, I’m glad that someone at the WSJ editorial board – always a place to look for exactly what is the WORST thing to do – is ready to trust Bush yet again – and tell us that we should too. All with no concrete reason to believe that an escalation of not enough troops to do something that is more the work of a police force in a country where the only thing that the “warring factions” in a bloody civil war agree on is that it is ok to attack our troops.

And frankly, this “Democrats have no plan” is even more of a farce, considering the fact that there has NEVER been another plan offered by the republicans (Iraq Study Group report notwithstanding). But, isn’t a phased withdrawal (supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans) or Biden’s plan for somewhat of a partitioning of the country or, hell, the Iraq Study Group all alternative plans?

Friggin jackasses. They should be scorned and mocked. Their simplistic, unrealistic out-of-the-mainstream view of the world is only exceeded by their smug condescending arrogance that is oozing from their “you should trust us” words.

And you know what? Too fucking bad. We didn’t trust you then, and we were right. You offer up nothing new and we are to trust you still? All while being sneered at? Sorry. That ain’t gonna work.

Repackeged bullshit is still bullshit, even with a bright shiny ribbon on it.

Tightening the purse strings on Iraq funding

Front paged at Booman Tribune and ePluribus Media

This is somewhat of a reply or a supplement to BarbinMD’s front page post regarding the non-binding resolution that the Democrats are introducing on Iraq. Actually, I have been thinking about this for a few days now, and there have been a number of comments made in my diaries that touch on this very subject.

As SusanG and the good folks at Thinkprogress pointed out (not that SusanG isn’t good folk as I am sure she is one of the “goodest folks around”...), there is precedent for Congress to provide legislative oversight of the military. And while that is very good ammunition to have in our pockets, I think that in this day and age of signing statements, and with Bush willing to give the finger to around 85% of the population as well as his own generals and Joint Chiefs of Staff with respect to escalating this occupation further, more drastic rhetoric and actions are not only warranted, but mandated.

This occupation has already cost We the People nearly $400 Billion. And as noted in the link above, this number is likely a gross underestimation:

Please note that the Department of Defense was also permitted by legislation to transfer funds from other operations (peacetime, Afghanistan, etc.) to the Iraq War, and so estimating war costs based on Congressional legislation is not enough.

On top of that, the Center for Defense Information reports that theCRS (Congressional Research Service) CBO, the GAO and the DOD all have different numbers as far as cost estimates as well. Although, there was one overriding consensus:

These differences notwithstanding, CRS, CBO, and GAO did agree on one thing: DOD’s data on the costs of the wars cannot be trusted.

What is more disgusting than the sheer numbers is that, with two exceptions, all of this funding has been through supplemental spending bills, or emergency supplemental fundings - so it doesn’t even count in the budget numbers. This has to stop, although sadly, there is going to be ANOTHER $100 billion requested, and likely approved over the next month. That brings the total to well over $500 billion.

500 billion dollars. For what? To bring chaos, death, destruction, civil war, genocide, the use of more chemical weapons, torture to the Middle East? And no definitive goals, no discussion of a way out and a world that is a whole lot LESS SAFE from terrorism. Heckuva job, Bush.

So here we are with symbolic votes that don’t mean anything, and a budget deficit that is more than out of control, with nothing going towards the US infrastructure or true Homeland Security like protecting our ports, airplane cargo holds, railways, power plants, electrical grids, food supplies and a slew of other major initiatives like rebuilding our roads, strengthening our school systems, protecting the environment.....and well, you know the rest.

Congress has but one weapon in their arsenal (other than impeachment). And it is time that they not only talk about using it, but use it.. That weapon is funding. Yes, there is discretion as to how funds can be moved from other areas of the budget (as noted above) for Iraq. However, with it being long past time to ratchet up the plans for an exit strategy, the Democrats can accomplish more than one thing by taking a strong stand here.

Step One: Limit Iraq spending to the regular budget process ONLY

For starters, by limiting the Iraq spending to the normal budget process only will allow the Democrats to show that they are concerned with fiscal restraint. I’ll say that one again, because this can plant the seeds of the Democratic Party being the ones that are concerned with the budget.

By limiting the Iraq funding to the normal budget process ONLY, they can show that they are the ones that are serious about keeping the deficits from running out of control. They can show FOR YEARS TO COME that they are the party of fiscal restraint. Yes, we can show how the budgets were under Clinton, Reagan and Bush. But the public still thinks of “tax and spend Democrats”. This can change that opinion.

Of course, this also shows that there can be no more “fuzzy math” when it comes to this ass-backwards occupation. And while this is a first step, it is necessary in my mind to do this first for reasons that I will get into below. But it will set the stage for “selling to the public” the fact that a cut in funding for Iraq is NOT a lack of support for the troops. And you know that this will be the right wing frame – whether we like it or not, whether it is true or not. So we have to think like them in terms of selling the policy, in addition to setting the policy (something that the left is hardly good at).

Step Two: Limit Iraq funding to specific, yet broad enough items

What I mean here is twofold. First, start to talk about funding this occupation in terms of getting our troops out and towards an international humanitarian and rebuilding effort (read: not only Halliburton and US firms) to truly have a “new way forward”. The Democrats’ efforts this past week is a good start – talk about NOT funding anything for more troops. If they actually do something about it, then I will be impressed. But until then, I will reserve judgment.

Then – actually have a concrete plan for an exit strategy. As we all know, the Iraq Study Group had theirs. The AEI had theirs (sort of, if you mean that stay forever is an exit strategy). The Democrats should have theirs. Funding should address things such as:

- How do we get our troops out safely?

- How do we bring the surrounding countries into this effort to ensure our troops are redeployed safely?

- What should be done about the thousands of Iraqi refugees that are fleeing the country daily?

- How do we (we not only being the US) stop the genocide from spreading to other countries?

- What can be done to stop or slow the civil war?

- How do al-Sadr’s militia and the other militias be dealt with, while also not disenfranchising Shiites or Sunnis from the political process?

- How and who will deal with various aspects of rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure?

And there are so many more questions that should be addressed, but as it stands now, NONE of these are even being considered. Anywhere.

