Feingold questions Petraeus

Can we clone Senator Feingold - please?

Indiana will take two. Thank you.



UPDATE: I just found out that two of the seven soldiers who authored this New York Times op-ed "The War as We Saw It" died yesterday in a vehicle accident in Iraq. One of them, Sgt. Mora, was due to return home in November.

Several Senators, including Senator Chuck Hagel, spoke highly of the op-ed and the soldiers who wrote it during the hearings - asking who the Senate should be expected to believe, the soldiers who fought in Iraq, or Petraeus?

Meanwhile, Petraeus never mentioned that two of them had just died, the previous day.

He obviously knew about the accident... he mentions it at the end of this YouTube video.

Did he know that two of the op-ed writers died in that accident? Their obituaries had already run in their hometown newspapers (Staff Sergeant Yance Gray, Sergeant Omar Mora) by the time of the hearings. Their names were out - to the general public. How could Petraeus not know?

And imagine the embarrassment had this come out in the hearings...

The Pentagon doesn't have a very good track record of letting on that they know information that will be damaging to their case (Tillman, Lynch.) And because of this past behavior, I no longer give them the benefit of the doubt.

Petraeus will most likely have known their names IF their names were on that op-ed writers' list, because someone from below would have freaked and sent the news up through the ranks. The Pentagon PR people were undoubtedly going crazy.

Or... perhaps not. Perhaps Petraeus 'wouldn't recall' their names anyway. Perhaps such a high ranking general wouldn't care about individual names. Which is worse - that he knew and didn't say, or that he didn't know because nobody cared?

I just hope he was squirming like hell when the Senators were talking about these guys. If two out of seven guys who write an op-ed can't even get home alive... yeah, surge is going just great. Hopefully the rest will make it out of, as Senator Hagel puts it, that 'meat-grinder.'

Olbermann lays waste to Bush and Iraq policy

NY Times Editorial: "Just what the Founders Feared"

In an excellent editorial in the New York Times, Adam Cohen lays out my favorite argument for impeachment: the unitary, 'monarchical' presidency and the dangers it poses to our democracy:

"Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called “the foetus of monarchy.”

The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe’s history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”

And as James Madison himself once warned, war is the obvious tool for any president intent on gaining excessive powers that would never be allowed in peacetime:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. - James Madison

We have certainly noticed how Mr Bush uses 'the war', 'national security' and 'executive privilege' as excuses for obstructing any congressional oversight. If there were no war, he would have no basis at all for any of these claims... and even with the war, his basis is extremely weak.

Cohen goes on to remind us that:

When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.

The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.

The biggest power invested in Congress, is the power to cut off funding for a war that is not in the best interests of the nation. This is one of the gravest, most critical roles of Congress in wartime. And one that Congress absolutely must uphold:

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress’s control over spending as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

The framers expected Congress to keep the president on an especially short leash on military matters. The Constitution authorizes Congress to appropriate money for an army, but prohibits appropriations for longer than two years. Hamilton explained that the limitation prevented Congress from vesting “in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.”

The Tillman case is but one example: how on earth can Bush claim 'executive privilege' for failing to disclose information about the death of former Cardinals football player Pat Tillman by friendly fire? Will this information somehow 'embolden' an already emboldened enemy?

Please.

Abuse of power is abuse of power. Attacks on the Constitution are not to be allowed, if we are to remain a free people living in a free democracy.

If we cannot end this war, then we must reign in this executive branch that continues to promote this war for it's own self interest. If the war continues unabated... if Congress refuses to use the 'power of the purse,' we stand to lose not just our army, our 'treasure,' and our status in the world -- but likely our democracy as well.

Our founders predicted this. The knew all of this from firsthand experience with a tyrannical monarch, and they wrote everything down as a warning for future generations, and built our Constitution around it. Alas, if only we would look back to our very own history for guidance. It's all there: in their words, and in our laws.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. - James Madison

The Daily Show: C-Span After Dark

Jon Stewart can make anything funny: even tedious, all night GOP BS vote obstructions!

