FEEL BETTER?

In Iraq, across the Middle East, and around the world, reactions to Saddam’s execution are far from ecstatic

http://voanews.com/english/2006-12-30-voa19.cfm
The execution of Saddam Hussein is drawing a mixed reaction in the Arab world, where many people believe the former Iraqi leader committed many crimes, but question the fairness of his trial. The timing of his execution has also drawn criticism, coming on the first day of one of the most important Muslim holidays. . .

http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2006/12/some_kurdish_re.html
From some initial editorials, many Kurds seem none too pleased with Saddam's execution. . . .

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/807433.html
With violence killing hundreds every week, Iraqis have other worries. Even celebrations in Shi'ite cities and Baghdad's Sadr City slum were brief and fairly restrained. . . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_24_atrios_archive.html#116749000329756199
[AP] U.S. troops cheered as news of Saddam's execution appeared on television at the mess hall at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in eastern Baghdad. But some soldiers expressed doubt that Saddam's death would be a significant turning point for Iraq.

"First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then when there were none, it was that we had to find Saddam. We did that, but then it was that we had to put him on trial," said Spc. Thomas Sheck, 25, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "So now, what will be the next story they tell us to keep us over here?"

[Atrios] Don't trouble your beautiful mind, Spc. Sheck. No one knows why we invaded Iraq, and no one really knows why we're staying. Just stay safe.

More: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/31/05026/182

Don’t choke on the irony

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/presidents-praise-of-fair-trials-and.html
[Glenn Greenwald] President Bush today hailed the critical importance of fair trials and the rule of law . . . . in Iraq . . . [read on!]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/us/31gitmo.html
At one end of a converted trailer in the American military detention center here, a graying Pakistani businessman sat shackled before a review board of uniformed officers, pleading for his freedom. . . The prisoner had seen just a brief summary of what officials said was a thick dossier of intelligence linking him to Al Qaeda. He had not seen his own legal papers since they were taken away in an unrelated investigation. He has lawyers working on his behalf in Washington, London and Pakistan, but here his only assistance came from an Army lieutenant colonel, who stumbled as he read the prisoner’s handwritten statement.

As the hearing concluded, the detainee, who cannot be identified publicly under military rules, had a question. He is a citizen of Pakistan, he noted. He was arrested on a business trip to Thailand. On what authority or charges was he even being held?

“That question,” a Marine colonel presiding over the panel answered, “is outside the limits of what this board is permitted to consider.”

Under a law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in October, this double-wide trailer may be as close to a courtroom as most Guantánamo prisoners ever get. The law prohibits them from challenging their detention or treatment by writs of habeas corpus in the federal courts. Instead, they may only petition a single federal appeals court to examine whether the review boards followed the military’s own procedures in reviewing their status as “enemy combatants.”

But an examination of the Guantánamo review boards by The New York Times suggests that they have often fallen short, not only as a source of due process for the hundreds of men held here, but also as a forum to resolve questions about what the detainees have done and the threats they may pose. . . . [read on]

Dubya: finishing the work his daddy left incomplete

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000663.html
"The sacrifice has been worth it," Bush said at a year-end news conference nine days before the execution. A few moments later, he added: "I haven't questioned whether or not it was right to take Saddam Hussein out." He stopped himself. "I mean, I've questioned it -- I've come to the conclusion that it was the right decision." . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/world/middleeast/30assess.html
When Mr. Hussein was captured, the president said: “Good riddance, the world is better off without you.” But he dismissed suggestions that a family grudge played a role in shaping his Iraq policy or influenced his decision to go to war. “My personal views,” he said, “aren’t important in this matter.”

But Mr. Buchanan, a longtime observer of the Bush political family in Texas, said that these were no ordinary archenemies and that setting aside personal views entirely seemed impossible. . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_24.php#011738
[David Kurtz] I'm still sorting through the post-hanging detritus this morning, but this passage from the New York Times, which Greg highlighted over at EC, captures the entire Iraq debacle:

Before the hanging was carried out in Baghdad, Mr. Bush went to sleep here at his ranch and was not roused when the news came.

And so it goes. . . .

This probably should stand as the definitive, final word on Saddam’s trial and hanging

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/11/dont_look_too_hard_at_the_gand/
[Matt Yglesias] I wasn't really focused on this issue because it seems obvious that, on the one hand, Saddam Hussein is a monster who the world will be well rid of and, on the other hand, that convicting and executing Saddam won't change anything that matters in Iraq or in the world. It is, however, actually worth noting a few things about this case. One, as Spencer notes in its zeal to avoid an international tribunal (Bush hates international law), we organized a total farce of a trial and wound up creating a kangaroo court to try a guilty man.

Second, Saddam was charged with the wrong crime. When you think "Saddam Hussein and crimes against humanity" your thoughts naturally turn to Halabja/Anfal. Prosecuting that case, however, raised awkward questions about Don Rumsfeld's meet-and-greet with Saddam Hussein . . .

The purpose of said visit, as people might recall were the American press not to have its head in the sand, was largely to reassure Saddam that the Reagan administration's public condemnation of Iraqi chemical weapons use against the Iranian military and Kurdish insurgents was not something Baghdad should take especially seriously. The State Department would condemn, but special envoy Rumsfeld was around to cut deals.

At any rate, as a result of Saddam's pending execution, prosecutions for further crimes, including matters related to Anfal, are now deemed unnecessary, and Rumsfeld and the rest of the Reagan national security team can escape scrutiny.

This, in turn, raises questions about the legal precedent being set by the case. Saddam is being executed for the specific charge of killing 148 men and boys from the town of Dujail in retaliation for a July 8, 1982 assassination attempt against Saddam. Saddam's legal team argued that given the state of war existing at the time between Iraq and Iran this fell under the purview of sound counterinsurgency strategy and said argument was rejected.

Fair enough, but compare this to, say, Fallujah. Thirteen civilians were killed when American soldiers opened fire on protesters. This led, in turn, to the murder and mutilation of four contractors employed by the US military. This led to a retaliatory military strike on the town by US and Iraqi government forces that local doctors claimed killed over 600 people. The Iraqi health ministry disputes that, arguing that "only" 271 civilians died in the attack, during which "more than half" of the city's homes were destroyed.

The exact same as what happened at Dujail? No. A completely different sort of thing? Also no. But if Dujail is worth a death sentence, then what's Fallujah worth? Five years? Ten? I don't really know. How about the people tortured to death after the Bush administration's decision to ignore international and domestic law regarding detentions and interrogations?

Which is all just to say that the Bush administration has every reason to seek to undermine international human rights law and the concept of international tribunals.

More: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3693

A new conventional wisdom starts to take root in Washington: were losing in Iraq because we haven’t been brutal and ruthless ENOUGH (well, gee, fellas, it’s not too late to start now. . . .)

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/12/new-frontiers-in-authoritarian.html
[Jeff Goldstein] Let them, for one brief moment, bracket their partisan aggressions and reflect on what the US and its allies have done in removing this butcher from power—which, contrary to received wisdom, has made Iraq a far better place, if only for the moment potentially.

[Scott Lemieux] And as the year ends, I will reflect on and celebrate the fact that I made a trillion dollars this year, if only for the moment potentially. . .

This is what passes for good news these days

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/30/183212/65
[AP] Despite concerns about a spike in unrest, Saturday's violence was not unusually high for Iraq. . .

The military reported the deaths of six more American troops...

[http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_24.php#011740
[David Kurtz] December becomes the deadliest month of 2006 for U.S. troops, with 108 killed. . . . ]

In Baghdad, 12 bodies bearing signs of torture were also found in various parts of the city...

Two car bombs detonated one after another in a religiously mixed neighborhood of northwest Baghdad, killing 37 civilians and wounding 76...

Another 31 people died and 58 were injured when a bomb planted on a minibus exploded in a fish market...

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9482.html
[Stuart Varney, Fox News] “Well, let me put out something positive about Iraq, if I may for a second. Look, we took the fight to the enemy. We divided the enemy. The enemy is now fighting itself. America’s interest is surely being well-preserved and well-protected. We are in a fact, in a way, winning and preserving our interests.”

[Steve Benen] Silly me, I didn’t think anyone in this country could possibly perceive of the Iraqi civil war as a good thing. I stand corrected.

For that matter, it’s good to know that, when necessary, Fox News can find guest “news personalities” who are even less connected to reality than the network’s usual line-up. That, in and of itself, is an impressive feat.

Can you imagine if Fox News was a person’s only outlet for news and analysis?

Meanwhile. . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_24.php#011744
[Richard Clarke] As the president contemplates sending even more U.S. forces into the Iraqi sinkhole, he should consider not only the thousands of fatalities, the tens of thousands of casualties and the hundreds of billions of dollars already lost. He must also weigh the opportunity cost of taking his national security barons off all the other critical problems they should be addressing -- problems whose windows of opportunity are slamming shut, unheard over the wail of Baghdad sirens. . . .

Nope, nothing unusual here

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/washington/30royalty.html
The Justice Department is investigating whether the director of a multibillion-dollar oil-trading program at the Interior Department has been paid as a consultant for oil companies hoping for contracts. . . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9484.html

Now that the Democrats have the whip hand in Congress, suddenly all the chin-pullers are praising the virtues of bipartisanship (while under Republican control all we heard about – with admiration – was their “party discipline” and cold effectiveness in forcing their agenda through)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/30/174518/40

Atrios: a taxonomy of annoying political types

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_24_atrios_archive.html#116749698789632683

Sunday talk show line-ups

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122902060.html
FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D).

THIS WEEK (ABC): Former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) and his wife, Elizabeth Edwards.

NEWSMAKERS (C-SPAN): Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

FACE THE NATION (CBS): James Cannon, Gerald R. Ford biographer, and retired Army Gen. Alexander M. Haig Jr., Ford White House chief of staff.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Presidential historian Michael Beschloss.

LATE EDITION (CNN): Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.); Iraqi diplomat Feisal Amin al-Istrabadi; Shibley Telhami, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution; Vali Nasr, Naval Postgraduate School professor; former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski; former defense secretary William Cohen; and Laith Kubba, former Iraqi government spokesman.

Bonus item: Listen, laugh (thanks to Wally F. for the link)

http://folksongsofthefarrightwing.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:47 AM

 
HANGING PARTY

It’s official: Saddam’s dead

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011729.php
[Josh Marshall] This thing is a sham, of a piece with the whole corrupt, disastrous sham that the war and occupation have been. Bush administration officials are the ones who leak the news about the time of the execution. One key reason we know Saddam's about to be executed is that he's about to be transferred from US to Iraqi custody, which tells you a lot. And, of course, the verdict in his trial gets timed to coincide with the US elections.

This whole endeavor, from the very start, has been about taking tawdry, cheap acts and dressing them up in a papier-mache grandeur -- phony victory celebrations, ersatz democratization, reconstruction headed up by toadies, con artists and grifters. And this is no different. Hanging Saddam is easy. It's a job, for once, that these folks can actually see through to completion. So this execution, ironically and pathetically, becomes a stand-in for the failures, incompetence and general betrayal of country on every other front that President Bush has brought us. . . . [read on!]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011736.php
[Josh Marshall] [Reuters, December 29th] The White House declined to comment on the timing. . . . "That is a matter for the Iraqi people, we are observers to that process. They are a sovereign government and they will make their own decisions regarding carrying out justice," spokesman Scott Stanzel said in Crawford, Texas.

[AP, December 29th] An adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saddam would be executed before 6 a.m. Saturday, or 10 p.m. Friday EST. . . . The time was agreed upon during a meeting Friday between U.S. and Iraqi officials, said the adviser, who declined to be quoted by name because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/saddam_dead/
[Matt Yglesias] The deed is done. Sad to see even something as justice for a major-league war criminal rendered tawdry by this administration. Here's a report on the infamous Anfal Campaign that Saddam wasn't tried for in order to spare Donald Rumsfeld embarrassment.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/for-whom-bell-tolls-top-ten-ways-us.html
[Juan Cole] Top Ten Ways the US Enabled Saddam Hussein . . .

Ethnic cleansing in Baghdad

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3690

Eh, who cares what THEY think?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-29-poll-iraq_x.htm
The American military, once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war, has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83% of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50%.

Only 35% of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way Bush is handling the war, and 42% said they disapprove . . .

Condi Rice: history will not be kind . . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9478.html
With Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice having two years under her belt, now’s a good time to step back and consider her overall job performance. David Millikin makes the case that Rice has “few diplomatic successes to show for her efforts and fewer signs she plans to change course to improve the record.” . . .

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061229/pl_afp/usdiplomacyrice_061229004110

Joe Lieberman moves, if possible, even further in the direction of neo-con apologist and warmonger. Could he really be lining up for a run on McCain’s ticket?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/29/62443/392
[BarbinMD] In an op-ed appearing in today's Washington Post, Joe Lieberman manages to hit every talking point from the Bush administration to support the escalation of the war in Iraq. From invoking September 11th, to denying the reality of civil war, to "victory in Iraq," he doesn't miss a beat. Rarely has such delusional, disingenuous flag-waving been seen outside of a White House press conference. . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/29/92857/329

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/the_last_honest_escalation/

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_24_atrios_archive.html#116743350476137728

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2345.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/joe-lieberman-irans-best-friend.html

The Republicans: what do they stand for?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/30/15249/360
[Devilstower] Smaller government! That's it. Republicans have always stood for smaller government that promotes that good American "rugged individualism." . . .

Okay, maybe not. But fiscal responsibility. That's always been a Republican issue. . . .

So money's not their thing. Thank goodness they know how to manage the military. . . .

Well, if nothing else, you can always count on Republicans to be tough on crime. . . . [read it all!]

Bad news for three Republicans

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/12/29/today_on_political_insider.html

The sharks are eating each other

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122901220.html

The Democrats look to be shaping up a very aggressive agenda

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/12/29/ethics-push/
Democrats postpone exercise of newfound power as the capital pauses to remember Ford, but on Thursday, when Congress is sworn in, House and Senate Democrats begin approving package to curb special interests’ sway by banning gifts and travel paid for by lobbyists. . . .

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_57/editorial/16285-1.html
We are impressed and encouraged that incoming Democratic Senate and House leaders have served notice that legislating will be a full-time job for Members of Congress beginning next year, not just an activity undertaken as a break from campaigning. . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9476.html
[Steve Benen] When the Military Commissions Act, which among other things suspended habeas corpus for suspected terrorists, went to the Senate floor in September, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) noted, “Surely as we are standing here, if this bill is passed and habeas corpus is stricken, we’ll be back on this floor again” after the courts reject the legislation.

We may not have to wait that long. Earlier this month, we saw the first inkling that the MCA might be revisited in 2007, but it now appears almost certain that the law will be re-examined by the new Democratic Senate. . . .

Will the House Dems block the results of the Florida 13th vote?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061229/pl_nm/usa_congress_politics_dc

Bonus item: Quote of the day

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8125
[CNN White House correspondent Ed ] HENRY: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get him. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure.

[Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Frances Fragos] TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure.

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:22 AM

 
IN SEARCH OF A MISSION

Matt Yglesias nails it

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/escalating_silence/
Roughly speaking, the fixed point of the president's thinking is an unwillingness to admit that the venture has failed. For a long time the best way to do that was to simply deny that there was a problem. Political strategy for the midterms, however, dictated that the president had to acknowledge the public's concerns about the war and concede that things weren't going well. At that point, simply staying the course doesn't work anymore. But de-escalating would be an admission of failure, so the only option is to choose escalation. Thus, the idea of an escalation starts getting pushed and we start reading things in the paper like "Top military officials have said that they are open to sending more U.S. troops to Iraq if there is a specific strategic mission for them." Consider the process here. It's not that the president has some policy initiative in mind whose operational requirements dictate a surge in force levels. Rather, locked in the prison of his own denial he came to the conclusion that he should back an escalation, prompting the current search for a mission.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_24.php#011725
[Josh Marshall] To put it simply, the presidential is neither psychologically nor politically capable of leaving Iraq. The 2006 election made it clear the current course can't be sustained politically. Even his own party won't back it. That leaves escalation as the only alternative. All that's left is a rationale for doing so. And that's what the president is now working on.

That doesn't mean that in theory there couldn't be a good argument for escalation, only that whatever it is, it has nothing to do with why the president is in favor of escalation. Because if it did he would have called for it at some point over the last three years. And he didn't. . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-on-troop-escalation.html
[AJ] One of the most frustrating things about all this talk of escalation is that the debate is over whether or not we should add more troops instead of what mission the troops will ostensibly be attempting. It's not, "Will 30,000 more troops be able to accomplish Mission X," but rather "Will 30,000 troops improve the situation" or quell the violence or some such thing. Haven't we all recognized that the current strategy in Iraq is failing? Hasn't just about everybody admitted that, including the two-years-behind-everything pundit class? And if so, how has the conversation gone from changing strategy to changing how many young men and women are on the ground trying to implement that failed strategy?

[NB: I said this a week or so ago. Bush feels he HAS to do something dramatic, and he won’t reduce the number of troops, so there isn’t any choice: increasing the troops is “doing something dramatic.” But with no specified mission, there is no determinate criterion for how long they will need to be there or what will constitute “success” – aside from the usual mantra of creating an Iraq government capable of sustaining itself, blah, blah, blah. What, EXACTLY, these additional troops might do to hasten that objective remains an open question. And so while this “temporary increase” is unlikely to serve any concrete purpose, there will be no basis for bringing them home – hence, it won’t in fact be temporary]

More: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003525778
[Greg Mitchell] There are several problems with this, of course. For one thing, who is to say, in advance, that this will actually prove to be a mere “surge” of troops versus a long-term buildup? What is the time limit for a “surge” to recede before it seems semi-permanent? A few months, as the White House has suggested? Or a year or more, as some of its outside backers demand, saying anything less would be futile?

Then there’s this: How many troops would indicate a mere “surge” versus a “large buildup”? Would 30,000 or less qualify for surge, but 40,000 or more represent a “large buildup”? . . .

One other little problem: new Defense Sect’y – and former ISG member – Robert Gates is reportedly against the increase. He has certainly heard the generals say they will only support it in the context of a clearly stated mission and purpose. Will he be heeded, or brushed aside?

http://www.nysun.com/article/45767
With President Bush leaning toward sending more soldiers to pacify Iraq, his defense secretary is privately opposing the buildup.

According to two administration officials who asked not to be named, Robert Gates expressed his skepticism about a troop surge in Iraq on his first day on the job, December 18, at a Pentagon meeting with civilians who oversee the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines. . . .

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_24.php#011718

After that WH-inspired flurry of “troops support the surge” stories last week, someone . . . . gee . . . . actually asked the troops themselves

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003525753
[AP] Many of the American soldiers trying to quell sectarian killings in Baghdad don't appear to be looking for reinforcements. They say a surge in troop levels some people are calling for is a bad idea. . . .[read on]

Well, now everyone can see how open the Bush gang actually is toward hearing a range of opposing views on their Iraq policy

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/escalating_silence/
[Matt Yglesias] I don't know when Scott Stanzel started working as a White House spokesman, but his rejoinder to Joe Biden's anti-escalation views doesn't make much sense: "I would hope that Senator Biden would wait to hear what the president has to say before announcing what he's opposed to." So while the Decider dithers none of us are allowed to offer our opinions about what he should do? I suppose it would be convenient for the White House message team if things worked that way.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_24_atrios_archive.html#116725501747337649
[Atrios] According to the White House, no one is allowed to comment on hypothetical plans for Iraq until the Decider has Decided. . . .

Did anybody see this?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_24_atrios_archive.html#116733117319252345
[Atrios] Bush just gave a brief talk which consisted mostly of his usually blather, but he almost seemed frightened. It was weird.

[NB: This makes me wonder. The Boy King has finally backed himself into a corner in which, if this last-ditch effort fails, there are no more rabbits to pull out of the hat: either we slog through a quagmire for the remainder of his administration; or he admits he was wrong and agrees to a troop withdrawal; or things get worse (yes, they could get much, much worse) – and he will have no one left to blame. If the ISG accomplished nothing else, they seem to have given Bush a glimpse of the likely aftermath of his folly: a judgment of historic failure even from his natural allies. Yes, he should be frightened]

Is his support for troop escalation in Iraq hurting John McCain? (one can only hope)

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/12/27/war_weighs_down_mccain.html

Joe Lieberman almost lets the cat out of the bag

http://www.slate.com/id/2156647/
[Daniel Politi] Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut writes an op-ed piece for the Post today where he explains why he thinks more troops need to be sent to Iraq. "More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight, but they are certainly its prerequisite." Lieberman never specifies how many more troops are needed but he does insist "the war is winnable." The senator also emphasizes these extra troops must come with a "new military, political, and economic strategy" in order to be successful.

Iraqi troop readiness – just around the corner, right? Right? Uh, hello?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/28/95540/851
[Bob Johnson] There is no Iraqi army. And the police forces are even worse. . . .

A reporter returns to Baghdad

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16337639.htm
[Hannah Allam] When I was last here in 2005, it took guts and guards, but you could still travel to most anywhere in the capital. Now, there are few true neighborhoods left. They're mostly just cordoned-off enclaves in various stages of deadly sectarian cleansing. Moving trucks piled high with furniture weave through traffic, evidence of an unfolding humanitarian crisis involving hundreds of thousands of forcibly displaced Iraqis. . . . [read on!]

Former President Gerald Ford questions Bush policy. Therefore, Ford – must – be – destroyed. . .

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWU2NTQ5N2M3MTM4YmEyZTcyZjUyMjE1ODFkNzNkMWU=
[Bill Bennett – a prince, ain’t he?] Since "decency" seems to be the watchword of the day and the consensus modifier for Jerry Ford (a view with which I generally concur), may I nevertheless be permitted to ask this: just how decent, how courageous, is what Jerry Ford did with Bob Woodward? . . .

The new lie: former Presidents never criticize current ones (I guess it’s different when Republicans do it to Democrats)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_24_atrios_archive.html#116737329684618004

Why Ford REALLY pardoned Nixon

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_24.php#011730
[WP] "I looked upon him as my personal friend. And I always treasured our relationship. And I had no hesitancy about granting the pardon, because I felt that we had this relationship and that I didn't want to see my real friend have the stigma." . . . [read on]

More on Bush’s tipping point

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_24.php#011720

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8118
I fully understand it's important to have both Republicans and Democrats understanding the importance of this mission. . . . [read on]

An homage to Billmon

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3687

Bonus item: We’re lucky they’re so dumb

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002245.php

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:02 AM

 
A PERMANENT “SURGE”?

Has anyone asked yet, if “the surge” is temporary, and not a permanent escalation, how long will it last?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/27/908/87290
[Fred Kagan] Reports on the Bush administration's efforts to craft a new strategy in Iraq often use the term "surge" but rarely define it. Estimates of the number of troops to be added in Baghdad range from fewer than 10,000 to more than 30,000. Some "surges" would last a few months, others a few years.

We need to cut through the confusion. Bringing security to Baghdad -- the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development -- is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail. . . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_24_atrios_archive.html#116723452885266376
[Atrios] Frederick Kagan wants to send a lot of other people to go fight his war for an even longer time . . .

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/more_troops_more_longer/
[John Podhoretz] "The key here is time. A 'temporary' troop surge will be a disaster." . . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9452.html

The Democrats seem to have decided how to deal with Bush’s war escalation proposal

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-iraqpol27dec27,0,2689647.story
After years of playing a marginal role in the Iraq war, congressional Democrats plan to move quickly next month to assert more control and undercut any White House effort to increase troop levels.

As President Bush prepares to outline his plan for Iraq in a major speech in the next few weeks, Democratic leaders will counter with weeks of oversight hearings, summoning military officers, administration officials and foreign policy experts to Capitol Hill.

The Democratic plans put Congress on a collision course with Bush over the direction of the nearly 4-year-old war. And they signal a new phase in a war that had been directed almost exclusively by the White House with little dissent from the GOP-controlled Capitol. . . .

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003525414
At today's press gaggle in Crawford, Texas, Scott Stanzel, pinch-hitting for White House Press Secretary Tony Snow. . . Asked about the president's reaction to Sen. Joseph Biden's outright rejection of Bush's rumored plan to escalate the conflict in Iraq by sending 30,000 or more new troops there, Stanzel replied, "Well, I hope that Senator Biden would wait to hear what the President has to say before announcing what he's opposed to. President Bush will talk soon to our troops, to the American people and to the Iraqi people about the new way forward in Iraq that will lead to a democratic and unified country that can sustain, govern, and defend itself.

"So the President has been listening to a lot of different people, whether it's on Capitol Hill, whether it's members of the Iraq Study Group, whether it's talking with the Iraqis directly, and he appreciates the input. But certainly in terms of Senator Biden, we would hope that he, too, would also wait to hear what the President has to say before announcing his opposition."

Bad war = good politics?

http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/12/post_469.html#014928
[Greg Sargent] Sit down, everyone. I think I've found what is far and away the most perfect example of "no-matter-how-bad-it-gets-it's-helpful-to-Bush" punditry ever produced anywhere. . . .

Bad war = bad politics

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/27/182952/75
[Kos] Regardless of efforts by Bush and McCain to escalate the war in Iraq, there's a growing contingent of Republican legislators who fear that the continued (and escalated) mess in Iraq may create catastrophic losses in 2008. . . .

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116727299528351232

Ouch!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/washington/28capital.html
For every impossible problem that official Washington faces, there is a blue-ribbon panel, and for every panel there is a predictable life cycle, which the Iraq Study Group has so far followed to a fault.

First, the unrealistic expectations, fueled by feverish news coverage, including speculation and leaks about just what might be proposed. Next, the report’s grand unveiling, complete with White House photo op . . . And then, inevitably, the letdown.

Remember, for example, the Social Security commission of 2001? Neither do most Americans. The question now is whether a similar demise awaits the report of the Iraq Study Group — impeccably researched, comprehensive, bipartisan and having no legal authority beyond that of friendly advice. . . .

The same geopolitical big thinkers who brought you the Wonderful War in Iraq are busily at work on their sequel, the Wonderful War in Iran

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/glorious-war-plan-for-iran.html

Where is it written that you can’t call the President a liar?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16326716/site/newsweek/
[Eleanor Clift] In the spirit of holding our political leaders accountable, this year-end review will tabulate the worst lies told by Bush and company . . . [read on!]

The kind of people they are: multiple editions

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9455.html
[Steve Benen] National Review’s Cliff May published this comment today from an unnamed Marine in Iraq.

[M]orale among our guys is very high. They not only believe that they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see shit like “Are we losing in Iraq” on TV and the print media. For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership. Bottom line though, and they all say this, is that there are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren’t enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria.

In other words, here’s a Marine who, coincidentally, is repeating the exact talking points approved by the White House and supporters of the war. Sure, the Marine’s reported perspective seems completely at odds with everything we know about the crisis — indeed, it even conflicts with some of the president’s own concessions last week — but the National Review was fortunate enough to hear from a soldier willing to tell the magazine what Cliff May wanted to hear.

Except, there’s a catch. The nearly identical text from May’s NR post was part of a widely disseminated email from over a year ago. Worse, there were slight deviations in the original text in 2005, which made it difficult to confirm its authenticity.

As Justin Rood put it, “Despite a civil war and mounting body counts on all sides, the National Review folks can still find good news coming out of Iraq. Too bad it’s over a year old and of questionable provenance.” . . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116724399269327915
[Ann Althouse] A key question -- with an unknowable answer -- is: How many Americans would have died in post-9/11 attacks if we had not chosen the path of fighting back?

[Scott Lemieux] Well, the answer is indeed unknowable, but given that Iraq had no substantial connection to Anti-American terrorism and posed no security threat whatsoever to the United States, the overwhelmingly likely answer is "zero." Whatever Iraq was, it wasn't "fighting back" against the Islamic radicals who actually attacked New York. . . .[read on]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116726094571565642
[Digby] I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying watching Bob Dole drone on about how civility is broken down in Washington since the good old days when he and Jer were on the campaign trail. This is the same Bob Dole who was known as "the Prince of Darkness" back in the day --- the guy who was chosen for the GOP ticket in 1976 to pander to the rabid right and who said in the VP debate, "I figured it up the other day: If we added up the killed and wounded in Democrat wars in this century, it would be about 1.6 million Americans . . .”

Even after the “desperately needed” bill was rushed through Congress to give Bush’s Gitmo tribunal system some superficial legitimacy, they still only plan to charge a small fraction of the prisoners there. But they need a new $125 million courthouse to do it!

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002235.php

The updated and revised list of government data, reports, etc. the Bush gang never wants to see the light of day

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002237.php

House Democrats have said they will treat the GOP minority more respectfully than the Republicans treated them. Is this a good idea?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/27/13548/345

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9454.html

No, I’m not buying the hagiographies of Gerald Ford. I remember the reaction when he pardoned Richard Nixon . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122700982.html
[Bob Woodward] Ford had been in office only a month. The pardon came as a surprise -- to Congress and the public -- and it unleashed a wave of outrage and suspicion. Had there been a deal between Nixon and Ford promising a pardon in exchange for Nixon's resignation? . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_24.php#011708
Gallup has put out a blurb noting that Gerald Ford was apparently one of the least popular presidents of the post-WW2 era . . .

More: http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/the_pardon/

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_24_atrios_archive.html#116725716628015838

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_24_atrios_archive.html#116723914745933625
[Atrios] We are told again and again that what they nation needed was "to heal." That "the turmoil" needed to be over. That it was necessary to move on.

But these are the Wise Old Men talking, not of the country but of their beloved Washington. The turmoil was in their city, not in the country. While they speak as if they know what's best for us, in truth they simply know what's best for them. . . .

Ford’s secret interviews

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/ford-disagreed-with-bush-cheney-rummy.html
[Joe in DC] The former President did an embargoed interview with Bob Woodward back in July of 2004. The Post also has the audio of the interviews on the website. Ford was none too happy with Bush and his former staffers, Cheney and Rummy, about Iraq. . . .

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701558.html

http://politicalinsider.com/2006/12/did_ford_leave_final_interview.html
[Helvidius] The buzz is that after leaving office in 1977, President Gerald Ford gave an interview to a weekly news magazine that was not to be released until he died. According to those who remember it, the speculation at the time was that there might be some revelations in it. . . .

We are all vegans now?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/bushs-fda-may-approve-meat-and-milk.html
[John Aravosis] Bush's FDA may approve meat and milk from cloned animals this week . . .

[ABC] If FDA approval goes through, the question is how and whether cloned meat and milk will be clearly marked so consumers know what they're buying. Experts say that may be unlikely.