This will obviously be tough to discuss, and tough to “sell”. But it must be done. The American public elected the Democrats, largely because of the disaffection with the way that the occupation is going. Bush’s approval rating on Iraq is at an all time low of 26%. Tonight’s speech will more likely have a negative impact on his ratings than a positive one (for him at least).

It is time to talk about the real next steps. How to extricate our troops. How to control the genocide. How to rebuild Iraq. And since Bush is only listening to the PNAC AEI, then the Democrats need to do the only thing they can do – restrict funding only to efforts that will move this occupation towards an end.

It won’t be easy. Many votes may be symbolic. But we all know that there are Democrats that LOVE to talk. Let’s see them talk about the right things now. Let’s see them talk about changing the course in Iraq. Let’s see them talk about allocating funds for an exit strategy. Hell, let’s see them even talk about an exit strategy.

It’s all they have at their disposal. And it is the biggest reason why they were elected in November.

There is something seriously wrong with this

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

In November, there was an overwhelming and sweeping rebuke of this administration’s failed foreign policies (not to mention corruption and other republican “values”). Voters’ number one concern was overwhelmingly the mishandling of the Iraqi occupation. We wanted a different direction – a way out of this debacle.

Prominent Congressional republicans were joining the ever increasing majority of Americans who wanted to start thinking of withdrawal. At a meeting yesterday of around 30 Senate Republicans, Thad Cochran (MS) thought that he was the only one who was outwardly supportive of an escalation.

And despite what lying liar Tony Snow says, there is only a high end of 15% or so support by the American public for an INCREASE in troops in Iraq. And yet, here we are, not discussing the what, when and how of an exit strategy in Iraq but whether we should send in more troops or keep them the same. This is not what America’s mandate in November wants.

I was originally going to title this diary “Who elected the American Enterprise Institute anyway?” because, in essence – it is these warmongering fearmongering living-in-an-alternate-reality lunatics, many of whom never served in the military (shocker there) who are not only dictating our disastrous foreign policy, but are making the decisions against the advice of our own military generals (in addition to just about everyone else) to send our own citizens off to kill and die. I'll say it a little differently:

A tax-exempt organization (which by proxy since it pays no tax is supported by us taxpayers), very few, if any of whose members have military service is behind the decision to send more troops into harm’s way, despite the fact that they were not elected, are not part of the administration or the military structure, are doing so against the advice and will of the electorate and our military.

Clearly this is not any part of a government “of the people, by the people and for the people”. We know that the primary author of this horrific idea is Frederick Kagan who has most certainly NOT served in the military, and (while it may be so), I have been unable to even find any reference of his even visiting Iraq or talking to the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the true situation on the ground.

What is truly amazing is that this man, with his “pedigree”, was the author of a document that was so overly simplistic and unfounded in reality that there isn’t an overwhelming cry of “Bullshit!!!” by the Democrats in Congress as well as more of us on the left. Yes, there are members of Congress who are decrying the proposed escalation – but what if the tables were turned? What if this was a nonprofit Democratic think tank, with little to no military experience, chock full of radical extrermists funded by wealthy donors, who was going against nearly 90% of the population as well as the decision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as Generals Abizaid and Casey - two of the top commanders in Iraq?

You bet this “plan” would be derided and mocked from the very start. It wouldn’t even get to the point where a debate was happening as to whether we should add more troops or keep the same level. It would be smacked down all across America – every hour of every day on every channel and every newspaper. The equivalent of Kagan (whichever strawman “author” you want to use) would be held up as a farce and unqualified to even give an opinion – let alone dictate the course of history.

Yet, here we are – with a report that was prepared outside of the military, outside of the true experts – outside the advice of the same “commanders on the ground” that Bush has said time and time again that he would listen to. And here we are, debating how many more troops and how many more tens of billions of dollars to sink into this worsening situation as opposed to what we should be debating – how to get ourselves out of it.

But this document which will be used as a blueprint for the latest attempt at a “do-over” is about as comprehensive as the original plan for post invasion “victory”. Chock full of phrases such as “national commitment to victory”, “assigning responsibility and accountability”, “success in Iraq will transform the international situation”, “the United States has the military power necessary to control the violence in Iraq” (so why has it taken 4 years to present even the bare framework of a plan for that?) – all long on so-called vision but short on detail or reality.

Not that a long-on-vision/short-on-reality isn’t enough for Kagan, Bush and the neocons, it also is highly dismissive (with no detail as to why) of practical alternatives such as “engaging with Iran” (which only 75% of republicans polled and a larger number of Democrats and independents are in favor of), “phased or complete withdrawal” (which is why the republicans were swept out of power and Bush has a sub-30% approval rating on Iraq), “troops not getting involved in civil sectarian conflicts” (which is one of the worst uses for our troops)…..well you get the point.

Our military leaders have spoken. Our troops have spoken (as we have seen from many diaries posted over the past few years from servicemen and women, their families and their friends). The American public has spoken. Our leaders in Congress have spoken.

So why is a right wing think tank who has a vested interest in more war, no accountability to the public (or the IRS for that matter), and has little, if any experience with global conflicts imposing its will on the other 90% of the country? And why are more people NOT calling :bullshit” on this?

And why are we debating how much of an escalation instead of a viable exit strategy?

Introducing Garrett Watch

Front paged at BlueJersey

Interesting and certainly timely to see this post asking for bloggers to help take down Scott Garrett as I have been thinking of a few ways to do this, and what is needed.

There really are two main thought processes here - the first is what I will call "Garrett Watch" which is to take stock of and follow his votes, actions and other things that can be used against him. This would consist of documentation (like the "Retire Garrett" site but maybe more along the lines of "dumpmike"), as well as a long term effort to get OpEds, LTE's, calls to radio shows, etc. in order to spread the word of Garrett's more extreme of his already extreme votes and views.

The other is more of a "data collection/analysis" approach, which I will explain more below:

For starters, there needs to be a broken down understanding of this district. There are (I believe) four counties represented and they are pretty different in terms of demographics and priorities. We need a more targeted approach, at least for each county.

Data MUST be available that would give voting breakdowns by county, age, income, etc. as well as other types of information that would be helpful (unrelated to voting).

We have more than a few months to compile this as well as figure out what data is good for us - (e.g., clubs, political contributions, etc.) and once we have it, we can update it accordingly.

