Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt is a very good thing, indeed, that Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd is seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
Dodd is far from a frontrunner. But he is a candidate with stature and a decent campaign treasury, and he is willing to use both those assets to pressure the top-tier contenders, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama, to do the right thing.
That's what happened this week when Dodd, who has worked hard to position himself as an anti-war contender, purchased television ads in early caucus and primary states to trumpet his support for Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold's plan to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from in 120 days.
When word came that the Feingold plan could be coming to a vote in the Senate before the Memorial Day break, the Dodd campaign scrambled to develop the commercial highlighting the fact that Dodd would vote with Feingold while Clinton, Obama and another Democratic runner, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden, were distancing themselves from the explicit exit strategy.
While Clinton, Obama and Biden talk an increasingly good game when it comes to criticizing President Bush's handling of the war, all three shy away from using the power of the purse to constrain executive excess in a time of war.
Dodd did not let the others off the hook. He challenged them directly with a 30-second spot that featured Dodd looking at the White House and declaring:
Half measures won't stop this President from continuing our involvement in Iraq's civil war. That's why I'm fighting for the only responsible measure in Congress that would take away the President's blank check and set a timetable to bring our troops home. Unfortunately my colleagues running for President have not joined me. I'm Chris Dodd. I'm running for president. I approve this message because we can't simply wait for a new President. We should have the conviction to stand up to this one.
The ad was smart and edgy in its approach. And it worked. Clinton, Obama and Biden voted with Dodd, Feingold, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, andalmost two dozen other Senate Democrats on Wednesday to back procedural moves to bring the anti-war measure to a vote. To be sure, Clinton, Obama and Biden did so somewhat grudgingly – in Obama's case, extremely grudgingly. But Dodd got them on the right side of the issue, and on the record.
In the end, attempts to move the Feingold proposal forward failed by a disappointing margin, on a 67-29 vote with almost a score of Democrats joining the Republicans in opposition.
But the Senate Democrats who would be president have, as a group, take an anti-war stand that is far more in keeping with the sentiments of the American people than most of official Washington yet understands.
That's good for the party and good for the country. And it is unlikely this would have happened without the timely intervention of the candidate is moving the Democratic race in the right direction: Chris Dodd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Way to go Senator Dodd, getting Big Sister, Barry OH! and Say it ain't so Joe to veer left........Keep up the good work....
Posted by davebarlett at 05/16/2007 @ 10:17pm
Just keep passing bills that the hamsters fight and the president vetos. If only to keep reminding everybody who needs to disappear in 2008.
Posted by Will C. at 05/16/2007 @ 10:39pm
Perhaps it's not for nothing Frank. Perhaps are countrymen are dying for a country forever free of conservatism.
Posted by Will C. at 05/16/2007 @ 10:50pm
Will and Gritforbrains...Keep up your good work, too, that is, keep running against Dubya....Guess in the total absense of any real ideas about how to run the country, it's something, at least.....
Posted by davebarlett at 05/16/2007 @ 10:52pm
running against the chimp is a real idea
Posted by Will C. at 05/16/2007 @ 10:58pm
seems like a real winner too
:)
Posted by Will C. at 05/16/2007 @ 10:58pm
Mr Nichols is wrong.
As WILL can tell us, Hillary ALWAYS does the right thing, because she has never gone against "the Liberal Agenda"....right, WILL?
Posted by Mask at 05/16/2007 @ 11:06pm
NICHOLS: And it worked. Clinton, Obama and Biden voted with Dodd, Feingold, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and almost two dozen other Senate Democrats on Wednesday to back procedural moves to bring the anti-war measure to a vote.....In the end, attempts to move the Feingold proposal forward failed by a disappointing margin, on a 67-29 vote....
Boy, did it WORK! It eliminated the biggest issue separating HRC and Magic from the also-rans! So, it was Chris Dodd that did in Hillary.....Hmmmm, I wonder which overpaid consultant advised her to go over the cliff in a suicidal wipeout vote! HRC will lose far more `middle' votes than she'll pick up!
Ladies and gentleman, we now know who the committed-to-defeat 30%-ers are.....since 29 is exactly 30% of the 96 Senate votes!
Posted by Happy at 05/16/2007 @ 11:06pm
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 05/16/2007 @ 10:52pm
...total absense of any real ideas about how to run the country...
Can you point to outstanding examples of Bush's leadership? I mean can think of quite a few flops - Iraq, Katrina, NSA wiretaps, and so forth and so on. Can you point to where he has "real ideas"? I personally can't think of any.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/16/2007 @ 11:10pm
hey sweety, are you sure you want to stress your little ol head over such compicated matters?