"It's very possible that these products will end up on the grocery store shelves without any specific label identifying them as having come from cloned animals," said Michael Fernandez, executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology.

The NRA’s agitprop (thanks to Steve Benen for the link)

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/nra/nras-secret-graphic-novel-revealed-223889.php

Looks like Billmon, who has taken brief sabbaticals before, is hanging up his blog for good. Well, I for one will miss him greatly – he’s one of the reasons I started blogging myself

http://billmon.org/archives/002972.html

Bonus item: “Laughing Liberally” – don’t . . . miss . . . it!

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116725936280038992

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:47 AM

 
LOWERED EXPECTATIONS

So much for the idea that the spike in Iraq violence in October and November was just intended to influence the U.S. elections, and not a trend

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600059.html
Seven more American service members have been killed in Iraq, the U.S. military reported Tuesday. It is the second deadliest month of the year for troops. . . .

What are we fighting for?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/26/news/iraq.php#
A military action against a police station in the southern city of Basra found prisoners being held in conditions that a British military spokesman, Major Charlie Burbridge, described as "appalling."

More than 100 men were crowded into a single cell, about 9 meters by 12 meters, or 30 feet by 40 feet, he said, with two open toilets, two sinks and just a few blankets spread over the concrete floor.

A significant number showed signs of torture. Some had crushed hands and feet, Burbridge said, while others had cigarette and electrical burns and a significant number had gunshot wounds to their legs and knees. . .

The fetid dungeon was another example of abuses by the Iraqi security forces. The discovery highlighted the continuing struggle to combat the infiltration of the police and army by militias and criminal elements . . . .

More: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3680

Can Bush meet public expectations with his much-anticipated “New and Improved Plan for Victory. . . errr. . . . Success . . . uh. . . Acceptable Defeat in Iraq”?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010463.php

“The Surge”: more trouble for Bush’s escalation plans

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/feeling_safer_yet_/2006/12/feeling_safer_yetpart_i.php
[TAP] Currently there are no active or reserve Army combat units outside of Iraq and Afghanistan that are rated as "combat ready." To ensure that troops fighting in Iraq have the equipment they need, units rotating out of Iraq have been leaving behind their equipment for units taking their place. The units that return home are so depleted that the Marines have been referring to this phase as the "post-deployment death spiral." . . . . [read on]

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/26/195335/68
[Miss Laura] Plans to increase troops in Iraq also come against the backdrop of further American fatalities in that country, bringing the number to 90 for December, with Iraqi fatalities also continuing at a high rate. But what would this accomplish? Would briefly "surging" 30,000 more troops into Iraq produce the "victory" that Bush seems to require at any cost? . . . . They can't even go into part of Baghdad and we're supposed to believe that a proportionately tiny increase in troop levels is going to do anything more than put more American soldiers in harm's way, when too many already are? . . .

Here’s how they plan to expand the U.S. military: recruit more foreigners (i.e., non-U.S. citizens). No, I’m not kidding. This would be the most unpopular idea since Dubai Ports World

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010462.php
[Boston Globe] The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks -- including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer . . .

[Steve Benen] Let me get this straight: The Pentagon is open to having people who aren't American citizens serve in the military, but they're not open to having well-trained, patriotic, law-abiding Americans serve, if they happen to be gay.

More: http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1549

More signs of recruiting desperation

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/new-us-military-recruiting-ads-tell.html
[John Aravosis] I'm sorry, but the new US military TV ads strike me as extremely offensive. They involve kids talking to a parent and explaining to that parent why the kid shouldn't go to college, but rather, should go join the military.

Excuse me, but in what universe does the US government, or anyone else for that matter, try to convince our kids NOT to go to college? And spare me the "the commercial says they can go AFTER they finish their military service. Yes, they can, if they're still alive and not one of the growing number of US troops suffering from post-tramautic stress disorder. . . .

One of the legacies of Bush’s pre-war lies is that his defenders have been put in the position of defending the notion that, once you decide war is “necessary,” anything you have to do to justify it in the public mind becomes fair game. Now they’re doing it with Iran. . . .

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/among_the_unhinged/
[Matthew Yglesias] I don't want to ruin anyone's post-Christmas day of recovery, but this Glenn Reynolds post is really distressing. Some Iranian officials come to Iraq, get themselves taken prisoner by the American military, and Reynolds sees this as a convenient pretext for the United States to launch a war with Iran. But what's the pretext? And why should we be looking for excuses to start a war with Iran?

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/world/middleeast/27iranians.html
The American military said Tuesday that it had credible evidence linking Iranians and their Iraqi associates, detained here in raids last week, to criminal activities, including attacks against American forces. . . .

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005349.html

Just another coincidence, I’m sure

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_24.php#011703
[RP] Last we heard was just before the elections, now comes this news, out of the blue that Saddam has to be sentenced within the next 30 days. Would it not then put it right before the state of the union address so that the Commander-in-chief and after all the surge in negative discussion from the announcement about a surge in troops. Is the surge even to stem the violence backlash from the sentencing. I am not wiling to overlook any conspiracy theory by this corrupt bunch.

[NB: Well, he was SENTENCED just before the election. Nice timing, but it didn’t help. Now he has to be EXECUTED within 30 days. And, yes, expect something horrific in retaliation]

Here’s what THEY expect

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005349.html
President Bush "is bracing for what could be an onslaught of investigations by the new Democratic-led Congress by hiring lawyers to fill key White House posts and preparing to play defense on countless document requests and possible subpoenas," according to the Baltimore Sun.

"Bush is moving quickly to fill vacancies within his stable of lawyers, though White House officials say there are no plans to drastically expand the legal staff to deal with a flood of oversight."

Robo-calls: scourge of the electoral season, and a significant source of mischief. Looks like the Dems will do something about them

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011663
New poll: two-thirds of registered voters got a robo call this past election.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_11_12.php#011166
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) says a bill making harrassing robo calls a crime will be among the first 10 bills he introduces in the next Senate.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_11_12.php#011189
In the wake of massive robocalling by the GOP and pro-GOP groups during the midterm elections, three more states have joined Missouri in considering legislation to ban robocalls to people on state Do Not Call lists.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_24.php#011700
Nebraska to investigate robocalls. . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_24.php#011704
DC lobbying giant Dutko Worldwide behind election robocalls. . . .

Are we finally going to see a decent national health care plan?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9442.html

Part Two of Anonymous Liberal’s program for more honesty in politics (good luck)

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/incentivizing-honesty-in-politics.html

The political year in review (and quite a year it was)

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/12/27/the_year_in_politics.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/27/8226/6075

Digby asks an interesting question: What was the tipping point that started the downward shift in public attitudes toward Bush? There are so many choices: Katrina, Social Security, Abramoff, etc.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116716824894926288

More: http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/dec/26/event_of_the_two_year_cycle

Theocracy watch (Democratic edition): trying to pull evangelicals into the party – but at what cost?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9439.html
[Steve Benen] The NYT has a fascinating piece today on Democratic strategist Mara Vanderslice, and her 2-year-old consulting firm, Common Good Strategies, which aims to help the Democratic Party and its candidates appeal to theologically conservative voters. . . .

[NYT] In an interview, she said she told candidates not to use the phrase “separation of church and state,” which does not appear in the Constitution’s clauses forbidding the establishment or protecting the exercise of religion.

“That language says to people that you don’t want there to be a role for religion in our public life,” Ms. Vanderslice said. “But 80 percent of the public is religious, and I think most people are eager for that kind of debate.”

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116719904478865320

Bonus item: Judicial temperament?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9437.html
[St Louis Post-Dispatch] Chapter 1 of Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr.’s book, “The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault,” has circulated via e-mail since last month and been widely read in legal circles, lawyers and judges say.

The sentiments expressed in that chapter, which frequently uses the term “femifascists” and is titled “The Cloud Cuckooland of Radical Feminism,” have already prompted a complaint with the state body that can reprimand or remove judges.

Other judges and lawyers have said that Dierker may have violated a state rule against a judge using his or her position for personal profit. One judge said it would be surprising if Dierker was not removed, calling the book “professional suicide.” . . . .

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:27 AM

 
CHRISTMAS LEFTOVERS

Juan Cole: Top Ten Myths about Iraq

http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/top-ten-myths-about-iraq-2006-1.html
Myth number one is that the United States "can still win" in Iraq. . . .

Myth number Eleven (thank to Atrios for the link)

http://fruitedplains.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-if-we-are-winning.html
[Tom Donelson] Every bit of strategy that is being discussed is based on the idea that we are losing. The Democratic opposition is based on the idea that we are losing. The media mantra is that we are losing. What if we are not?

In my December 10th entry, I observed that the Iraqi economy is doing quite well. . . One meaning of all of this is that we may not be losing after all. If most of the country is prospering and Iraqis are forming new businesses, then can we assume that overall, we are indeed winning? . . .

[NB: Uh, Tom, when the Sect’y of Defense and even Bush himself are forced to admit that we are not winning, you can be sure we are NOT winning. But in typical wingnut fashion, any bad news MUST be a fabrication of the liberal media.]

Building a bigger Army and Marines won’t be as easy as it sounds

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0612250103dec25,1,5202562.story
By raising incentives and bonus money, adding recruiters and continuing to increase the military advertising budget, the Army should be able to sign up an extra 10,000 people a year within the current all-volunteer system, according to many military experts. But they add that an extra 10,000 soldiers would cost at least $1.2 billion extra annually. . . .

Supporters of the volunteer force say it is of much higher quality than that of the draft era, which ended in 1973. Critics, however, suggest that the Army already has lowered its standards to meet recruiting goals and would have to lower them even more to meet a larger goal.

Since the beginning of the Iraq war, the number of recruits with high school diplomas has fallen sharply . . .

Honest budgeting – what a concept!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061222/pl_nm/bush_iraq_budget_dc
Top lawmakers are pressing President George W. Bush to stop using a "shadow budget" to fund the Iraq war and instead list the expected costs in the 2008 spending plan he is set to unveil early next year.

Total war spending may reach $170 billion for the 2007 fiscal year that ends September 30, a record. . . .

[NB: And, of course, blowing his phony claims about “deficit reduction” out of the water just in time for the 2008 election]

Investigation into fraudulent Katrina spending: $1 billion, and counting

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061225/ap_on_bi_ge/katrina_contracts

Poor George

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/washington/25memo.html
President Bush marched into his year-end news conference last week with the usual zip in his step. As always, he professed little worry about his legacy or the polls. As always, he said the United States would win in Iraq. The nation might despair, but not Mr. Bush; his presidential armor seemed firmly intact.

Yet a longtime friend of Mr. Bush’s recently spotted a tiny crack in that armor. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/us/politics/26bush.html
Immediately after the beating his party took in November, President Bush indicated that he had received the message that voters wanted change, and that he would serve some up fast. He ousted his defense secretary, announced a full-scale review of his war plan and contritely agreed with critics that progress in Iraq was not happening “well enough, fast enough.”

But in the last two weeks, the critics and even some allies say, they have seen a reversal. Mr. Bush has shrugged off suggestions by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that he enlist the help of Iran and Syria in the effort to stabilize Iraq. Countering suggestions that he begin thinking of bringing troops home, he has engaged in deliberations over whether to send more. And he has adjusted the voters’ message away from Iraq, saying on Wednesday, “I thought the election said they want to see more bipartisan cooperation.” . . .

Democrats warn — and some Republicans privately say they fear — that Mr. Bush is in for a dousing of cold water when he returns from his ranch in Crawford, Tex., in the new year to face a new, Democratic-controlled Congress ready to try out its muscle. His recent moves have already caused a fair degree of crankiness among his newly empowered governing partners. . . .

It seems we’re getting these stories almost on a daily basis now

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500483.html
The Justice Department is building a massive database . . . .

Curt Weldon's (R-PA) crazy “Able Danger” conspiracy theory gets the burial it deserves

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intel25dec25,0,3149507.story
The Senate Intelligence Committee has rejected as untrue one of the most disturbing claims about the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes — a congressman's contention that a team of military analysts identified Mohamed Atta or other hijackers before the attacks . . . The conclusion contradicts assertions by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) and a few military officers that U.S. national security officials ignored startling intelligence available in early 2001 that might have helped to prevent the attacks. . . .

More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010453.php

Think Piece of the Day

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/paradox-at-heart-of-modern-politics.html
The Paradox at the Heart of Modern Politics
[Anonymous Liberal] As a political junkie and a litigator who works primarily with large corporate clients, I’ve come to appreciate that there is a fundamental disconnect between the assumptions that underlie the prevailing approach to and coverage of political issues in this country and the assumptions that drive our policies in virtually every other context. . . .

Bonus item: Steve Benen gives out his Christmas list

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9435.html

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:26 AM

 
SOUNDS OF SILENCE

While waiting for the seven-year-old to come downstairs. . .

Ethnic cleansing in Baghdad (is there another word for it?)

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3676
[NYT] As the United States debates what to do in Iraq, this country’s Shiite majority has been moving toward its own solution: making the capital its own.

Large portions of Baghdad have become Shiite in recent months, as militias press their fight against Sunni militants deeper into the heart of the capital, displacing thousands of Sunni residents. At least 10 neighborhoods that a year ago were mixed Sunni and Shiite are now almost entirely Shiite, according to residents, American and Iraqi military commanders and local officials. . .

Where does this lead? U.S. holding Iranian prisoners

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/world/middleeast/25iraq.html
The Bush administration made no public announcement of the politically delicate seizure of the Iranians, though in response to specific questions the White House confirmed Sunday that the Iranians were in custody.

http://www.slate.com/id/2156204
[Daniel Politi] The actual significance of these seizures is unclear as no one tells the paper what kind of proof exists that these Iranians carried out, or were planning on carrying out, attacks.

What does seem clear though, is that Iraqi government officials aren't too happy with the situation, especially at a time when they're trying to talk with Iran regarding security matters. Some contend that it could all be related to the U.S. trying to make a point of how direct talks with Iran would be ineffective. Naturally, U.S. officials deny there is any relation. Regardless, it appears to be the first time Iranian citizens are being held under these suspicions, and some U.S. officials admit this could finally help prove their long-held assertions that Iran is somehow involved with the violence in Iraq. . .

There’s been a difficulty in getting any Republicans to speak on the record concerning Bush’s new war escalation. Well, that’s about to change

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_24.php#011693
[O]ne veteran Republican congressman says he is "highly skeptical" that a surge will have any real effect on the ground. Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), who won re-election after a hard-fought campaign, was surprisingly candid in an interview with the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette . . .

Paul Wolfowitz, you might recall, was one of the main architects of the Iraq War, and the Grand Vision of Middle East Transformation that motivated it. Wolfie is gone now, off to the World Bank to do more good for humanity. But now that his war has gone to sh-t, you might think he has some explaining to do. Yes, you might . . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-efron24dec24,0,486708.story
[Sonni Efron] [T]oday, as the policies he put in place come crashing down, Wolfowitz is nowhere to be found — at least not at the Pentagon. In fact, he left in 2005 to become president of the World Bank, where he has been busy trying to save Africa. . .

What is particularly disturbing is that Wolfowitz is visibly delighting in his role as one of the world's highest-profile (publicly funded) philanthropists — while saying barely a word about the catastrophe in Iraq. . .

I invited Wolfowitz to comment, telling us his views on Iraq or the problem of democracy in the radicalized Middle East. He declined, but e-mailed this response: "I'm not a U.S. official any more and unfortunately not a private citizen either. I work for 184 countries that expect me to do the job at the World Bank. I would like nothing better than to be able to get involved in this debate [over Iraq]. I would particularly like to be able to clear the record of some of the garbage about myself personally, but if I start doing that, the people I work for would say, 'You are not doing your job, you are getting mixed up in something that is a distraction from the message that we would like you to deliver.' I have spoken to heads of 11 African countries, I have spoken to ordinary people, I have spoken to civil society groups; none of them care about my role in Iraq, they care about what I do in the World Bank."

More on whether Bush is going to try to claim bipartisan BLAME for the war, now that it’s going so badly – when he and his people were very careful not to share any CREDIT with the Democrats when it was going relatively well

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/24/81444/267

Give a kid a hammer. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/24/124921/73
[Devilstower] There's nothing the Bush administration likes more than slipping out embarrassing documents on a Friday, with hopes that they'll be forgotten by Monday. And what better Friday for burying reports than the Friday before Christmas?

Among the documents hustled out this week is a report on the Secure Flight program. This was a program that allowed creation of "profiles" of travelers so that trusted folks could be hustled along, while suspected terrorists could be quickly stopped. . . [T]he program has been challenged repeatedly over privacy concerns. It includes not only the few fields directly input by DHS, but also links to data held in commercial databases maintained by Acxiom, Insight America and Qsent. This data included everything from purchasing patterns to Social Security nmbers. Data which DHS promised would be very closely held.

That promise turned out to be untrue. . . .

This program was already found to be in violation of privacy laws in a report issued last year, but the DHS seems to have responded by collecting more and spreading it further. Having promised that it would not create portfolios on Americans, the DHS next step was to create. . . portfolios on Americans. Naturally, there is no means for anyone to view or correct the information in this profile.

Paired with the report on Secure Flight was another on the now thankfully defunct, "MATRIX" system. . .

Among the tidbits in this report is the news that, although MATRIX was sold as a system for locating terrorists, over 97% of investigations that were launched by the program had nothing to do with terrorism.

Just wait until the new Congress starts looking into the Bush gang’s military spending and procurement practices

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/24/AR2006122400916.html
The Defense Department paid two procurement operations at the Department of the Interior to arrange for Pentagon purchases totaling $1.7 billion that resulted in excessive fees and tens of millions of dollars in waste, documents show.

Defense turned to Interior, which manages federal lands and resources, in an effort to speed up its contracting. Interior is one of several government agencies allowed to manage contracts for other agencies in exchange for a fee.

But the arrangement between Interior and Defense "routinely violated rules designed to protect U.S. Government interests," according to draft audit documents obtained by The Washington Post.

More than half of the contracts examined were awarded without competition or without checks to determine that the prices were reasonable, according to the audits by the inspectors general for Defense (DOD) and Interior (DOI). Ninety-two percent of the work reviewed was awarded without verifying that the contractors' cost estimates were accurate; 96 percent was inadequately monitored. . .

Good for him: Lindsey Graham (R-SC) lays it on Virgil Goode (R-VA)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_24.php#011694
“I don't think that's the appropriate line for a congressman to take when it comes time for another congressman to take the oath. Why would you swear allegiance to a document outside your faith? In our legal system, people can take the oath in a variety of ways.

Religious diversity is a strength, not a weakness in this country.

We need immigration reform, but not for the reasons that Mr. Goode cited. What would happen in this country if a Christian were elected in Lebanon and he had to swear allegiance to the Koran when it came time for them to take office? There would be an outcry in this country.

So I embrace religious diversity. I welcome this new member of Congress. I'm glad he's swearing allegiance to a document that is consistent with his faith. . .

[T]he statements by Virgil Goode do not represent the best of who we are as a nation. . . .”

Theocracy watch: You probably saw the story on Bush’s pardons and commutations for seventeen lucky recipients. Well, fine, that’s something Presidents do. But a relative of mine knows about one of the cases, and the lucky recipient experienced a born-again conversion in prison. That got me wondering whether this was just another piece in Bush’s faith-based grand plan for outsourcing rehabilitation and other social services to religious organizations (and channeling millions in public dollars to them in the process). It’s certainly a great sales pitch when these services can point to successful pardons and early releases as a consequence of their ministrations. Then I started looking into the “Second Chance Act” . . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/21/bush.pardons.ap/
President Bush issued 16 pardons Thursday and commuted the sentence of an Iowa man convicted of drug charges. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/magazine/24GOP.t.html
The G.O.P., the party of Richard Nixon’s 1968 law-and-order campaign and the Willie Horton commercial, is beginning to embrace the idea that prisoners have not only souls that need saving but also flesh that needs caring for in this world. Increasingly, Republicans are talking about helping ex-prisoners find housing, drug treatment, mental-health counseling, job training and education. They’re also reconsidering some of the more punitive sentencing laws for drug possession. The members of this nascent movement include a number of politicians not previously known for their attention to prisoners’ rights. . . .

By some measures, the Second Chance Act is a small bill. It authorizes less than $100 million over two years to address a significant problem: about 700,000 ex-offenders (the population of a good-size American city) will leave prison in 2007 — and two-thirds of them are likely to be rearrested within three years. The bill would provide states with grants to develop model programs for prisoners returning to society. . . . The bill also provides money to faith-based organizations and other nonprofits for prisoner-mentoring programs. . . .

The Bill: http://www.opensocietypolicycenter.org/resources/publication.php?docId=64
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Chance Act of 2005: Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention’’ . . .

Faith leaders and parishioners have a long history helping ex-offenders transform their lives. Through prison ministries and outreach in communities, churches and faith-based organizations have pioneered reentry services to prisoners and their families. . .

When evangelicals find out that some of their very own church leaders are gay, you might think it would cause them some cognitive dissonance about whether homosexuals are actually as terrible and dangerous as they believe them to be. But, wadda ya know – that’s not their reaction at all

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116699287935529916
[Digby] [S]ome conservative evangelicals have decided to deal with all the closeted homosexuality in their clergy by starting a homo-rehab program. . .

The thing I don't get about this is that these people are absolutely sure that homosexuality is a choice. But evangelical pastors are obviously not "choosing" to have a hidden gay life. They believe it's sinful and they hate themselves for it. They, of all people, would not "choose" such a thing. It must be such a strong, fundamental question of identity that they are unable to resist it. . . .

Eleanor Clift of Newsweek publishes a year-end list of Bush’s lies. But what it really represents is a year-end list of stories the press didn’t bother to look into rigorously enough

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116699382892759856

Plame developments

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005346.html
[AP] Two news organizations are asking a federal judge to unseal documents in the case of a CIA agent whose name was leaked, arguing that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never needed the testimony of reporters who were threatened with jail time because he knew the source of the leak all along. ... Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has acknowledged being Novak's source ... He also said he told Fitzgerald about the conversation as soon as the investigation began. Lawyers for the news organizations [the AP and Dow Jones] said the public has the right to know why Fitzgerald testified that he needed the testimony of reporters to continue the investigation. The only way to know that, the lawyers argued, is to unseal Fitzgerald's affidavits and the court's full legal opinion on the issue.

Bonus item: The Washington Post ombudswoman (Deborah Howell) needs an ombudswoman. . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/24/81335/387
[BarbinMD] [A]pparently Deborah Howell thinks that, in the interest of an unbiased report on Deborah Howell, who better to write it than Deborah Howell?

So let's look at her review of her year by her. She begins by telling us that the most important part of her job is dealing with complaints and that most, "have been resolved satisfactorily or I have disagreed with the reader." Well, okay then. . . . [read on!]

More: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/12/why_oh_why_cant_8.html

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:09 AM

 
“NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED”

Hmmm. . . . more on that much ballyhooed “shift” in the recommendations of the generals over Bush’s war escalation. Turns out, only General George Casey actually changed his line (maybe) – the “shift” was mainly a matter of ASKING DIFFERENT GENERALS

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/23/115453/90
The LA Times reports today that "top U.S. military commanders in Iraq" are now in favor of a "surge" of troops to bolster Bush's failing Iraq strategy.

[NB: Not counting General Abizaid, the new Forgotten Man]

This comes a few days after the Washington Post reported that the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously oppose such an increase.

This apparent conflict in the military chain of command was resolved for LA Times readers with the help of the latest White House talking point. The Joint Chiefs are nothing more than one of Bush's many advisers . . .

General Flip-Flop?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/world/middleeast/24military.html
Until recently, the top ground commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., has argued that sending more American forces into Baghdad and Anbar Province, the two most violent regions of Iraq, would increase the Iraqi dependency on Washington, and in the words of one senior official, “make this feel more like an occupation.” . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/23/8259/7907
It was one year ago today that General George Casey, the commander of Multinational Forces in Iraq said . . . [read on]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/23/AR2006122300297.html
It was unclear, however, whether Casey was genuinely supporting a buildup or simply restating privately what he has already said publicly. "I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea," if sending more troops would help achieve strategic objectives, he said at a Baghdad news conference with Gates last week. . . .

Josh Marshall cuts to the chase

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011690
This is a silly game we now seem ready to play. In theory at least, senior military commanders give frank advice to the commander-in-chief. But the president is their ultimate superior in the chain of command. They work for him. So they do what he says. Period. The only real alternative is principled resignation. But let's not get distracted from the main point. It seems clear that most of the Army brass oppose an expanded troop presence in Iraq. . .

The premise of this narrative is that the president is slowly persuading the generals of the logic of his position that we should escalate the conflict in Iraq by inserting however many tens of thousands of new troops into the country. But the premise is bogus because it is the duty of the three and four star generals to come around after the president does not accept their contrary opinions. He's in charge. They're not in charge. That is how we all want it to work -- though, admittedly, it is somewhat harder to stomach when the president is a stubborn, serial bumbler.

Perhaps Casey really is changing his mind. But having no choice about the matter has a way of greasing the cognitive skids. . .

Kevin Drum starts an argument: Should we support (or at least tolerate) Bush’s troop increase request, on the “give him more rope to hang himself with” theory?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010445.php
Still, honesty compels me to say that I'm glad this is going to happen. I know this makes me a bad person with no concern for human life etc. etc. (feel free to expand on this sentiment in comments), but at some point we have to come to a conclusion on this stuff. Conservatives long ago convinced themselves against all evidence that we could have won in Vietnam if we'd only added more troops or used more napalm or nuked Hanoi or whatever, and they're going to do the same thing in Iraq unless we allow them to play this out the way they want. If they don't get to play the game their way, they'll spend the next couple of decades trying to persuade the American public that there was nothing wrong with the idea of invading Iraq at all. We just never put the necessary resources into it.

Well, screw that. There's nothing we can do to stop them anyway, so give 'em the resources they want. Let 'em fight the war the way they want. If it works -- and after all, stranger things have happened -- then I'll eat some crow. But if it doesn't, there's a chance that the country will actually learn something from this.

I wish it were otherwise. But it isn't.

Here’s what I said last week

http://pbd.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_pbd_archive.html#116653206222769898
[H]ere’s why blocking Bush’s request for more troops would backfire: It gives Bush the chance to construct himself as a victim of congressional interference, whereas now the X is squarely on his back; it changes the discussion from his Iraq war failures to whether the Dems are committed enough to national security; it changes the question about why Bush is overriding his own generals’ recommendations to whether this is “payback” by the Nancy Pelosi liberals; etc. Worst of all, when Iraq collapses, as it will, the right-wing narrative will be “we were doing okay until the gutless Democrats sold out our troops” (don’t think so? Read the Fred Barnes quote, above, again: “Only when Congress cut off funds to South Vietnam in 1974 were the North Vietnamese able to win.”)

http://pbd.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_pbd_archive.html#116644634715821727
[I]t seems clear to me that if there’s a call for more troops right now, even if it’s a bad idea, the Dems can’t start their new term by depriving the military of what they say they need. The key is, as Reid is doing, to make clear that it’s temporary – the numbers dictate it – and to couple “The Surge” with an INCREASED expectation of withdrawal to begin soon after

Some responses

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_17_atrios_archive.html#116689660195052615
[Atrios] I'm sympathetic to Kevin's thinking about this stuff, but it just doesn't work this way. . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116689902380404624
[Digby] There is no chance this is going to work, so I do not hold out even the smallest hope that this could be worthwhile in literal terms. It is purely to save face for George Bush. The American involvement in this war is over --- they're just delaying the inevitable until he can crawl back to Crawford and dump the whole disater in the next guy's lap.

As for the long term, it doesn't matter how spectacularly they fail, they will never admit it. We would have won "if only" no matter what actually happens. If only we'd put in more troops earlier, or more troops now, or reinstituted the draft or dropped some daisy cutters or whatever. These people live in a fantasy world in which they are always right but others are continuously conspiring to rob them of whatever they really need to prove it. In the long run, they will insist that the war could have been won if only the wimps hadn't lost their nerve. And they will persuade a fair number of people that this was true --- Americans don't like losers and don't like to think of themselves as losers. The paranoid strain will be happy to re-argue, re-litigate and re-write history down the road to say that America was betrayed from within. It's what they do.

There is some short term political gains to be had, however sick it is to think in these terms. . . .

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/escalation/
[Matt Yglesias] I think it's good to see liberals worrying some about this long-term issue. I think Kevin's way of thinking about it, however, is a bit misguided. Irrespective of what objective events occur on the ground, there will be a revisionist movement to blame American failure in Iraq on a liberal stab-in-the-back. It's on us -- Kevin, me, anyone who writes about politics for a living, hell, anyone who reads about politics frequently -- to prevent this from becoming the conventional wisdom.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010447.php
[Kevin Drum] As regular readers know, I'm unequivocally in favor of withdrawing from Iraq, but this morning I suggested that I'd be secretly happy to see a surge happen since it would deprive conservatives of an excuse to blame the Iraq fiasco on something other than the war itself (i.e., bad execution, liberal perfidy, media bias, etc.). Both Matt Yglesias and Atrios disagree because, they say, conservatives will blame the loss in Iraq on liberals no matter what happens.

Believe me, I've got no argument with that. There's no question that conservatives will try to hang our failure in Iraq around liberal peacenik necks, but that's not what's important. What's important is whether they succeed. Public opinion is key, and if they go ahead and do their surge, and it fails, it's going to make the conservative story a lot harder to tell. The public just isn't going to buy it.

Now, I might still be wrong about this. Maybe the public will buy it no matter what happens. But for what it's worth, my sentiment about this isn't driven by some hazy belief that conservatives will eventually see the light and start singing Kumbaya. Rather, it's based on two things: (a) George Bush is in charge and there's no real way for liberals to influence war strategy anyway, and (b) if the surge fails, the public will be less amenable to an eventual conservative stab-in-the-back narrative.

How they play it: the Bush gang gets their long-awaited Iran sanctions from the U.N. Security Council, then immediately says, “it’s not enough”

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-iran-nuclear-usa.html

A look back: what Bush said about Clinton’s foreign policy in 2000 (today’s must-read – you won’t believe the ironies)

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/americaabroad/2006/dec/23/that_was_then
[Ivo Daalder] I was talking to a reporter the other day, arguing that while Bush inherited a lot of problems from Clinton, in each instance he had done everything possible to make things worse . . .

A look ahead: what to expect from Bush in 2007

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122201475.html
On three key flash points -- North Korea, Iran and Sudan -- the Bush administration confronts the possibility that its current diplomatic approaches have reached the end of their effectiveness, forcing it to consider potentially riskier "Plan B" alternatives . . .