This would be immensely valuable to any campaign and there is no reason why, with what we have here, we can't do this.

Hell, since I was going to do it anyway, I'll take the lead or coordinate it.

Back to the first part - there was already a vote in the House (HR 6), which had a few parts to it.

It should be noted that Garrett voted AGAINST the "pay as you go" for earmarks - so this should be positioned as him being against control of the budget, for pork barrel spending and someone who is a "borrow and spender". Let's start branding him appropriately.

The other noteworthy vote was in favor of an amendment which failed that dealt with granting the minority party more rights and reforms. Sounds good on the surface, until you realize that the Democrats tried on numerous occasions to get a "Minority Bill of Rights" passed in prior Congresses but the republicans WOULDN'T EVEN LET IT COME TO THE FLOOR.

Paint Garrett a hypocrite and an obstructionist here.

******************

You see where I am going with this. There is no reason that NJ-5 should have Garrett as it's representative. There is more than enough ammo to take him down in 2008. Add to that his ties to Abramoff and his solid status as a rubber stamp for Bush's failed occupation of Iraq and we are off to a real good start.

I will keep this up with respect to his voting record as I see things, but please -- if anyone wants to post something on this, or sees something and wants to pass it along -- do not hesitate to contact me.

********************

Garrett must go. Let's make sure it happens.

Time to "draw a line in the sand" on Iraq

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

There are so many examples of why we are at a critical time in Iraq right now that I won’t list them all here – but certainly any of my prior diaries (or many of the others) over the past few months will give many examples of the rapidly deteriorating situation. So why is this time, RIGHT NOW, a time where a line needs to be drawn in the sand with respect to Iraq?

Simply put - this may be the last opportunity overall for a serious discussion of redeployment and withdrawal before Bush, McCain, Lieberman, the American Enterprise Institute and the suddenly regrouped neocons push this into not only a failed occupation in the midst of a bloody civil war (bordering on genocide) but also a situation where we will be unable to safely withdraw our troops and a situation of many more years stuck in this disaster.

As word leaks out about the proposed escalation plan, more and more information is becoming available that shows the true intentions of those who are so willing to send other people and their families off to kill and die for lies and greed. And even thought we here thought it all along, the intentions are not “short term” or even feasible – but rather, more pie in the sky rhetoric that will only prolong the death and destruction of Iraqis and threaten to drag the entire Middle East down with it.

Last week, Reid and Pelosi sent a strongly worded letter to Bush opposing the escalation. While I was a bit skeptical that there was not much more that would be done, Pelosi surprised me with her strong words yesterday as well. Additionally, the good folks at ThinkProgress are keeping tally of the sane republicans who are coming out against this disastrous idea.

Of course, lost in the shuffle here are the words of those who are truly pushing for endless war in the guise of “defeating the terrorists” and “winning in Iraq”. In a post at The Nation, Ari Berman talks about the “real plans” of the AEI, as well as McCain and Lieberman:

An event at AEI yesteday brought together the intellectual progenitors of escalation: military historian Fred Kagan, retired General Jack Keane and Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. The focus was not on how to clean up the neocons mess, but on how to deepen it.

Berman cited McCain’s comments from Sunday’s LA Times article that discusses McCain’s, AEI military analyst Frederick Kagan and retired General Jack Keane’s comments to the AEI:

A strategy advocated by McCain and Keane, who has advised Bush on Iraq policy, calls for about 30,000 additional troops who would remain in Iraq from 18 months to two years. About 140,000 U.S. troops are now in Iraq.

The proposal has heavily influenced administration thinking, and it has strong advocates within the Pentagon and White House, setting up tension between those advocating a broad troop buildup and those supporting a more limited increase.

"The worst of all worlds would be a short, small surge of U.S. forces," McCain said at a forum on the final version of the plan, developed by Keane and Frederick Kagan, a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank. "This troop surge [must be] significant and sustained; otherwise, don't do it."

---snip---

"The enemy always expects us to surge and leave," said Kagan, a former faculty member at the U.S. Military Academy. "If we surge for three or six months and then pull our forces back, the enemy will be right there waiting."

For the record, I hardly think that there is a way that they will revert into the “don’t do it” camp. And McCain’s comments were made before “a packed room” at the AEI. Of course, Kagan’s remarks are strikingly similar to the ones that I made both here and at RedState, but alas, he gets paid the big bucks and I am stuck putting numbers in boxes.

But there is so much more than these comments. There is “bipartisan” Lieberman’s comments:

"The battlefield is in Baghdad and Al-Anbar, not in Washington," Lieberman said. "We need to support the President as he goes forward."

Um, Joe - WE don’t need to support the president. WE (in fact nearly 90% of “us”) are against this terrible idea with little thought to anything other than “yeah, send more troops”.

There is the recent NY Times article where the new US Commander in Iraq Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno indicates the following about how long we may be in Iraq for:

The new American operational commander in Iraq said Sunday that even with the additional American troops likely to be deployed in Baghdad under President Bush’s new war strategy it might take another “two or three years” for American and Iraqi forces to gain the upper hand in the war.

There is the LA Times article (linked above) indicating that an alternative to the immediate escalation would be a longer term escalation:

Although the most likely scenario includes an increase of 20,000 troops, another option is a gradual increase of forces, with perhaps a portion of new forces sent into Iraq while other brigades stayed in the U.S. or Kuwait as backup.

There is the additional $100 billion that is going to be requested by Bush:

The White House is working on its largest-ever appeal for more war funds - a record $100 billion, at least. It will be submitted along with Bush's Feb. 5 budget.

While it is unclear now if this will be PART of the budget or IN ADDITION to the budget – this hits on a theme that I mentioned last week. No funding for Iraq outside of the normal budget process. This is a more palatable way to draw a line with respect to “blank checks” and “emergency” requests than it is to just stop funding the occupation altogether. Although, that being said, I will say that I am getting more and more to the point where the funding not only should be limited to the budget process, but there should be specific monies for certain items and all other “general appropriations” should not be passed in the budget.

The funding should be done with an eye to funding only those items that will go towards equipment and proper gear for the troops, international humanitarian efforts to stop the genocide, and a definitive redeployment plan – with or without timeframes. I will say that we need more of the rhetoric that we are hearing from Speaker Pelosi regarding the continued funding of this debacle.