Posted by Will C. at 05/16/2007 @ 11:10pm
it can be mighty confusing to you hamsterets
Posted by Will C. at 05/16/2007 @ 11:11pm
It must really suck to need a dumpy little balding guy to stand in for your brain
Posted by Will C. at 05/16/2007 @ 11:22pm
Can you point to outstanding examples of Bush's leadership? I mean can think of quite a few flops - Iraq, Katrina, NSA wiretaps, and so forth and so on. Can you point to where he has "real ideas"? I personally can't think of any.
Posted by SRJENKINS
SR, the point is that Dubya is not running for office, and the Dems need a real program, which they don't have.......Repeating Dubya's failings, to those in the vast middle ground, is only kicking a dead horse.....
Anyone running for Prez needs their own ideas, but all Hillbillary, Bam Bam and Joe Blowhard can say is , "ME TOO!" They're gonna have to do better than that to beat Rudy, Romney or whoever the repubs field in '08
Posted by davebarlett at 05/16/2007 @ 11:36pm
If only that were true
Posted by Will C. at 05/16/2007 @ 11:39pm
"And it worked. Clinton, Obama and Biden voted with Dodd, Feingold, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, andalmost two dozen other Senate Democrats on Wednesday to back procedural moves to bring the anti-war measure to a vote. To be sure, Clinton, Obama and Biden did so somewhat grudgingly – in Obama's case, extremely grudgingly."
I think they voted for it because the knew it wouldn't pass, so it helps keep the loon section quiet for a while...since in the end..nothing happened of substance other than another failure for the Dem congress..
Posted by john maasch at 05/16/2007 @ 11:56pm
so then I guess we can expect to hear crikets from your side of the road for awhile eh maasch?
Posted by Will C. at 05/16/2007 @ 11:59pm
"He had plenty of courage in pulling the switch on a record number of death row inmates while Gov. of Texas though. I think Dubya likes to kill."
I don't believe the Gov in Texas controls the death penalty..the jurys decide and the parole boards pardon..Gov don't pull the switch, but murderers do pull the trigger.
A typical Frank post, tho..funny in a uncomfortable way..like watching a man with a buger hanging out of his nose, unknown to him, as he tries to hit on a foxy babe..
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 12:00am
governors can commute sentences
Posted by Will C. at 05/17/2007 @ 12:01am
My side of the road is pleasantly sitting by and watching the Dems with glee..
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 12:01am
Read Franks post...and take it in that context..feeble at best.
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 12:02am
and if it werent for the babe you coulda snacked on that booger
Posted by Will C. at 05/17/2007 @ 12:03am
My side of the road is pleasantly sitting by and watching the Dems with glee..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/17/2007 @ 12:01am
yup
quietly, just like you said
Posted by Will C. at 05/17/2007 @ 12:04am
Now I know who all those 30 percenter deadends are that the leftwingnuts are always talking about!!!!!!!!!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 05/17/2007 @ 12:11am
You deduced hamster conservatives from of this post? You have a very interesting thought process rio?
Posted by Will C. at 05/17/2007 @ 12:16am
Good Nite Will.
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 12:20am
what's a nite maasch?
Posted by Will C. at 05/17/2007 @ 12:22am
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 05/16/2007 @ 11:36pm
I got news for you, Dave. Republicans aren't going to win no matter who they put on the ticket. Schwarzenegger could do it - but he isn't eligible.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/17/2007 @ 12:28am
The Harris Poll. April 20-23, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"How would you rate the job Republicans in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"
Date___________Excellent/Pretty Good_____Only Fair/Poor
4/20-23/07___________22________________74
2/2-5/07_____________26___________________69
11/17-21/06__________24___________________72
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/17/2007 @ 02:25am
The Harris Poll. April 20-23, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"How would you rate the job Republicans in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"
Date___________Excellent/Pretty Good_____Only Fair/Poor
4/20-23/07___________22________________74
2/2-5/07_____________26___________________69
11/17-21/06__________24___________________72
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/17/2007 @ 02:26am
OOoooopps.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/17/2007 @ 02:26am
OOoooopps.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/17/2007 @ 02:27am
"But he's a killer just the same as Saddam was."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/16/2007 @ 10:48pm
I value your opinion, Frank, and I appreciate your passion, but that assertion makes you sound hysterical.