Pulling the party down with them

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/23/112811/08
[Darksyde] It's good to see that in a few cases, some elements in the conservative caucus have become aware that the interests of George Bush and the GOP have become widely divergent. But if the Republican Party thinks that growing chasm between themselves and the electorate -- courtesy of the administration -- is of concern to the WH, they damn well better think again. . . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/gop-plays-blame-game-theyre-blaming.html
[Joe] How many times have we heard Republicans say they're not playing the "blame game"? It was one of their mantras after Katrina. It is different, however, when they are blaming each other. And, that's what's happening now. The Associated Press has an article filled with GOP back-stabbing and blame gaming. George Bush and Liddy Dole bear the brunt of it. It's a fun holiday read. They all hate Bush and Dole now . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/23/122856/33

The White House takes a stand

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011685
[NYT] White House officials said they were aware that some Democrats and Muslims were urging President Bush to admonish Representative Virgil H. Goode Jr., Republican of Virginia, and Dennis Prager, the conservative commentator, for suggesting that the first Muslim elected to the House had no place in Congress.

“We’re aware of the situation,” said Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bush, “but no judgments have been made.”

[David Kurtz] I might quibble with The Times' characterization of Goode's remarks. He didn't just suggest Muslims have no place in Congress. He said they have no place in the United States.

Competence over connections? Has the Bush gang reached its limits in promoting underqualified cronies and relatives into senior positions?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011686
[Al Kamen] The career diplomats at the State Department are celebrating a decision this week by the department's director general to overturn the assignment of an aide to Undersecretary Karen Hughes to a top job running the new Public Diplomacy Rapid Response office in Brussels. . .

More on the sudden resignation of the Saudi Ambassador

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011688

And Spellings is supposed to be one of the REASONABLE people in this gang

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9427.html
[Steve Benen] Education Secretary Margaret Spellings is a petty and mean-spirited person. I’m sure she’s in a good mood these days because it appears she has triumphed over an animated rabbit on PBS named Buster. . .

Coals to Newcastle: just another little lie

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/12/ileana_roslehtinen_admits_she_lied_but_doesnt_apologize.html
[Michael Froomkin] About as un-graciously as humanly possible, my Congressional representative has admitted that she's a liar, and that she slandered filmakers last week when she accused them of doctoring tape to put words in her mouth. . . .

The best move the Dems have made so far: blocking earmarks

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011683

The Democrats have a chance now to make the Florida 13th voting fiasco the poster child for e-voting reform

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/23/AR2006122300627.html

I know I’ve been a broken record on this, but why have news organizations stopped reporting exit polls? Afraid to cast doubt on e-voting results?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/23/91222/483

Theocracy watch: special Sunday Christmas Eve edition

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116690199874667159
[Digby] Here's another one of those creepy articles about religious zealots who are trying to blow up the world and bring on the bridegroom. Fine, whatever. There have always been end-of-the-worlders around.

But really, how do these nuts get to be so involved in the highest reaches of the US Government? . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9431.html
[Steve Benen] On Thursday, we learned that Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) reportedly articulated a rather unique vision for resolving the crisis in the Middle East. According to an account in a local paper in Hayes’ hometown, the lawmaker said: “Stability in Iraq ultimately depends on spreading the message of Jesus Christ, the message of peace on earth, good will towards men. Everything depends on everyone learning about the birth of the Savior.”

Yesterday, Hayes and his aides confirmed the accuracy of the quote, but said he’s been misconstrued.

After his speech, Hayes revised his comments. He said they were in “the context of spreading Christian principles rather than Christianity.”

His spokeswoman, Carolyn Hern, told The Source she did not attend the speech but that she has no reason to doubt the accuracy of Hayes’ initial quotes. She blamed Democrats for taking them out of context.

“It’s interesting how these bloggers can distort the news,” Hern said.

Yes, of course, it’s our fault. A right-wing lawmaker uses crusader-like comments such as “Everything depends on everyone learning about the birth of the Savior,” Hayes and his office acknowledge the theocratic language, but bloggers “distort the news.” Huh?

Maybe Hayes can explain the “context” which would explain him saying, “Stability in Iraq ultimately depends on spreading the message of Jesus Christ.” I’m sure millions of people in the Middle East, who already question our intentions in the region, will love to hear Hayes explain the distinction he sees between “Christian principles” and “Christianity.”

Ddjango’s challenges for the Left

http://ddjango.blogspot.com/2006/12/challenge-for-left-what-will-it-take.html

Oh, won’t Fox News have fun with this?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9433.html
According to a report from ABC News’ Brian Ross, Ayman al Zawahri, al Qaeda’s No. 2 man, released a video tape that reportedly included messages for Democrats in the U.S. Apparently, the terrorist network wants credit for the results of the congressional elections. . . .

Wow. ABC edges out Fox News for most misinformation in 2006 (with a heavy, well-deserved emphasis on “Path to 9/11”)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612220014

Sunday talk show line-ups (fair and balanced, eh?)

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/nation/16306177.htm
• "Meet the Press": Rev. Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life"; Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham.

• "This Week": Sens. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C; U.N. Secretary-General-designate Ban Ki-moon; former President Bush and his wife, Barbara.

• "Face the Nation": First lady Laura Bush.

• "CNN Late Edition”: Repeats of past interviews with President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others.

• "Fox News Sunday": Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney; Archbishop of Washington Donald Wuerl; Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of evangelist Billy Graham.

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:15 AM

 
THE SPIRIT OF GIVING

Feel a draft?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/23/washington/23draft.html
As the de facto media contact for the Selective Service System, Dick Flahavan is the Maytag repairman of government press people. With the military draft out of business since 1973, the Selective Service just doesn’t get a lot of calls these days. . . . But by midday Friday, Mr. Flahavan’s office had fielded dozens of inquiries, not just from reporters but from some anxious parents as well, all with some variation of the same urgent question: Are you reinstituting the draft? . . .

What prompted all this was a Hearst wire service article noting that the Selective Service was making plans for a “mock” draft exercise that would use computerized models to determine how, if necessary, the government would get some 100,000 young adults to report to their local draft boards. . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9417.html
[NY Daily News] Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson gave qualified support yesterday to renewing the draft - a suggestion that rattled the White House.

“I think that our society would benefit from that, yes, sir,” Nicholson said of replacing the all-volunteer force with a tough draft purged of the deferments that allowed many to avoid service in Vietnam.

“I think if we bring back the draft, there should be no loopholes for anybody who happens to be drafted,” he said. “If it’s a random system, it ought to be an honestly random system.” . . .

[NB: No, they won’t do it. I lived through this – if you really want 18-21 year olds to be on the streets, in candlelight vigils, carrying out hunger strikes, and leaving the country, create a vastly unpopular war AND try to force them to fight in it]

Uh. . . . I guess we’re listening to the generals again

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-troops23dec23,0,2095230.story
Top U.S. military commanders in Iraq have decided to recommend a "surge" of fresh American combat forces, eliminating one of the last remaining hurdles to proposals being considered by President Bush for a troop increase, a defense official familiar with the plan said Friday. . .

[NB: Notice that General John Abizaid’s name is conspicuously absent. And Odierno was newly promoted BECAUSE he supported escalation – watch this guy, we’ll be hearing a lot more about him]

A bad investment

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16320251/
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told The Associated Press on Thursday that Iraq is “worth the investment” in American lives and dollars . . . .

http://billmon.org/archives/002971.html
[Billmon] Yes, a lot has been invested. But just look at the dividends. . .

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/four-more-investments-in-iraq-today.html

Whenever they’re out of power, the Republicans are rabid deficit-hawks, excoriating the freespending ways of the “liberals” – whenever they’re IN power, they spend like drunken sailors AND cut the taxes that ought to pay for their spending. Now that the Democrats are back behind the wheel, how should they play this?

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/12/the_deficit_foo.html
[Paul Krugman] Now that the Democrats have regained some power, they have to decide what to do. One of the biggest questions is whether the party should return to Rubinomics -- the doctrine, associated with former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, that placed a very high priority on reducing the budget deficit. The answer, I believe, is no. Mr. Rubin was one of the ablest Treasury secretaries in American history. But it's now clear that while Rubinomics made sense in terms of pure economics, it failed to take account of the ugly realities of contemporary American politics. And the lesson of the last six years is that the Democrats shouldn't spend political capital trying to bring the deficit down. They should refrain from actions that make the deficit worse. But given a choice between cutting the deficit and spending more on good things like health care reform, they should choose the spending. . . .[read on]

Reactions: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2328.html

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/12/22/125621/51

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/krugman_on_the_deficit/

Haw haw

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116683944808504162
[WSJ] Republican House staff members who are losing their jobs in the aftermath of November’s loss of control are hoping Democrats will re-extend the hand of largesse to them next month.

As the old Congress wound down in a scramble of post-election activity, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered to pay two months’ severance to staff members working on some committees and in House leadership offices. But her offer was scuttled — by Republican lawmakers . . .

Virgil Goode’s (R-VA) gift to the Democrats. On top of Republican rhetoric around immigration reform, George Allen’s “macaca” statement, and their habit of speaking in code words that pander to the nation’s racist id, the time has come to put them on the record: are they the party of bigotry, or not?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9418.html
[Steve Benen] Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) had the unfortunate luck of doing something offensive and stupid on a relatively slow news week, when political reporters are looking for something interesting to write about. By showing his rather blatant bigotry towards Muslims, Goode made this one easy. He might as well have walked around the Capitol with a “I’m a bigot” t-shirt on.

Not quite bright enough to know to quit when he’s behind, Goode started talking openly about his narrow-mindedness yesterday, appearing on Fox News and holding a press conference in his home district. . . . Apparently, the controversy, and his anti-Muslim animus, isn’t a political problem for him. . . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_17_atrios_archive.html#116680714825828683
[Rahm Emanuel, D-IL] "Tolerance for different religions speaks to the very character of this country and the precepts on which it was founded," said Emanuel. "President Bush has reminded us time and again that freedom of religion is a fundamental American value. As such, I call on President Bush to be consistent and denounce Congressman Goode's intolerance."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011677
[Josh Marshall] We're trying to find what I guess is the December 2006 equivalent of the needle in the haystack: any Republican who will give us a comment on Rep. Virgil Goode's opposition to the Koran and people from the Middle East in general. . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011681
The latest is that he at least got a roundabout buzz-off from Rep. Aderholt's (R-AL) spokesperson when asked for a comment on the Goode-Koran imbroglio. "We haven't seen the letter."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011679
In our on-going search for a Republican member of Congress to comment on the No-Goode-Koran story, a spokesperson for Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) promises to look into it!

More: http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/swearing-on-quran-and-nut-on-miami.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116685020360809400

How the media shapes the news: they frame this issue as a personal spat between Goode and Keith Ellison (D-MN) – as if somehow Ellison sparked Goode’s racist diatribe by having the audacity to run for Congress (and win) even though he’s Muslim. The nerve!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612220009
Blitzer stated that Ellison's "plans to use the Quran in the swearing-in ceremony have touched off a raging controversy." Blitzer also suggested that Ellison was "war[ring]" with Goode.

Blitzer's suggestion that Ellison was to blame echoed Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus, who, as Media Matters for America noted, said she thought it was "a little bit strange" that "we're focusing on" Goode instead of Ellison on the December 21 edition of MSNBC News Live. . . .

CNN’s increasingly disturbing habit of simply parroting the WH message of the day in their news coverage

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612220015
As Media Matters for America noted, on the December 8 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry reported that "the White House explanation [for "speaking in generalities"] is the president doesn't want to be pinned down on details. He's in listening mode right now." CNN reporters and hosts followed Henry in uncritically repeating as fact that Bush is in "listening mode," despite reportedly not having asked any questions of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) when he met with the ISG members after their report was released on December 6 and despite Bush's immediate rejection of some of the group's key recommendations.

In addition to CNN's very recent adoption of "listening mode," Media Matters has found numerous other examples of CNN journalists' repeating White House phrases without challenge and reporting Bush administration talking points as fact. . . . [read on]

One of the hallmarks of Rovean politics has been the “double-reverse Machiavellian genius” move – “Ha, ha! You are criticizing us for something that we WANT you to criticize us for, and by doing so you have fallen into our trap of tricking you into doing it. So you should stop criticizing us.” This was always a pretty bogus ploy, which like every Rovean move allowed them to claim either X or not-X as a sign of their own brilliance and success. Well, it sounds even more lame today. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/22/19542/183
[Peggy Noonan] I feel the Democrats this year are making a mistake. They think it will be a cakewalk. A war going badly, immigration, high spending, a combination of sentimentality and dimness in foreign affairs--everyone in the world wants to be free, and in exactly the way we define freedom at dinner parties in McLean and Chevy Chase--and conservative thinkers and writers hopping mad and hoping to lose the House.

The Democrats' mistake--ironically, in a year all about Mr. Bush--is obsessing on Mr. Bush. . . .

[NB: Thanks for that advice, Peggy. I know you have our best interests at heart.]

[Glenn Greenwald] That was, as Noonan pointed out, an extremely brilliant Republican strategy indeed -- have one of history's most unpopular Presidents, at the height of his unpopularity, make the midterm elections a referendum on him. And those stupid, hapless Democrats played right into Karl Rove's hands (as always) by falling into the trap and talking too much about Bush. That proved that not only would they lose the midterm elections, but that they were "unworthy" of victory. Onto the next column. . . .

The kind of people they are: if Lynne Cheney wants people to stop focusing on her daughter’s pregnancy, maybe SHE should stop talking about it. The issue, OF COURSE, is not with Mary Cheney, her baby, her lesbianism, or anything like that – the issue is the hypocrisy of Dick Cheney, George Bush, and all the Republicans who make political hay out of bashing gays, while embracing the gay members of their own families and administration

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,238140,00.html

[NB: Their real problem here is on the Right . . .
http://rawstory.com/comments/23700.html
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/12/the_attacks_on_.html
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2006/12/dobson_and_perk.html
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9422.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-baby7dec07,1,6139729.story]

Bonus item: We’ll probably have a number of these as the year comes to an end

The Progress Report’s “Naughty and Nice” list for 2006:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=917053

Media Matters’ Most Outrageous Comments of 2006:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200612220013

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:55 AM

 
THE LISTENER

Okay, let’s review. At the outset of the war, generals told the Bush gang that more troops were needed. This didn’t fit the political exigencies of the moment, so those generals were ignored (then forced out). Afterwards, for years Bush said more troops weren’t needed because his generals (the ones who survived the first bloodletting) didn't ask for them -- they'd learned that nothing was gained by asking for something they weren’t going to get anyway. Then, a bad election, popular sentiment, and the highly critical ISG report forced Bush into changing policies – but there are really only two basic options available, more troops or start pulling out. And Bush has already vetoed pulling out as an option. So, more troops it is. But will more troops at this stage make things any better, or is it too late? The leading generals say, don’t throw good money after bad. Bush now says, what the generals say doesn’t really matter

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122000308.html
The debate over sending more U.S. troops to Iraq intensified yesterday as President Bush signaled that he will listen but not necessarily defer to balky military officers, while Gen. John P. Abizaid, his top Middle East commander and a leading skeptic of a so-called surge, announced his retirement.

At an end-of-the-year news conference, Bush said he agrees with generals "that there's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished" before he decides to dispatch an additional 15,000 to 30,000 troops to the war zone. But he declined to repeat his usual formulation that he will heed his commanders on the ground when it comes to troop levels. . . .

The tension between the White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff over the proposed troop increase has come to dominate the administration's post-election search for a new strategy in Iraq. The uniformed leadership has opposed sending additional forces without a clear mission, seeing the idea as ill-formed and driven by a desire in the White House to do something different even without a defined purpose.

Abizaid's announcement amid that debate could shift the dynamics. His retirement in March had been expected, given that he has led the U.S. Central Command longer than any predecessor and had already extended his assignment at the request of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. But Abizaid has been a forceful voice of doubt about the utility of a surge . . .

The internal struggle over troop levels in Iraq has exposed a schism between civilian and military leadership 45 months into a war that, at the moment, has no end in sight. Testifying before a Senate committee Nov. 15, Abizaid bluntly rejected the surge option, saying: "I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution to the problem. I believe that the troop levels need to stay where they are." Other generals have been equally resistant in public and private comments.

Bush has traditionally paid public deference to the generals, saying any decisions on moving U.S. forces in the region would depend on their views. At a Chicago news conference in July, for instance, Bush said he would yield to Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Iraq commander.

"General Casey will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there," Bush said, adding: "He'll decide how best to achieve victory and the troop levels necessary to do so. I've spent a lot of time talking to him about troop levels. And I've told him this: I said, 'You decide, General.' "

By yesterday, however, Bush indicated that he will not necessarily let military leaders decide . . .

http://susiemadrak.com/2006/12/21/07/03/the-decider-4/
[Susan Madrak] I’ll listen to the generals - except when they tell me something I don’t want to hear. . . .

Watch and listen: http://masl.to/?W26B1296E

Coincidence?

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-generals-iraq,0,3768236.story
A shuffle of top American generals in Iraq is likely to accompany the shift in U.S. policy that President Bush is considering.

Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, has submitted plans to go ahead with a retirement that is months overdue, according to the U.S. Central Command.

And the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, has indicated in recent months that he also may not stay much longer than the end of this year.

Since they have opposed sending more troops to Iraq, their departures could make it easier for Bush and his new Defense Secretary Robert Gates to switch course in the troubled campaign . . .

Abizaid, long considered a voice of candor, told a Senate committee last month that the number of troops deployed to Iraq should not increased . . .

A bribe?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/21/troops-iraq-kerosene/
Last night on NBC Nightly News, Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski said that many military officials are “suspicious” of President Bush’s announcement that he plans to increase the size of the armed forces. They believe that “he’s dangling that offer out there in an effort to buy the military support for the option to surge additional American troops into Iraq as if it’s some kind of tradeoff.”

Miklaszewski added that military leaders are also still opposed to an increase in U.S. troops in Iraq, believing it would “be like throwing kerosene on a fire.” . . .

Here’s a simple point. Ordinary Iraqis – not the insurgents or our “enemies” – have in overwhelming numbers been saying for months that they want the U.S. out. They interpreted the elections as a sign of hope that this would happen soon. How will they react when the U.S. announces it is adding more troops, and settling in for a long stay? Has anyone thought this through?

Today the news comes out that Bush wants Maliki to ASK for more troops (as if it were his idea). Maliki replies, “this one’s on you, guys”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122100629.html
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told visiting Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that he would let U.S. generals decide whether there is a need for a "surge" in U.S. troops deployed in Iraq . . .

The consensus is in: Call it “escalation,” not a “surge.” It’s obvious why the Bush gang wants to avoid using the term “escalation”. . . .

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/20/17432/741
[Joelspolls] If there's one thing we've learned about Karl Rove's MO it's that his job number one is to start by figuring out the poll-tested term that has the best chance of selling Bush's policies to the public and then job number two is making sure that that term is the one everyone in the media uses. Prominent examples include "social security reform" and "personal accounts" instead of "social security privatization" and "private accounts;" "sectarian violence" instead of "civil war;" "healthy forests" instead of "clear cuts;" you get the idea.

So I don't mean to chide anyone in particular for using the term "surge," since everyone else is doing it too. But why on earth is everyone calling it a "surge" when in any other combat situation in history the same shift on the ground would be called an "escalation?" . . . .

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/americaabroad/2006/dec/21/surging_into_the_abyss
[Vali Nasr] It now looks like the administration has adopted the surge strategy as its mantra. . . . [read on]

. . . . but there may be other, less-obvious reasons why they like the term “surge” (warning: very rude)

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8082

You might think by now that some of these “experts,” who led us astray at every stage with their wrongheaded analyses and predictions about Iraq, would have lost any remaining credibility on the matter. Yes, you might think so. . . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2322.html

More: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_17_atrios_archive.html#116672438322776621

Brilliant! The NYT prints Flynt Leverett’s op-ed, with all the redactions marked that the WH insisted on because the material was “classified,” then tells you what was cut and where that information can be found in nonclassified sources

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22leverett.html

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22precede.html
Indeed, the deleted portions of the original draft reveal no classified material. . . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002214.php

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/doubly-informative-op-ed.html

How easily the media swallows the Message of the Day. Create a photo op, populate it with soldiers who all parrot the “we need more troops” line, and bingo -- there’s your story. NO ONE stops to ask whether these voices are representative, and the headlines make it sound as if the sentiment is unanimous

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_17_atrios_archive.html#116672425378690539
[Atrios] One thing I've tried very hard to do on this blog is never presume to speak for the soldiers who are serving in Iraq. An obvious reason for this is that they of course don't speak with one voice or one mind. Still, how credulous can a reporter be who writes this up without pointing out the obvious:

FRONT-LINE TROOPS WANT REINFORCEMENTS . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/21/212345/69

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_17_atrios_archive.html#116673959258332592

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3670

Idiots. IDIOTS!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612210012
In reporting on President Bush's "argu[ment]" that "he had legal authority" to order warrantless domestic wiretapping, NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell in a December 20 online article uncritically repeated the Bush administration's false claim that "Congress had not passed a specific law" on the subject.

In fact, as has been widely reported and as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Congress has passed such a law: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), which requires the government to obtain a warrant to wiretap U.S. citizens and legal residents inside the United States. . . The administration has argued it has the authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps despite FISA's prohibitions. . .

[NB: The point is (a) there IS a law and (b) the Bush gang’s underlying message is that NO LAW can constrain them]

If you like Billmon (and I hope you do), here’s a selection of his comments on the failed Iraq adventure, going back to April 2003

http://billmon.org/archives/002969.html
[A sample, from April 11, 2003] The Iranian example, however, suggests the Shias are not the best instruments for an American neo-colonial order in Iraq. While the Islamic Revolution’s political hold over the Iraqi Shiite imagination was always exaggerated -- by the Baathists as well as by their enemies – the cultural influence is real and deeply rooted. Here, too, geography is destiny: Iran will always be near at hand and America will always be far away. Proximity eventually may trump raw imperial power -- at least over the long run.

And the Sunni elite? It's living through the final moments of its historic domination of Mesopotamia . . . The Baath is fading away. The future is molten, like lava. Attitudes formed now, decisions made now, could endure after the lava cools. . . .

Is Bush trying to instigate a Persian “Gulf of Tonkin” provocation?

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/bush-administrations-provocations.html

Good news: the U.S. military didn’t just charge the soldiers in the Haditha massacre – they also went after the officers who failed to investigate it properly

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/12/20/01758/535

Well, surprise, surprise (thanks to Buzzflash for the link)

https://ssl47.pair.com/isafetyn/preview.php/post/293/Iraqi_Fugitive_Donated_to_Bush_Campaigns
IraqSlogger has learned that the ex-Iraqi government minister who is the subject of a nationwide manhunt in Iraq contributed to George W. Bush's presidential campaigns before and after being appointed by U.S. authorities as Iraq's minister of electricity.

Aiham Alsammarae, an Iraqi-American who considered the Chicago area home for 27 years until 2003, escaped his Baghdad Green Zone jail Sunday in an effort to avoid facing prosecution on corruption charges. . . .

[NB: Escaped with the assistance of war contractors he had hired: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/20/11423/772]

Campaign contribution records show Alsammarae donated $1,000 to the Bush campaign in 1999 and, after being appointed by U.S. Iraq administrator Paul Bremer as Iraq's electricity minister in August 2003, donated $250 to the Bush campaign in April 2004.

Also while serving as Iraq's minister of electricity, he donated $1,500 to the U.S. Republican National Committee and $250 to the Illinois Republican Party.

Prior to his appointment as an Iraqi government minister, and separate from his Bush presidential campaign and RNC contributions, Alsammarae donated nearly $5,000 to the Illinois Republican party and to Republican U.S. senate candidates. . .

My colleague Jan P. has argued from the very start that the Bush plan has always been to create MORE regional instability in the Middle East, not less. Well, if that were their policy, they couldn’t have done a better job of it. With a civil war in Iraq, something close in Lebanon, they’re now doing their part to help create another civil war between Hamas and Fatah in Palestine

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2325.html

The Bush gang’s war on public accountability

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011670
[Justin Rood] How many times has the administration attempted to suppress government studies, statistics or other forms of once-public information that don't jibe with its policy? We put out the call -- and readers responded.

We've tallied over 20 examples so far from the past six years, and we'll likely break two dozen by the end of the day. Suggestions keep coming in. In areas as diverse as unemployment, health, climate change and the Iraq war, the administration has defunded, classified, or otherwise killed the release of facts that run contrary to its endorsed policies. . . .

The shaky foundation of “corporate responsibility”

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2323.html

Gee, hard to believe, isn’t it?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010440.php
[Kevin Drum] An Interior Department report completed last year concluded that federal incentives for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (a) funnel tens of billions of dollars to oil companies, (b) don't produce very much additional oil, and (c) the oil they do produce is more expensive than just buying the stuff on the open market. At least, that's what the report would have concluded a year ago if the Bush administration had been willing to release it . . . .

Another big non-surprise

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/12/tsa_violated_privacy_law.html
TSA Violated Privacy Law . . .

Karl Rove’s new full-time job: spinning to people why the huge Republican loss in 2006 wasn’t his fault

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116677592167842994

Interesting dilemma: Bush desperately needs to pass the mantle to another Republican administration, one he can trust not to repudiate (or investigate!) his failed policies and who will “stay the course” in his millennial war against terror. Who to back? I have no doubt that at one time they thought brother Jeb would carry on another eight years of Bush dynastic rule. Well. . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061220/pl_nm/bush_jeb_dc_1
"No tengo futuro (I have no future)," Jeb Bush told Spanish-language reporters in Miami, when asked about any possible political ambitions after he steps down next month. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/21/143758/06
[Devilstower] We've seen the amazing spectacle of McCain wearing out his knees as he goes crawling back to the same right wing fundies and Bush strategists who attacked and smeared him in the 2000 primaries. . . Insiders are reporting it's because Bush has passed the word for his network of "Rangers" to turn their vast machinery of fiscal support in McCain's direction. . . .

The Dems have been handed the same hammer the Republicans pummeled them with for over a decade. What will they do with it?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-proof-that-senate-democratic.html
[Joe] Didn't matter how vital the legislation was. The GOP killed it. Geiger provides a list of some of the bills that Frist and company deemed necessary to destroy. They were an especially vindictive bunch. Every time the choice was politics over sound policy, politics won. . . .

Fair and balanced journalism: we’re already hearing the cliché about “do-nothing Democrats” (this after the tremendously irresponsible and useless Republican 109th). Maybe someone could explain that THE DEMOCRATS HAVEN’T TAKEN CHARGE YET, and so can hardly be expected to be driving the agenda

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9404.html

The Democrats plan to look into that massive immigration sweep in U.S. meatpacking plants. Good – something smells rotten there

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9408.html
[Steve Benen] In one of the crackdowns, federal agents identified suspects based on skin color, and ended up apprehending U.S. citizens who had done nothing wrong. In other instances, parents wrapped up in the raids were separated from their children, even infants. . . .

I’m sure you’ve heard rumblings about Barack Obama’s “real estate scandal.” Here are the facts

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9406.html
[Steve Benen] If anything, the coverage of the non-scandal reflects poorly on the media, not the senator. . .

Bad, bad news. Just what we need in our campaigns: more unaccountable negative advertising. Now candidates can outsource even more of their mudslinging to well-funded third parties, then deny that their fingerprints are on it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101636.html

The kind of people they are

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011674
Paul McNamara, the communications director for U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), Todd Shriber, hired two 'hackers' to break into the computer of his alma mater, Texas Christian University, and change his college grades.

He went trolling for the law-breaking 'hackers' on a computer security website. But instead of finding anyone to do his dirty work he came across a couple non-criminally minded techies who proceeded to chat him up about his scheme, draw out in explicit detail that what he was asking them to do involved mulitple felonies and then posted their complete email correspondence on the site, attrition.org. . . .

The anti-Castro Republican who claimed that the video showing her calling for his assassination had been “edited” to distort her words? She lied

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/20/assassinate-castro-new/

Sandy Berger, dumb f-ck

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16304450/
President Clinton’s national security adviser removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency’s internal watchdog said Wednesday. . . .

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101509.html

Theocracy watch, pt 1: Onward Christian Soldiers Edition

http://www.bluenc.com/robin-hayes-says-we-will-win-in-iraq-by-spreading-the-message-of-jesus-christ-there
Robin Hayes [R-NC] has the solution to the Iraq war: have our soldiers convert all Muslims to Christianity.

Having won the election by only a hair’s width and almost getting himself kicked out of Congress seems to have had some profound psychological effects on poor Mr. Hayes. A speech that flip-floppin’ Robin gave last week at the Concord Rotary Club seems to prove he has finally gone off the deep end. . . .

Theocracy watch, pt 2: Who speaks for “Faith in America”? (only conservative white male Christians, that’s who)

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/21/mtp-faith/

Bonus item: Go. Click. LYAO

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/21/213322/02

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:16 AM

 
SURGE CONTROL

The politics of “The Surge” (which we will be calling “escalation” from now on) are becoming more clear. His own generals don’t trust Bush to use the extra troops wisely. It directly contradicts the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. It depends on extending the tours of duty of troops already there even further. It looks like a formula for guaranteeing that there will be no major reduction during the remainder of Bush’s term, and then will probably leave a troop shortage “hangover” for the next administration to deal with afterwards. Democratic leaders are lining up against it – and Republicans like Norm Coleman (R-MN), facing close elections in 2008, are scared to death of it.

George Bush – everything he touches turns to sh-t

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/washington/20cnd-prexy.html
President Bush warned Americans today that the war in Iraq would require “difficult choices and additional sacrifices” in the coming year . . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010433.php
[Kevin Drum] Jonathan Singer reports that the "Up for Reelection in 2008/Change of Heart on Iraq" Caucus has a new member:

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said today after a two-day trip to Iraq that he would not support an increase in the number of soldiers in Baghdad. . . . He suggested the Iraqis meet certain benchmarks within a timeframe, such as moving the Iraqi military to the frontlines. If those benchmarks aren't met, he said U.S. troops should accelerate pulling back -- but not withdrawing from the country -- and repositioning within Iraq.