C-Span After Dark



Political Theater



Red Aye

Undersecretary of Defense attacks Hillary Clinton

Former Cheney aid and now Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman told Hillary Clinton that her questions about how the US plans to withdraw from Iraq 'boost enemy propaganda.'

Interesting. Do you suppose that this is how Bush plans to use his new executive order? I couldn't figure it out at all, but maybe he's just trying to get his fingers on Hillary's war chest!

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda....

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," [Undersecretary of Defense Eric] Edelman wrote.

He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman's answer "at once outrageous and dangerous," and said the senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

We live in interesting times. Perhaps a little too interesting.

New executive order: What the hell does this mean?

Bush released a new executive order yesterday. Frankly, I can't make heads or tails of it. I do know that it appears to be much more complex than the Stamp Act. My guess is that our nation's founders would have found it somewhat 'troubling' at best. But I'm just guessing, because frankly... I can't make heads or tails of it.

It is called "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq."

To quote a few of the inscrutable details:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported,

withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the

receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Again: what does this mean? Did Yoo write this? Or Gonzales? Who on earth, in this country, is aiding the enemy in Iraq? This is weirdness. Translator, please?

Senate yaps all night; the war drags on

The Senate debated the Iraq war all night. Imagine... staying up all night over a little thing like an illegal war that has already dragged on 4 years. But yes, they actually did it. I watched. (OK, I left when Lieberman wouldn't stop lying - it was either that or vomit on the couch.)

A few hours ago, a thousand people gathered outside the Capitol in Washington, D.C. for a candle lite vigil. They were joined by a number of House and Senate Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Iraq war veteran Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), and Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Patty Murray (D-WA) all made speeches.

The war drags on.

I'm not blaming the Democrats this time. They stood up. They should have done this the minute they took the majority. The Senate should stay in that chamber and debate the war for WEEKS if that is what it takes to wear down this GOP lockstep. I'm sure it beats being shot at in 104 degree heat, in the blasted streets of Baghdad.

As for the Republicans... you actually have the temerity to filibuster a serious attempt to end this war? What are you thinking? Have you seen the polls lately? I don't think even Diebold can save you now. Get the hell out of the way!

We've had it. We've had it with this illegal war, the destruction of Iraq at our hands, the blood on our hands, the destruction of our army and the kids who's lives will be forever scarred, the money looted from our community coffers, the billions made by Halliburton and other war profiteers... END IT.

Bush will never withdraw as long as there is a buck to be made in that country. If you can't end this war... end his presidency. That will end the war. God knows, you might even rescue the Constitution and our Federal government in the process.

What part of 'illegal' don't you understand? As crowded as our jails are with 'average Americans,' I'm sure we can find room for a few 'high brow' white collar criminals.

Breaking: CNN actually reports news!

I just found this CNN AM QuickNews email alert in my inbasket.

Could it be?

~~~~~~~~~~~
TOP STORIES
~~~~~~~~~~~

IRAQI PRIME MINISTER SAYS U.S. TROOPS CAN GO 'ANYTIME THEY WANT'

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "anytime they want."

I thought we were fighting them over there because... because...

This morning's newsflash from CNN:

BE AFRAID! (OK, that's not quite it... although close.)

"Al Qaeda is the strongest it has been since the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a new U.S. government analysis concludes, according to a senior government official who has seen it."

Well gee, that's just ducky. (And nice use of government propaganda, CNN! You really are competing with Fox for top propaganda honors, aren't you? A 'senior government official who has seen it?' Please.)

So apparently all of this 'war in Iraq' business has done nothing at all to make us safer; but has in fact looted our coffers and destroyed our military for... nothing at all?

They're going to fight us over here anywhere? Terrific.