Posted by drhammer at 05/17/2007 @ 07:49am
Once again I apologize for drifting somewhat off-thread, but I would like very much to solicit comment on this article concerning our tensions with Iran:
http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=37738
Posted by drhammer at 05/17/2007 @ 07:54am
Hey Doc, I'd lean more towards Frank's opinion than not. Apart from what he says is more true than not and hsuB does have a record to warrant that opinion. Consider that hsuB grew up liking to kill things, not for food or sport. This guy hsuB does have a mean streak in him as wide as the yellow. Considerring the damage he's done to so many, I rather dislike the the guy too, the hsuB. He'll forever be the hsuB to me. Sab, he could've been at least even.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/17/2007 @ 08:27am
er, that's sad, sab. Ha.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/17/2007 @ 08:29am
'sab hsuB', that could be funny if not for all the death.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/17/2007 @ 08:33am
Happy-I didn't know that anyone was committed to victory in Iraq.Did Bush come up with a plan for victory or are you just blowing smoke?
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/17/2007 @ 08:35am
BTW, I appreciate what Senator Dodd did, but Mr Nichols should be clearer about how this went down and what it signifies. Using terms like "nearly two dozen", when he means "23"...or "almost a score of Democrats voting witht he Republicans", when he means "18" doesn't relay the true split STILL among Democrats on the war...in clear opposition for what the public wants.
The good news of Senator Dodd's actions MUST be tempered with the bad news that, without his ad and pressure on the other candidates, it's likely that a MAJORITY of Senate Democrats would have voted against the Feingold bill, which is why I think the war will rage on until atleast January 2009.
Posted by Mask at 05/17/2007 @ 09:08am
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Hard to imagine that Reid would bring this to a vote -- even as, what was it? a cloture vote on a water bill amendment? -- without being sure it wouldn't hurt the Dems who are presidential candidates. He knew they'd vote with Feingold in this limited context; the only questioon was how each campagn would spin the vote. Dodd seems to have acted like a politician running for office and gotten out an attack ad ahead of his oppoents' press releases.
This blog is about politicians running for office. Sometimes it looks like the Nation thinks it's about Saviors and Antichrists.
Posted by RLawrence at 05/17/2007 @ 09:35am
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 05/16/2007 @ 10:52pm
Yeah, Republicans have "real ideas" about how to run the country. Bascially keeping on with the same ideas that don't work. Like my one-year-old trying to put a large block in a small cup. Sad thing is, eventually my daughter figured out that the block would not fit -- so she stacked it on top and was quite happy.
Go back to sleep, Dave.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/17/2007 @ 09:50am
The vote itself is huge progress. When the supplemental was first being voted on in the House, and the House progressives wanted to bring their immediate withdrawal alternative to a vote -- a somewhat symbolic vote, since the headcount guaranteed defeat -- the House leadership couldn't permit it. The same headlines you're seeing today -- "Divided Dems," "Dems can't agree on a plan," "Congress rejects withdrawal" -- would have been the first headlines we saw from this Democratic congress on the subject of Iraq. By sticking together -- however odious such a political choice was to those interested in the lives being lost every day of compromise -- the Dems were able to put a united front on timetables.
Now having stood together for so long in the face of enormous pressure (MSM to Dems: Why pass a bill you know the Press will veto? If you're not going to cut the funds, why bother doing anything?), they have the confidence of being in the right. Feingold's bill is the direction Congress should go. (Although I think Engel hardt indicated that some provisions that are now in it still favor continued occupation.) Yesterday Reid was able to have the "symbolic" vote on a fairly straight withdrawal plan. The Dems can withstand the headlines -- they've shown they're united, and this amendment wasn't even the supplemental.
Feingold noted that a majority of Dems voted in favor of the withdrawal plan, and said that was great progress. It is.
Posted by RLawrence at 05/17/2007 @ 09:52am
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 05/16/2007 @ 11:36pm
So in 2000 when Bush kept making veiled references about Bill Clinton (who wasn't running for Prez then), you must have yelled at the TV for him to come up with his own ideas? Right?
Posted by BlueTexan at 05/17/2007 @ 10:03am
Feingold noted that a majority of Dems voted in favor of the withdrawal plan, and said that was great progress. It is.
Posted by RLAWRENCE 05/17/2007 @ 09:52am
Okay, acknowledge it as "great progress", but...even throwing out Lieberman, why did SEVENTEEN Democrats vote against this?