This has got to be the most puerile position imaginable on Iraq. Withdrawal I understand. "One Last Push" I understand, even though I disagree with it. But just leaving things the way they are, even though they clearly aren't working, and then "repositioning"? The fence-sitting cynicism involved in this position is staggering.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002203.php
[Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), incoming Speaker] There are no easy answers in Iraq, but there are wrong ones. I do not support increasing troop levels in Iraq to further the President's current failed course. Americans have called for a New Direction, but the President's press conference this morning showed that he has still not faced reality about Iraq and gave no indication that he is willing to make the changes needed to reverse this disastrous situation. There needs to be fundamental change in our Iraq policy and in the mission of our troop in order for events in Iraq to improve. Our troops should not be expected to be primarily responsible for dealing with sectarian violence associated with a civil war. As long as that remains their task, the situation in Iraq will remain grave.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/19/224244/67
[Harry Reid (D-NV), incoming Senate Majority Leader] Frankly, I don't believe that more troops is the answer for Iraq. It's a civil war and America should not be policing a Sunni-Shia conflict. In addition, we don't have the additional forces to put in there. We obviously want to support what commanders in the field say they need, but apparently even the Joint Chiefs do not support increased combat forces for Baghdad. . . . I do not support an escalation of the conflict. I support finding a way to bring our troops home and would look at any plan that gave a roadmap to this goal.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002202.php
[Paul Kiel] the phone all day trying to nail down congressional leaders on where they stand on President Bush's idea of increasing the troop level in Iraq. Here's the result of our day's work.

The Democrats' top leadership in the House and Senate are united against. . . . Our calls to the top Republicans, however, garnered only one response. The spokeswoman for incoming Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that he didn't have a position on the increase . . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2155904/fr/rss/
[Fred Kaplan] The hottest briefing in Washington these days is a 56-page PowerPoint slide show titled "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq," by Frederick Kagan, military analyst of the American Enterprise Institute. It proposes "surging" 20,000 extra troops to secure Baghdad as a necessary and sufficient first step to securing and rebuilding the whole country.

It's being taken very seriously in White House and congressional quarters. I don't understand why, because it's not really a serious study. Numbers are grabbed out of thin air. Crucial points are asserted, not argued. Assumptions are based on crossed fingers, not evidence or analysis.

The upshot is that Kagan's surge involves more troops than the United States can readily mobilize and fewer troops than it needs for the kind of victory he has in mind. . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061221/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates_iraq
The troops may be somewhat at odds with military commanders, who worry that rushing thousands more Americans to the battlefront could prompt Iraqis to slow their effort to take control of their country. . . . Top U.S. commanders also have worried that even a short-term troop increase might bring only a temporary respite to the violence — or none at all — while creating shortages of fresh troops for future missions. . . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2155992
[Daniel Politi] After he met with Gates, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, declared he's not "necessarily opposed to the idea" of raising troop levels. Retiring Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, has frequently spoken out agains sending more troops to Iraq, but yesterday said "all options are on the table." Abizaid also insisted his retirement "has nothing to do with dissatisfaction."

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002193.php
In today's press conference, President Bush dodged a question as to whether he'll overrule top military brass if they oppose his reported plan for a "surge" of troops in Iraq.

"That's a dangerous hypothetical," he said, concluding his answer with "nice try." . . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9397.html

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/12/language_note_escalation.html

A failure by the Democrats?

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/649

Heh-heh. It’s gonna be fun having Jim Webb (D-VA) around

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-09933sy0dec20,0,3152402.story
"He's a failed president," Webb said, when asked what he thinks of Bush. "He has two years to try to show some true leadership when it comes to rehabilitating the image of the United States around the world”. . . .

Will the escalation of the war also mean an increase in its savagery? Billmon and others think so

http://billmon.org/archives/002967.html
All along, I've had the sneaking suspicion that the choices in Iraq would ultimately boil down to mass butchery or defeat. But, as the above post indicates, over the years I've become progressively less certain what the ultimate decision would be -- and whether and when the American military would flinch from the implications of that choice. . . . Next year may be the year we find out.

More: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3667

That giant sucking sound. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011655
[AP] "The Pentagon wants the White House to seek another $99.7 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to information provided to The Associated Press. The military's request, if embraced by President Bush and approved by Congress, would boost this year's budget for the wars to about $170 billion."

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116663662132292312
[Digby] Before anybody signs another blank check for Bush to expand the military, escalate the war or add more than 70 billion to the "emergency" supplemental, how about we make the Pentagon account for this:

The Pentagon is still struggling to get a handle on the unprecedented number of contractors now helping run the nation's wars, losing millions of dollars because it is unable to monitor industry workers stationed in far-flung locations, according to a congressional report. . . .

Are we going to see an undemocratic reshuffling of the heroic, democratically elected Maliki administration that Bush has been praising for a year?

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2309.html

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3668

More on the escape of that war contractor from detention within the Green Zone

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/20/11423/772
[LAT] A once-prominent Iraqi American, jailed on corruption charges, was sprung from a Green Zone prison this weekend by U.S. security contractors he had hired, several Iraqi officials said. . . .

I suppose some credit ought to go to this: the National Review’s editor, Rich Lowry

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/20/115318/34
[Lowry] Most of the pessimistic warnings from the mainstream media have turned out to be right — that the initial invasion would be the easy part, that seeming turning points (the capture of Saddam, the elections, the killing of Zarqawi) were illusory, that the country was dissolving into a civil war. . . . Many conservatives lost touch with reality on Iraq. They thought that they were contributing to our success, but they were only helping to forestall a cold look at conditions there and the change in strategy and tactics that would be dictated by it

Responses: http://billmon.org/archives/002968.html

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/lowry_sells_out/

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010428.php

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9398.html

Bush, economic genius

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9397.html
Today, President Bush held a news conference where he discussed the “way forward” for the economy in 2007. Renowned Morgan Stanley economist Steven Roach says the “odds of the U.S. economy tipping into recession are about 40 to 45 per cent.” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman notes that “the odds are very good — maybe 2 to 1,” that the U.S. will teeter toward a recession in 2007.

Bush’s solution? “Go shopping more.”

Yes, that’s exactly what he said. . .

I agree with this: don’t make a “deal” with Bush on the minimum wage, which includes tax breaks and regulatory relief for business – pass the minimum wage increase, period, and make him have to veto it, if he dares

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/20/19104/661
[Jonathan Singer] I don't mean to sound glib or cynical (or repetitious, for that matter), but it's imperative that the Democrats remain impervious to entreaties by the Bush White House -- at least when they're not good faith deals. This is not to say that Democratic leaders in Congress should not follow through with their pledge to open up the process in the Capitol and allow the minority to play a role in crafting policy. Yet at the same time, if the Democrats have the votes to pass a necessary and, frankly, highly popular piece of legislation like increasing the minimum wage, then they should do so with or without Republican support. If this means that the bill will not be enacted into law in the first pass because the President is so foolish and bull-headed that he would veto it, so be it. While the country needs an increase in the minimum wage -- and I do not mean to downplay this need at all -- at the same time we cannot afford to indulge the President's desire to appease his highly partisan and ideological base for politics' sake.

Bush lies about the DHS immigration raids

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002195.php
"I don't know if you've paid attention to the enforcement measures that were taken recently at some meat-packing plants. They found people that had been working illegally, but all of them had documents that said they were here legally — they were using forged documents."

[Justin Rood] Not exactly, as regular readers are aware. A day after the raids, ICE announced that only 65 of the nearly 1,300 detainees faced criminal charges, and only some of those involved document fraud. That number has since grown to over a hundred. Still, the vast majority of those arrested in the raids and held for days were not charged with identity theft. . .

Bush’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad 2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/12/20/BL2006122000603.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2155903/fr/rss/
[John Dickerson] What Has Bush Learned From His Mistakes? Nothing.. . . [read on!]

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8067
I think the American people -- I know the American people are very worried about an external threat and that they recognize that failure in Iraq would embolden that external threat, and they expect this administration to listen with people, to work with Democrats, to work with the military, to work with the Iraqis to put a plan in place that achieves the objective. There's not a lot of people saying, "Get out now." Most Americans are saying, "We want to achieve the objective." . . .

Bonus edition: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8069
My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted when I said it at the time, and that conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad.

Bush invents a new verb tense: past future predictive, with a subjunctive twist

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2318.html
Q Mr. President, less than two months ago at the end of one of the bloodiest months in the war, you said, "Absolutely we're winning." Yesterday you said, "We're not winning, we're not losing." Why did you drop your confident assertion about winning?

THE PRESIDENT: My comments -- the first comment was done in this spirit: I believe that we're going to win; I believe that -- and by the way, if I didn't think that, I wouldn't have our troops there. That's what you got to know. We're going to succeed.

My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted when I said it at the time, and that conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad. . . . [read on]

John McCain, prostitute

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9395.html
[Steve Benen] Given Kissinger’s role in Vietnam, and his reflections on what went wrong, John McCain made the right call in 2000 when he decided he didn’t want Kissinger to have anything to do with his presidential campaign. McCain’s fear, apparently, was that Kissinger “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’”

Of course, that was the old McCain. The new McCain has chosen Kissinger to be the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

With the “Straight Talk Express” already having been driven into a ditch, I guess this makes perfect sense.

Of course, you know what this means — it’s time to update the list of McCain’s biggest flip-flops as he transforms himself from maverick hero to right-wing hack.

* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

If we include Kissinger, that brings us to 12 — and McCain’s not done trying to pander to the far-right base.

Good point

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011657
Am I the only one who is bothered by the way the pundits continually point out that Edwards’s or Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience is a genuine weakness, while Guiliani’s lack of foreign policy experience is never mentioned? Unlike Guiliani, at least Edwards and Obama have served in a national office.

[NB: But Giuliani was MAYOR. Of NEW YORK! During 9-11! That’s foreign policy experience, isn’t it? Plus, what foreign policy knowledge or experience did George Bush have in 2000? Zero! And that turned out pretty well, didn’t it?]

I believe that anyone who is elected under the promise of a term limit, of either party (though lately this has been a favorite Republican trick) should be hounded out of office if they break that promise. Here’s another one

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/20/13223/878

More on the Republicans’ War on Christmas

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/how-condi-killed-christmas.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/tell-fox-news-to-stop-war-on-christmas.html

Is there nothing they can’t get away with saying? Another member of the blonde bimbo Republican attack squad says that Barack Obama, devout Christian (but with a deceased father of Muslim descent) is too dangerous for America

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612200005
[Debbie Schlussel] "So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian ... is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father's heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?"

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9396.html

No, there’s nothing they can’t say

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9401.html
Yesterday on Fox News, talk radio host Mike Gallagher said the U.S. government should “round up” actor Matt Damon, “The View” host Joy Behar, and MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann and “put them in a detention camp until this war is over because they’re a bunch of traitors.” . . .

Bonus item: Drudge (rhymes with grudge, and sludge)

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/12/20/drudge/index.html
[Tim Grieve] Matt Drudge has never been about a slavish devotion to the truth when it didn't suit his purposes, but his site today hits a new low.

As we write this, the Drudge Report is running an AP photo from today's presidential press conference; right now the headline under the photo reads . . . "AP PHOTOGRAPHER GIVES BUSH 'DEVIL HORNS.'"

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:27 AM

 
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR

More evidence that McCain proposed a troop increase for Iraq, believing it would never happen

http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/12/post_459.html#014876
[Greg Sargent] How do we know McCain believed this? Why, he said so himself! . . .

Now that it might happen, his popularity starts to drop. . . .

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/19/144547/03
[Jonathan Singer] McCain's standing among the broader electorate is declining. This is not a coincidence. This should not come as a surprise. This morning Josh Marshall picks up on new polling from ABC News and The Washington Post that shows McCain sinking fast among independent voters, who Marshall rightly notes " are McCain's big constituency." . . .

Clever analysis

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011629.php
[MD] It hit me the other day that what the surge is going to accomplish for Bush and Cheney is to take them through these next two years. By the time they can claim to have the extra troops in Bagdhad it's gonna be May or June. They'll be there a few months till everyone has to admit that it isn't working (though in the interim I would predict the first really horrendous event in which our troops suffer a big loss, like 200 men in one blast), then it will be the end of 2007 and the argument will be about whether we should remove some of the surge troops. That will take a few months, at least, and we'll be in the throes of a presidential election. Bush won't want to do anything too "political" at that point, of course, so he'll happily leave it to the new prez . . .

[NB: Right on. Even more than this, the inevitable “hangover” of a troop SHORTAGE after the “surge” will be the next administration’s problem]

The real problem for this approach: not the Dems, many of whom will vote to give Bush what he asks for, but the Republicans who need to face the prospect of an election in 2008 with 100-150,000 troops still in Iraq

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011631

Harry Reid (D-NV) clarifies his position on “the surge”

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/19/224244/67

See a pattern here? We saw Saddam Hussein as a useful bulwark against the Iranians, and buddied up to him in the 80’s. Then he became the worst person in the world. We armed and supported Osama Bin Laden when he was leading the fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Then he became the worst person in the world. We supported Muqtada al-Sadr against the Sunnis, when we thought they were the biggest threat in Iraq. But now. . . .

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/pentagon-report-al-sadr-not-al-qaeda.html

The desperate WH struggle to deny and redefine the Joint Chiefs’ opposition to a troop increase in Iraq

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116657505555820967
[Digby] Fred Barnes just said that it's not true that the joint chiefs unanimously oppose an escalation of the war --- it's that they are afraid Bush won't send enough troops to get the job done and that if it's a temporary escalation, the whole place will fall apart after we pull those troops back out.

He didn't think those were important differences of opinion, naturally, because he has once again cast his lot with Junior, but really, these are huge and serious concerns . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9385.html
[AP] White House press secretary Tony Snow emphasized that no decisions have been made about changing U.S. policy in Iraq. . “I think people are trying to create a fight between the president and the Joint Chiefs when one does not exist,” Snow said at a White House briefing . . . “What I’m saying is this budding narrative of the president locking horns with the joint chiefs is tonally inaccurate.”

[Steve Benen] Tell us, Tony, what would constitute a conflict between the Joint Chiefs and the president? . . . let’s consider the list of examples of Snow’s detachment from reality, from just the last two weeks:

* Bush and Colin Powell are completely at odds over an Iraq strategy. Snow says that no “big disagreement” exists between them.

* When the Iraq Study Group said the Bush administration’s policy is “no longer viable,” Snow insisted that this wasn’t a repudiation of the Bush administration’s policy.

* Bush says the United States is winning the war in Iraq. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says we are not. Snow says Bush and Gates agree.

It’s only a matter of time before Snow tells us that up is down and black is white.

More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8060

The kind of news that makes headline writers breathless (but doesn’t mean a damn thing)

http://www.slate.com/id/2155888
[Ryan Grim] The Post leads big with President Bush's admission that the United States is "not winning" the war in Iraq. . . . The Post points out quickly that Bush's admission is a "striking reversal" from his pre-election declaration: "Absolutely, we're winning."

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/bush-admits-us-is-not-winning-in-iraq.html
[WP] Asked yesterday about his "absolutely, we're winning" comment at an Oct. 25 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. "Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win," he said.

Bush’s leadership style: in some MBA course he must have encountered a case study of a bold, decisive leader who sets a vastly “unrealistic” goal for his organization, but by sticking to it and refusing to accept “it’s impossible” for an answer, drove the enterprise to an outcome it never thought was achievable. The essence of this model is to attribute every doubt, every dissent, every claim that the goal is unrealistic to the inevitable resistance of a recalcitrant organization, which must be ignored and overridden. You just keep repeating, “I’ve set the goal, and it’s not changing. Your job is to find a way to MAKE it possible. Failure is not an option.” Most of all, to be this kind of bold leader you can never admit even a moment of uncertainty or backpedaling – your confidence and inflexibility about the goal, while leaving the how up to others, is what makes the achievement possible. The problem, of course, is when the “stretch goal” really is impossible, and you drive the enterprise into the ground by expending resources pursuing a lost cause. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121901566.html
Ever since Republicans were routed last month in what was widely seen as a repudiation of his Iraq strategy, President Bush has been busily listing how his policies there will not be changing. . . Yesterday, in an interview with The Washington Post, while acknowledging that the United States is not winning in Iraq, Bush bluntly dismissed the suggestion that the midterm elections meant voters want to bring the mission in that country to closure. . . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_17_atrios_archive.html#116654345462749060
[William Arkin] Will anyone get beyond the view that "we have to succeed" to actually ask the question as to whether it is possible or likely?

[Atrios] More than that, it's quite possible to fail even more than we already have.

The word no one wants to utter: “failure” (thanks to Holden for the link)

http://iafrica.com/news/specialreport/iraq/526663.htm
Iraq faces "complete disintegration into failed state chaos" a respected think-tank warned on Tuesday. . . The stark analysis from the International Crisis Group came as a Pentagon report confirmed that violence in Iraq has hit record levels and two weeks after a bipartisan US panel branded the situation "grave and deteriorating". . . .

Atrios nails it: when will ANYONE who says, “the next 6 months (3 months, etc) are crucial to show progress in Iraq” admit, after that time span is up, that the war is a failure – instead of just extending the formulation into another prediction? Tom Friedman sets the standard, but here’s Lee Hamilton doing the same thing

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_17_atrios_archive.html#116655379824780990
[Hamilton] The next three months are critical. Before the end of this year, this government needs to show progress in securing Baghdad, pursuing national reconciliation and delivering basic services.

[Atrios] But, unsurprisingly, those things haven't happened. So now what?

Condi to James Baker: I’M the Secretary of State now, buddy, not you

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/17/AR2006121700973.html

The Permanent Class in Washington. Atrios is on a roll today – he captures perfectly the smug sense of superiority and the insularity of the Beltway Elite – the career politicians, journalists, pundits, consultants, lobbyists, et al. who consider themselves the true guardians of the nation, and for whom even the President is just a new guy passing through “their” town. It’s this lack of respect for anything outside their own shared wisdom that allows wars like Iraq to take root and persist. The voters have said overwhelmingly that they want this war OVER – but calmer and wiser heads (they think) must resist such populist verities and do the sensible, right thing for the nation. So you get sensible, bland documents like the ISG Report – which does nothing to change the actual course of the war. . . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_17_atrios_archive.html#116655056124505772

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011618
[Josh Marshall] One of the big stories -- for those who like watching and dogging the DC press corps -- over the next two years will be watching the slow disconnect between the people the prestige DC pundits think should be the top candidates and those who are the top candidates. The numbers will arch away from the conventional wisdom. But when will disconnect become too big to ignore? . . .

Anti-terror expert quits the Bush administration in frustration

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002187.php
Kilcullen's (and Crumpton's) "ideas have yet to penetrate the fortress that is the Bush White House," Packer notes. . . .

Block that metaphor!

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/the_shortest_distance_between/
[Tom Friedman] I have long believed that any American general or senior diplomat who wants to work in Iraq should have to pass a test. It would be a very simple test. It would consist of only one question: "Do you think the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?"

If you answered "Yes," you would not be allowed to work in Iraq. . . Only those who understand that in the Middle East the shortest distance between two points is never a straight line should be allowed to carry out U.S. policy there. . . . [read on!]

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116659523306302247

Just say NO! Bush wants to try again on Social Security

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121901634_2.html
Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., who enjoys strong credibility among Democrats and Republicans, has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill to talk about restructuring Social Security, emphasizing that there are no preconceptions. . . .

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/19/23045/367

The kind of people they are

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002189.php
[Paul Kiel] In a letter sent out to select supporters earlier this month reacting to the controversy (among certain extreme conservatives, at least) over Muslim representative-elect Keith Ellison's (D-MN) decision to be sworn in on the Koran, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) sent a short letter to supporters warning that the U.S. must close its borders to guard against the influx of still more Muslims. In it, he also proudly recounts his retort to a Muslim student who asked him why he did not include the Koran with The Ten Commandments on his wall. "As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office," he says he told the student . . .

This is a very good question

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/dec/18/newsweek_poll_hillary_beating_mccain_and_rudy
[Greg Sargent] So Newsweek has a new poll out showing Hillary Clinton beating both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani in head-to-head matchups. The poll, which is out on the PR Newswire, finds Clinton beating McCain by an astonishing seven points, 50%-43%, and finds her besting Giuliani by one point, 48%-47%. Yet here's something curious: Both Steve Benen and Atrios have been unable to find a mention of these numbers in Newsweek's current issue -- even though its cover story is on Hillary and Obama. Why?

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/dec/19/newsweek_editor_speaks_on_missing_hillary_poll_numbers
When I pointed out that the numbers go to the heart of whether Clinton's electable, which should have been very relevant to a piece analyzing her electability, Meacham answered. . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9386.html
[Steve Benen] Steve M. makes the case that the poll results conflicted with the preferred media narrative, so they had to be discarded. . . .

Just another crooked Republican. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/nyregion/19cnd-bruno.html

Get out the popcorn: Cheney to testify for the defense in the Scooter Libby trial next month

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061219/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak

Analysis: http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/12/19/breaking-cheney-on-libby-witness-list/

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/12/dick_takes_the_.html

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/12/19/16411/298

Bonus item: Rock on!

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116658360253673761

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:52 AM

 
KEEP SHOVELING

It’s official: Bush is gonna do whatever the hell he wants to do

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2286.html#014855

More: http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/cover/

Even the unanimous voice of the Joint Chiefs can’t change his mind, apparently

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477.html
The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. . .

[T]he Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military . . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2155809
[Daniel Politi] According to the Post's sources, the Joint Chiefs think the White House is pursuing the idea of a surge because there are few other possible options. Meanwhile, they are adamant that increasing the number of troops in the country would create more problems than it solves for the U.S. troops in Iraq. The only real option on the table regarding any kind of surge, would have to involve a specific timeline and mission, which military leaders worry could be exploited by insurgents. The chiefs are allegedly taking a firm stance because they believe the current review of the Iraq situation will lead to the most important decisions since the invasion. Meanwhile, the Post talks to an unnamed senior administration official who insists the question hasn't really started a fight between the White House and the Pentagon. The same source contends military officers have not directly opposed a surge, and have merely asked questions about it. . . .

No, I’m not joking (I wish I were): General Jack Keane, advisor to Bush, actually told him to use U.S. strategies in Viet Nam as a model for his new approach to Iraq – and Bush seems prepared to take his advice!

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/18/iraq-vietnam-bush/
[Fred Barnes] The Keane-Kagan plan is not revolutionary. Rather, it is an application of a counterinsurgency approach that has proved to be effective elsewhere, notably in Vietnam. There, Gen. Creighton Abrams cleared out the Viet Cong so successfully that the South Vietnamese government took control of the country. Only when Congress cut off funds to South Vietnam in 1974 were the North Vietnamese able to win.

[Judd] You know Iraq is going badly when people suggest the way to turn it around is to make it more like Vietnam.

Why has the Bush gang been refusing to release data on the number of attacks against U.S. troops?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002177.php

A pattern of abuse: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002175.php
[Paul Kiel] As others have noted, it's far from the first time that the administration has tried to deep-six data that was unhelpful to its goals. Over the years, they've discontinued annual reports, classified normally public data, de-funded studies, quieted underlings, and generally done whatever was necessary to keep bad information under wraps.

Wouldn't it be great to have all those examples in one place? . . . [read on]

Here’s why

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121800765.html
Attacks in Iraq on U.S.-led forces, local security personnel and civilians have surged 22 percent to record levels, the Pentagon said . . . "Attack levels -- both overall and in all specific measurable categories -- were the highest on record . . .”

Wall Street Journal editor volunteers for Iraq duty (NOT!)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612180004?src=newsbox-atrios.blogspot.com
On the December 16 edition of Fox News' Journal Editorial Report, after Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley claimed that it would be "very difficult," politically, for President Bush to increase troop levels in Iraq, fellow Journal board member Robert Pollock countered. . . . "That's not a hard thing to do."

More: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/theres-easy-and-then-theres-magic.html

More on why “The Surge” can’t possibly work

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/troop-surge-terrible-idea.html

But here’s why blocking Bush’s request for more troops would backfire: It gives Bush the chance to construct himself as a victim of congressional interference, whereas now the X is squarely on his back; it changes the discussion from his Iraq war failures to whether the Dems are committed enough to national security; it changes the question about why Bush is overriding his own generals’ recommendations to whether this is “payback” by the Nancy Pelosi liberals; etc. Worst of all, when Iraq collapses, as it will, the right-wing narrative will be “we were doing okay until the gutless Democrats sold out our troops” (don’t think so? Read the Fred Barnes quote, above, again: “Only when Congress cut off funds to South Vietnam in 1974 were the North Vietnamese able to win.”)

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2289.html

Leon Panetta (Iraq Study Group member) is really, really surprised and disappointed that Bush is ignoring their recommendations. Hello-o-o?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_17_atrios_archive.html#116649628353977065

Just laugh

http://www.slate.com/id/2155809
[Daniel Politi] Iraq's former electricity minister, who is a citizen of both the United States and Iraq, escaped from Baghdad's Green Zone on Sunday. He was being held on corruption charges. The LAT gives big play to Iraqi officials who say U.S. security contractors helped Ayham Samaeraei escape, but the NYT is more skeptical and cites the denial of U.S. officials. It is unclear exactly how he managed to escape the most heavily fortified area of Baghdad, but the NYT makes clear Samaeraei wasn't exactly kept in tight security and the paper describes how he wasn't even locked up in a cell. Police officers meant to keep an eye on him didn't inform anybody he was missing until several hours later.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121800301_pf.html

More on the WH effort to block a former official from publishing an op-ed on U.S. relations with Iran – you’ll love this excuse

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005326.html

More: http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/more-on-elliot-abrams-censorship-of.html

See? They really can police themselves

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005325.html
[NYT] "A Justice Department team responsible for investigating accusations that civilian government employees had abused detainees has decided against prosecution in most of the nearly 20 cases referred in the last two years by the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency, said lawyers who have been officially briefed on the effort. The prosecution team, which was established in June 2004 at the United States attorney’s office in Alexandria, Va., has not brought a single indictment and has been plagued by problems."

Good news: Bush gang withdraws its case demanding the ACLU give up govt documents (so they can track the leaker). Why? Because they knew they were going to lose

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005324.html

As Holden says, this speaks volumes

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8047
Q Tony, when does Secretary Gates go to Iraq, tomorrow?

MR. SNOW: One thing you never do is announce when somebody is going to go to Iraq. . . . [read on]

I know that job qualification #1 for the WH press sect’y is the ability (and willingness) to utter howlingly ridiculous falsehoods with a perfectly straight face. But even for Baghdad Tony this is quite a reach

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9375.html
[CNN] White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said Monday that no “big disagreement” exists between President Bush and Colin Powell, despite the former secretary of state’s comments Sunday that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war and the United States is losing there. . . .

[Steve Benen] Let’s see, Powell thinks Iraq is in the midst of a civil war; Bush doesn’t.

Powell blasted “stay the course,” when Bush embraced it.

Powell supports direct discussions with Iran and Syria; Bush rejects them.

Powell says we are losing the war in Iraq; Bush says we are winning.

Powell opposes sending additional troops to Iraq; Bush is considering just that. . . .

That’s it; I’m officially convinced that Tony Snow is just in his job for laughs. I’ve been on the fence for months about whether Snow actually believes what he says, but I’m finally convinced — he doesn’t.

Lazy, irresponsible reporting from the Times

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_17_atrios_archive.html#116645028850657488
[Atrios] I wanted to highlight what I think is a pretty good example of how the current obedience to the odd conventions of modern journalism creates some really crappy writing. So, in the middle of the article about the American detained in Iraq, we get this:

A spokeswoman for the Pentagon’s detention operations in Iraq, First Lt. Lea Ann Fracasso, said in written answers to questions that the men had been “treated fair and humanely,” and that there was no record of either man complaining about their treatment.

Now, the reporter lets this comment stand without any response. The smart reader, of course, will note its Kafkaesque absurdity. They didn't have access to attorneys. They were placed in solitary confinement. They were in cold cells, with fluorescent lights left on all night.

And First Lt. Lea Ann Fracasso is suggesting she checked with the Complaints Department, and found nothing, so there's nothing to see here. . . .

[NB: The best you can say about this is that it’s SO obviously untrue that simply reporting the statement is its own kind of wry commentary – since the whole rest of the article refutes it. Still, yet another token example of a he said/she said attempt at “balance"]

Hillary moving leftward on the war

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/dec/18/breaking_hillary_comes_out_against_troop_increases
Hillary Clinton has spoken out today against an increase in the American troop presence in Iraq . . .

More: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/
[April 21, 2004] Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority." . . .

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/195654.shtml
[Nov. 29, 2005] For the first time since she voted to authorize the Iraq war three years ago, 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is now saying that vote was a mistake . . . "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed," Clinton said

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/12/18/clinton_would_have_voted_differently.html
[December 18, 2006] Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) now says she would not have voted in 2002 to give President Bush the authority to attack Iraq "if she knew everything she knows now." . . .

Snark!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011608
[Paul Kiel] OK, so he narrowly lost. But Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) finished his campaign with plenty of money left over to pay his lawyers. At least he's got his priorities straight. . . .

The War on Science (part #612)

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/12/18/scientists/index.html

Heh, heh: folks at SMU don’t WANT Bush’s Presidential library there

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-does-smus-school-of-theology-hate.html

CNN poll: new lows for Bush

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/bush-hits-new-lows-in-latest-cnn-poll.html

Bonus item: Why does George Bush hate Christmas?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9372.html

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:21 AM

 
BUY NOW, PAY LATER

Colin Powell: the U.S. is losing in Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/world/middleeast/17cnd-powell.html

Here’s the problem with “The Surge” – the only way to get a temporary increase in troops is to extend even further the tours of duty for troops already there, and accelerate the rotation of troops scheduled to go there. In other words, you can only maintain the increase for a short period of time, AFTER WHICH you are going to have a shortage problem. So it’s a double or nothing wager in more than one sense. Knowing that the troop levels and the new offensive can’t be sustained, won’t insurgents just go to ground temporarily, only to pop up later?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/world/middleeast/17cnd-powell.html
The increase would probably be accomplished largely by accelerating scheduled deployments while keeping some units in Iraq longer than had been planned.

General Powell said this meant it would be “a surge that you’d have to pay for later,” as replacement troops became even harder to find. . .

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011604
[David Kurtz] Suddenly "surge" seems worth co-opting, as a euphemism for ephemeral last gasp.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/17/8473/9725

Harry Reid (D-NV) comes out in support for the increase, but only in the context of an overall plan to withdraw troops. Is this too subtle a formulation for the news to manage?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/17/173542/81
[WP] Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose party campaigned in the November congressional elections on changing course in Iraq, said he would be open only to a short-term increase.

"If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that," said Reid, D-Nev., citing a time frame such as two months to three months. But a period of 18 months to 24 months would be too long, he said. . . .

At least three other Democrats did not support Reid's position on the additional troops. . . .