But it is clear what is going on now. There is a major battle going on – and by fighting the “escalation/no escalation” or the “surge/no surge” battle – we are missing the larger picture. It is time to talk seriously about getting out now, or it will be too late. The escalation itself, whether it is “short term” or for two years isn’t the issue. It is the repercussions of the escalation and the impact that it will have on Iraqis, our troops, the surrounding countries and the future direction of this country.

Stopping the escalation is part of the bigger picture – this is the time to say, “enough, we need to talk about getting out”. Those in favor of escalation are in favor of perpetual war. We need to not only stop this but also put withdrawal and international humanitarian efforts back in the forefront.

We are running out of time, and we can’t let the “escalate/do not escalate” distract us from the real issue.

We need to get our troops out of there.

"Engaging with Iran" does NOT mean nuke them

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing

Denials or not, it is still a scary as hell thought that word was leaked about potential plans for Israel to launch a “low level” nuclear strike against Iran, in the hopes of destroying its nuclear program. Of course, the irony of ironies is that Israel (who has never “formally joined” the nuclear weapon “country club”) will use nuclear weapons to destroy what is thought to be a nuclear weapon program.

Now, at the peril of this devolving into an “Israel is or is not de facto US” or “Iran threatened Israel first” thread, I will state that this is not the point at all. The point here is that the entire Middle East – never a bastion of peace, love and happiness – is teetering on the brink of all out chaos. Over the past few months, I have written about the situation in Saudi Arabia as well as Iran and Pakistan, not to mention the loose nukes in Russia and a number of diaries about Afghanistan - all depicting some of the things that We the People aren’t reading or hearing about.

And last I checked, nearly 75% of Americans overall (including over 70% of Republicans) want the US to engage in direct talks with Iran and Syria in hopes of figuring out a logical or least horrific way to NOT have the entire Middle East dragged into a regional war.

So, what do we see today? Only that the only country ever to use nuclear weapons on another country is developing newer ones for the first time in two decades. And what do the “do as I say not as I do” Bush administration get for its’ cool $100 Billion colossal waste of money, er “investment” (per the NY Times):

The effort, if approved by President Bush and financed by Congress, would require a huge refurbishment of the nation’s complex for nuclear design and manufacturing, with the overall bill estimated at more than $100 billion.

But the council’s decision to seek a hybrid design, combining well-tested elements from an older design with new safety and security elements from a more novel approach, could delay the weapon’s production. It also raises the question of whether the United States will ultimately be forced to end its moratorium on underground nuclear testing to make sure the new design works.

At least the NY Times sees the hypocrisy here, or at least is good enough to report on it, even to a small degree:

At a time when the administration is trying to convince the world to put sanctions on North Korea and Iran to halt their nuclear programs, those critics argue, any move to improve the American arsenal will be seen as hypocritical, an effort by the United States to extend its nuclear lead over other countries. Should the United States decide to conduct a test, officials said, China and Russia — which have their own nuclear modernization programs under way — would feel free to do the same. North Korea was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council for conducting its first test on Oct. 9, and it may be preparing for more, experts said.

Good, so let’s not only be the hypocrites of the century, but let’s kick off another round of a nuclear arms race with China and Russia – not to mention whoever else can now say “if the US is the only country that has actually USED these weapons, and THEY are developing more without sanctions, then why shouldn’t we be able to as well?” After all, we can see poll after poll after poll after poll after poll show that the US is thought of as the greatest threat to world peace.

So, moving back to Iran – there have been a number of events lately that show that the rhetoric of Ahmadenijad is wearing a bit thin, and that Iran may be moving away from his posturing. Take this news from today where the reformist parliamentarians in Iran are blaming Ahmadenijad for causing the UN sanctions:

Reformist former President Mohammad Khatami suspended Iran's nuclear work for more than two years in an effort to build confidence and avoid confrontation with the West, but Ahmadinejad's government resumed uranium enrichment in February last year.

"The only way to pass the crisis is to build confidence...but a holding Holocaust conference and financing the Hamas government creates mistrust and tension," Noureddin Pirmoazzen, the spokesman of parliament's reformist faction, told Reuters.

Not only that, but there is use of the “I” word in Iran as well:

Pirmoazzen said that two U.N. resolutions against Iran in the first 18 months of the government's term in office showed the foreign ministry was incapable of looking after Iran's national interests.

"We hope to witness a return to the manner of Khatami's government and see the crisis is solved in the next 60 days, or else we will have no alternative but to impeach Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki," Pirmoazzen said.

Hmmmmm....calls to return to the days where nuclear programs were suspended and the country tried to reach out in a diplomatic manner. Doesn’t sound like the general consensus is to start bombing anyone so soon.

Remember that back in December, the Iranian elections were at least somewhat of a rebuke of Ahmadinejad’s policies:

President Ahmadinejad of Iran suffered an embarrassing blow in local council races, according to partial election results yesterday, in voting viewed as a sign of public discontent with his hard-line stance.

---snip--

The biggest victory was for "moderate conservatives," supporters of Iran's cleric-led power structure who are angry with Mr. Ahmadinejad, saying he has needlessly provoked the West with harsh rhetoric and has failed to fix the country's faltering economy.

All of this makes the latest news (and when a strong denial is issued, you know that there is generally something behind it – you know the whole “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” thing). Hell, even as recently as three weeks ago, the Christian Science Monitor advocated engaging politically with Iran and Syria. What is more interesting is that the article talks about how a “troop draw down is a must” and that coordination with Iran is required as part of this:

It's important to recognize - as the ISG also clearly did - that the US has no viable option either for any sustained increase in the US troop strength in Iraq or even for maintaining the current US deployment for very much longer. Both the sentiments of US voters and the constraining overall size of the US military prevent that.

There has to be a drawdown. The only question is this: Will it start sooner and be relatively orderly, or will it be delayed and run an increasing risk of being chaotic? And yes, the scenarios now foreseeable do include - if the delay is too long - a humiliating emergency withdrawal reminiscent of the US evacuation from Saigon in 1975 and Allied forces' flight from Dunkirk in 1940.