It seems Al Qaeda is thriving! And with GOPers like Rick Santorum blabbing on about how a little domestic terrorism will somehow wake us all up (and make us appreciate our war,) I have to ask the good gentleman Santorum... wake us up from what, exactly? We're not exactly asleep out here. We're waiting for you guys to do something about Bin Laden. We're wondering if and when you ever plan to actually go after that growing safe-nest of Al Qaeda operatives and apparently training camps headquartered in Pakistan.

So? Well? What -- no oil interests in Pakistan?

Santorum, on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, implied that terror attacks will occur inside America some time this summer, and that they will somehow 'alter the body politic' and lead to a reversal of the anti-war sentiment now dominating the country.

“Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view,” said the former senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr Santorum: WRONG. If anything, we will demand that our military be withdrawn from an obviously UNSUCCESSFUL WAR, since it isn't doing what you told us it would do... keep them from swimming across the ocean and attacking us here at home. You can't have it both ways. Either we're safer because of your war... of we're outta there.

You have to love our Homeland Security guru, Michael Chertoff's 'gut feeling' that we will be attacked by Al Qaeda soon, in spite of the White House's insistance that they have no information about this (like that would make anyone feel safe -- they had all sorts of information about 9/11 before it happened but chose to ignore it.)

"I believe we are entering a period this summer of increased risk," Chertoff told the Chicago Tribune's editorial board in an unusually blunt and frank assessment of America's terror threat level.

"Summertime seems to be appealing to them," he said of al-Qaeda. "We do worry that they are rebuilding their activities."

Still, Chertoff said there are not enough indications of an imminent plot to raise the current threat levels nationwide. And he indicated that his remarks were based on "a gut feeling" formed by past seasonal patterns of terrorist attacks, recent al-Qaeda statements, and intelligence he did not disclose.

There is an assessment "not of a specific threat, but of increased vulnerability," he added.

There have been reports already that suggest intelligence warnings at a similar level to the summer before Sept. 11, 2001 and that al-Qaeda may be mobilizing.

A gut feeling, sir? I'm sorry, but that's all you've got to offer us?

I thought you were supposed to have facts; tangible information? If I want to trust my life to someone's 'gut feeling' I'll stick with Alison on NBC's 'Medium;' she seems a little more adept at this 'feeling' thing.

UPDATE: It's now night, and once again, another 'CNN Breaking News' BE AFRAID! email. Surely the terrorists are at the door if I've received two of these in one day:

Al Qaeda is stepping up efforts to sneak terrorists into the U.S. and has rebuilt most of its capability to strike here, an intelligence estimate states, according to The Associated Press.

Funny, nothing much from CNN about the constitutional standoff in the Senate. Interesting, eh?

And I still don't get how telling us Al Qaeda is stepping up its activities is supposed to make me more supportive of this war 'over there' that was supposed to have kept Al Qaeda from ever stepping up their activities over here. In fact - if anything, this is making me want my military back over here where it can protect us.

This is simple logic. I'm sorry illogical Neocon guys... I was a computer programmer for 20 years. You're gonna have to make some sense.

They shouldn't be walking alone!

From the Chicago Tribune:

Ashley Casale, 19, and Michael Israel, 18, are walking 3,000 miles from San Francisco to Washington in a trek they once had hoped would rally the nation and lead thousands to join them in their epic March for Peace. But, nearly halfway through their trip, the teens remain alone, wandering the vast landscape of America, where few have paid them any attention.

I just read this story about these 'peace marchers' in Common Dreams (originally in the Chicago Tribune) and could hardly believe that this is the first I've heard about their trek.

Then again... maybe I do. Until the Tribune picked this up, who in our national media would have bothered with two kids walking across the entire country to draw attention to this endless war? Not the commercial media I know.

Is there any reason we can't meet up with these 'Peace Marchers' as they enter our states - even for a day here, or a few hours there - and walk with them?