[NB: There’s a huge debate over the politics of Reid’s statement, but it seems clear to me that if there’s a call for more troops right now, even if it’s a bad idea, the Dems can’t start their new term by depriving the military of what they say they need. The key is, as Reid is doing, to make clear that it’s temporary – the numbers dictate it – and to couple “The Surge” with an INCREASED expectation of withdrawal to begin soon after]

The debate: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/17/173542/81
[Kagro X] [T]he time has come to cut Bush off. He's out of political capital, and is casting his eyes about to see if anyone will nod assent to putting his counterfeit Rolex on the table to get back in the game.

Nobody profits from playing cards with a degenerate gambler who can't cover his bets. Least of all one who has nothing to lose from taking a beating rather than paying up.

Is George W. Bush a lame duck or not? The man just lost Congress on his own pet issue. Stop treating him like a player. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/17/135414/12
[BarbinMD] [I]t is true that when the troops are withdrawn from Iraq, additional forces will be required as a protection force. Hopefully this is what Reid was proposing. . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011602
[David Kurtz] Some readers have suggested that Harry Reid's openness to sending more troops to Iraq is a clever political move. I don't see it. . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_17.php#011603
[David Kurtz] 71% of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq. Why are Democrats still looking for political cover?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/senator-reids-game.html
[John Aravosis] I've been thinking for a few hours about the news that incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will support a brief increase in the number of US troops in America IF that increase is only temporary, and if it's tied to a larger plan to start bring US combat forces home by 2008.

This is interesting. At first I was a bit concerned that Reid was endorsing John McCain's plan . . . But, Reid may not be endorsing McCain's plan at all. He may be forcing Bush and McCain to endorse his.

Reid may be using the troop increase as a backdoor way of getting a firm commitment to end our combat engagement in Iraq by 2008. By giving our commanders on the ground what they want - if in fact they want more troops - Reid and the Democrats are seen as supporting our commanders rather than undercutting the war effort, and ultimately being blamed by the Republicans for losing the war. But at the same time, Reid is giving our generals, and our commander in chief, one last change to fix things. And if they don't, we're out of there - the public will know that Bush has lost this war, Harry Reid gave him a fair shot, and it was the Democrats that finally got our troops home safely.

That's not a dumb idea. I'm still unsure about all of this, and just thinking out loud. But I'm very intrigued by giving the president what he wants, but in reality forcing him to accept what we, and the American people, want - an end to this entire debacle.

The secret operations of U.S. Special Forces units in Iraq – a seriously underexamined issue

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-intel18dec18,1,5736392.story
U.S. Special Forces teams sent overseas on secret spying missions have clashed with the CIA and carried out operations in countries that are staunch U.S. allies, prompting a new effort by the agency and the Pentagon to tighten the rules for military units engaged in espionage, according to senior U.S. intelligence and military officials. . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/
[January 14, 2005] What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." . . .

Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. . . . . (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. [NB: And now Director of National Intelligence] . . .

Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers. . .

Also being debated is which agency within the U.S. government—the Defense department or CIA—would take responsibility for such an operation. Rumsfeld’s Pentagon has aggressively sought to build up its own intelligence-gathering and clandestine capability with an operation run by Defense Undersecretary Stephen Cambone. . . That, they argue, is the reason why such covert operations have always been run by the CIA and authorized by a special presidential finding. (In "covert" activity, U.S. personnel operate under cover and the U.S. government will not confirm that it instigated or ordered them into action if they are captured or killed.)

[NB: Yes, you read that right – our own Special Forces may have precipitated or exacerbated what today has turned into a raging civil war. Brilliant! Thanks to Jan P. for the tip]

Great, just great (thanks to Laura Rozen for the link)

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20061218-121346-2567r.htm
Iran has effectively created a Shi'ite "state within a state" in neighboring Iraq, defying both Iraqi Sunnis and neighboring Sunni nations, according to a Saudi security report. . . .

Man, is THIS not true

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011600.php
[WP] Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace: "Secretary Rumsfeld accepted the responsibility and not once, in public or in private, did I ever hear this man try to shift responsibility to anyone else but himself." . . .

[David Kurtz] I thought I would gather up some of Rumsfeld's best buck-passers to illustrate the point. . . . [read on!]

Here is a horrifying story about an innocent American, arrested and held for months without charges at the notorious “Camp Cropper”

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/torture_/2006/12/of_course_theyre_all_terrorists_.php
[Mark Kleiman] Donald Vance, an American citizen and Navy veteran, got caught up in a raid on a contractor that was brought about by his own actions as a whistleblower. The account of his subsequent maltreatment at Camp Cropper is enough to turn your stomach. . . .

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/world/middleeast/18justice.html
Detainee 200343 was among thousands of people who have been held and released by the American military in Iraq, and his account of his ordeal has provided one of the few detailed views of the Pentagon’s detention operations since the abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib. Yet in many respects his case is unusual.

The detainee was Donald Vance, a 29-year-old Navy veteran from Chicago who went to Iraq as a security contractor. He wound up as a whistle-blower, passing information to the F.B.I. about suspicious activities at the Iraqi security firm where he worked, including what he said was possible illegal weapons trading.

But when American soldiers raided the company at his urging, Mr. Vance and another American who worked there were detained as suspects by the military, which was unaware that Mr. Vance was an informer, according to officials and military documents.

At Camp Cropper, he took notes on his imprisonment and smuggled them out in a Bible. . . .

Nathan Ertel, the American held with Mr. Vance, brought away military records that shed further light on the detention camp and its secretive tribunals. Those records include a legal memorandum explicitly denying detainees the right to a lawyer at detention hearings to determine whether they should be released or held indefinitely, perhaps for prosecution.

The story told through those records and interviews illuminates the haphazard system of detention and prosecution that has evolved in Iraq, where detainees are often held for long periods without charges or legal representation, and where the authorities struggle to sort through the endless stream of detainees to identify those who pose real threats. . . . [read on!]

Will accused terror suspect Jose Padilla testify in open court about his treatment under U.S. custody?

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/wire.ssf?/base/news/1166351304230890.xml

Possibly the biggest domestic neglect under Bush and the Republicans – a refusal to deal realistically and honestly with the health care problem

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/washington/18medicaid.html
The Bush administration on Monday will propose sweeping reductions in payments to pharmacies as a way to save money for Medicaid, the health program for more than 50 million low-income people. . . .

Will Democratic control start to moderate Bush’s court nominees? (Don’t hold your breath)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/18/31642/876

Holding the Democrats accountable

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/18/12714/477

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:37 AM

 
TOUGH GUY

George Bush, in distinction to his “wimpy” dad, clearly feels a need to posture as a tough hombre and surround himself with tough-guy advisors (Cheney, Rumsfeld). He is inordinately impressed with the tough-guy credentials of others – Bernie Kerik, for instance – despite their evident lack of qualifications. But worst of all, he confuses the meaning of true strength of character and courage – in fact his refusal to admit error or change course is (to my way of thinking) a sign of weakness and insecurity

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121601033.html
[Peter Baker] At what point does determination to a cause become self-defeating folly? Can he change direction in a meaningful way without sacrificing principle?

For Bush, this is a tension that goes to the heart of his political identity and governing style. He captured and retained the presidency in part by portraying two successive Democratic opponents as finger-in-the-wind politicians without a core set of beliefs. The notion of bending to critics or even popular will cuts against his grain. . . .

"I just don't believe that this president, with this vice president whispering in his ear every moment, is oriented to change," said retired Col. Larry Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in Bush's first term. "And even if he were, I don't believe his administration is capable of implementing change."

Lawrence J. Korb, a former Pentagon official under President Ronald Reagan, agreed. "When it comes to Iraq, he has basically confused stubbornness with steadfastness," said Korb, who is now at the liberal Center for American Progress. "I think he believes that regardless of what other people say, if he simply stays the course, he'll be eventually proved right. But what he fails to see is the current course isn't working and he has options."

The perception of Bush as unusually stubborn has defined his tenure to some extent, much to the consternation of adversaries and sometimes even allies. But Bush was deeply influenced by the fate of his father, whose decision to break his no-new-taxes pledge as president helped doom his reelection. The lesson: Stick to decisions regardless of shifts in political winds. . . .

http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2006/12/james-baker-ran-after-w.html
[Maureen Dowd] The Defiant Ones came striding from the Pentagon yesterday, the troika of wayward warriors marching abreast in their dark suits and power ties. W., Rummy and Dick Cheney were so full of quick-draw confidence that they might have been sauntering down the main drag of Deadwood.

Far from being run out of town, the defense czar who rivals Robert McNamara for deadly incompetence has been on a victory lap in Baghdad, Mosul and Washington. Yesterday’s tribute had full military honors, a color guard, a 19-gun salute, an Old Guard performance with marching musicians — including piccolo players — in Revolutionary War costumes, John Philip Sousa music and the chuckleheaded neocons and ex-Rummy deputies who helped screw up the occupation, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, cheering in the audience.

It was surreal: the septuagenarian who arrogantly dismissed initial advice to send more troops to secure Iraq, being praised as “the finest secretary of defense this nation has ever had” by his pal, the vice president . . .

W. never seems as alarmed about the devastation in Iraq as he should be. He told People magazine “I must tell you, I’m sleeping a lot better than people would assume,” and he told Brit Hume that his presidency was “a joyful experience.”

He slacked off on his slacker effort to form a new Iraq plan. (Can’t these guys ever order pizzas and pull some all-nighters?) Mr. Bush was busy this week hosting Christmas parties for a press corps he disdains; convening a malaria conference at the National Geographic with Dr. Burke of “Grey’s Anatomy” Isaiah Washington; and presiding over a hero’s departure for the defense secretary he actually dumped, not because of incompetence but for political expediency.

The Rummy hoopla was a way for W. to signal his decision to shred the Baker-Hamilton study, after reportedly denouncing it as a flaming cowpie. . . . W. seems gratified by the idea that rather than having his ears boxed by his father’s best friend, he’s going to go down swinging, or double down, in the metaphor du jour, on his macho bet in Iraq. He’s reading about Harry Truman and casting himself as a feisty Truman, but he’s heading toward late L.B.J. . . . .

The tough guy (Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno) who will help make “The Surge” a success (thanks to Matt Yglesias for the link)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300495.html
[T]he 4th Infantry was known for aggressive tactics that may have appeared to pacify the northern Sunni Triangle in the short term but that, according to numerous Army internal reports and interviews with military commanders, alienated large parts of the population. . . .

More: http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/raymond_odierno/

The latest really bad idea: not only is the Bush gang thinking about tilting toward the Shia over the Sunnis – they are also thinking about taking sides within the Shiite rivalry between Hakim and (the pro-Iranian) SCIRI and Sadr and the Mahdi militia. Not good

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/oh_lord/

http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/3-gis-killed-53-bodies-found-sunnis.html
[Juan Cole] The long-awaited "reconciliation conference" was finally held in the Green Zone on Saturday, with 200 Iraqis of various persuasions present. But the Sunni guerrillas were not represented, and even most Sunni Arab parties were not there. Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the Baathist guerrilla leaders, who were not invited, are saying that al-Maliki has gone back on his earlier promises to them. Al-Hayat says that the Association of Muslim Scholars (hardline Sunnis), the Congress of the Iraqi People of Adnan Dulaimi (fundamentalist Sunnis), and Salih Mutlak's Dialogue Front (ex-Baath secularists) all boycotted. Moreover, opposition figures living abroad, who had been invited, mostly declined to come. And Muqtada al-Sadr, the young Shiite clerical leader, turned down an invitation. So it doesn't sound to me as though this conference will amount to anything. . .

More about the WH pressure on Flynt Leverett to bury his (critical) NYT op-ed

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001829.php
[Stephen Clemons] John Bolton when he served as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security was famous for pounding intelligence officials hard until they coughed up intel reports and "frames" that fit the political objectives he had in mind.

The practice of politicizing intelligence in the Bush White House seems to be continuing with "friends lists" and "enemies lists" determining who should be rewarded or punished in the "secrets-clearing process" in cases where former goverment officials publish materials on U.S. foreign policy debates.

In an unprecedented case, the White House National Security Council staff has insinuated itself into a "secrets-clearing" process normally overseen by the CIA Publications Review Board which screens the written work of former government officials to make sure that state secrets don't find their way into the op-ed pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, or in other of the nation's leading papers, journals, and books.

Flynt Leverett, a former government official who worked at the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of State, and on the National Security Council staff of the George W. Bush administration. . . has written numerous books, manuscripts, working papers, and many dozens upon dozens of some of the most important public policy op-ed commentary on American engagement in the Middle East and has always dutifully submitted his materials to the CIA's review process. Never -- not even once -- has been a word or item changed in anything submitted.

The White House has now forced the CIA to heavily censor a 1000 word op-ed draft planned for the New York Times . . .

Another abuse of the recess appointment process – now they don’t even bother TRYING to go through normal Congressional review

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011598
[David Kurtz] Late Friday, the Department of Justice announced that the President had used a recess appointment to name a 34-year-old former White House aide to Karl Rove as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Apparently J. Timothy Griffin made his mark as a Republican campaign operative as opposed to, say, as a lawyer. . . .

Hang this around their necks

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121601087.html
The Republican-controlled Congress's decision to adjourn a week ago before completing many of the spending bills that finance the federal government will reverberate in ways large and small . . .

Yep, another Republican under federal investigation

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002170.php

The coming Democratic investigations: where they will focus

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/15/AR2006121501680.html

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/16/104243/34

The kind of person she is

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_10_atrios_archive.html#116628269857102678
[Atrios] Left out of all the coverage of Mary Cheney's pregnancy is the fact that her mother, in 2000, freaked out when Cokie Roberts suggested her daughter was a lesbian and asserted that it was a lie that she had ever claimed to be.

“Mary has never declared such a thing. I would like to say that I'm appalled at the media interest in one of my daughters. I have two wonderful daughters.”

Of course, Mary had declared such a thing. What an awful person Lynne Cheney is.

I have a pretty lousy record on predictions here, but this one sounds likely to me: Clinton/Richardson in ‘08

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116629598779130878
[Bill Richardson, D-NM] "The leading advocate for escalating the war is Senator John McCain. I have served with John in Congress and I respect him. But John McCain is wrong, dead wrong to think that we can solve Iraq's political crisis through military escalation." . . .[read on]

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/16/144414/10

http://mydd.com/story/2006/12/16/13121/462

How the Republican slime machine (with a big assist from a media that is easily manipulated into echoing their lies) tears down Democratic hopefuls: this time, it’s Obama’s turn

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612160001

How those little “summaries” now being run at the bottom of the screen of news shows frame and distort what is being said – often in real time

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612160002

Sunday talk show line-ups

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600827.html
FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.); Frederick W. Smith, president of FedEx Corp., and Morrill Worcester, president of Worcester Wreath Co.; and retired Marine Corps commandant Gen. P.X. Kelley.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.); Rep.-elect Joseph A. Sestak Jr. (D-Pa.); Gen. Jack Keane, former Army vice chief of staff ; and actor Isaiah Washington.

NEWSMAKERS (C-SPAN): Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).

FACE THE NATION (CBS): former secretary of state Colin L. Powell.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

LATE EDITION (CNN): Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.); Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi; Shibley Telhami, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution; Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute; John D. Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress; Vali R. Nasr, adjunct senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; and retired Army Lt. Gen. Daniel Christman.

Bonus item: No, not a headline from The Onion – this is real

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/o_the_irony/
Military Taking a Tougher Line With Detainees

[Matt Yglesias] You heard that right, it's no more Mr. Nice Indefinite Detention Without Trial in Gitmo. "They’re all terrorists; they're all enemy combatants,” says the facility's commander, Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr, though, as the article points out, many of the detainees have, in fact, been cleared for release. Your chilling Orwellian line of the day is "Guantánamo’s focus was shifting from interrogations to the long-term detention of men who, for the most part, would never be charged with any crime."

Yes, yes. The long-term detention of men who will never be charged with a crime and who there's no intelligence value in questioning. They're just going to be detained. Forever, apparently. . . .

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:48 AM

 
THE SURGE

Bush’s “New Way Forward” – what will he propose?

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16241778.htm
President Bush is weighing whether to make a deeper American commitment in Iraq despite growing public unhappiness with the war. . .

The proposed changes, with a few exceptions, conflict with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which warned earlier this month against an open-ended commitment to Iraq and said American combat brigades could be out of Iraq by early 2008.

The president signaled Wednesday that neither the study group's pessimistic assessment nor the bleak situation in Iraq nor the results of the midterm elections have shaken his belief that victory in Iraq is possible.

"We're not going to give up," said Bush. . .

While some key decisions haven't been made yet, the senior officials said the emerging strategy includes:

-A shift in the primary U.S. military mission in Iraq from combat to training an expanded Iraqi army, generally in line with the Iraq Study Group's recommendations.

-A possible short-term surge of as many as 40,000 more American troops to try to secure Baghdad . . .

-A revised Iraq political strategy aimed at forging a "moderate center" of Shiite Muslim, Sunni Muslim Arab and Kurdish politicians that would bolster embattled Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. The goal would be to marginalize radical Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents.

-More money to combat rampant unemployment among Iraqi youths and to advance reconstruction, much of it funneled to groups, areas and leaders who support Maliki and oppose the radicals.

-Rejection of the study group's call for an urgent, broad new diplomatic initiative in the Middle East to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and reach out to Iran and Syria. . . .

It remains far from clear whether these moves would help stabilize Iraq, where a civil war rages nearly four years after the U.S.-led invasion. . . .

Bush also faces huge hurdles in getting public support behind his latest plan. Disapproval of his handling of Iraq has shot up to anywhere from 60 percent to 75 percent this month in polls.

"If he's going to trash the Iraq Study Group report, he's going to have to come up with something coherent, different and that is demonstrably better. I think he's not likely to persuade the country that he's done so," said Larry Diamond of Stanford University's Hoover Institution, who was among the study group's expert advisers.

Comment: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/12/15/BL2006121500686.html
[Dan Froomkin] The "surge," as the troop increase is being called, has its greatest champion in Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, but almost nobody besides McCain, Bush and neoconservative diehards think it'll work: Not the American generals in Iraq; not the Iraqis; not the American public. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011583

[NB: By the way, according to CNN, Bush is carefully replacing “success” for “victory” in his comments on Iraq. As with all such semantic adjustments for these guys, the change is intentional and significant]

Do you like that line, “We’re not going to give up”? Bush cannot and will not admit his errors

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9346.html
[Bush] “I must tell you, I’m sleeping a lot better than people would assume”

[Steve Benen] I’m not sure what possessed Bush to say such a thing. The implication seems to be that he imagines most Americans look at unraveling world events and global crises and think, “Boy, I bet this is the kind of stuff that would keep a president up at night.” To which Bush seems to suggest, “Nope, everything’s fine here!”

Even as far as public perceptions are concerned, it’s the kind of comment that reinforces the worst suspicions about the man. Given what we’ve seen over the last several years, it seems Bush is oddly detached, living in a bubble of his own creation, sealed off from the reality-based world.

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116621827278353510

He said it, he meant it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/10/01/woodward-bush-says-he-wi_n_30712.html
[Bob Woodward] “Late last year, he had key Republicans up to the White House to talk about the war, and said 'I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.' Barney is his dog."

In light of all this, an exchange with Baghdad Tony is interesting. Not since Nixon has the press attributed such convoluted psychic motives to a President – self-deception, denial, patricide, dry drunk, internalizing a domineering and impossible-to-please mother, you name it

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9352.html
SNOW: Well, that’s a good question. I won’t try to — rather than trying to tell you why the President said what he said — because I can’t give you the exact — I can’t put him on the couch right now . . . [read on]

You might say that Atrios is excessively pessimistic here, but I can’t find much reason to disagree with him

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_10_atrios_archive.html#116619674748029999
[Ezra Klein] When will the media realize Bush doesn't care what they think, cease talking about what he should do, and begin, relentlessly and mercilessly, talking about what he is doing?

[Atrios] Never. . . .

Magical thinking has long pervaded this entire enterprise, and the pundits who supported this whole thing long ago decided that they could evade responsibility for their role in this by continuing to come up new Pony Plans. They can't come to grips with the fact that this whole enterprise is doomed - and, in fact, has long been doomed - and they can't come to grips with the fact that no matter what they say George Bush is the decider.

The choice has never been between Pundit Fantasy Plan and getting out. The choice has always been between George Bush's Plan and getting out. The punditocracy has chosen to operate in the fantasy realm, pretending that their Pundit Fantasy Plan is an option. It's allowed them to continue to avoid looking at the real choice and concluding, as anyone should, that getting out is a better choice than continuing with The Decider's Plan.

And why are they doing that? Because they'd rather be wrong than agree with the dirty f-cking hippies, even though few of us actually smell like patchouli. The impact of their fantasy thinking is to ensure that George Bush continues to be able to f-ck things up.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_10_atrios_archive.html#116622190594305607
Well, the wise old men of Washington appear to have gone from worshipping the ISG, desperately awaiting the release of its report, to declaring it dead and telling us to prepare for many more Friedmans. [NB: A “Friedman” in Atrios-speak is yet another six month period in which future developments will be crucial, last chances, etc – we’ve been through several of these already]

Metrics. The Bush gang wants to start telling us how many Iraqis they’ve killed – but they DON’T want to tell us the number of daily attacks being launched against U.S. forces

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002169.php

Thanks to Mark D., a reminder of the similarities of the current situation with Viet Nam -- when even after the Tet Offensive and a collapse of public support for the war, people were still saying “with a few more troops (ultimately over a half million) we can finally bring this thing to a close”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
President Johnson had already appointed General William C. Westmoreland to succeed Paul D. Harkins as Commander of MACV in June 1964. Under Westmoreland, the expansion of American troop strength in Vietnam took place. American forces rose from 16,000 during 1964 to more than 553,000 by 1969. . . .

On 27 November 1965, the Pentagon declared that if the major operations needed to neutralize North Vietnamese and NLF forces were to succeed, U.S. troop levels in South Vietnam would have to be increased . . . As a result of the Honolulu conference, President Johnson authorized an increase in troop strength to 429,000 by August 1966. . .

Late in 1967, Westmoreland said that it was conceivable that in two years or less U.S. forces could be phased out of the war, turning over more and more of the fighting to the ARVN. He should have known better. . .

General Westmoreland's public reassurances that the "light at the end of the tunnel" was about to be reached were barely out of his mouth when, on 30 January 1968, PAVN and NLF forces broke the truce that accompanied the annual Lunar New Year (Tet) holiday and mounted their largest offensive thus far in the conflict . . .

http://historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1965.html
February 28, 1968 - Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Wheeler, at the behest of Gen. Westmoreland, asks President Johnson for an additional 206,000 soldiers and mobilization of reserve units in the U.S.

[NB: That request was denied. . . http://www.historycentral.com/Vietnam/WEstmoreland.html]

Public opinion polls taken after the Tet Offensive revealed Johnson's overall approval rating has slipped to 36 percent, while approval of his Vietnam war policy slipped to 26 percent.

Condi Rice: useless, irrelevant

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010400.php

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/woulda_coulda_shoulda/

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/condi-rice-says-former-secretary-of.html

Oh, Donald, we’re not gonna miss you

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/washington/16prexy.html
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld bade farewell to the Pentagon on Friday with a combative valedictory speech in which he warned against hoping for “graceful exits” from Iraq . . . “Today, it should be clear that not only is weakness provocative,” Mr. Rumsfeld said, standing at a lectern with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney at his side, “but the perception of weakness on our part can be provocative as well.” . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/16/51357/952
“I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons.” . . . [read on for more like this]

Gitmo: round up a mix of guilty and innocent people, lock them away without legal rights for years, torture and abuse many of them, make them REALLY hate America, then turn them loose. Brilliant!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011589
[AP] The Pentagon called them "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth," sweeping them up after Sept. 11 and hauling them in chains to a U.S. military prison in southeastern Cuba.

Since then, hundreds of the men have been transferred from Guantanamo Bay to other countries, many of them for "continued detention."

And then set free. . . [read on]

Free speech?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/15/nyt-cia-oped/
Middle East analyst Flynt Leverett, who served under President Bush on the National Security Council and is now a fellow at the New America Foundation, revealed today that the White House has been blocking the publication of an op-ed he wrote for the New York Times. The column is critical of the administration’s refusal to engage Iran.

Leverett’s op-ed has already been cleared by the CIA, where he was a senior analyst. Leverett explained, “I’ve been doing this for three and a half years since leaving government, and I’ve never had to go to the White House to get clearance for something that I was publishing as long as the CIA said, ‘Yeah, you’re not putting classified information.’”

According to Leverett the op-ed was “all based on stuff that Secretary Powell, Secretary Rice, Deputy Secretary Armitage have talked about publicly. It’s been extensively reported in the media.” Leverett says the incident shows “just how low people like Elliot Abrams at the NSC [National Security Council] will stoop to try and limit the dissemination of arguments critical of the administration’s policy.”

Just in case there is anyone left in America who still believes in Bush’s WMD claims, the bottom has completely fallen out of that particular fabrication

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9354.html

Those mass arrests at several Swift meatpacking plants yielded . . . what? And who in Swift management has been arrested and taken away from their family during the holidays?

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/12/15/todays-rationale/
[Christy Hardin Smith] Nine days until Christmas…and Mommy just got dragged away in handcuffs for a bunch of show arrests. Nice.

The shifting rationale for the ICE raids on the Swift Meatpacking plants is making me very peeved. What began as a "raid on illegal immigrants" has morphed into an "identity theft ring" justification in the last 24 hours. Except, the numbers as released thus far, do not hold up for that justification. . .

Of course the DHS didn't temper their rhetoric. Michael Chertoff is, and always has been, about the PR aspects of his job . . .

And what about those kids left behind when their parents are dragged off without access to counsel for…well, for more than 24 hours now in a number of cases? . . .

So, let's see what we have here: a meat-packing company with a history of skating immigration laws (and allegations of them having some sort of scheme to import illegal workers from Guatamala) skates out of this scot free thus far.

Meanwhile, a mere nine days away from Christmas, these kids get the present of their parents being seized and hauled away, unable to contact them to let them know they are okay — with no time to make arrangements for their children's care.

And, in one case, a mother who was nursing her child is dragged off and cannot be located . . .

Family values party, my ass. . . .

Did you know?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116622153833722033
[Kos] Democrats now have 233 seats in the 110th congress, more than Republicans have had since 1952. The Republican "revolution" never secured this large a majority in the House.

[Digby] Meanwhile Karl Rove is telling people “the election was awful darn close.” Right.

Will the Republicans play hardball over the Senate balance now that Tim Johnson’s (D-SD) health is in jeopardy? They wouldn’t take advantage of that, would they?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011581

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/15/111912/70

Good news: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/senator-johnson-is-improving-progress.html

Well, by this measure they were a roaring success

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/14/delay-lazy/
[Tom DeLay] Conservatives don’t go to pass laws. Only in this town do you count the number of bills you pass and are signed by the president as a success. I count the fewer bills the best and those bills ought to be repealed instead of passing.

[Payson] The 109th Congress set a record for the fewest number of days worked . . .

Bonus item: Laura Bush gets her share

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=917053
"I do know that there are a lot of good things that are happening that aren't covered. And I think that the drum beat in the country from the media, from the only way people know what is happening...is discouraging."
-- Laura Bush, 12/14/06

"[T]here is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq. The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases. ... For example, on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence."
-- Iraq Study Group report, pp. 94-95

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:46 AM

 
DOUBLE OR NOTHING

I’ve always thought that the call for more troops by McCain and others made more sense (politically) the less likely it was to happen – now it appears that McCain might get his wish, and woe to his presidential aspirations if he turns out to be wrong

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_senators
Sen. John McCain took his controversial proposal for curbing Iraq's sectarian violence to Baghdad on Thursday, calling for an additional 15,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops . . . Army officials say only about 10,000 to 15,000 troops could be sent and an end to the war would have to be in sight because the deployment would drain the pool of available soldiers for combat. Further, many experts warn, there is no guarantee a surge in troops would work to settle the violence.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/14/124158/46
[Kos] The ISG Report seemed like great news for John McCain. He could call for more troops in Iraq, confident that Bush would finally listen to calls to plan for withdrawal. That way, when people asked on the campaign trail about Iraq, McCain could say, "well, had they listened to me and added more troops, we would've won."

Unfortunately for McCain, Bush is leaning toward the "double down" strategy. And when it fails, McCain won't have any cover. . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011543.php
[AH] Since the Pentagon has decided to discuss its new strategy in gambling parlance, it should at least use the proper terminology. Today's LA Times article says that a Pentagon official has referred to the option of sending more troops in to Iraq as a "double down" strategy. The reference is to a bet in blackjack when, based on the cards that have been dealt, the player seeks to maximize a payoff that is more likely to occur in that hand, given the probabilities. The double down is a calculated bet, made from a position of strength when the odds are favorable to the bettor.

In Iraq, we are certainly not in a situation where the odds are favorable to winning. Our bet is not a double down. Let's call it what it is: double or nothing. This is is more like the gambler who has been on a bad losing streak deciding to empty the savings account and put all of his chips on red, hoping that the roulette wheel will spin his way and bring him back close to even. Double or nothing is a desperation play. It is an ill-advised way to gamble, with chips or human lives, and such a strategy inevitably leads to another appropriate gambling term. Gambler's ruin: winding up completely broke.

The Lieberman version

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/12/14/12345/243
[July] “So I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year, we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops, and by the end of the next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home.”

[Today] "We need more, not less, U.S. troops here."

[Big Tent Democrat] There really is no less principled person in politics today than Joe Lieberman.

Bush is “leaning toward” doing it

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011577

Does it matter to Bush that his own generals are telling him not to do it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301379.html

Does it matter to Bush that, in the past, he has repeatedly said that he strictly follows his generals’ advice on troop levels?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226963,00.html
He said there's been a lot of speculation about a troop-increase request but that he hasn't received it. He said the generals have told him that "the troop level they got right now is what they can live with."

Tell me again why it is taking Bush so long to settle on his new war policy?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16192164/site/newsweek/
In a series of 45-minute sessions, Bush has worked through a steady program of question-and-answer exchanges with his own officials and a handful of outside experts. According to senior White House officials, who declined to be named when discussing Oval Office meetings, the extensive internal reviews have been moving along slowly but steadily. . . .

That slow progress explains in large part why the White House has delayed the president’s announcement of his new approach to Iraq until the new year. . . . The result: Bush’s aides have chosen not to overload the president’s schedule with the internal review. . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/14/163319/73

Now, THIS is progress, isn’t it? In a significant reversal, after more than three and a half years of war, the WH suddenly wants to start reporting enemy “body counts” as a metric of “progress” in Iraq (see, if we’re killing more of them than they are of us, that’s winning, right?)