Either way - whether the administration is able to fashion a policy that allows for a relatively speedy and orderly drawdown, or the drawdown is delayed and more like Dunkirk - it will need to engage in significant coordination with Iran if it is to avoid a debacle.

Yet, here we are, after ALL of these mountains of evidence, opinion and near unanimity about engaging with Iran – and we still have to hear about military action – let alone NUCLEAR military action against Iran.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

What is even worse is that the thought is that not only will this work, but there will be no retaliation or backlash. Like Iran can’t singlehandedly cripple the oil market by taking over the Strait of Hormuz, let alone retaliate on US ships in the Gulf. Or that this will be similar to the wonderfully successful “Shock and Awe”, where nobody would DARE attempt to do anything against the US interests. Plus, it isn’t like the rest of the world (rightfully or not) views an act by Israel as an act by the US, so that our hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq wouldn’t immediately be put at an even larger risk of attack than they already are.

This is the most dangerous, shortsighted, arrogant, poorly times, ill advised threat or action since we cut and ran from Afghanistan and stumbled into the Iraqi occupation. Maybe even moreso.

It is time to forcefully oppose any action that does NOT involve direct engagement with Iran or Syria. Anything less is an imminent threat to our national security.

Letters Are Nice, but Bush Doesn't Care. Let's See ACTION.

Front paged at Booman Tribune

While it is nice to see that Reid and Pelosi have written a strongly worded letter to Bush with respect to escalating this disaster in Iraq, they are forgetting a couple of things. For starters, Bush can’t read big words. But seriously, and more importantly, he just doesn’t care.

Remember all of the letters that Reid, Conyers, Pelosi, Slaughter and every other Congressman and woman have sent to Bush regarding signing statements, the illegal and warrantless wiretapping, torture, Phase two of the 9/11 investigation, the leak of Valerie Plame’s name (not to mention Brewster Jennings) and whatever else that was an egregious violation of the Constitution by Bush and his criminal minions.

Now that the Democrats are in power, it is time to put meat and substance behind these letters and actually take action. And please, I don’t want anyone to start giving my shit about this being the first week of them being in the majority. I am just as hopeful as the rest of you (maybe moreso as well). However, it is time for them to take bold steps and act as though they are in the majority and that, you know, elections have consequences.

Take a few items from today’s news as well. There is “big news” that 33 Senators that voted for the invasion would not vote for it today, of course, if it knew then what it knows now. That is all well and good, but it is just as irrelevant as it is all well and good. We are where we are. Congress knows what it knows. And public sentiment is turning more and more against this insanity of an occupation and clusterfuck that is going on halfway around the globe – and getting worse every day.

Whether it is the near unanimous call for no escalation, whether it is the call for a phased withdrawal, whether it is overwhelming disapproval of Bush’s job performance, whether it is a call to sit down and talk to Iran and Syria – whether it is any of the myriad of things that are going against the further escalation of the occupation and lack of a real plan to turn the tide (just a bit) – the stars and the events and the public feeling is that there needs to be real change and real change NOW.

Nobody wants an escalation. Well, pretty much nobody. And with Biden’s strong words today about “many in the administration that think that Iraq is lost and they are just trying to not let it disintegrate completely before 2009” should be a guide for every other Senator and Representative to force some real change.

Today, we also find that the Military commanders don’t even know where to come up with the troops for an escalation:

CBS’s David Martin has learned military commanders told the President they could execute a ‘troop surge’ of 9,000 soldiers and Marines into Iraq, with another 10,000 on alert in Kuwait and the U.S. Two army brigades — about 7,500 troops — would go into Baghdad in an effort to control the violence, clearing neighborhoods and staying long enough for reconstruction projects to take effect. 1,500 Marines would go to the western province of al-Anbar, heartland of the Sunni insurgency. This, even though the Commandant of the Marine Corps was quoted as saying he did not see a need for more battalions.

So, the military isn’t ONLY against this – they indicate that there isn’t even enough troops to do this hairbrained scheme. And this is just indicative of how little thought is going into major MAJOR policy decisions.

Last night, while sitting around with thereisnospoon, hekebolos, occams hatchet, dday and a number of my other favorite kossacks, we were commenting on the Miers resignation, the shuffling of Negroponte, the goings on at the UN, the most recent signing statement and I just shook my head and laughed – saying “just another fucking thing”. While it was a bit funny on one hand, it is truly a pathetic sign on the other.

Why do I say this? Well, we are now in control of Congress. Not one house, but both houses. This means more than we think. We talk about accountability and oversight, and this will all happen. But with that comes the responsibility of being the majority party. And letters just aren’t going to cut it.

What do I mean here, and what am I implying? Well, the Democrats have an enormous opportunity here – and contrary to what we think, it will be a bit tough to blow it. Tough talk is nice – REAL tough talk is better, and actions are best.

But when members of Congress don’t even realize that they are wrong on what power the Democrats have regarding the funding of this debacle it is time to be the grownups. Let’s be real bold here, and real serious – this is only the future of our country and the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people on the line. Now, if I may be so bold as to even suggest that Congress (or prominent Democrats) talk about not funding future escalation in Iraq, I will do so in a different manner.

Threatening to defund this debacle outright is not a smart political move – however, done right, it could go far. One alternative would be to tie additional fundings to specific items and projects. However, that is merely a pipe dream if anyone thinks that the funds would be accounted for in a responsible manner (since there were HOW many billions that have gone missing, and there is not one shred of oversight anymore on this spending).

But, there are already hundreds of billions of dollars set apart in the budget each year for the military – military operations that include Iraq. The “emergency spending” bills that add up to hundreds of billions of dollars don’t get counted in Bush’s rosy budget numbers. They aren’t accounted for. There is already a TON of money being allocated towards Iraq and Afghanistan.

So start small – wouldn’t it be great to talk about “really” balancing the budget and keeping spending down? Wouldn’t it be HONEST to come out against additional spending bills that don’t get counted in the budget? Wouldn’t it be BOLD to fund the troops once per year – through the true budget process?

Now that the Democrats are in the majority there are many more tools at their disposal. Yes, we may say that Bush will ignore them. But here is a news flash - EVERYONE HATES Bush NOW. Nobody trusts Bush anymore. Not his allies, not the military, not the American public. The next few months and years present a golden opportunity – for us here, for the Democrats, for the country.