Posted by Mask at 05/17/2007 @ 10:07am
Okay, acknowledge it as "great progress", but...even throwing out Lieberman, why did SEVENTEEN Democrats vote against this?
Posted by MASK 05/17/2007 @ 10:07am
Because they know it is bad policy and it would cause a bigger disaster than we have now over there, and that a new policy for after we leave is needed, and has to be ready to implement BEFORE we leave, and not starting to think about one after we leave...which is the same model we used going into Iraq...thinking about what next AFTER we enterd.
And, they want to get reelected...why put all your eggs in one basket, just in case..
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 10:12am
The whole point of the issue is to remind people that a guy named DODD is running for something, as the country hasn't seemed to notice or care about him..
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 10:15am
Curious Maasch -
What is the "new policy for after we leave" that the adminsitration or Republicans are proposing?
Posted by Hman23 at 05/17/2007 @ 10:19am
The point is to remind people that a marginal player can influence the front runners. And in a primary race the less than middle of the road contestants can draw the support of the party faithful.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/17/2007 @ 10:20am
Paul is terrific, standing up to Rudy. Rudy can't stand the truth.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/17/2007 @ 10:23am
Hman,
I am in the same position as the Democrats in power today..no clue or plan except hurt and get rid of Bush.....
...my personal thoughts(or plan) would be to go to our "allies" together and say, "look this thing went off in our face, yeah, its our own doing, but now as an ally who prevented you from all learning German, please help us out instead of the, we told you so and watch from the side line...we need all options on the table, since you Europeans can't afford to have crazy Islamists running around your country wanting to bring you the joys of Sharia Law complete with suicide bombers using chiuldren anymore than we want it for us..not to meantion $ 100 a barrel of oil will not help anyone, especialy those of us who have to watch those same Islamists with nukes ...controling the worlds supply"..
...a big picture is not being looked at in my opinion..and this would be my suggestion to any president of any party.
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 10:29am
At least a start for some real solutions ..
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 10:30am
...my personal thoughts(or plan) would be to go to our "allies" together and say, "look this thing went off in our face, yeah, its our own doing, but now as an ally who prevented you from all learning German, please help us out instead of the, we told you so and watch from the side line...we need all options on the table, since you Europeans can't afford to have crazy Islamists running around your country wanting to bring you the joys of Sharia Law complete with suicide bombers using chiuldren anymore than we want it for us..not to meantion $ 100 a barrel of oil will not help anyone, especialy those of us who have to watch those same Islamists with nukes ...controling the worlds supply".. Posted by JOHN MAASCH
And there is as good as any reason to vote Democrat. How do we solve the problem? Bring in the Europeans. Yeah, that will quell the violence, calm the Iraqis.
How dare those Islamists control their oil! The oil that America has done nothing to reduce it's grotesque consumption of.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/17/2007 @ 10:42am
"And there is as good as any reason to vote Democrat."
Why? Because they have no plan or ideas?
There are more lost than most...its all about getting Bush...now is the time to step up with a plan other than bail ..leaving it worse than now..a plan that ,even if it is not totally successful will give the Dems what they want more than anything...relelection
Ansd yes, sadly , oil is a big elephant in the room.....we are talking about helping ordinary Iraqis benefit from their oil resources, not the AQ boys and their friends...we and the rest of the world are stuck on oil..and $ 4.00 will seem cheap if we bail out without any plan at all...and the dems have put forth...... nothing.
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 10:54am
Try reading the Iraq Study Group Report, old fool.
It's not Al Qaeda that's gonna be running Iraq when the US leaves (any more than Al Qaeda was operating in Saddam's Iraq).
Without engaging the the regional players (including the "evil" Iranians and Syrians) the US will be incapable of developing any viable solution to the mess this Repub administration has created.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/17/2007 @ 11:00am
That's why this coward is going to dump his mess on the next president. There are no "good" solutions, only pragmatic options.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/17/2007 @ 11:03am
"...we are talking about helping ordinary Iraqis benefit from their oil resources..."
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/17/2007 @ 10:54am
If you'd done any research on the Iraq hydrocarbon law, and the "production sharing agreements" that the administration and the western petro players have been pushing, you'd know that they're really talking about helping ordinary Iraqis benefit from the 20-30% of their own oil that we're willing to leave under their control. (Sort of.)
Presenting this law as a mechanism for distributing Iraq's oil revenue equitably between the Kurds, the Shia, and the Sunni is a bullshit BushCo talking point, and is designed solely to camouflage our hegemonic larceny.
