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.***

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.***

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.***

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.***

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.***