Let’s use it wisely. All of us.

The wheels are coming off. Everywhere you look.

Front paged at Booman Tribune and ePluribus Media. Recommended at Daily Kos

The first few headlines that I saw this morning (after reading Jerome’s diary on the Bush fatwa against the Democratic Congress), coupled with the lead story I heard this morning as I was getting ready to head to the airport, made me scratch my head and wonder just what the hell else is going to come out and will it even surprise me in the least.

Where to even begin? I guess we can start with a followup to the comments cited in my diary yesterday about the Saddam hanging backlash. As part of the Iraqi government’s investigation into the circumstances surrounding the video of Saddam’s hanging, we find that the protests against his hanging are now intensifying.

Interestingly, the same NY Times article seems to have been scrubbed to delete a reference made on Huffington Post from last night that indicates that one of the men holding a cellphone to make a video was the Iraq National Security Advisor. First, the blurb from Huffington Post:

As his aides announced that the events at the hanging would be the subject of an inquiry, one of the officials who attended the hanging, a prosecutor at the trial that condemned Mr. Hussein to death, said that one of two men he had seen holding a cellphone camera aloft to make a video of Mr. Hussein's last moments -- up to and past the point where he fell through the trapdoor -- was Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Mr. Maliki's national security adviser. Attempts to reach Mr. Rubaie were unsuccessful. The prosecutor, Munkith al-Faroun, said the other man holding a cellphone above his head was also an official, but he could not recall his name.

Now, the NY Times article piece:

Mr. Maliki seemed equally eager to ward off the opprobrium stirred by the execution. His aides announced that the events at the hanging would be the subject of an inquiry. A prosecutor who attended the execution, Munkith al-Faroun, said he thought one of the invited witnesses had recorded the session on a cellphone, but he could not recall his name.

Interesting that between just before 11PM last night until sometime this morning, this little nugget of extremely damning information was taken out of the NY Times article. Needless to say, the fact that a high level Iraqi governmental official making a video of this execution (if true) would add even more fuel to the fire that has already been raging and is likely to explode even more so. Not surprisingly, the prosecutor who initially pointed out the National Security Advisor’s role has now come forward and denied saying that it was al-Rubaie. Of course, another person has already been arrested in connection with the taping of the hanging.

No wonder Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki hates his job and wants to leave BEFORE his term expires.

Then, as if things aren’t already bad enough with killing and abuse, we have some new revelations on torture at Guantanamo. According to the BBC, an FBI report indicates that a number of FBI employees were witness to “harsh interrogation tactics”.

At least 26 agency employees say they witnessed inmates being mistreated and subjected to harsh interrogation.

One reported seeing a man whose head was covered in duct tape, another saw detainees chained from hand to foot in the foetal position for up to 24 hours.

Because, you know, those three square meals and extraordinarily humane treatment that the “detainees” are receiving include such fun things as being wrapped in duct tape and being chained. Wow, that sounds like fun to me.

Back to Iraq, it is now being reported that Bush’s grand new plan and strategy is to escalate the occupation, but with such a low level of additional troops (rumored to be 20,000) that it defies all logic and reason. And what is it for? Not for training Iraqi forces. Not to root out al-Sadr and his militia. Not to secure other areas of the country. But to help with “security” Baghdad. Of course, that is what I thought that the “Baghdad offensive” was supposed to do. I asked last week, and I will ask again - how will 20,000 additional troops help this security situation?

This isn’t even flying with administration officials, one of whom is claiming that this is a (shocker there) – POLITICAL decision:

Administration officials told us today that President Bush has now all but decided to surge those additional troops into Baghdad to try to control over the violence there and only then could they accelerate the turnover of territory to Iraqi security forces. Fact is they’re not up to the task yet. The plan would also throw more U.S. money at Iraq for reconstruction and a jobs program. Interestingly enough, one administration official admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one because the American people have run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq. While this plan will clearly draw some stiff opposition on Capitol Hill, the president is expected to announce it a week from today.

Not only will I point out, yet again, how Abizaid, Casey and everyone else said that an escalation will not help the situation, I will point out that Bush’s own people are admitting that he is willing to buck everyone else and send more troops – more Americans into a failure of an occupation and risk more lives – all to score political points. Once again.

The president’s own people are admitting that the president is hell bent on sending more people to kill and die, AGAINST ALL ADVICE, for political reasons

Ladies and gentlemen, the wheels are coming off. The president is unhinged. He is alone in his decision to kill more innocent people and doesn’t care if this is not what his Generals, his fellow republicans, Congress and nearly 90% of Americans want. Or if it is doomed to fail.

This man must be stopped.

Now.

...the Saddam hanging backlash begins.

Front paged at ePluribus Media and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

Well, that didn’t take long. Nor was it totally unforeseen. But there have been some very disturbing things reported today coming out of Iraq – things that stem from what some are calling the “rushed hanging of Saddam” or the “deplorable manner” in which he was executed.

I don’t want this to become a debate on whether Saddam should have died for his actions, or whether the trial was fair or not (as there were over 600 comments in a prior diary dealing with that). Rather, I want to focus on what has happened since the decision was made to execute Saddam, and the fact that the execution was done less than a week after the appeal was denied. Interestingly, the “deplorable manner” comment was made not by anyone in the Arab world, but rather by Britain's deputy prime minister John Prescott.

And, as expected, there were Sunni protests that, depending on the report, were either peaceful or forceful.

Interestingly, the small difference in wording between the Yahoo (AP) report and the CBS (as well as a NY Times report) makes a big difference. First, the Yahoo quote (all emphasis mine):

Sunnis Muslims, angered by the execution of Saddam Hussein and the way his hanging was carried out, took to the streets in mainly peaceful demonstrations in Sunni enclaves across the country.

A crowd of Sunni mourners in Samarra marched to a bomb-damaged Shiite shrine Monday and were allowed by guards and police to enter the holy place carrying a mock coffin and photos of the former dictator.

Now the CBS report:

After Hussein's burial Monday, rage over the hanging spilled into the streets in many parts of the Sunni Muslim heartland Monday, especially in Samarra where a mob of angry protesters broke the locks off the badly damaged Shiite Golden Dome mosque and marched through carrying a mock coffin and photo of the executed former leader.