Posted by drhammer at 05/17/2007 @ 11:10am
"Look at the polls. The American people oppose this war and want it to end. But when asked, they're not quite certain of how. Apparently neither is Congress."
Ari Berman
Can't govern by polls. And it is obvious MT, you have no clue either..just hindsight.
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 11:10am
Can't govern by polls.
yes, but ignore them at your peril. the repubs running are well aware of this.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/17/2007 @ 11:13am
.."camouflage our hegemonic larceny. "
I don't see how we could pull off a major steal of their oil un noticed...its not practical..get better price? market says $ x per barrel..no one is going to sell you below that..even in Iraq...it would bring more chaos and more hysterics from the uber left here..and the rest of the world.
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 11:13am
No one says ignore them, but keep an eye on the trends, sure, but they are a reflection of yesteday..
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 11:15am
And it is obvious MT, you have no clue either..just hindsight.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
Hindsight? It's called history. Anyone familiar with the Middle East easily anticipated what the result of this fool hardy adventure would create. The end result is going to be ugly, but the choices are bad, bad, worse. Too bad this Repub administration is without the sense, courage to bite the bullet and salvage what it can from the catastrophe it has created. (No wonder you're a supporter; y'all have a lot in common.)
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/17/2007 @ 11:22am
The arrogance, ignorance of those that feel Iran and Syria should not be involved in what happens in Iraq is astounding. These fools actually believe the US has the right to meddle in countries across the globe, to manipulate and pressure governments, and yet nations bordering Iraq have no right to take part in developing a post Saddam Iraq. It's nothing short of idiotic.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/17/2007 @ 11:28am
Again, you have no plan or odea either , just the easy part critcism...
"(No wonder you're a supporter; y'all have a lot in common.)
I am not a supporter and you have a lot in common with the Dem congress..no idea..why can't you admit it? Everyone knows at this point it is a mess and everyone knows ad nauseum how all the guys like you "knew it before we went in"....whats your plan now? How are you going to help your people out of a jam? Stand there and point out to everyone whos fault it is and how its not yours?
Am I hearing crickets?
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 11:30am
Sure , bring them in for talks.. but aren't you just alittle skeptical regarding Iran and Syrias historys as well? Aren't you a littl;e concerned it woul;d be kind like asking Austria to join talks in Germany about the problems in Europe in 1939? Or is the US the only problem in the world?
So now you have them at the table..what do say to them, do you bring up the incusions coming from their borders and ask them to help of do ask them how they would like you to carve up the coiuntry? what do you say if all they say is get out or we will kill more of you?
Have you thought about the actual sernarios?
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 11:35am
we need to talk to our "enemies". we also need to talk to our friends. meaningful talks are not possible with this lying mis-administartion. that will come later.
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/17/2007 @ 11:38am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/17/2007 @ 11:13am
You display a profound misunderstanding of the point.
As this level, the issue is not the price, or the players who set it at the recovery stage, or market forces driving it at the wholesale or retail levels, (many of which are not reality-based.)
The issue is control of the world's most valuable natural resource, for which the supply is finite, and the demand is ever-increasing.
It is a question of power, and the neoconservatives make no bones about being prepared to take it.
Posted by drhammer at 05/17/2007 @ 11:45am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
It's sad. You're a vain, ignorant old man that knows nothing and yet you're too proud to even recognize it.
The choices in Iraq are bad, bad, worse. Do you think Syria and Iran want an unstable, violent neighbor next door? Do you think Syria or Iran has any desire to thwart the flow of insurgents and arms into Iraq while the US acts unilaterally? Are you capable of adopting any perspective other than your own narrow, ethnocentric, no nothing, uneducated view?
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/17/2007 @ 11:48am
"It is a question of power, and the neoconservatives make no bones about being prepared to take it.
Posted by DRHAMMER 05/17/2007 @ 11:45am '
I don't see this as reasonable..the Chinese, Indians, Europeans might have something to say about this..and they are all importers too...and I'll bet they have plans on their drawing boards to "take it" too"....I am not justifying this policy, but I would be willing to bet these countries are not willing to watch anyone take it and cut off their life blood...oil is more than just oil today...it is life....I pray we(US) will come up with something else to replace our oil needs..and I know govt will never tod it..
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 11:52am
"The choices in Iraq are bad, bad, worse. "
No ideas, huh.
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 11:54am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
Read the Iraq Study Group Report, fool. Following their findings, suggestions is a definite start.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/17/2007 @ 12:03pm
Why doesn't the Dem congress implement it ?