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/14/bush-body-counts/

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/white-house-spokesman-tony-snows.html

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/more_blood/

Yep

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1971749,00.html
[Timothy Garton Ash] What an amazing bloody catastrophe. The Bush administration's policy towards the Middle East over the five years since 9/11 is culminating in a multiple train crash. Never in the field of human conflict was so little achieved by so great a country at such vast expense. In every vital area of the wider Middle East, American policy over the last five years has taken a bad situation and made it worse. . . . [read on]

More: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/war-advocates-v-flatworms.html

The things we’re going to be learning as long-suppressed documents start to come out

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121302399.html
A previously undisclosed Pentagon report concluded that the three terrorism suspects held at a brig in South Carolina were subjected to months of isolation, and it warned that their "unique" solitary confinement could be viewed as violating U.S. detention standards. . .

Interrogators also prevented the International Committee of the Red Cross from visiting at least one detainee, according to the report, which noted evidence of other unspecified, unauthorized interrogation techniques. . . .

(Well, we’ll learn them as long as courts keep rejecting expansive claims to executive privilege)

http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/12/13/ap3253198.html
The Bush administration asked an appeals court Wednesday to overrule a federal judge and allow the White House to keep secret any records of visitors to Vice President Dick Cheney's residence and office. . . A lawsuit over similar records revealed in September that Republican activists Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed — key figures in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal — landed more than 100 meetings inside the Bush White House.

Another take on the Saudi Ambassador’s resignation

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/121306.html
[Robert Parry] The unceremonious departure was seen as another signal of Saudi anger over Bush’s regional policies. In that view, Turki’s resignation was akin to the recall of an ambassador between two hostile states, albeit softened by Turki’s insistence that he was leaving to spend more time with his family.

Two weeks earlier, Saudi King Abdullah summoned Vice President Dick Cheney to Riyadh to express the kingdom’s displeasure with developments in Iraq, as the pro-Iranian Shiite majority gains the upper hand over the Sunni minority that dominated the country under Saddam Hussein. . . .

More: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001826.php

An outreach to Syria?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011559
[Josh Marshall] Good News: White House exploring rapprochement with Syria.

Bad News: Our point man is Ahmed Chalabi.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002159.php
Tony Snow professed to not know of any recent U.S. activity with Chalabi, the Iraqi figure known for flirting with American neocons, the Iranians, and the truth with equal abandon, but hedged a bit on what Chalabi might be doing or claiming . . .

More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8019

The Baker/Hamilton WHAT?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010397.php
[Kevin Drum] And now? The worst fate of all: it's completely off the radar screen. Its language was so vague as to be meaningless, and within a few days its insignificance was so obvious that no one was even giving it the dignity of arguing about how misguided it was. Chattering classes-wise, it's disappeared down a black hole. . .

The bet that Juan Cole didn’t take

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_10_atrios_archive.html#116615706901030623
[Jonah Goldberg, February 2005] Anyway, I do think my judgment is superior to his when it comes to the big picture. So, I have an idea: Since he doesn't want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now). This way neither of us can hide behind clever word play or CV reading. If there's another reasonable wager Cole wants to offer which would measure our judgment, I'm all ears. Money where your mouth is, doc. One caveat: Because I don't think it's right to bet on such serious matters for personal gain, if I win, I'll donate the money to the USO. He can give it to the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or whatever his favorite charity is. . . .

Ridiculous coverage that Nancy Pelosi is “ignoring” Iraq in her first hundred hour agenda for the House (when they would be savaging her if she DID try to pass something before Bush completed his big policy reassessment)

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/14/ldt.01.html
DOBBS: Well, the speaker laid out a number of critically important issues, critically important to this country's middle class. But as you point out, the speaker herself had acknowledged that a large impetus for the Democratic victory on November 7th was Iraq.

Was there any attempt at rationalization today for ignoring that pivotal, critical and determinate issue? . . .

More: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/14/pelosi-911-commission/

Welcome to the blog, Mitt Romney! So, how do you explain your previous stance on tolerance toward gays to the fundamentalist hate groups whose backing you want today?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9343.html

A Republican senator tied to Abramoff

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002076.php

Terrible coverage of the Tim Johnson (D-SD) situation

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/14/121321/54
Senate back to 50-50 with Johnson out . . . [read on]

(By the way, even if it turns 50-50 the Dems might still retain control)

http://politicalinsider.com/2006/12/democrats_could_maintain_contr.html

More: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/14/12382/343

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/15/2396/6762

Will the Dems, now that they are on top, impose the same kinds of redistricting the Repubs did to consolidate their control?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/14/174317/21

As details come out about that DHS immigration arrest, things look worse and worse

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002161.php
Announcing the success of its massive "Operation Wagon Train" yesterday, DHS officials insisted the raids that netted nearly 1,300 arrests were about busting up an identity theft ring. The stats tell a different story.

According to DHS' own tally, only 65 of the 1,282 arrests were for criminal violations, including identity-theft related crimes. That means that over 1,200 of the people arrested had no connection to any identity theft rings, and were guilty only of run-of-the-mill immigration violations. That didn't temper the agency's rhetoric. . . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002144.php
A troubling report from the DHS immigration raids yesterday, from the Salt Lake (Utah) Tribune. In this case, DHS agents allegedly separated workers by their skin color -- light-skinned were considered citizens, dark-skinned got scrutiny. . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002154.php
DHS insists it hasn't arrested a single person who was working legally in the U.S. But we've been hearing otherwise. . .

More: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002160.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011574

Data mining: the powerful tool underpinning terrorist surveillance policies. What is it? What’s wrong with it?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116613749467270831

Privacy watch (thanks to John Aravosis for the link)

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72248-0.html
The first public meeting of a Bush administration "civil liberties protection panel" had a surreal quality to it, as the five-member board refused to answer any questions from the press, and stonewalled privacy advocates and academics on key questions about domestic spying. . . .

Credit where it’s due: Baghdad Tony admits he was wrong

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9344.html
[Steve Benen] Snow came across as sincere in apologizing, and it was a classy, grown-up thing to do.

At the risk of sounding petty, I do have a couple of random thoughts, though. . . .

In the Bush world, when you’re a friend of the “right people,” you can do no wrong

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8017
President George W. Bush's aunt and other members of a prominent Greenwich church showed up in federal court Tuesday to support a former music director who pleaded not guilty to possessing child pornography. . . .

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8018
In this new century, there is a great divide between those who place no value on human life, and rejoice in the suffering of others, and those who believe that every life has matchless value, and answer suffering with compassion and kindness. . . .

[NB: Body counts?]

Theocracy watch: I have to tell you, I enjoyed this – written by Jay Bakker, the son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, of all people. And check out the photo of him!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/13/bakker.brown.commentary/index.html
What the hell happened? Where did we go wrong? How was Christianity co-opted by a political party? Why are Christians supporting laws that force others to live by their standards? The answers to these questions are integral to the survival of Christianity. . . .

So when did the focus of Christianity shift from the unconditional love and acceptance preached by Christ to the hate and condemnation spewed forth by certain groups today? . . . [read on]

Reflections on our “balanced” media

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/media-as-adversary-to-government.html

A tale of the times: a presidential candidate with an entire news network behind him

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/dec/14/newt_gets_his_own_fox_news_special

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:36 AM

 
WHO, ME?

Bush has the utter gall to talk about the Iraq war as if it were just some poor misfortune that happened to take place on his watch

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011545.php
"I thank these men who wear our uniform for a very candid and fruitful discussion about how to secure this country and how to win a war that we now find ourselves in."

Cheney’s turn

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061212/12cheney.htm
Washington insiders are buzzing over the fact that the vice president has been publicly silent and mostly out of sight since the Iraq Study Group issued its long-awaited report last week. White House insiders say Cheney is playing an inside game, advising President Bush privately not to change course too much in Iraq, not to withdraw U.S. troops anytime soon, and not to talk directly with the hard-line regimes in Iran and Syria about the situation. . . .

"I think we'll see less of him than ever," says the associate. "Iraq is now Bush's baby, and Cheney doesn't want to be tarred with it in the eyes of historians." . . .

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9328.html

Approaching 3000 U.S. dead in Iraq, one wonders why Bush doesn’t feel a greater urgency about getting a new war policy in place

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/opinion/13wed1.html
We fear that a more likely explanation is that the president’s ever-divided policy advisers are still wrangling over the most basic decisions, while his political handlers are waiting for public enthusiasm for the Baker report to flag before Mr. Bush tries to explain why he won’t follow through on some of the report’s most important and reasonable suggestions — like imposing a timetable on Iraqi leaders to make political compromises or face a withdrawal of American support. Or trying to persuade Iran and Syria to cease their meddling. . . .

http://www.attytood.com/2006/12/the_madness_of_king_george_are_1.html
[Will Bunch] The will of the people is clear. In poll after poll, a plurality of voters have said that their No. 1 issue is Iraq, and back in November, they elected a Democratic Congress with a clear message that it was time for a new direction in the conflict.

In fact, the latest and most detailed poll on the heels of the critical report by the Iraq Study Group shows that Americans are more united over Iraq than ever imagined possible on such a hot-button issue. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll published this morning shows that 70 percent of the nation wants a new direction in Iraq -- not surprising considering the daily barrage of unspeakably grim car bombings and mayhem, and word that American troop deaths and injuries have surpassed the 25,000 mark. Already, Saudi Arabia is beginning to look toward a larger regional conflict in the world's oil basket that could have disastrous consequences around the globe.

Public opinion is clear on the next moves: 52 percent want a withdrawal on a fixed timeline, while only 12 percent want to deal with the growing civil war in Iraq by sending more U.S. troops. By and large, the L.A. Times poll of 1,429 Americans found that most favor approaches that were proposed by the ISG and immediately rejected by President Bush, such as talks with Syria and Iran, backed by 64 percent.

And yet, in the face of a real mandate -- unlike the 51 percent "mandate" that returned him to office in 2004 -- Bush's new plan is apparently to go the route backed by fewer than one out of eight Americans, and send more troops, perhaps as many as 20,000, making some war-weary troops stay longer in Iraq and sending over new ones on an accelerated schedule. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/12/13/BL2006121300937.html
[Dan Froomkin] Who Cares What You Think? . . .

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8011
“I put off my speech -- actually, I was quite flexible about when I was going to give my speech, to begin with -- and one of the main reasons why is I really do want the new Secretary of Defense to have time to get to know people and hear people and be a part of this deliberation. And he will not be sworn in until next Monday. I also -- one of the interesting things about this experience is that there's a lot of ideas and a lot of opinions. And I want to make sure I hear from as many of those ideas and opinions as possible. . . . But one thing people got to understand is we'll be headed toward achieving our objectives. . . . And as I deliberate the way forward, I keep in mind that we've got brave souls that need -- to need to know that we're in this fight with a strategy to help them achieve the objectives that we've got. . . .” [read on]

Bush calls the Iraq Study Group surrender monkeys (he says he doesn’t, but he sorta kinda does)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301379.html
President Bush said today he has rejected "some ideas that would lead to defeat" as he considers a new Iraq strategy . . .

Asked if he has heard "any new ideas" that would change his thinking about a new strategy for Iraq, Bush said, "I've heard some ideas that would lead to defeat. And I reject those ideas: ideas such as leaving before the job is done. . .”

Bush did not identify the source of the rejected ideas, but he said in response to a question that they had not come from the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that issued a congressionally chartered report last week on "a new approach" in Iraq. The panel's 79 recommendations included proposals to shift the U.S. military mission in Iraq from combat to the training of Iraqi troops and to bring most U.S. combat brigades home by the first quarter of 2008. . . .

U.S service chiefs DO NOT support a troop increase in Iraq

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011555
[WP] "The chiefs do not favor adding significant numbers of troops to Iraq, said sources familiar with their thinking, but see strengthening the Iraqi army as pivotal to achieving some degree of stability. They also are pressing for a much greater U.S. effort on economic reconstruction and political reconciliation."

But. . . . http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-usiraq14dec14,1,3476036.story
[M]any military commanders have voiced support for a sharp increase in troops as part of a last-ditch effort to restore order, a suggestion Bush has not rejected.

“As they stand up, we will . . . .uh. . . .errr. . . .never mind”

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/so-now-were-iraqs-puppet.html

An alternative account of why the Saudi ambassador abruptly quit

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001823.php

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001825.php

I still want to know what the Saudis think about Dick Cheney’s “80 percent solution.” Steve Benen says just what I wanted to say

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001823.php
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back the Sunnis if the United States pulls out of Iraq, according to a senior American official.

The official said the king "read the riot act" to the vice president when the two met last month in the Saudi capital, Riyadh. . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9333.html
Oh to have been a fly on the wall . . .

It is fascinating to see, across the board from Iraq to the budget, how the Dems are now seen as the corrective counterbalance to Bush and the Republicans’ excesses. But now they really do have to do things in a smarter, fairer way. So far, they’re off to a good start

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301779.html
Americans trust Democratic lawmakers more than President Bush to handle the nation's toughest problems, including the Iraq war, and a quarter of Republicans are glad that Democrats have won control of Congress, a Washington Post-ABC News poll finds. . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010392.php
[Kevin Drum] A new poll shows Americans practically begging Democrats to take the policymaking initiative away from President Bush . . . Things are so bad for Bush that 59% of the country would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate if he or she had merely served in Bush's cabinet. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/washington/14budget.html
Frustrated by the Bush administration’s piecemeal financing of the Iraq war, Democrats are planning to assert more control over the billions of dollars a month being spent on the conflict when they take charge of Congress in January.

In interviews, the incoming Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees said they would demand a better accounting of the war’s cost and move toward integrating the spending into the regular federal budget, a signal of their intention to use the Congressional power of the purse more assertively to influence the White House’s management of the war. . . .

More: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/12/13/23550/173

The Republican style of governing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301850.html
A huge tax bill that Congress passed last week contained a little-noticed gift for select corporations -- tens of millions of dollars in breaks on import tariffs.

Early Saturday morning, in the frantic final hours of the 109th Congress, lawmakers rolled 520 tariff suspensions into the must-pass bill. The provisions will reduce or eliminate taxes on imported products as varied as shoes, camcorders and boiled oysters.

While such suspensions have been around for decades, the flurry of provisions pushed this Congress to a record of nearly 800 for the year. Corporate lobbyists often craft such suspensions to apply to just one product imported by just one company. Many of those companies and their executives have given millions of dollars to political campaigns. . . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_10_atrios_archive.html#116606372192358050
[Atrios] Slipped into this NPR report about whether and when we spy on our allies was a quick comment about how we don't generally spy on their governments but we do engage in "economic espionage." . . . In other words, our intelligence agencies are used to further specific US business interests by spying on their competitors. . . .

How the Bush gang uses “classified leak” investigations to suppress access to information

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/washington/14leak.html

Dems’ Texas win another slap at Tom DeLay

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301918.html

Tim Johnson, Democratic senator from South Dakota, has an apparent stroke, undergoes surgery – and if he can’t serve it will tip the Senate back to Republican control

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/washington/14senate.html

I can’t wait for Leahy and the other Dems to take charge of these committees

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Leahy_to_RAW_Torture_memos_will_1213.html
United States Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee has informed RAW STORY that he will subpoena a controversial detainee treatment memorandum if his request that the Justice Department submit it to him is not met.

Leahy indicates that the document—acknowledged to exist in November by the Justice Department after a FOIA request by the ACLU—should have been sent to him many months ago, when he asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to provide him with all memos concerning detainee treatment.

That memo—a companion of sorts to the infamous Bybee memorandum, which broadened the range of permissible detainee questioning techniques—is said to outline actual interrogation procedures that have been approved by the Executive Branch. Many suspect that some of the procedures will be found to be forbidden by the Geneva Convention against Torture. . . .

Karl Rove to retire?

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/dec/13/rove_to_retire_after_bushs_term_ends

Indictment coming? http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/12/14/2440/8983

Justice John Paul Stevens to retire?

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/12/13/will_justice_stevens_retire.html

The kind of Congressmen they are

http://www.slate.com/id/2155441/fr/rss/
Since losing his re-election bid to a Democratic challenger in November, lame-duck Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y., has cast only two votes on the House floor—for the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act and a condemnation of a French street named after Mumia Abu-Jamal. Meanwhile, he's skipped out altogether on the other 18 votes. . . .

Judge Roy Moore, of Ten Commandments fame, shows once again what he thinks of the Constitution

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9331.html
[Steve Benen] When we last left this story, right-wing talk-show host and writer Dennis Prager had just finished explaining that Ellison will literally “undermine American civilization” and “embolden Islamic extremists” if he takes the oath of office on a Koran instead of a Christian Bible. Though Prager’s column on the issue was quickly embraced by the religious right, Prager later said he would not support a religious test for public office and mysteriously blamed Ellison for causing trouble.

Enter Roy Moore, the former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice who was driven from office in disgrace because a religious crusade led him to believe he could ignore the U.S. Constitution. Prager backed away from the notion that Muslims should be prohibited from serving in Congress, but Moore isn’t nearly as shy — the former jurist said Muslims are not fit for office.

To support the Constitution of the United States one must uphold an underlying principle of that document…. The Islamic faith rejects our God and believes that the state must mandate the worship of its own god, Allah. . . . Our Constitution states, “Each House [of Congress] shall be the judge . . . . of the qualifications of its own members.” Enough evidence exists for Congress to question Ellison’s qualifications to be a member of Congress as well as his commitment to the Constitution in view of his apparent determination to embrace the Quran and an Islamic philosophy directly contrary to the principles of the Constitution.

Yes, according to Moore, Congress shouldn’t just stop Ellison from using the Koran for his ceremonial photo-op, the institution should literally ignore the election results and forbid Ellison from taking his seat.

Remember, Moore was a duly elected Republican judge in the state of Alabama.

I was particularly fond of this argument from Moore’s WND column:

[C]ommon sense alone dictates that in the midst of a war with Islamic terrorists we should not place someone in a position of great power who shares their doctrine. In 1943, we would never have allowed a member of Congress to take their oath on “Mein Kampf,” or someone in the 1950s to swear allegiance to the “Communist Manifesto.”

The comparison doesn’t make a lot of sense, but never mind that. Moore obviously believes that the United States is necessarily at war with all Muslims, and we can’t have out “enemy” in the halls of Congress. Moore therefore believes it’s wise — indeed, necessary — to ignore the Constitution in order to protect ourselves from the congressman-elect from Minnesota. . . .

I’m sticking with “Baghdad Tony,” but I admit that Tony “I Don’t Know” Snow is pretty good too

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121201270.html
[Dana Milbank] When will President Bush roll out his new Iraq policy? "We do not know," Snow said . . .

When did Bush decide to postpone the speech? "I don't know exactly when” . . .

Has everyone working on the policy read the Iraq Study Group report? "I don't know. . . I'm assuming -- but I don't know."

After Snow spoke multiple times of the "urgency" surrounding Iraq, CNN's Elaine Quijano asked him, innocently, "Tony, what does 'urgency' mean?"

"Well, I don't know," he said. "You guys keep using the term."

Quijano pointed out that Snow himself had used it . . .

When Snow took over as White House press secretary earlier this year, reporters found it refreshing that he was willing to admit when he didn't know something. This has become rather less refreshing as Snow, while claiming access to Bush's sanctum sanctorum, continues to use the phrase -- more than 400 times so far in televised briefings and interviews. Sometimes, it seems more of a tic than a response; usually, it's a brushoff. . . .

On Monday, reporters wanted to know whether newly confirmed Defense Secretary Robert Gates would attend White House meetings on Iraq policy. "I don't know," said Snow. Would the Iraq experts visiting the White House talk about the Iraq Study Group's particulars with Bush? "I don't know." Was there anything in the report that the administration hadn't already considered? "I don't know. Again, good question. I don't know. I mean, there are some -- again, I don't know."

In recent days, the "I don't know" reply has greeted queries about whether the administration would talk to Iran and Syria, Pakistan's plans for Kashmir, benchmarks for reducing violence in Iraq, the process of preparing the federal budget, when Bush might name a new U.N. ambassador, and whether the president would address the nation about Iraq. Even the seemingly obvious -- whether Bush would be outlining "a different course in Iraq" -- stumped Snow. "I just -- I don't know," he said. . . .

What type of sculpture did Vladimir Putin give Condoleezza Rice? "I don't know." What books is Bush reading? "I don't know which they are." Will Bush send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq? "I don't know."

Occasionally, Snow employs a variant on the refrain: I'm not going to tell you. Asked recently whether Bush would say that the United States is winning in Iraq, Snow answered: "I'm not going to tell you what the president would say."

Unsurprisingly, this method has done some damage to briefer-questioner relations. It doesn't help that Snow, though admired for his quick wit, has been lobbing names at his inquisitors. After labeling as "partisan" a question from NBC's David Gregory last week, Snow accused CBS's Jim Axelrod yesterday of asking a "loaded" question; the two men exchanged unpleasant looks. Snow further branded a question by Fox's Bret Baier as "cynical" and one from Quijano as "facile."

The press secretary employed many variations on "not going to tell you" yesterday. ABC's Martha Raddatz pressed him to characterize Bush's talks with Iraq experts. "I'm not going to," said Snow. Caren Bohan of Reuters asked whether a personnel shakeup was discussed. "I'm not going to talk about anything that may or may not have been discussed," he said, adding: "I don't want you to interpret it either way, other than as a principled stonewalling."

Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times took one more try at getting an account of the meeting. "I wanted to re-ask" the question, he said.

"Does that mean I have to re-not answer it?" Snow wondered aloud. . . .

No, he’s just not very good at his job

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9323.html
[Steve Benen] At yesterday’s White House press briefing, there were plenty of questions about the president’s policies in Iraq, as well as several references to new polling data. Tony Snow, when he wasn’t feigning ignorance, seemed to have an explanation for plummeting national support.

[I]f you take a look at poll data — and there’s a lot of discussion about that — what’s interesting is that a majority of the American public not only thinks that we’re capable of winning, but we should. I think that there is understandable apprehension about the situation in Iraq. And what people want to hear is, how do you assess the situation and how do you wish to address it? And those are questions the President is going to answer. . . . I’m trying to get at what may be some of the causes for public discontent of late, which is there is a sense that you have a government that itself has been at war with itself, rather than working together on important tasks. This is an opportunity to step forward and work together. And as I’ve said, when it comes to the business of, do you want to win, the answer is yes; and, do you think we can win, the answer is yes.

It’s often hard to tell if Snow actually buys into his own spin, but is it possible the White House really believes Americans have turned against the administration’s war policy because they perceive that the U.S. government “has been at war with itself”? Does that even make any sense?

Far be it for me to give the Bush gang advice about public opinion, but maybe — I’m going to go out on a limb here — Americans oppose the war because the president’s policy doesn’t work, doesn’t make sense, and has cost the nation dearly in blood and treasure. . . .

More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8009

Tom DeLay: “a vast left-wing conspiracy”

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/12/12/delay_identifies_the_liberal_coalition.html
"I have never seen a more powerful coalition."

Theocracy watch: be very suspicious when theocrats start invoking “empirical research”

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/time-magazine-accused-of.html

Jeff Greenfield, now proven to be a knave as well as a fool, says he was “just joking” when he compared Barack Obama to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We bloggers, he says, just take things too damn literally. But look at the footage of his own story, and judge for yourselves

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011537.php

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9329.html

Bonus item: John McCain’s war on the Internet

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116607297627079797

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/12/13/205925/02
[Jeralyn Merritt] “a really dumb bill”

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:07 AM

 
GO AHEAD, TAKE YOUR TIME

Bush delays his “New Way Forward” speech until the new year. It’s an important decision, and certainly he should take time to try to get it right. But is that the real reason for the delay?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121200478.html
The extra time was needed to allow advisers to more fully prepare their analysis on the impact of the changes under consideration, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said later. "He [Bush] decided, frankly, that it's not ready yet," Snow told reporters. He said he could not specify a date when the new strategy would be announced. . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/12/bush.iraq.ap/index.html
The spokesman insisted that the new timing is not a reflection of a major last-minute shift by the White House, or that Bush is grasping for answers. Instead, the president knows the general direction he is likely to take his Iraq strategy and has instructed his team to address the many practical ramifications, such as for military tactics and regional diplomacy, Snow said. . . .

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/12/sitroom.01.html
ED HENRY: Now, the president will not take questions about why the delays. It was left to his press secretary, Tony Snow. He denied one theory, that perhaps the president is planning to send more troops to Iraq, but wants to delay the announcement until after the holidays.

Tony Snow also denying that something came up during a secure videoconference the president had this morning with military commanders, denying that maybe something came up that caused the president to rethink this, urged more time.

But there is no denying this abrupt reversal now puts the White House even more on the hot spot . . .

JOHN KING: I talked to a number of senior administration officials today and also some of the outsiders who have been consulted by the administration a part of this review, including one retired general. And they say they think the president wants more time for the reason Ed Henry just noted, because it's not just one thing.

As Ed goes through the whole litany of the White House, it's not because of this, it's not because of that. These officials all believe the president is planning to do something big. . . . And one of the sources I spoke to said he believes the president is very seriously considering, in the short-term, agreeing with Senator John McCain and increasing U.S. troop levels in the short-term and also resisting the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group that he put on the table, the idea that the United States would begin to withdraw troops. . . .

WOLF BLITZER: And what about domestic politics? . . . Because, as you know, some Democrats already suspicious that the president is going to delay the speech, not necessarily for strictly policy reasons, but maybe politics might be at play.

KING: What senior administration officials say is that it's policy, policy, policy. The president is looking at big changes and he needs to get this right, so he's going to take the time necessary.

But they also do believe there is a political benefit. You might get criticism now, as you just heard Dana say, from the Democrats, why not before Christmas, but they believe there's a political benefit. If you are going to disagree with the Iraq Study Group and not accept its major recommendations, then let some time go by. Let the American people forget about that a little bit. Buy some time for critics.

And you see this. The "Wall Street Journal" editorial page, other conservatives attacking, attacking, attacking the findings of the Iraq Study Group. Let that criticism take hold, especially if you're going to say thank you for your report, but I don't agree with that much of it. . . .

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2250.html
[Sam Rosenfeld] The president's decision to delay his big policy speech on Iraq until the new year . . . means that he'll be able to extend his current, public listenin'-consultin'-contemplatin'-ruminatin' process for a while longer. And that means that he'll have more time to incorporate the prescriptions of the imminent neocon ISG answer record into whatever plan for a "way forward" he eventually comes up with.

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8001
Q Is it possible that the President does not want to announce the deployment of thousands of more U.S. troops to Iraq before the holidays?

MR. SNOW: No, it has nothing to do with that. Cynical, but false.

[Holden] Then today we learn that's exactly what's going on here. . .

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/12/12/bush_postpones_iraq_speech.html
A reason for the switch could be a wave a new polls that show Americans firmly opposed to the Bush administration's approach to handling the war. . . .

A troop INCREASE in Iraq? Smart move – the American people will really like it, and when it fails, McCain, Graham, Lieberman, and others who have been calling for it will be lost. The ISG will line up against him. And besides, where will they find 20,000 (40,000?) more troops?

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8001
Only 12 percent of Americans would support a troop increase, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found. . . .

More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010381.php

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military13dec13,0,4577494.story

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116597728586086405

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_10_atrios_archive.html#116596732732233193

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/13/4507/5107

Bush is actively involved in his new “listening” campaign, asking questions, inviting disagreement, trying to get new ideas. (Uh-huh)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9310.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/bush-so-called-listening-tour-delays.html
[Joe] If this wasn't so deadly serious, it would be comical. . . .

Rummy’s revenge

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/12/rumsfeld-bush-election/
RUMSFELD: I think that this time the outcome of the election, just to put it right up on the table, created a situation where I personally believe, and the president agrees, it is better for someone else to be leading this department with that new Congress . . .

[Bush, November 8] . . . I thought we were going to be fine in the election. My point to you is, is that, win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/12/rumsfeld-iraq-terror/
“I don’t think I would have called it the war on terror. I don’t mean to be critical of those who have. Certainly, I have used the phrase frequently. Why do I say that? Because the word ‘war’ conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn’t going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a ‘war on terror.’ Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So ‘war on terror’ is a problem for me.”

Why did the Saudis pull their ambassador?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011527
[Josh Marshall] Does anybody have a good explanation for why the Saudi ambassador to the United States just resigned his post and left the country on a day's notice? Officials are giving various unconvincing explanations, the best of which is that, in the words of an unnamed embassy official, "He wants to spend more time with his family." . . .

More: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005308.html

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/12/saudi_ambassadors_abrupt_departure_from_dc.html

Could it have anything to do with the “80 percent solution”?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/27/AR2006112701398.html
[November 28] Saudi Arabia is so concerned about the damage that the conflict in Iraq is doing across the region that it basically summoned Vice President Cheney for talks over the weekend, according to U.S. officials and foreign diplomats. The visit was originally portrayed as U.S. outreach to its oil-rich Arab ally.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120801823.html
On the political front, the administration is focusing increasingly on variations of a "Shiite tilt," sometimes called an "80 percent solution," that would bolster the political center of Iraq and effectively leave in charge the Shiite and Kurdish parties that account for 80 percent of Iraq's 26 million people and that won elections a year ago. . . . Vice President Cheney's office has most vigorously argued for the "80 percent solution," in terms of both realities on the ground and the history of U.S. engagement with the Shiites, sources say.

http://www.slate.com/id/2154679/
[Fred Kaplan] he Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times have recently quoted U.S. officials floating the notion of abandoning the quest for national reconciliation and, instead, joining the civil war on the side of the Shiites. It's unclear how high these officials are (in both senses of the word). What is clear is that it's a terrible idea. There's no better way to alienate the region's Sunni governments, most of which happen to be allies of sorts (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and so forth), or to widen the conflict, perhaps beyond Iraq's borders. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/world/middleeast/13saudi.html
Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia conveyed that message to Vice President Dick Cheney two weeks ago during Mr. Cheney’s whirlwind visit to Riyadh, the officials said. During the visit, King Abdullah also expressed strong opposition to diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran, and pushed for Washington to encourage the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, senior Bush administration officials said.

http://www.slate.com/id/2155427
The Saudi ambassador to the United States fired a consultant who wrote an opinion piece in the Post two weeks ago that said a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would lead to a "massive Saudi intervention." But Arab diplomats said members of the Saudi government share the views expressed in the column. . . .

At every stage, these people have completely misunderstood the dynamics of the Middle East, and made bad situations even worse

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/the_plan/

http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/new-middle-east-cold-war.html
[Juan Cole] The New Middle East Cold War: Saudi/Israel/Lebanon versus Iran/Syria/Iraq/Hizbullah . . . [read on!]