I'm frankly embarrassed that they are still doing this by themselves, entirely on their own... and mortified that they think nobody cares. The reality is that nobody knew. Now that we know... we could help them turn this into the massive march they envisioned, simply by joining them as they come by.

“It seems like the country is asleep,” said Israel, a rail-thin young man with deep-set blue eyes, walking the roadside on a recent morning, his voice sometimes drowned out by the roar of huge trucks zooming past. “A lot of people we meet are against the war. But it doesn’t seem like many people are doing anything about it.”

I actually wanted to do something like this after Katrina.

I was so angry that I first wanted to walk to Washington D.C.; then to New Orleans. Of course, reality set in (as it often does.) I'm not as young as I once was, and my inner indignation often out-paces my physical strength and stamina these days. Going entirely alone seemed crazy - and likely dangerous. I couldn't find anyone with the time to join me, so I started writing out my frustration instead.

I still think about walking... all the time.

They set off from San Francisco on May 21, carrying 40-pound packs. By the end of the first week, the third marcher dropped out. Another activist told them they would never make it to Washington by their target date, Sept. 11. But they pressed on, crossing into Nevada and making their way across the desert in two weeks. Then on to Utah and Colorado.

Their determination has endeared them to many. After seeing the holes in Casale’s shoes, a man in Sacramento bought her a new pair of sandals. An elderly man in Colorado drove their packs ahead for two days and called his friends who lived along the route to arrange for shelter.

“I read about them in the paper yesterday and thought, ‘Oh my God, we have to help them,’” said Bobbi Benson, 48, of Boulder, who helped drive the packs forward through Colorado. “They just have such courage.”

‘This is the whole point’

After reading this story, it occurred to me that I could walk... for a few hours at least, as they make their way across Indiana. And I know many others - in our state alone - who have for years taken long bus rides across the country to take part in distant, national marches.

We could easily join up with these two walkers as they make their way across Indiana; even if we can only give a day here, or a few hours there. And maybe, just maybe, we could tow some media along.

I'm in. They should hit Indiana sometime in late July, maybe August. And they will be crossing right through the middle of our state. Maybe we can still make their dream of an epic 'Peace March' come true, simply by joining up when and where we can, for as long as we can.

Here is a link to their website: March for Peace, Summer 2007

UPDATE Projected dates of march across Indiana:

INDIANA

Romine Corner, IN
Covington, IN
Layton, IN
Veedersburg, IN (August 4)
Waynetown, IN
Crawfordsville, IN (August 5)
New Ross, IN
Jamestown, IN
Pittsboro, IN
Brownsburg, IN (August 6)
Speedway, IN
Indianapolis, IN
Cumberland, IN
Greenfield, IN (August 7)
Knightstown, IN
Lewisville, IN
Straughn, IN
Dublin, IN
Mount Auburn, IN
Cambridge City, IN (August 8)
Richmond, IN (August 9)

(They must really be walking quickly!)

NY Times (finally) calls for US to leave Iraq

Better late than never (welcome to the rest of the country; anti-war sentiments already in progress - but we saved you a seat.)

Great editorial, so I suppose its worth the wait.

Not that it will do any good, seeing as contractors outnumber our troops (and of course, it IS about that $$ gravy train, along with the oil bill, right?) Bush has no intention of getting our troops out of Iraq; he will need legions to defend that gigantic palace he is building (I've heard it referred to as the 'Colossus of Baghdad.' Yes, 4 billion dollars of our money into this disaster, and he's building the world's largest embassy - but somehow can't rebuild New Orleans.)

At any rate: Bush doesn't plan to get our army out of Iraq, no siree. The money is great, and that oil bill for ExxonMobile and Chevron isn't yet signed on the dotted line.

(That, and Dick didn't give him permission. Dick still plans to use Iraq as the launching pad for his attack on Iran.)

But lest I seem like I'm complaining - hey, NY Times - nice to have you along. We've been hoping the media would show up eventually.