And finally, the NY Times report (interestingly also an AP report):

Enraged crowds protested the hanging of Saddam Hussein across Iraq’s Sunni heartland on Monday, as a mob in Samarra broke the locks off a bomb-damaged Shiite shrine and marched through carrying a mock coffin and a photo of the executed dictator.

Well, what does Juan Cole have to say about this?

Folks, this is very bad news. The Askariyah Shrine (it isn't just a mosque) is associated with the Hidden Twelfth Imam, who is expected by Shiites to appear at the end of time to restore the world to justice. (For them, the Imam Mahdi is sort of like the second coming of Christ for Christians). The Muqtada al-Sadr movement is millenarian and believes he will reveal himself at any moment.

The centrality of the cult of the Twelfth Imam, a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad who is said to have vanished in 873 AD, helps explain why the bombing of the Golden Dome on February 21 of 2006 set off a frenzy of Shiite, Sadrist attacks on Sunni Arabs. Last February, stuck in a Phoenix hotel because of a missed flight and without an internet connection for my laptop, I blogged from my Treo that it was an apocalyptic day. Sadly, it was, kicking off a frenzy of sectarian violence that has grown each subsequent month.

For Sunni Arabs to parade a symbolic coffin of Saddam through the ruins of the Askariya shrine won't be exactly good for social peace in Iraq. Can't that site be properly guarded or something?

For the record, Professor Cole is referring to the CBS article. And yes, Saddam was a Grade A scumbag. But as I and a number of other commentators and diarists have noted, this isn’t about whether he deserved to die. It is the manner in which he was tried and executed that will reflect badly on the US, as well as those who have cheered his death as “revenge”, despite not having anything to seek revenge for.

High level members of the UK government had criticisms for the ones who filmed the hanging, for the death penalty itself, or for the lack of an official statement from Blair. Said Prescott:

"I think the manner was quite deplorable really," he said. "I don't think one can endorse in any way that, whatever your views about capital punishment.

"Frankly, to get the kind of recorded messages coming out is totally unacceptable, and I think whoever was involved and responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves."

There is now an investigation by the Iraqi government into the circumstances surrounding the video and its release. And, according to the BBC:

The Iraqi authorities fear the footage, released on the internet hours after the execution, could contribute to a dramatic rise in sectarian tensions between Iraq's Sunni and Shia communities.

Further, the first judge in Saddam’s trial added fuel to the fire by indicating that his execution was illegal under Iraqi law. Whether this is indeed the truth or not, it certainly doesn’t help matters. From the CBS article (linked above):

The first judge in the so-called Dujail trial, Rizgar Mohammed Amin, said Saddam's execution in the during the eid was illegal according to Iraqi law. Sunni Muslim festivities marking the holiday began on the same day that Saddam was hanged. Rizgar, a Kurd, was removed as chief judge in the case after Shiite complaints that he was too lenient. He was replaced in January 2006 by Raouf Rasheed Abdel-Rahman.

"The implementation of Saddam's execution during Eid al-adha is illegal according to chapter 9 of the tribunal law. Article 27 states that nobody, even the president (Jalal Talabani), may change rulings by the tribunal and the implementation of the sentence should not happen until 30 days after publication that the appeals court has upheld the tribunal verdict.

The hanging during the Eid al-Adha period (also) contradicts Iraqi and Islamic custom. "Article 290 of the criminal code of 1971 (which was largely used in the Saddam trial) states that no verdict should implemented during the official holidays or religious festivals," he said.

Again, this is not to say that he is right or not, but it is to point out that there is someone that was (1) intimately involved in the case and (2) who was removed from the case for what could be called political reasons (i.e., Shiite complaints that he was too lenient).

But the wider repercussions (hat tip to Professor Cole) stem from this comment in a Washington Post article deal with the fact that it is now more and more Shiites who are losing confidence in the US. And considering that it was the “Sunni insurgents” that we were fighting initially, then are we going to be fighting EVERYONE?

Lefta, 42, was among the many Shiites who thanked the Americans for their freedom. He dreamed that his community, Iraq's majority, would exert the political influence the Sunnis had long denied it.

---snip---

"The Americans are afraid the Shia will take over Iraq," he explained.

---snip---

As President Bush seeks a new strategy for Iraq, many Shiites express deep mistrust of the United States and its intentions. In U.S. efforts to engage Iraq's disaffected Sunnis, they perceive betrayal. And in U.S. pressure to dismantle Shiite militias, they see an attempt to weaken their bulwark against Sunni insurgents.

And oh-by-the-way, 40 handcuffed, bullet ridden bodies were found in Baghdad yesterday not to mention the 22 deaths reported so far today.

Being that it is likely that Bush will want to escalate this occupation further, we still have not heard any real substance to what will be done with these additional troops, or whether there is will be any backlash to his plan (given that there is under 15% support for this in the Senate as well as in the general population).

However, the ugly has gotten uglier, and will get even worse unless a real change of course happens soon. Of course, this involves NOT escalating the occupation, engaging with Iran, Syria and others in the region, and coming up with something that will be geared towards an international humanitarian effort to stop this violence/civil war/genocide before it truly is too late.

And it is almost too late already.

Oh, so NOW things could get ugly, Senators?

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

Well, pardon me for not quite believing the suddenly brazen republican Senators like Richard Lugar (IN) and Arlen “Magic Bullet” Specter (PA) with their newest toothless threats to Bush about Iraq.

While it is nice to see some prominent republicans at least pretend to act like they don’t have their heads firmly planted in their own ass or their noses firmly entrenched in Bush’s ass, these latest words are not new, credible or believable. And frankly, in a time where we have seen empty rhetoric from Specter about how he would run his Judiciary Committee (only to cave in time and time again) or how he would stand up to the Bushistas (only to cave in time and time again), not to mention a time where Lugar rightfully criticized the US lack of planning for “postwar” Iraq (only to nearly never vote his conscience on Iraq or on “diplomats” like John Bolton) – these words ring even hollower.

You see, Senators, things have been ugly for quite some time, and you have written a blank check for Bush in Iraq for quite some time – whether you are just admitting it or not.