Condi Rice: “I’m very proud” of the Iraq war

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9312.html

Farewell, Iraq Study Group

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/statement_of_denial/
[Matthew Yglesias] I never had what you would call high hopes for the Iraq Study Group, but the report, now that it's in, is an almost physically sickening exercise in denial and evasion. The document itself comes in essentially two parts -- one is a review of the situation, the second a set of recommendations for moving forward. The first part is quite good. The second is a mess, a farrago of illogic that bears no real relationship to the analysis on which it was allegedly grounded.

Baghdad Tony is going to cause big trouble for the Bush gang before it’s all over – just wait

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/12/103119/43
[BarbinMD] In reading yesterday's White House press briefing, something rather interesting stood out for me. It wasn't the usual distortions or lies, although they were there too. But what struck me was that Snow managed to express all of this administration's arrogant contempt for the American people, what we think and what we want, in a just a few short answers. . . .

More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7998

The 20% solution

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011523
[JM] Just to put things in perspective... with public approval solidly in the 20s, the war in Iraq is now less popular than a bevy of social issues that have long been considered political poison for Democrats. . . . The Iraq War is less popular than gay marriage, legalizing pot, banning handguns, and rescinding the death penalty.

Why does Tom DeLay hate America?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002129.php
Tom DeLay, appearing on Hannity and Colmes last night to promote his new on-and-off blog, took square aim at the real culprits for problems in the war in Iraq. "It's the fault of the liberals and the media and the Democrats, that from the very beginning have tried to undermine the will of the American people to fight this," DeLay said. . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9318.html
[Steve Benen] The argument seems to be that mean ol’ Dems, despite having no power to speak of, convinced gullible Americans into believing the war in Iraq is a mistake. This, in turn, led to an Iraqi insurgency and civil war, fueled almost entirely by “perceptions.” Perceptions of what? DeLay didn’t say. . .

More like this, please

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061212/ap_on_go_co/congress_pet_projects
Democrats taking power in January have settled on a plan to clean up $463 billion worth of GOP budget leftovers, but they're not happy about it — and neither is the White House. . . The plan by the incoming chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees would kill thousands of hometown projects, called "earmarks," that lawmakers add to spending bills. . .

More: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/12/165637/83

The Senate Intelligence committee report that Pat Roberts (R-KS) sat on, year after year, to cover up the Bush gang’s lies is finally going to be released once the Democrats take over

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9319.html
[Steve Benen] I suspect we’ll hear all kinds of complaints from the right about Dems playing the “blame game,” looking backwards instead of forwards, placing too much emphasis on government accountability and follow-through, etc. . .

More: http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/121206/phase2.html

Anthrax?

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/16334-1.html
A bipartisan, bicameral group of 33 Members sent a letter Tuesday to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales demanding that the FBI brief Congress on the status of the five-year-plus investigation into the anthrax attacks that killed five people and shuttered parts of the Congressional campus in October 2001. . . .

In a surprising upset, the Dems win the last outstanding House seat, increasing their majority

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121201601.html?

Another Republican congressman in trouble

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-miller12dec12,0,4830190.story

The Justice Dept decides to take it easier on corporate corruption investigations (well, duh)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/business/13legal.html

How long will we remember the Republican refusal to acknowledge or deal with global warming – possibly until it was too late?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/13/14728/831

STOP, just stop, will you?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011525
CNN shows split screens of Barack Obama with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. . .

Fashion police: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2248.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9315.html

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116595019934347280

Jeb Bush, 2008? Bring it on

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9313.html

The most fun campaign of 2008 will be if Al Franken runs to take back the Minnesota senate seat Norm Coleman took from Walter Mondale, running in replacement for the late Paul Wellstone

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_57/politics/16293-1.html

Bonus item: Guess who doesn’t write for Tom DeLay’s blog?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/12/delay-write-blog/
“Well, I’m not a very good writer . . .”

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011526

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:16 AM

 
FREE FALL

Wow

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121200278.html
In a new Post-ABC News poll, seven in 10 Americans disapprove of the way the President is handling the situation in Iraq . . . Six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/11/20308/652
[CBS] Just 21 percent approve of President Bush's handling of the war, the lowest number he's ever received, and an 8-point drop from just a month ago. Most of that drop has been among Republicans and conservatives.

[Kagro X] An eight point drop since the elections. . .

We are witnessing a massive relocation of people out of Iraq – and the worst is probably yet to come. Having brought this humanitarian crisis into being, you might think that we have some responsibility to help cope with this disaster. Think again

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_10_atrios_archive.html#116584891661696712
[Boston Globe] Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have fled their homeland are likely to seek refugee status in the United States, humanitarian groups said, putting intense pressure on the Bush administration to reexamine a policy that authorizes only 500 Iraqis to be resettled here next year.

The official US policy has been that the refugee situation is temporary . . .

Arthur E. "Gene" Dewey, who was President Bush's assistant secretary of state for refugee affairs until last year, said that "for political reasons the administration will discourage" the resettlement of Iraqi refugees in the United States "because of the psychological message it would send, that it is a losing cause."

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116585978413659783

Yes, it could get worse

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011499
[Josh Marshall] As long as the White House is advertising its Iraq policy review, I want to take note of the weekend press reports that say the White House is giving active consideration to saying it's a civil war and getting behind the Shi'a against the Sunni.

This is a really good example of how you can't underestimate the Bush White House's ability to up the ante and embrace a new policy even more ridiculous than those they've tried before. . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010368.php

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2006/12/iraq_damage_con_1.html

Ethnic cleansing? Genocide? http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005303.html

Partitioning? http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_10_atrios_archive.html#116584690235924213

Are we about to see a change of government in Iraq?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005304.html
[AP] Major partners in Iraq's governing coalition are in behind-the-scenes talks to oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki amid discontent over his failure to quell raging violence, according to lawmakers involved.

The talks are aimed at forming a new parliamentary bloc that would seek to replace the current government and that would likely exclude supporters of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is a vehement opponent of the U.S. military presence. . .

More: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3638

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005305.html

Even now, after all this, after the study groups and the soul-searching, after the electoral repudiation, after the revolt of their own party, the main thing in the minds of the Bush gang – the only thing – is preserving their prerogatives to keep doing whatever the hell they want to do

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011500
[DW] As students of politics the next two years are going to be fascinating. Bush is never good under pressure and in the wake of the ISG Report Bush is completely floundering, and he has nothing to buoy him anymore. Bush never really stands on his own so much as he attacks others instead, but that dog won't hunt anymore.

The Congressional Republicans are literally rats fleeing the sinking ship. And although this started before the election, it is now like a tidal wave. Bush's people will come out with their self-serving reports which will meet with bipartisan scorn and only make the situation worse for Bush with him desperately clinging to that nonsense while Baghdad burns.

He and Cheney are completely alone now. We are going to see approval polls in Nixon territory probably by Feb. We are looking at historic lows and how will the DC world react?

I look for the White House to be surrounded by sandbags and barbed wire by spring with Bush and Cheney holed up inside like Howard Hughes.

When have we ever seen anything like this? . . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/good-news-everybody-we_b_36040.html
[Arianna Huffington] Not surprisingly, the Bush administration is already backing away from most of the proposals put forth by the Iraq Study Group. The New York Times, with unintended comic irony, noted it this way: "Administration officials say their preliminary review of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's recommendations has concluded that many of its key proposals are impractical or unrealistic." Thank God we have George Bush to protect us from doing anything impractical or unrealistic in the Middle East.

But there is one thing in the proposal we can be sure Bush will take from the report -- the slogan. Bush may not be into things like facts, truth, or reality, but he loves a good slogan.

So while Bush may not like any of the Group's 79 proposals (so impractical and unrealistic), he's ready to adopt its slogan, "New Way Forward." . . .

But it’s okay – he’s “listening”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/12/11/BL2006121100446.html
[Dan Froomkin] Newsweek today weighs in with a new White House narrative, this one starring Chief of Staff Josh Bolten. . . Bolten has for more than eight months been quietly and diligently working to lance the protective bubble that for so long encouraged President Bush to believe that his Iraq policy was succeeding.

And at long last, as exemplified by well-publicized events last week and this week, Bolten has finally succeeded in getting Bush to adopt an entirely new trick: Listening. Or at least giving the appearance of listening.

What's missing from this narrative, of course, is whether all this "listening" will actually lead Bush to change course.

Also missing: How Bolten has neutralized Vice President Cheney -- if he has at all. Because if Cheney is still the first and last person whispering into Bush's ear about Iraq, then whatever he may have heard in between doesn't really matter. . . .

"For months, the White House had been girding for the release of the Iraq Study Group report. They knew from press leaks that it would be critical in tone and that the president wouldn't like some of its ideas -- especially a suggested pullback of U.S. troops and a proposal to reach out to Syria and Iran for help in quelling violence in the country.

"The challenge for Bush's team was to make the president appear as though he were taking the release of the report seriously, without necessarily embracing its conclusions. In the days following the report's release, Bush the Decider transformed himself into Bush the Listener. . .”

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9307.html

Now, this is progress: fire the generals and staffers who have loyally implemented the impossible policy YOU set out for them

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/experts-tell-bush-to-fire-national.html

Meanwhile, Baker and Hamilton, sensing the increased irrelevance of their group’s report, are furiously redefining it to make it more compatible with Bush’s priorities – which tells you what was wrong with the endeavor all along

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/11/64643/453

Bush wants us to stop asking questions about how and why we got into the mess in Iraq, and just focus on “The Way Forward.” Given the way he and his people lied us into the war, and the miserable failure of their war “planning,” I can understand their desire not to rehash the sordid past. . . . but let’s just do a little reminiscing, shall we?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_10_atrios_archive.html#116585601498895071
[Atrios] In the pre-war period in this country there was something truly wrong with our country. Madness had taken hold and infected our public discourse. Those of us who came to the rather obvious conclusion that the notion that Saddam Hussein was any kind of threat to this country was absurd, and that we should invade Iraq because maybe some day in the future he could become a threat was even more absurd were treated with derision and scorn and utterly marginalized.

What was so frustrating at the time was not simply that a bunch of otherwise intelligent people seemed to have come to the horribly wrong conclusion that invading Iraq was a good idea. What was more frustrating is that there was a collective blindness to the dishonest and destructive way the war was sold, that it seemed not to bother these people that the multiple and shifting dishonest rationalizations for war suggested that there was something deeply wrong with the whole endeavor. It was frustrating that people who supported the war were happy to climb on board not just with the war but with the truly awful people who were the architects of both the war and the propaganda war which, among other things, involved tarring war opponents as brutal-dictator lovers. It was frustrating that they signed up for the whole goddamn enchilada.

Frequently it's been pointed out that they shouldn't have trusted these people to "do it right." But more than that it should have been obvious that they shouldn't have trusted these people to "do the right thing." They made clear during that time that they were, in fact, very bad people.

They have NO DOUBT that they’re right (and everyone else is wrong)

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/11/ill-be-dead-when-they-get-it-right/
“I’ll be dead when they get it right.” – President Bush, on how his legacy will be viewed, according to a “recent visitor” to the White House who says Bush is “still resolutely defiant, convinced history will ultimately vindicate him.”

Sam Brownback (R-KS) looks like he will be a source of lots of good material for us during his Presidential run. His latest brilliant idea – put Dick Cheney in charge of Iraq

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/10/brownback-iraq-cheney/

What’s THIS all about?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101333.html
Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, flew out of Washington yesterday after informing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and his staff that he would be leaving the post after only 15 months on the job . . .

Jaw-dropping news: here’s how the govt identifies terror suspects for profiling

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9305.html
[Steve Benen] You have got to be kidding me. Bush’s State Department began targeting suspects based on capricious Google searches? This is how administration officials approach identifying suspects associated with a clandestine nuclear weapons program in a post-9/11, post-Iraq-intelligence-failures environment?

Outsourcing the government

http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2006/12/outsourcer-in-chief.html

Well, we have our new nickname for press sect’y Tony Snow: until further notice, he’s “Baghdad Tony” (after Hussein spokesman Mohammed “Baghdad Bob” Saeed al-Sahaf, who kept reporting stunning successes for the Iraqi army, right up until the instant that they were utterly routed)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9299.html
KURTZ: [T]he “New York Times” and the “Chicago Tribune” called it a “rebuke of the administration policy” and the “Wall Street Journal” called it a “searing critique.” So you’re taking a position, speaking for the administration.

SNOW: I understand that.

KURTZ: It’s very different from the way news organizations are characterizing this.

SNOW: Well, yes, but news organizations were characterizing, interestingly, in direct defiance and contradiction to what the people who wrote it said. And it is worth taking into account the motive’s aims and objectives rather than saying, “Ah-ha, here’s a searing critique.”

For instance, is it searing critique that this report says, at the beginning of its own segment on actions forward, that it says, and I quote, and this was not something I was asked about, “We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq as stated by the president.”. . .

KURTZ: They also said the policy is not working.

SNOW: No, what they said is that you need a new policy. . . .

KURTZ: You said, “What I think is demoralizing is a constant effort to try to portray this as a losing mission.” Do you think that journalists deliberately portray Iraq as a losing effort?

SNOW: I don’t know if it’s deliberate or not, but there is a failure narrative that tends to run through a lot. And you, I’m sure, have talked to servicemen who come back and say, “Why don’t they cover what I do? This is not what I see.” . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/12/74121/605

More from Baghdad Tony: accuses Gordon Smith, R-OR, who said the Iraq war is immoral, with saying that the pursuit of democracy is immoral

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/white-house-says-gop-senator-gordon.html
REPORTER The Senator is not saying that's immoral. He's saying that the U.S. -- he's saying, of course democracy is a great goal --

WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN TONY SNOW: You know what, Ed? Ed, I'll tell you what. You're engaging in an argument and you're trying to fill in the gaps in a --

Q It's not an argument. It's a Republican senator saying it, not me. It's a Republican senator saying it, and he's not --

MR. SNOW: Then tell me exactly what --

Q -- of course he's in favor of democracy.

MR. SNOW: Tell me --

Q Are you saying Republican Senator Smith is not in favor of democracy?

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't know. You just said he said it's immoral . . .

More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7989
Q Tony, today the President said that Iraq is the central component in stopping extremists. Has he dropped saying it's the central front in the war on terror? Because he didn't mention that.

MR. SNOW: No. Allow him to vary the phraseology from time to time. It does not mean any change in view.

[NB: Of course, one thing we have learned about these people is that EVERY change in phraseology reflects some carefully considered shift. What this one tells us is that they are preparing people for the disappointment of failure in “the central front in the war on terror.” If it really were the central front, that outcome would be unacceptable, of course. Now they’re implicitly acknowledging IT NEVER WAS “the central front”.]

The Goofus Files

http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7987
There's no question we've got to make sure that the State Department and the Defense Department are -- the efforts and their recommendations are closely coordinated so that when I do speak to the American people, they will know that I've listened to all aspects of government, and that the way forward is the way forward to achieve our objective: to succeed in Iraq.

A good start – but they should just ban them

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101305.html
Democratic leaders declared a temporary moratorium on special-interest provisions known as earmarks as they attempt to cope with a budget crisis left by the outgoing Republican-led 109th Congress. . .

Weird. Stupid. And utterly irresponsible

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011510
[Jeff Greenfield] The senator was in New Hampshire over the weekend, sporting what's getting to be the classic Obama look. Call it business casual, a jacket, a collared shirt, but no tie.

It is a look the senator seems to favor. And why not? It is dressy enough to suggest seriousness of purpose, but without the stuffiness of a tie, much less a suit. There is a comfort level here that reflects one of Obama's strongest political assets, a sense that he is comfortable in his own skin, that he knows who he is. . .

But, in the case of Obama, he may be walking around with a sartorial time bomb. Ask yourself, is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. . .

Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the axis of evil, why, this could leave his presidential hopes hanging by a thread. Or is that threads?

More: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011511

It’s interesting to think of the role of DC pundits – the columnists, the talking heads, the chin-pullers. I’m sure they’re doing their best to understand what’s going on, and then to explain it to us. But you know. . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_10_atrios_archive.html#116585001210380141
[Atrios] [O]n every defining issue I can think of over the past decade or so the consensus view of elite pundits and the master narrative perpetuated by them has been utterly and completely wrong. Whitewater, the Lewinsky scandal, impeachment, the 2000 election, the 2000 post-election, the 2004 "mandate," Iraq, ... and those are just the big ones. And they just keep on writing. . . .

More: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2232.html#014776

No surprise here: James Dobson ALWAYS puts political considerations first

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/dec/11/dobson_to_stay_silent_on_romney_past_pro_gay_policies

Theocracy watch

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000883_pf.html
A military watchdog group is asking the Defense Department to investigate whether seven Army and Air Force officers violated regulations by appearing in uniform in a promotional video for an evangelical Christian organization.

In the video, much of which was filmed inside the Pentagon, four generals and three colonels praise the Christian Embassy, a group that evangelizes among military leaders, politicians and diplomats in Washington. Some of the officers describe their efforts to spread their faith within the military. . . .

The 10-minute video is on the group's Web site, Christianembassy.com. The organization was founded nearly 30 years ago by the late Bill Bright, who also founded Campus Crusade for Christ. The Christian Embassy Web site says the group holds prayer breakfasts each Wednesday in the Pentagon's executive dining room and organizes small groups to help military leaders "bridge the gap between faith and work."

Army Brig. Gen. Bob Casen refers in the video to the Christian Embassy's special efforts to reach admirals and generals through Flag Fellowship groups. Whenever he sees another fellowship member, he says, "I immediately feel like I am being held accountable, because we are the aroma of Jesus Christ."

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a watchdog group led by retired Air Force lawyer Michael L. "Mikey" Weinstein, is requesting an investigation in a letter to the Defense Department's inspector general.

Weinstein, a White House lawyer in the Reagan administration, cites Defense Department regulations barring personnel from appearing in uniform in "speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration . . . which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted." . . .

All the officers are identified in the video by their Defense Department positions, "yet the video failed to include any disclaimers indicating that the views expressed were not those of the Department of Defense," the letter says. . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/11/95817/496

Bonus item: Tom DeLay’s blog – shows the same regard for democracy and respectful, tolerant public discourse as everything else about this man’s nasty career

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/tom-delays-blog.html

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 8:39 AM

 
THANK YOU – NOW GO AWAY

Poor Iraq Study Group: scorned by the left and the right, ignored by the President they tried to serve

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/10/134345/73
[Matt Stoller] So I was watching Meet the Press this morning and Lee Hamilton and James Baker from the recently elected Iraq Study Group were on talking about their work. It was really quite stunning. First of all, it was clear that neither wants to touch the central problem of our relationship with Iraq, which is that we have a President who won't listen to anyone and so anything said by experts will necessarily be irrelevant. Russert asked them how to reconcile the fact that Bush says he won't talk to Iran until Iran promises not to enrich uranium, and how that can be reconciled with the report. Baker and Hamilton's response was that the nuclear issue with Iran is set aside and not covered by the report. Wahh? So a central tenet of their recommendations - that we should be talking to regional powers - is not actually covered by their report because it might make Bush uncomfortable?

Unfortunately, the same shoddy pathetic work is evident throughout the study. Many thinkers in the foreign policy elite are whispering that ethnic cleansing and genocide are in the cards no matter what we do, and Arab strategists are quite discouraged at the conclusions of the report. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/09/AR2006120900443.html
Steady condemnation from conservatives for the Iraq Study Group report may be providing some cover to the Bush administration as it completes its own review of strategy in Iraq, apparently with little enthusiasm for the panel's prescription of U.S. troop withdrawal and dialogue with Syria and Iran.

The criticism of the panel, co-chaired by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), has burst forth from the leading institutions of the right: the National Review, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Weekly Standard; conservative talk radio; and scholars at some of Washington's top think tanks.

President Bush has spoken favorably of the panel's work as an opportunity to bring the country together, but he has been noncommittal on its key recommendations. Comments from the hawkish right, meanwhile, have often been an accurate gauge of the beliefs of key figures inside the Bush administration, especially Vice President Cheney. . . [T]he almost uniformly negative reaction from some of Bush's strongest conservative supporters means the president may have some political flexibility to depart from the group's major recommendations . . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/world/middleeast/10prexy.html
Administration officials say their preliminary review of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group’s recommendations has concluded that many of its key proposals are impractical or unrealistic, and a small group inside the National Security Council is now racing to come up with alternatives to the panel’s ideas. . . .

In interviews over the last two days with officials from the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and foreign diplomats, President Bush and his top aides were described as deeply reluctant to follow the core strategy advocated by the study group: to pressure Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to rein in sectarian violence faced with reduced United States military and economic support.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has cautiously embraced that approach, several officials said, but others — including people in the National Security Council and the vice president’s office — argue that the risks are too high. . . .

But in interviews, senior administration officials, who would not be quoted by name because Mr. Bush has made no final decisions about how to deal with the Iraq panel’s recommendations, questioned the study group’s assertions that Iran had an interest in helping to stabilize the situation in Iraq, or that it made sense to start negotiations with Iran without conditions. And they took issue with the decision by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and the nine other members of the commission to make no mention of promoting democracy as an American goal in the Middle East, and to drop any suggestion that “victory” was still possible in Iraq when they presented their findings to Mr. Bush and to the public on Wednesday.

“You saw that the president used the word ‘victory’ again the next day,” said one of Mr. Bush’s aides. “Believe me, that was no accident.”

The administration’s inclination to dismiss so many of the major findings of the bipartisan group sets the stage for what could become a titanic struggle over Iraq policy. Just two months ago, administration officials were saying that they believed the findings by the panel headed by Mr. Baker and Lee H. Hamilton, a former congressman, would be all but written in stone — and that Mr. Bush would have little choice but to carry out most of them. But in recent weeks, the White House sought to describe the panel’s role as that of one advisory group among many. . . .

The administration’s strategy appears to be: Adopt parts of the recommendations that are under way already, or that are considered minor modifications of those efforts, and pick away at those that the administration believes imply retreat or folly. . . .

Dan Senor, a former administration spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, said that in conversations with administration officials, they had dismissed many of the report’s recommendations as “not terribly realistic from an operational standpoint.”

He said former colleagues had told him they felt comforted by the recognition that there were no good options, because despite all of the intellect brought to the endeavor, the members of the panel had failed to make the leap from strategy to implementation. “It’s easy to suggest these steps in theory, but we haven’t been able to figure out the how,” Mr. Senor said. “Now, neither have these 10 wise men and woman.” . . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16126924/site/newsweek/
The challenge for Bush's team was to make the president appear as though he were taking the release of the report seriously, without necessarily embracing its conclusions. In the days following the report's release, Bush the Decider transformed himself into Bush the Listener. . . . The Baker-Hamilton report may not change Bush's military or diplomatic strategy in Iraq. But the report has had one noticeable effect: it marks a point of no return in the way Bush talks about the war and deals with his critics. He may not always be as accommodating as he seemed to be last week. But from here on in, the president can no longer plausibly dismiss Democrats as wanting to "cut and run" or blame the media for overplaying the violence and ignoring the "good news" from Baghdad. The change in Bush's approach had its beginnings well before the Baker group put pen to paper. It came about in part because of a slow, careful effort by Bush's closest aides—under the direction of chief of staff Josh Bolten—to convince the president that he had to listen to different voices on Iraq, and ultimately change direction. The results of that effort will be unveiled next week, when Bush is expected to announce what he calls "The New Way Forward," his latest plan to salvage the mission in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000553.html
Former secretary of state James A. Baker III said for the first time yesterday that the Iraq Study Group remains committed to democracy in Iraq, as he and Co-Chairman Lee H. Hamilton offered conciliatory words to a Bush administration that has reacted coolly to the panel's key recommendations. . . .

The comments appeared part of an effort by Baker and Hamilton to use the Sunday talk shows to play down talk of rifts between the panel and the Bush administration, which is finishing its own review of strategy in Iraq. . . .

Commentary

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_10_atrios_archive.html#116578642838676495
[Atrios] When has anyone in the Bush administration said that "there were no good options." For quite some time "stay the course" was painted as a delightfully wonderful option which was unearthing huge quantities of ponies.

Second the priorities. What's important to the people in the Bush administration isn't actually finding the pony in Iraq, it's not being blamed for the disaster. Now if I were presiding over a catastrophic pony hunt which had killed thousands and thousands of people, and a bunch of "wise men and women" tapped me on the shoulder and said hey, kid, here's how you find the pony, I would be very pleased. I would be glad that maybe someone had helped me find a way to end the catastrophe.

Members of the Bush administration, however, would rather continue with the catastrophe than have to admit that maybe someone else has more of a clue. They are comforted by the fact that there's no way to find the pony, even though they, you know, started looking for the damn thing to begin with.

These are people with broken brains and souls. . .

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/principal-sin-of-baker-hamilton-report.html
[The Report] Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating events that have led to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support.

A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.

[Glenn Greenwald] That is all the Report has to say about the position that is favored overwhelmingly by Americans -- it offers nothing more than a brief, patronizing and irrational dismissal of that option ("irrational" because the argument in favor of leaving is that all of the harms which the Report claims will result if we leave -- even if true -- will be worse if we stay for a year or two more and then leave).

There is something profoundly undemocratic about what Establishment Washington is doing here. As always, they begin from the premise that their physical presence in Washington and their greater information about the inner workings of the Beltway bestow upon them not just greater information, but superior wisdom, elevated judgment (and the fact that they bear substantial responsibility for what has happened here doesn't seem to have diluted that abundant self-regard in the slightest). . . .[read on]

Plus, their book gets panned too

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-0612110132dec11,1,4121710.story
The Iraq Study Group Report" is one of the darkest and gloomiest public documents ever written. In part, that's because of its literary style. Rather than tiptoe around negative facts, the commission members make their points with the simplest of declarative sentences.

Of course, it's also because the report is an analysis of a bad situation that's getting worse. . . .

By contrast, "The 9/11 Commission Report" two years ago was an effort to tell the story of how and why the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington happened. It was structured as a narrative with dramatic drive and emphasis, by turns, poignant, chilling, fascinating and instructive. It read like a novel.

Like the 9/11 report, "The Iraq Study Group Report" was an instant best seller last week. . . How long the 142-page Iraq report stays on the best-seller lists, however, remains to be seen. It's not a page-turner . . .

The President of Iraq completely rejects the ISG report – but that doesn’t mean quite what you might think it means

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0612110212dec11,1,2056825.story
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on Sunday strongly rejected a U.S. bipartisan panel's report on U.S. war strategy in Iraq, calling some of its recommendations "dangerous" and a threat to his country's sovereignty.

"The report does not respect the will of the Iraqis . . .”

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011492
[Josh Marshall] But that impression is highly misleading if you don't know who Jalal Talabani, Iraq's nominal president really is.

Talabani is the head of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of the two dominant political 'parties' in Iraqi Kurdistan, the other being the rival Kurdistan Democratic Party. I put 'parties' in quotes not to signal derision but because they are not parties in the ordinary sense of the word but something more like para-states with their own highly trained and able militias.

The relevant point is that the Kurds -- very understandably -- have never been happy in Iraq. The Kurds played a key role in getting us to invade Iraq in 2003 and their militias coordinated with coalition forces in the North. They need us there to maintain their de facto independence within Iraq or allow them time to consolidate it. The whole tangled story of our ties to the Kurds is immensely complicated, historically and morally. But suffice it to say that it is no surprise that Kurdish political leaders won't like ISG report. And in this case, that's what Talabani is, a key Kurdish political leader. The fact that he is the nominal 'president' of Iraq is an artifact of the collapsing efforts at a government of national unity.

Where are Iraqi oil revenues going? Well, we know where they're NOT going

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/world/middleeast/11spend.html

Meanwhile, Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan are going to hell

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/distracted_much/

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/world/asia/11pakistan.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.tucker11dec11,0,4004835.story

The Joe Biden drinking game: take a shot every time he says we’re facing “one last shot” at success in Iraq (hint: it starts in 2003, and you’ll be plastered by 2005)

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_10_atrios_archive.html#116577382428941431

What a difference an election makes: the Pentagon now agrees to suspend its expansion of Guantanamo until, you know, the relevant congressional committees agree to fund it

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/12/gitmo.html
[Michael Froomkin] I would imagine someone had a quiet word and made a quiet threat?

We haven’t had much Abramoff news lately, but there’s clearly even more to come

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/16204273.htm
Last spring, as the fallout from disgraced super lobbyist Jack Abramoff's January guilty plea swirled through Washington, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development said the agency was unaware of any lobbying Abramoff had done there.

Now, though, e-mail and billing records turned over to a congressional committee by Greenberg Traurig, the Miami-based firm that employed Abramoff, say that Abramoff and others conducted a coordinated lobbying campaign at HUD in 2002-03 on behalf of Michigan's Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe.

The campaign involved lobbying contacts with at least three high-ranking HUD officials, including current HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, the records say. . .

Abramoff's team members boasted to colleagues about their influence at HUD . . .

The kind of people they are

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-congresswoman-castro,1,3872871.story
A congresswoman says a video clip showing her calling for Fidel Castro's assassination is fake, a charge denied Sunday by the film's director.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., appears in the 28-second clip made available on the Internet by the makers of a new British documentary, "638 Ways to Kill Castro."

In it, she says: "I welcome the opportunity of having anyone assassinate Fidel Castro and any leader who is oppressing the people."

However, the Havana-born lawmaker, recently tapped to become the top Republican on the House International Relations Committee, says the filmmakers spliced clips together to make the sound bite.

"It's twisted in a way that gives the viewer a totally wrong impression," Ros-Lehtinen told The Miami Herald. . . Still, she said it was possible she has, at some point, mentioned Castro's potential assassination.

"If someone were to do it, I wouldn't be crying," she said.

What should the Democrats do about William Jefferson (D-LA)? A debate

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011481.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011485

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011486

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011487

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/corruption_in_washington_/2006/12/the_jefferson_problem.php

Is Karl Rove on the outs?

http://politicalinsider.com/2006/12/rove_no_longer_believable.html
"In an amazing betrayal within a family where top political aide Rove is royalty, Bushies have been sneering at his pre-election happy talk that the gop would keep the Senate and take a slight hit in the House, both soon to be run by Democrats. And now we learn that President Bush really believed the GOP was safe, too. On the day before the elections, he asked embattled House gop leader Dennis Hastert to run for speaker again so he could guide the White House's agenda in Congress."