It was kind of useful to have you guys around during Vietnam and Watergate (which is why I went to journalism school in the first place; I wanted to be one of those 'heroes with a typewriter' that helped change the world and kept democracy safe... once upon a time. Who knew journalism would be dead by the time I graduated?)

So without further ado... I give you... the New York Times Editorial! The Road Home:

Like many Americans, (the 28%?) we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. (Suckers!) When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. (So you noticed that too?) It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.

Senator Reid! Apparently, you were right after all - the war is lost!

Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda. (Right next to impeachment; and over 50% of us want that, and it's hardly partisan... but I suppose it will be another 6 months or so before you catch up with us on that one too.)

more...

Senator Lugar's Speech

I am out of town, and almost missed this... but I cannot in good faith say that I have not been waiting expectantly for it.

Senator Lugar is a good man, and at times like this, good men can't keep silent.

I hoped he was working behind the scenes to get this done, and I suspect that he never stopped... apparently he finally reached the same conclusion that others (Specter, Hagel) arrived at, on their own quests for reasonable change: regular channels aren't working.

Bravo to my Senator!!

Press Release of Senator Lugar

Lugar Senate Floor Speech Calls for Course Change in Iraq

Connecting our Iraq Strategy to our Vital Interests

Monday, June 25, 2007

Mr. President, I rise today to offer observations on the continuing involvement of the United States in Iraq. In my judgment, our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond. Our continuing absorption with military activities in Iraq is limiting our diplomatic assertiveness there and elsewhere in the world. The prospects that the current “surge” strategy will succeed in the way originally envisioned by the President are very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate. And the strident, polarized nature of that debate increases the risk that our involvement in Iraq will end in a poorly planned withdrawal that undercuts our vital interests in the Middle East. Unless we recalibrate our strategy in Iraq to fit our domestic political conditions and the broader needs of U.S. national security, we risk foreign policy failures that could greatly diminish our influence in the region and the world.

The current debate on Iraq in Washington has not been conducive to a thoughtful revision of our Iraq policy. Our debate is being driven by partisan political calculations and understandable fatigue with bad news -- including deaths and injuries to Americans. We have been debating and voting on whether to fund American troops in Iraq and whether to place conditions on such funding. We have contemplated in great detail whether Iraqi success in achieving certain benchmarks should determine whether funding is approved or whether a withdrawal should commence. I would observe that none of this debate addresses our vital interests any more than they are addressed by an unquestioned devotion to an ill-defined strategy of “staying the course” in Iraq.

I speak to my fellow Senators, when I say that the President is not the only American leader who will have to make adjustments to his or her thinking. Each of us should take a step back from the sloganeering rhetoric and political opportunism that has sometimes characterized this debate. The task of securing U.S. interests in the Middle East will be extremely difficult if Iraq policy is formulated on a partisan basis, with the protagonists on both sides ignoring the complexities at the core of our situation.

Commentators frequently suggest that the United States has no good options in Iraq. That may be true from a certain perspective. But I believe that we do have viable options that could strengthen our position in the Middle East, and reduce the prospect of terrorism, regional war, and other calamities. But seizing these opportunities will require the President to downsize the U.S. military’s role in Iraq and place much more emphasis on diplomatic and economic options. It will also require members of Congress to be receptive to overtures by the President to construct a new policy outside the binary choice of surge versus withdrawal. We don’t owe the President our unquestioning agreement, but we do owe him and the American people our constructive engagement.

Seeking a Sustainable Policy

In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.

I do not come to this conclusion lightly, particularly given that General Petraeus will deliver a formal report in September on his efforts to improve security. The interim information we have received from General Petraeus and other officials has been helpful and appreciated. I do not doubt the assessments of military commanders that there has been some progress in security. More security improvements in the coming months may be achieved. We should attempt to preserve initiatives that have shown promise, such as engaging Sunni groups that are disaffected with the extreme tactics and agenda of Al Qaeda in Iraq. But three factors – the political fragmentation in Iraq, the growing stress on our military, and the constraints of our own domestic political process -- are converging to make it almost impossible for the United States to engineer a stable, multi-sectarian government in Iraq in a reasonable time frame.