The two quotes (somewhat paraphrased due to no official transcript) are as follows (first Lugar):

“[I]n the past, the administration has been inclined not to disregard Congress but to not take Congress very seriously. I think this time Congress has to be taken seriously.”

If Bush ignores Congress, Lugar said he should expect “a lot of hearings, a lot of study, a lot of criticism,” and “demands for subpoenas.” Fox host Chris Wallace said, “You saying this could get ugly.” Lugar replied, “Yes, it could.”

And now Specter’s:

Specter went "on the record" as saying he did not support escalation, he is "inclined to support the conclusions of Jim Baker", and he is "not going to give the President a blank check."

See, here is the problem - We can flash back to April 2006 to find another time that Specter said this about Bush and Iraq. And this was just 2 months after Congress approved $60 billion or so for Iraq. This of course, doesn’t include the “other” $60 billion approved for fiscal year 2007, or any of the other “emergency bills” that will come out either.

Yes, it is apples/oranges, but early estimates were that it would take approximately $32 billion to rebuild New Orleans. Oh yeah, we can’t forget the $177 billion (yes, that is a B) in CORPORATE tax cuts from the 2002 and 2003 tax cuts. Sorry, Arlen, but that sounds like an awful lot of blank checks already.

As for you, Dick – it is nice that you have made some basic observations which even a child could have made over the past six years. But to say that “things could get ugly” now? Come on. And I’ll preface by saying that Lugar is one of the “better” republicans when it comes to foreign relations (but even a “better republican” has been a rubber stamp). But jeez – look at the stellar voting record when it comes to backing up the tough talk.

You would have thought that it got ugly when Congress didn’t exercise its oversight or due diligence regarding the lies and flimsy evidence rammed down its throat before marching into Iraq. And yes, that includes Democrats as well.

You would have thought that it got ugly when the US let Bin Laden slip away or when Bush purposely let Zarqawi slip away because it would “hurt the case for invading Iraq.

You would have thought that it got ugly when Paul Wolfowitz was listened to over General Shinseki about the troop levels required in Iraq.

You would have thought that it got ugly when the Iraqi army was disbanded without consulting the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

You would have thought that it got ugly when well over six months ago many people realized that Iraq was descending into a civil war.

You would have thought that it got ugly when over two years ago, the soldiers called bullshit on Rumsfeld for a lack of armor and equipment.

You would have thought that it got ugly when the republicans were swept out of Congressional control this past November – when the most important issue on people’s minds was the desire for a change of direction in Iraq.

So please, pardon me for not feeling the “warm and fuzzies” for your tired and old new and improved tough talk. Forgive me for not having that welcoming holiday cheer for your newest threats to Bush. Let’s see that talk backed up with action.

Let’s see you actually take Bush – or anyone else for that matter – to task for doing what We the People (as well as many experts, military leaders and other leaders/citizens around the world) are dead set against.

Let’s see things REALLY get ugly. Not for the Americans. Not for our troops. Not for the Iraqi civilians.

But for those who are responsible for this disaster we are in.

Hey Georgie - daddy STILL thinks you are a failure

Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos.

So George – you got your pound of flesh. The “guy who tried to kill your dad” has been executed. It must feel good. You know – because you had you eye set on invading Iraq as far back as 2000.

Because, you know, back in 2002, your comment was, “Fuck Saddam, we’re taking him out”. And because you got your invasion (regardless of whether the facts were being fixed around the policy), then that is all that matters – since Saddam was a very bad man.

But that still doesn’t change the fact that daddy would have never invaded in the first place. Or that daddy’s friends had to try and bail you out (yet again).

Or that Jeb is daddy’s favorite. Not you. And you never will be.

Oh, I bet you feel vindicated that you can now try and blow more smoke about how Iraq is better and the “people of Iraq are better off” but that won’t work. Not while there are still hundreds of people dying in Iraq every day. Not while the 3,000th US soldier will be killed in Iraq today or tomorrow. Not when most of the country and the world sees through your empty bullshit words like “surge” and knows that you just want to escalate this disastrous occupation even more.

Not us. Not Iraqis. Not the world at large. And not daddy either.

You see, daddy sees the big picture – even if he is misguided at times. He knows that actions have consequences. That you can’t do something half-assed. Or that if you are to invade and occupy a foreign country – a sovereign country – you better not lie your way into it. And you better plan for the worst possible scenario (as opposed to winging it). Or even better – listen to the experts. But alas, those were more of daddy’s friends and by listening to them, you would be admitting to your own failure.

So here we are – you avenged daddy’s near death. After all, that was the whole point all along, yes? Just like Scarface, right? Or maybe it was because Saddam was sitting on all that oil, and by stealing it you could pay back daddy’s oil industry friends who kept bailing you out even after you failed where very few could have failed – oil ventures in Texas.

Either way, this hardly makes up for it. It won’t win any points with daddy. See, he still knows how bad Iraq is fucked, even though you won’t admit it yourself. He knows that Osama is the one that you took your eye off of – even if his family and yours are good friends. He sees through your line of nonsense that not capturing Bin Laden is “a success that hasn’t occurred yet”.

Another thing, George – daddy is a smart man. Who knows a lot of very important people and also happen to be smart men. And daddy has known them for years. They even trusted each other. Men like Richard Clarke. Men who you strongarmed and refused to listen to, even though they were right. Or men like Colin Powell. A man who you likely also strongarmed and threatened unless he lied for you and ruined what could have been a stellar career of service to his country.

And now, a many like former President Bill Clinton. Another very intelligent man. And one who also turned out to be right about many of the things that you were not right about. Daddy even likes to hang out with Clinton and they have spearheaded worldwide humanitarian efforts when you didn’t even care that a tsumani wreaked death and destruction a few years ago.

So, I hate to burst your bubble (actually, no I really take joy in it) Mr. Decider. But this changes nothing. Daddy still thinks you are a failure and a loser. And he is so ashamed of you that he cries just talking about “what could have been” for brother Jeb if only you didn’t go and fuck that up that too.

Yes – Saddam is no longer alive. As you would say, the era of an evil regime that is hell bent on bullying and threatening other countries with WMDs is over.

We too will be saying that.

In January 2009, if not sooner.