Bonus item: Tom DeLay, clearly threatened by the rising power of “Progressive Blog Digest,” starts his own blog -- “DeLay’s Daily”

http://politicalinsider.com/2006/12/the_daily_delay.html

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/washingtonwhispers/061210/a_second_act_in_cyberspace.htm
Sources said the right-leaning Texan will give gain members insider information on the conservative movement and urge them to step in on key issues. And Democrats need not apply: His site will have a way to filter them out. . . .

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:44 AM

 
TRUTH AND TRUTHINESS

Rapidly approaching 3000 Americans dead in Iraq. . . and for what?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/8/225311/741

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116568807368870609

A mass exodus from Iraq – who’s leaving?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_03.php#011476

From all reports, the interventions to persuade Bush that drastic changes are needed in Iraq have failed

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_03.php#011475
Senate Majority Leader-elect Harry Reid (D-NV), following Friday's Oval Office meeting with the President on Iraq: "I just didn't feel there today, the president in his words or his demeanor, that he is going to do anything right away to change things drastically. He is tepid in what he talks about doing. Someone has to get the message to this man that there have to be significant changes." . . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_03.php#011466
[US News] White House advisers say Bush won't react in detail to the ISG report for several weeks, while he assesses it and awaits various internal government reports on the situation from his own advisers. Bush tells aides he doesn't want to "outsource" his role as commander in chief. Some Bush allies say this is a way to buy some time as the president tries to decide how to deal with rising pressure to alter his strategy in Iraq and hopes the critical media focus on the Iraq war will soften. . . [read on]

More: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16198013.htm

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/12/08/bush_isg_shiites/

One thing’s for sure – the Republicans in Congress are not going to go through another election with 140,000 troops in Iraq. Bush may not have to face the people again, but they do

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/us/politics/10elect.html

No, I can’t feel sorry for them, not at all

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16115397/site/newsweek/from/RSS/
[Eleanor Clift] On the eve of a report that repudiates his son’s leadership, former president George H.W. Bush broke down crying when he recalled how his other son, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, lost an election a dozen years ago and then came back to serve two successful terms. The elder Bush has always been a softie, but this display of emotion was so over the top that it had to be about something other than Jeb’s long-ago loss.

The setting was a leadership summit Monday in Tallahassee, where the elder Bush had come to lecture and to pay homage to Jeb, who is leaving office with a 53 percent approval rating, putting him ninth among the 50 governors in popularity. The former president was reflecting on how well Jeb handled defeat in 1994 when he lost his composure. “He didn’t whine about it,” he said, putting a handkerchief to his face in an effort to stifle his sobbing.

That election turned out to be pivotal because it disrupted the plan Papa Bush had for his sons, which may be why he was crying, and why the country cries with him. The family’s grand design had the No. 2 son, Jeb, by far the brighter and more responsible, ascend to the presidency while George, the partying frat-boy type, settled for second best in Texas. The plan went awry when Jeb, contrary to conventional wisdom, lost in Florida, and George unexpectedly defeated Ann Richards in Texas. With the favored heir on the sidelines, the family calculus shifted. They’d go for the presidency with the son that won and not the one they wished had won.

The son who was wrongly launched has made such a mess of things that he has ruined the family franchise. Without getting too Oedipal, it’s fair to say that so many mistakes George W. Bush made are the result of his need to distinguish himself from his father and show that he’s smarter and tougher. His need to outdo his father and at the same time vindicate his father’s failure to get re-elected makes for a complicated stew of emotions. The irony is that the senior Bush, dismissed by Junior’s crowd as a country-club patrician, looks like a giant among presidents compared to his son . . . [read on!]

More: http://roziusunbound.blogspot.com/2006/12/maureen-dowd-oval-intervention.html

The Pentagon’s recommendations will also contradict the ISG’s

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=2712135

Neo-cons trash the ISG report

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/neoconservatives-exposed-scorned-but.html

The kind of man he is: Conrad Burns (R-MT), thinks the accusation of racism is something to joke about

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_03.php#011472

Mark Foley not likely to be prosecuted

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/abc_exclusive_n.html

Blame all around: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/09/foley.emanuel/index.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/did-rahm-emanuel-lie-about-his.html

Here’s a problem the Dems are going to have to deal with: scandal-plagued William Jefferson (D-LA) wins re-election

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/09/AR2006120900601.html

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_10.php#011481

It’s scary what Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), new chair of the intelligence committee, doesn’t know

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9297.html
[Jeff Stein] Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?

‘”Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?”

“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.

“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.

He couldn’t have been more wrong. . .

Asked later about Hezbollah, Reyes said, “Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah… Well, I, uh….”

He’s not the only one: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116571624553022015

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010363.php

Theocracy watch: people react to this as if it’s a surprise – but it’s been the explicit Bush policy from the start

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/business/10faith.html
Life was different in Unit E at the state prison outside Newton, Iowa. . . The toilets and sinks — white porcelain ones, like at home — were in a separate bathroom with partitions for privacy. In many Iowa prisons, metal toilet-and-sink combinations squat beside the bunks, to be used without privacy, a few feet from cellmates.

The cells in Unit E had real wooden doors and doorknobs, with locks. More books and computers were available, and inmates were kept busy with classes, chores, music practice and discussions. There were occasional movies and events with live bands and real-world food, like pizza or sandwiches from Subway. Best of all, there were opportunities to see loved ones in an environment quieter and more intimate than the typical visiting rooms.

But the only way an inmate could qualify for this kinder mutation of prison life was to enter an intensely religious rehabilitation program and satisfy the evangelical Christians running it that he was making acceptable spiritual progress. . . .

For Robert W. Pratt, chief judge of the federal courts in the Southern District of Iowa, this all added up to an unconstitutional use of taxpayer money for religious indoctrination, as he ruled in June in a lawsuit challenging the arrangement. . .

The right-wing 9-11 film that ABC edited before running on TV because of outrage over its inaccuracies? Guess which version they’re distributing on video?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/disneyabc-showing-unedited-defamatory.html

Sunday talk show line-ups

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/09/AR2006120900944.html
FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Iraq Study Group leaders James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton.

THIS WEEK (ABC): British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.).

NEWSMAKERS (C-SPAN).: Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.).

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Baker and Hamilton and Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.).

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Baker and Hamilton; Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass; Johns Hopkins University professor Eliot Cohen; and Kenneth L. Adelman, former director of U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

LATE EDITION (CNN): Baker and Hamilton; Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.); Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq; and Israeli Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres.

Bonus item: Don’t miss this – I can’t build a direct link, but go to CNN and search for “Bush's contagious catch phrase”

http://www.cnn.com/video/

Extra bonus item: The word of the year

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/09/word.year.ap/index.html
“truthiness”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
[Stephen Colbert] I will speak to you in plain, simple English. And that brings us to tonight's word: 'truthiness.' Now I'm sure some of the 'word police,' the 'wordinistas' over at Webster's are gonna say, 'hey, that's not a word.' Well, anyone who knows me knows I'm no fan of dictionaries or reference books.

I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. 'Cause face it, folks; we are a divided nation. Not between Democrats and Republicans, or conservatives and liberals, or tops and bottoms. No, we are divided between those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart. . .

It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the President because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?...

Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality.

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9296.html

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 7:53 AM

 
PASSIVE VOICE

“In all, a pattern of conduct was exhibited among many individuals to remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences of former Representative Foley’s conduct with respect to House pages.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/washington/09foley.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_go_co/congress_ethics
Former Rep. Mark Foley was described as a "ticking time bomb" for his sexual come-ons to male pages, but Republican lawmakers and aides for a decade failed to protect the teenagers vulnerable to his advances, the House ethics committee concluded Friday. Despite that finding, the panel said no rules had been broken . . .

Active voice: what they did (and didn't) do

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_go_co/congress_ethics
The committee harshly criticized Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., saying the evidence showed he was told of the problem months before he acknowledged learning of Foley's questionable e-mails to a former Louisiana page. It rejected Hastert's contention that he couldn't recall separate warnings from two House Republican leaders.

Hastert said he was pleased the committee found "there was no violation of any House rules by any member or staff."

[NB: “pleased”?]

He added that no evidence was uncovered that salacious instant messages from Foley — which surfaced after the scandal became public — were known to any House member or employee before that time.

But the committee concluded that Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, was told about Foley's inappropriate conduct in 2002 or 2003 — a finding based on testimony from Foley's former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham.

Palmer said he didn't recall the warning, although Fordham even described the room where they met. . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002107.php
The panel finds that Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) all but abandoned his responsibilities as chairman of the House Page Board. "Rep. Shimkus should have demanded copies of all relevant e-mails or other documents," the report states. "[A]t a minimum Rep. Shimkus had an obligation to learn more facts regarding the e-mails [between Foley and a page] before concluding that he could handle the matter himself without informing the other members of the Page Board or seeking their input."

They also pull up just short of accusing House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) of conspiring to obstruct justice, when he tried to rope other GOPers with conflicting stories into meeting with him to "prepare a statement." To the panel, that smacked of an attempt to coordinate a plausible lie:

[T]he efforts by the Speaker's office to prepare a statement under the direction of counsel could have had the additional effect of inhibiting the Investigative Subcommittee's ability to secure evidence. . . This effect was compounded by the appearance of [lawyer Randy] Evans and a law partner as counsel for the Speaker, Stokke and Kennedy during their testimony before the Subcommittee.

Some may recall that Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) refused to attend the meeting. But that doesn't keep him clear of suspicion. He only did that on advice of his counsel -- the aforementioned Randy Evans, who had the thankless (though likely profitable) job of keeping all the men out of trouble. . .

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/12/08/shimkus/index.html
House Page Board chairman John Shimkus on why he didn't tell Page Board member Dale Kildee about the inappropriate e-mail messages Mark Foley sent to a former page: "Dale's a nice guy, but he's a Democrat . . .”

[NB: But don’t call it a cover-up!]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002106.php
Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), who comes out looking very, very bad.

A former House page told the committee that he sent Kolbe, to his personal email account, a copy of an instant message he received from Foley in 2001 in which Foley had "made reference to the page's penis size."

When the committee asked Kolbe about this, he said he couldn't recall whether the page had contacted him or his assistant or whether it was by phone or email. What's more, he said he never knew the specifics of the young man's allegation against Foley, and "did not attempt to speculate."

As if that isn't bad enough, Kolbe appears to have tried to keep the kid quiet when the scandal broke: the former page also told the committee that he'd called Kolbe after the Foley story broke this September and asked for advice. He says Kolbe replied that "it is best that you don't even bring this up with anybody.... There is no good that can come from it if you actually talk about this. The man has resigned anyway."

Kolbe's side of the story? He told the committee that "the page had already decided that he was not going to report the IM, and the he merely responded, 'That's your decision.'"

But The Washington Post caught wind of the page's story anyway. And soon after being contacted by a Post reporter about it, Kolbe called the page and left a message: "It looks like you did some talking." . . .

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/12/08/jim_kolbe/index.html
Arizona Rep. Jim Kolbe, the retiring Republican, has some serious explaining to do . . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002108.php
It sounds from the report that Ted Van Der Meid, Speaker Dennis Hastert's counsel, had his own problems with being too close with the House pages. . .

Conclusion: http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=183
[CREW] Earlier today, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct released its conclusion that no member of Congress or congressional staff member broke any House rule by failing to take action upon learning that former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) was making improper advances against House pages.

In fact, Rule XXIII of the House Ethics Manual requires all members of the House to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House.” This ethics standard is considered to be “the most comprehensive provision of the code.” . . .

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, stated today, “The fact that when faced with such egregious facts, the ethics committee did not find that so much as a single person acted in a manner that does not reflect creditably on the House just goes to show how utterly ineffectual the ethics committee is.” Sloan continued, “This report is proof positive that the ethics committee is incapable of handling allegations of wrongdoing. To restore the public’s confidence in the congressional ethics process, the new Congress should immediately move to create an Office of Public Integrity to handle complaints against members of Congress.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120800614.html
Republican lawmakers and aides left male pages vulnerable to Rep. Mark Foley's improper sexual advances even though the first concerns surfaced more than a decade ago . . .

The full report: http://www.house.gov/ethics/Page_Report_Cover.htm

Here’s the best line of all

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120800614.html
Speculating on the reason for their reluctance to act, the committee said: "Some may have been concerned that raising the issue too aggressively might have risked exposing Rep. Foley's homosexuality . . .”

[NB: Yeah, right. They would have been quite willing to expose his pedophilia, his abuse of office, and his possibly illegal conduct. But they wanted to protect him from people finding out he was gay – because, you know, the Republicans are just such a gay-tolerant party:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/politics/09romney.html
Gov. Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Republican who has built a presidential campaign on a broad appeal for conservative support, is drawing sharply increased criticism from conservative activists for his advocacy of gay rights in a 1994 letter.

Mr. Romney’s standing among conservatives is being hurt by a letter he sent to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts saying that he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Senator Edward M. Kennedy, his opponent in a Senate race, in a position that stands in contrast to his current role as a champion of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

“We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” Mr. Romney wrote in a detailed plea for the support of the club, a gay Republican organization.

The circulation of the letter by gay rights groups in recent weeks has set off a storm of outrage among social conservatives, and by Friday was looming as a serious complication to Mr. Romney’s hopes. . . .

More: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/im-still-laughing-at-how-bad-week.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/house-ethics-committee-gay-baits-says.html
[John Aravosis] [T]he House Ethics Committee was determined to find a legitimate reason the Republicans did nothing to help these poor kids, and they found it - blame the gays, or rather, blame the incredible pro-gay bias that is endemic in the conservative House Republican caucus. Give me a . . . break]

We’re clearly in a transition period now where serious people of good will are struggling with the mess the Bush gang has made in Iraq and trying to come up with a way of proceeding. Disagreements aside, the key words there are “serious people of good will.” Fearing a catastrophe in the making (correctly so), too many commentators and politicians are trying first and foremost to avoid being tagged with any responsibility for what may come next

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/moral_seriousness/
[Matthew Yglesias] To dust off an old term, I think we need to have a conversation about "moral seriousness" here. This passion for nitpicking and meta-commentary is a serious abdication. If you're going to spend your time writing about Iraq, you have some responsibility to form a view on the central Iraq-related question: The wisdom of continuing the war. If we should stay, then, fine, complain about the rhetoric of withdrawal advocates. But if we need to leave not only do we need to leave, but people who think we need to leave need to say we need to leave.

See? How hard is that?

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003494677
As the national debate over Iraq, in the media and in Washington, continues in the wake of the Iraq Study Group report, a Republican U.S. Senator from Oregon has joined the fray in an unexpected way.

In a major speech in Congress on Thursday night, Sen. Gordon Smith called the current U.S. war effort "absurd," perhaps even "criminal" and called for rapid pullouts. He added that he would have never voted for the conflict if he had reason to believe the intelligence the president gave the American people was inaccurate.

Citing the hundreds of billions of dollars spent and 2900 Americans deaths -- and saying he needed to "speak from the heart" -- Smith said, "I for one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. . ."

Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a Republican defeated in November, cited Smith's speech in suggesting that support for the war is crumbling. Smith's statement "is political dynamite," Chafee asserted.

Smith had said the U.S. military's "tactics have failed" and he "cannot support that anymore....We have paid a price in blood and treasure that is beyond calculation" for a war waged due to bad intelligence....

"I, for one, am tired of paying the price of 10 or more of our troops dying a day. So let's cut and run or cut and walk, but let us fight the war on terror more intelligently that we have because we have fought this war in a very lamentable way."

[NB: Of course, it is also true that Smith has a re-election fight coming up in 2008 -- http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/8/201252/193]

It’s as if the ISG report never happened: the Bush gang has its own set of options for dealing with Iraq – all bad ones, it appears

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120801823.html
The major alternatives include a short-term surge of 15,000 to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to secure Baghdad and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces. Another strategy would redirect the U.S. military away from the internal strife to focus mainly on hunting terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda. And the third would concentrate political attention on supporting the majority Shiites and abandon U.S. efforts to reach out to Sunni insurgents.

As President Bush and his advisers rush to complete their crash review and craft a new formula in the next two weeks, some close to the process said the major goal seems to be to stake out alternatives to the plan presented this week by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The White House denied trying to brush off the study group's report and said those recommendations are being considered alongside internal reviews. . . .

Sources familiar with the deliberations describe fatigue, frustration and a growing desire to disengage from Iraq.

http://www.slate.com/id/2155232
[Joshua Kucera] The three options bear little resemblance to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. . .

Not surprisingly, the worst of the three plans, the so-called “80 percent option” that tilts toward the Shia and leaves the Sunnis to rot in hell, is the one favored by Cheney’s wing

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005298.html

People ought to be very worried now that our policy in Iraq – why we got in, whether to get out, who’s seen as a wimp – is inextricably wrapped up with the convoluted father/son rivalry that exists between Bush 41 and Bush 43. The involvement of Baker, Gates, and others just complicates that further

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20061208/ts_usnews/bushreactiontoreportworriesfathersaides
Former White House advisers to George H.W. Bush are keenly disappointed and concerned about the current President Bush's initial reaction to the report by the Iraq Study Group.

They consider him rather dismissive of the group's conclusions, issued yesterday, which include the view that current Iraq policy is failing. . .

Adding to the unease were President Bush's comments at his Thursday news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in which he avoided commenting on specifics in the ISG report.

"We have a classic case of circling the wagons," says a former adviser to Bush the elder. "If President Bush changes his policy in Iraq in a fundamental way, it undermines the whole premise of his presidency. I just don't believe he will ever do that." . . .

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/12/05/BL2006120500720.html
[Dan Froomkin] Even as Washington's punditocracy relishes the storyline of the elder-statesman father riding to the hapless son's rescue, President Bush insisted yesterday that he doesn't talk shop with his dad -- and certainly doesn't ask for his advice. . .

The kind of man he is

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/8/20509/2631
Q When I was talking with a radio talk show host this morning, it was said to me that it was inappropriate of the President yesterday to laugh after he said that it was bad in Iraq. Could you speak to that please? . . .

MR. SNOW: I see. The BBC question, I think, was in fact -- he was parsing and bantering a bit with the President.

Q The bantering hadn't happened at that point.

MR. SNOW: No, I think if you go back and look at it...

[BarbinMD] So, let's go back and look at it:

Q Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as grave and deteriorating. You said that the increase in attacks is unsettling. That won't convince many people that you're still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq, and question your sincerity about changing course.

PRESIDENT BUSH: It's bad in Iraq. Does that help? (laughter)

More: http://www.first-draft.com//modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7972

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010362.php
[Kevin Drum] George Bush met with some Democratic leaders on Friday to review the recommendations of the ISG report and discuss the way forward in Iraq. However, they report back that he wasn't too interested in talking about this:

[McClatchy] Instead, Bush began his talk by comparing himself to President Harry S Truman, who launched the Truman Doctrine to fight communism, got bogged down in the Korean War and left office unpopular.

Bush said that "in years to come they realized he was right and then his doctrine became the standard for America," recalled Senate Majority Whip-elect Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "He's trying to position himself in history and to justify those who continue to stand by him, saying sometimes if you're right you're unpopular, and be prepared for criticism."

Durbin said he challenged Bush's analogy, reminding him that Truman had the NATO alliance behind him and negotiated with his enemies at the United Nations. Durbin said that's what the Iraq Study Group is recommending that Bush do now — work more with allies and negotiate with adversaries on Iraq.

Bush, Durbin said, "reacted very strongly. He got very animated in his response" and emphasized that he is "the commander in chief."

Bush approval at all time low – and in danger of collapsing into the 20’s

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1217
30% approval

More: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/08/america/NA_GEN_US_Iraq_AP_Poll.php
[J]ust 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, down from his previous low of 31 percent in November. . .

Goodbye Donald – but don’t go away, we aren’t quite done with you yet

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/12/8/11560/3313
[Jeralyn Merritt] Today, in federal court, the ACLU and Human Rights First argued its case that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should be held accountable for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody. . .

More: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DETAINEE_ABUSE

It really is all about the oil (part 941) – Buzzflash catches the key section toward the end of this article

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/world/middleeast/09oil.html
Iraqi officials are near agreement on a national oil law . . . The working draft of the oil law re-establishes the state-run Iraq National Oil Company, which was founded in 1964 to oversee oil production but was shut down by Mr. Hussein in 1987. The company would operate using a business model and not through a government budget process. Iraqi and American officials say that would make management of oil production more efficient and separate it from the Oil Ministry, which has been rife with corruption.

Yes, it really is: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/business/09royalty.html
House Democratic leaders vowed Friday to pursue a broad overhaul of tax breaks and other subsidies to oil companies in January, saying that their first target would be an investigation of how the government collects billions of dollars in royalties on oil and gas produced on federal property.

“The Interior Department has a background of mismanagement, to put it mildly, in the collection of these royalties,” said Representative Nick J. Rahall II of West Virginia, a Democrat who will become chairman of the House Resources Committee next year. . .

What a loser. George “Macaca” Allen (R-VA) attributes his campaign loss to “distractions”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120801617.html
"You have these cheap shots coming at you, but you still need to move forward," Allen said yesterday . . .

Farewell to the 109th Congress (and don’t let the door hit you on the way out)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/8/115452/733
[BarbinMD] As we look forward to the Democrats taking control of both houses of Congress in January, let's take a moment to say goodbye to the 109th Congress. On this, their last day in power, let's look at some of their accomplishments:

*crickets*

Okay, so what were they doing? Just off the top of my head:

Well, among the Party of honesty, personal responsibility and family values, Tom DeLay was resigning, Randy "Duke" Cunningham was heading to jail, while Mark Foley checked into rehab.

They saved us from our bad habits by passing the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act," and decided to build a 700 mile fence to secure a 1200+ mile border.

And in their boldest move, they decided to spit on the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and human decency when they tossed out the concept of habeas corpus and made torture the official policy of the United States. Trashing more than 200 years of tradition and law...and people call them the do-nothing Congress.

And how do the Republicans explain their historic level of inaction? You’ll never guess

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9282.html
[Steve Benen] House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) compared the GOP’s behavior on the Hill to the Bush administration’s management of the war. “The war in Iraq and the Republicans in Congress are in disarray,” Pelosi said. “They are going to leave a mess as they go out.”

Given their rather humiliating record, Republicans probably should have just let this one go, but they couldn’t help themselves.

“House Democrats have spent every waking moment of the past Congress obstructing any effort towards progress,” said Kevin Madden, spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. “. . . “And now in the last few days of this Congress where they have a chance to help make progress, they decide instead to abdicate their responsibilities and play the blame game. Just goes to show they’re a party of zero ideas and zero action.”

This may be the perfect ending for the last day of 12 years of Republican rule of Congress — a nonsensical, buck-passing response rationalizing failure. . .

They had everything they wanted — majorities of every branch of government, with powerless Dems left on the sidelines to watch — and they still couldn’t govern. Asked for explanation, the House’s top Republican spin doctor says it’s the Dems fault … and then says Dems shouldn’t play the “blame game.”

Moreover, let’s not forget that these same clowns have not only failed in their responsibilities, they’re intentionally gumming up the works so Congress will have trouble next year. . . They’re truly pathetic.

Just say “no”?

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/12/post_2225.html
[Ann Friedman] Backers of abstinence-only education are starting to worry that their funding will be cut off when Democrats assume control of Congress. A Christian news service reports that a "Republican source" says "the staff of liberal Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman is in the process of rewriting the set of definitions of what is considered an abstinence program."

Sweet! Could this mean they'll push to start funding comprehensive sex education, which discusses abstinence but also teaches students about contraception? At the very least, they could impose greater restrictions on programs that receive abstinence-only money, ensuring that the curricula are free of medically inaccurate information, religious themes and gender stereotypes. Since 1996, abstinence-only has been the official sex-ed policy of the U.S. government. . . .

Bonus item: If this is a joke, it’s a pretty bad joke (thanks to Susan Madrak for the link)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120601903.html
[Dana Milbank] Minutes after the Iraq Study Group placed an improvised explosive device beneath the Bush administration's Iraq policy yesterday, panel member Lawrence Eagleburger was asked how President Bush reacted to the recommendations.

"His reaction was, 'Where's my drink?' " the former secretary of state cracked after the commission's White House visit and Capitol Hill news conference. Reaching for his own cola, Eagleburger continued: "He was a little loaded. It was early in the morning, too, you know.”

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
- posted by Nick Burbules @ 6:15 AM

 
MIXED SIGNALS

Good news

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/12/not_what_the_american_or_iraqi.html
[William Arkin] For all the hype, the Iraq Study Group offers two fundamental recommendations that the president might even be able to implement: The group calls for the United States to engage Iraq's neighbors, specifically Iran and Syria. The group recommends a shift in U.S. military force posture and approach from "combat" to training and advice to Iraqi forces. . .

Bad news: these are precisely the recommendations Bush has already rejected

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/world/middleeast/08prexycnd.html
President Bush moved quickly on Thursday to distance himself from the central recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group: pulling back all combat brigades over the next 15 months and direct talks with Iran and Syria.

ISG committee chairs say their report is NOT a pick-and-choose grab bag (as I called it here yesterday). But Bush clearly thinks it is

http://www.slate.com/id/2155153
"I don't think Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton expect us to accept every recommendation," Bush said . . .

[NB: Yes, they do]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120700878.html
The chairmen of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group today urged President Bush to follow their full slate of recommendations . . . Baker told the committee that the group's report was not a "fruit salad" whose recommendations could easily be sorted. . .

Nevertheless, here’s a handy list of what Bush is and isn’t likely to implement from the report’s recommendations

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010354.php

More and more I see the word “intervention” to describe meetings with (recovering alcoholic) Bush to get him to stop his denial, face the reality of his problem, and accept the need for a new direction. Will he listen? Can he?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/unprecedented-effort-to-penetrate.html
[Joe] Yesterday, AJ provided his usually sharp, insightful analysis of the policy behind the Iraq Study Group report. What fascinated me was the political theater that unfolded this week. For awhile now, we've been saying Bush needs an intervention. This week, we watched some of the most influential forces in America attempt that intervention. . .

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-06-iraq-report-cover_x.htm
The commission report represented a classic intervention by Washington graybeards, dispatched to deliver unwelcome advice to presidents in peril. During Watergate, Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater led a trio of senior Republican senators to the White House to tell President Nixon he had to resign. In 1987, retired Tennessee senator Howard Baker was drafted by party elders to step in as President Reagan's chief of staff when the president was entangled in the Iran-contra scandal. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_03.php#011385
Andrew Sullivan said the 2006 midterm was shaping up not so much as an election as a collective national intervention. . .

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/477990p-402057c.html
President Bush and some of the most vocal Capitol Hill backers of the Iraq war from both parties gathered yesterday for what an insider described as a group therapy session.

"Or maybe it was more like an intervention," said the source, reconsidering the description. "And the President was grateful and welcoming."

Bush met with a grim-looking gaggle of 14 lawmakers and several White House staffers hours after the Iraq Study Group issued its report urging the President to order an about-face on his Iraq strategy.

"It means a lot to me, and I think it means a lot to the American people, to recognize that there are people in this town who are concerned more about the security of this country than they are about the security of their own political positions," Bush said, according to the insider. . . .

A sourpussed Vice President Cheney and political guru Karl Rove were among the top administration officials who looked on . . .

In denial? You decide

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061207/dcth055.html
Q Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as grave and deteriorating. You said that the increase in attacks is unsettling. That won't convince many people that you're still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq, and question your sincerity about changing course.

PRESIDENT BUSH: It's bad in Iraq. Does that help? (Laughter.)

Q Why did it take others to say it before you've been willing to acknowledge for the world --

PRESIDENT BUSH: In all due respect, I've been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is. And I've been telling the American people how tough it is. And they know how tough it is. . . Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die. I understand there's sectarian violence. I also understand that we're hunting down al Qaeda on a regular basis and we're bringing them to justice. I understand how hard our troops are working. . . . I understand. And I have made it abundantly clear how tough it is. . .

So, no, I appreciate your question. As you can tell, I feel strongly about making sure you understand that I understand it's tough. But I want you to know, sir, that I believe we'll prevail. I know we have to adjust to prevail, but I wouldn't have our troops in harm's way if I didn't believe that, one, it was important, and, two, we'll succeed. Thank you. . .

More denial: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/unprecedented-effort-to-penetrate.html

Bush continues to depict the war in Iraq as a fight with Al Qaeda. Have his advisors been telling him this? Is he stupid? Or is he lying? Either way, Al Qaeda has very little to do with what’s going on in Iraq right now

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9276.html

A fascinating little glimpse into the ISG’s workings

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010349.php

“Progress, of a sort”

http://sideshow.me.uk/sdec06.htm#12071730
[Avedon Carol] I haven't said much about the Iraq Study Group report because it didn't strike me as having much potential, and I don't seem to have been wrong. Admittedly, it shifts the discourse from "Iraq is wonderful and we should stay the course" to "Iraq is a mess and we must stay the course." I suppose that's progress, of a sort. . . .

Looking more closely at the ISG recommendations

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/the_isgs_raj/
[Matthew Yglesias] The headline call to withdraw all-or-most US combat brigades from Iraq by 2008 is actually pretty misleading. This is supposed to be combined with embedding something like 20,000 American soldiers directly inside the Iraqi Army. We're also supposed to go forward with the plan to build this giant embassy with thousands of people working in it. They also want us to increase the quasi-civilian presence in Iraq by sending FBI, DOJ, and other people to build up Iraqi law enforcement capabilities. And to increase the level of intelligence assets in Iraq. What's more, special operations forces, air power, etc. are all supposed to remain available, though perhaps based just over the border.

The upshot of this if you could really pull it off would be to create something akin to the British Indian Army, where the United States would have effective control over the institutions of the Iraqi state. America's embedded officers -- down to the company level -- would be in de facto command of a large body of Iraqi cannon fodder, with US civilians similarly embedded throughout many of Iraq's civilian agencies. Whatever you think of this idea (and I don't think much of it) the government of Iran certainly isn't going to think much of it. . . .

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/12/not_what_the_american_or_iraqi.html
[Wiliam Arkin] In the short term, the study group recommends an unclear and contradictory course for the American military. The call for the withdrawal of the U.S. "combat" troops is so qualified and hedged, I'm not sure that the headlines -- that the study group is calling for the removal of all combat brigades by early 2008 -- is even true. On the one hand, the group recommends that the independent conventional forces be removed. On the other, it calls for a significant force to stay, including special operations forces.

What the group is fundamentally proposing though is that the core of the U.S. military effort switches from independent combat to a combined U.S.-Iraqi effort.The number of U.S. personnel in uniform embedded in Iraqi units would increase significantly under this proposal.

Here’s a fundamental question no one is asking out loud

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_12_03.php#011449