Read the rest here...

Lugar!

GOP senator says Iraq plan not working

By ANNE FLAHERTY
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Richard Lugar, a senior Republican and a reliable vote for President Bush on the war, said Monday that Bush's Iraq strategy was not working and that the U.S. should downsize the military's role.

The unusually blunt assessment deals a political blow to Bush, who has relied heavily on GOP support to stave off anti-war legislation.

It also comes as a surprise. Most Republicans have said they were willing to wait until September to see if Bush's recently ordered troop buildup in Iraq was working.

"In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. "Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term."

More...

Jon again: our enemy's enemy

Note especially the parroting media pundits all echoing 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Wow -- was that telling, or what? Think there is any chance they didn't all get the same 'talking points' from the White House? I love the way Jon splices them all together. Checkmate.

Thought for the day

Lest we forget.

I'm Cindy

I spent some time today reading the hundreds of comments on Cindy Sheehan's online diary at Daily Kos (I was out on Daily Kos nosing around yesterday when she posted.)

For some reason, I couldn't stop thinking about the "I'm Harry" t-shirts that Prince Harry's comrades in the Blues and Royals planned to wear in Iraq, as a show of solidarity if Harry was deployed. Harry was an obvious target. But Harry didn't stand alone.

We are no different. When Cindy Sheehan is attacked - we are diminished as a nation. Cindy spoke for us. She stood in front of an entire peace movement. But not alone. For some, she seemed an easy target... if you call attacking a grieving mother 'easy.'

"I'm Cindy."

Those of you who sought to take her down with hateful words and judgment - if you want to bully someone, we're right here. We stand together. There are hundreds of thousands of us now, and we're not going anywhere.

Cindy never asked to be a hero, or a martyr. She only asked for answers: for her son Casey, and for all parents, wives, husbands and children who have lost a loved one in this war. She was a voice for the largely invisible families of these soldiers overseas. She not only 'supported the troops,' she sacrificed years of her life on their behalf, in a tireless effort to bring them home.

She spoke for all of us who hate this war.

Cindy won the moral victory, hands down. She refused to be denied, but set up camp right in front of George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas. She called him out (displaying quite a bit more courage than any Congressmen or Senators we've seen lately.) In response, Bush demonstrated nothing but disdain for Cindy's pain - and Casey's sacrifice - when he refused to even meet with her.

How could meeting with a grieving mother possibly have hurt the man, or his exalted, presidential mystique? After all, wasn't Bush supposed to be that 'compassionate conservative?' I'd have thought he would have seen this as a terrific photo op at the very least. By refusing to acknowledge her, Bush showed an unconscionable lack of respect for all families who have lost loved ones in his war. He owes every one of them an explanation, at the very least.

And America watched.

Support for this war is now at an all time low, in great part because of Cindy's tireless efforts. She put a face to the real, and so often hidden cost of this war. Perhaps that is why Bush feared her, and hid from her inside his ranch. She called his bluff. She made everyone think, really think about his motives for attacking Iraq, his 'support of the troops,' and the very real consequences of his actions. Bush somehow managed to hide the returning coffins, but he was helpless to 'hide' or silence Cindy.

Before Cindy spoke out, many people were outraged. But Cindy was the flag around which we rallied. I never met Cindy Sheehan. I didn't have to - she inspired me. She demonstrated to all of us what one determined person can do, in the face of incredible opposition. When everyone else was afraid, Cindy was strong. She was there when we needed her, speaking truth to power.

A very different president

Abraham Lincoln never shied away from the families of Civil war fallen, or avoided sharing in their grief. There are many stories of Lincoln meeting with widows when they came to the White House, or visiting wounded solders and spending time with them. Lincoln even went to the front lines, and once had to be pulled out of harm's way when his very distinctive stove pipe hat proved an obvious target for Confederate sharpshooters.

Sounds a bit like Prince Harry, actually. By all accounts, Lincoln anguished daily over the human toll of war, and often took personal risks along side the men who were doing the fighting and dying for the Union cause.

I guess this is called 'empathy.' Or responsibility. Or perhaps it was basic humanity. Whatever it was, we don't elect that kind of leader anymore.

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

Yes. This is what a president can be.

Bush demonstrated no such character or courage. Perhaps... he just doesn't care. Perhaps he can't be bothered. After watching his lack of response after Katrina, it is hard for many of us to believe he feels anything at all.

Betrayal

I have a modest tradition of going to the nearest cemetery on Memorial Day, simply to read the names of those who have died in wars. I have always believed that this is the very least I can do: remember, acknowledge these guys and their sacrifice. I am especially sad when I walk by the graves of Vietnam vets. So many of them died after returning home... and so very young. The dates on the headstones tell a tragic story. The consequences of this war will also remain with us, for decades.

Yesterday I couldn't muster the energy to go. I was too sad. Even my own morale is at an all time low. I can't imagine how devastating this Memorial Day must have been for Cindy Sheehan.

The timing of this Democratic betrayal was so cruel. Brutal, especially for those of us who pinned our hopes on this Democratic majority and their paper promises. I am glad our representatives had their 'Memorial Day break.' I wish I could make their vacation permanent. The troops in Iraq didn't get any break from fighting on 'Memorial Day'. In fact, 10 more American soldiers died on Monday, while our representatives were giving speeches and saying 'grave words of sorrow.' Spare us. For the mothers, the sisters, brothers, and children of these soldiers, there certainly wasn't any break from the fear. Their daily hell drags on.

This Democratic Congress has managed to kill our hope in record time. I imagine the families of the fallen - and those still deployed - are now convinced that they are completely on their own. I don't blame them. I spent today wondering if democracy is finally over in this country.

Camp Casey

Someone suggested turning Camp Casey into an Iraq Veterans Memorial. I think that would be an excellent idea. A permanent memorial to Cindy, to Casey, and to all of our soldiers who trusted in their government, in democracy, and in the responsible leadership of their Commander in Chief.

Cindy - you did all that you could do. Rest now. We'll take it from here.


I put the design online at Zazzle

Memorial Day 2007

Controlling the spigot

Apparently the same day Dennis Kucinich gave his hour long presentation - to an ambivalent House - about US Oil pressure to privatize oil in Iraq, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) made the following statement on the House floor:

Mr. Speaker: (wouldn't this be Ms. Speaker?)

This President and Vice President have vowed to repeat the mistakes of history, and they have put into motion a plan to do just that in Iran, even as the House is about to send the President a box of blank checks for Iraq, against the will of the American people.

The history is worth knowing.

In 1953, the United States and United Kingdom launched Operation Ajax, a covert CIA operation to destabilize and remove the democratically elected government of Iran, including then Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.

Why? Oil.

Under Mossadegh, the Iranian government decided to reclaim Iranís rightful ownership of its national oil treasure, which had been exclusively controlled by the British who were taking 85 percent of the profits.

Oh, and by the way, the UK also kept the books secret, merely telling Iran what its 15 percent take was.

As soon as Mossadegh began to reclaim Iranís oil treasure, it was all over. Operation Ajax was set into motion.

The U.S. embassy in Tehran provoked phony internal Iranian dissent, while the Brits engineered an Iranian financial crisis by orchestrating a global boycott of Iranian oil. We brought down the Iranian government and installed the Shah.

For two decades, we propped up the Shah against the will of the Iranian people. It was all about controlling Iran. It still is. Today, ABC News is reporting exclusively that this President has authorized a new covert CIA plot to bring down the Iranian government.

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the journalism produced by chief investigative reporter Brian Ross and Richard Esposito of ABC News.

This is their lead sentence in the story.

“The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.”

We’re back in 1953 and that worked out so well.

Of course, the Vice President wanted to invade Iran, so we can be sure he will spin new tales of fear in coming days to keep his preferred option, invasion, very much alive.

The President knows only one way -- my way or the highway.

His Vice President knows only one way- invade and seize control of what you want- and he wants the oil treasure of Iraq and Iran to become wholly owned subsidiaries of the western oil companies he so favors.

With Iraq in civil war, the President has authorized a secret plan to repeat the doomed mistakes of history in Iran.

How many billions of reconstruction money for Iraq will be siphoned off for the deconstruction of Iran?

The American people are virtually shouting at us to pay attention and get our soldiers out of Iraq, now.

Vast sums of U.S. taxpayer money are flowing into Iraq and billions of US dollars are missing.

The Special Inspector for Iraq Reconstruction told a San Antonio newspaper last week that corruption in Iraq is endemic and debilitating.

But, Prime Minister al-Maliki has granted ministers and former ministers immunity from prosecution by Iraq’s Commission on Public Integrity.

And, in turn, the ministers can shield their own employees from prosecution.

And, a government that has been told by this President and Vice President to pass an oil law that transfers control- and profits- to western oil companies, just like the good old days in Iran.

Overthrowing Iran in 1953 was all about oil. Invading Iraq was all about oil. And the new secret plot against Iran is all about oil.

Oil is the only benchmark this President and Vice President want, and they will keep American soldiers fighting and dieing until an oil law is passed in Iraq that gives western oil companies control of the spigot.

It is time to unmask the latest doomed plot to overthrow Iran and past time to get out soldiers out of Iraq.

Nothing less than protecting our troops is acceptable.

Thank you.

Those who voted no

Just say no.

Ron Paul was one of only two Republicans in the House to vote against the war. Yes, officially this was a vote to provide the 'war funding' without deadlines or consequences attached.

Senator Hillary was smart enough to know she should vote against the funding bill, and from what I have heard, Obama voted against it at the very last moment (once he knew it would pass? That is what I have heard, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.)

Congressman Dennis Kucinich - of course - voted against the blank check, and a few other Democratic Senators voted against: Leahy, Feingold (of course,) Kerry and Kennedy. Representatives Barbara Boxer and Jerry McNerney also voted nay - I know without looking, because they sent out emails expressing their dismay at the outcome.

Tough (GOP) guys don't cry

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader John Boehner wept openly on the House floor, asking when America was going to 'make the killers of the 3000 9/11 victims accountable for their crimes.'

Well, sir that is a good question. Because you see, the actual terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq - and are all dead. The man who took credit for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Osama Bin Laden, is apparently in Pakistan - not Iraq.

So you have a valid point... sort of. Whither Bin Laden? Are we even looking for him? Of course, he is much more useful to Bush alive than dead; he makes a terrific and very convenient boogyman with which to scare the American populace.

Mr. Boehner, sir: everyone knows that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The only people who don't understand this after years of bungled warfare, are the people who persist in watching Fox News. Perhaps you are one of them, and you really don't have any idea what you are talking (or crying) about. This honestly wouldn't surprise me.

If your tears are in earnest, and you really do want justice... try looking for Bin Laden. Try talking to the Pakistani government. Of course, you can't take their oil, so why would you bother? If you aren't seriously looking for Bin Laden - don't talk to us about 9/11 victims. That is Giuliani's shameless territory.

Don't need no more lies.

Read it and weep

Full tally of yesterday's vote:

House vote

Senate vote

Representative Julia Carson was the lone hero from Indiana - in either the House or the Senate. We're not terribly surprised. I called her office and thanked her.

Olbermann: The Neville Chamberlain Moment

"Who among us will stop this war?"