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 12:33pm
Congress does not implement foreign policy, moron. Weren't you one of those whining about Pelosi visiting to Syria?
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/17/2007 @ 12:34pm
Weren't you one of those whining about Pelosi visiting to Syria?
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/17/2007 @ 12:34pm
No. Just laughing..good thing she went, tho..you can see the benefits and still hee them laughing over there and the her fellow dems groaning over here.
...and congress can implement by crafting those ideas into a bill...if they were so inclined.
You need to ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
Same trouble with you here, too.
You have no ideas either...huh.
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 12:41pm
And if voting to cut off money to troops in the field isn't some sort of foreign policy action..well....then watch what happens if they do it.
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 12:42pm
You know, your own posts are worse than anything I can say about your pathetic, ignorant ass.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/17/2007 @ 12:43pm
It's not my opinion, it's your own words, for any and all to see.
Posted by mtspence05 at 05/17/2007 @ 12:44pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/17/2007 @ 12:44pm
DITTO DUDE, DITTO
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 12:50pm
"But he's a killer just the same as Saddam was."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/16/2007 @ 10:48pm
I value your opinion, Frank, and I appreciate your passion, but that assertion makes you sound hysterical.
Posted by DRHAMMER 05/17/2007 @ 07:49am
I'll stick with Frank's, thanks. Bush's continuing failure to pull our troops back into a standby role, and set a firm agenda for leaving Iraq, is doing absolutely nothing but getting people killed. That makes him a killer. Sorry to those who can't handle the truth. If he were doing what he's doing for any reason other than to maintain his false image as a man who sticks to his principles, I'd back off on that. But he won't, so I won't.
The fact is, the current "surge" is about a tenth of what needs to be done to have the effect it's supposed to. It's not even half-assed, it's tenth-assed. It's a scam, and everybody knows it.
The really astute thing to do, politically, is to suddenly have an ephiphany and call for exactly what the conservatives warn against, a "precipitous withdrawal" as they like to put it. Again, everybody knows it's the right thing to do, it's just that the major players don't think the time is right yet to actually say so.
So who will get the timing just right?
I'm betting on Hillary.
Posted by MyParadigm at 05/17/2007 @ 12:50pm
"The fact is, the current "surge" is about a tenth of what needs to be done to have the effect it's supposed to."
Then you support 100,000+ more into the "surge"?
So who will get the timing just right?
I'm betting on Hillary."
Oh, step right son, hand me the cash..and watch the screen..:)
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 12:53pm
So who will get the timing just right?
I'm betting on Hillary.
Posted by MYPARADIGM 05/17/2007 @ 12:50pm
Wasn't the whole point of Mr Nichols' article that Hillary DIDN'T get the timing right, and that Chris Dodd forced her to?
Posted by Mask at 05/17/2007 @ 1:12pm
Posted by MASK 05/17/2007 @ 1:12pm
Hold your cards!!!!...we have a BINGO!!...and from Mask, right there in the front row...but missed by "ourparadigm"...:)
I told you, watch the screen...
Way to go mask.
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 1:18pm
Well fellas, you know how it is with THE BOSS. The guy from the mailroom can suggest saving a bundle using FedEx, and no one pays attention. And the boss will pause (for a few months in this case) and then come up with the same brilliant idea, and a round of applause ensues.
Posted by MyParadigm at 05/17/2007 @ 1:30pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/17/2007 @ 1:18pm
You also notice that our two biggest Hillary fans (FRANKGRITS and WILL) made NO attempt to defend Her Nibs or even stay on-topic...and went off on their own little tangents.
Posted by Mask at 05/17/2007 @ 1:31pm
"Well fellas, you know how it is with THE BOSS. The guy from the mailroom can suggest saving a bundle using FedEx, and no one pays attention. And the boss will pause (for a few months in this case) and then come up with the same brilliant idea, and a round of applause ensues.
Posted by MYPARADIGM 05/17/2007 @ 1:30pm
:)...I use UPS..forget the POst Office..right?
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 1:33pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 05/17/2007 @ 1:30pm
I think you're right...but it'll depend on whether or not she can get away with it. Dodd isn't going to just lie down and watch Her Worshipfulness (to borrow a line from Han Solo) take HIS idea for her own.
BTW, you're not an HRC fan are you?
Posted by Mask at 05/17/2007 @ 1:33pm
Posted by MASK 05/17/2007 @ 1:31pm
"Hammer Blow Back" sometimes cause paralysis of the typing fingers..
Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2007 @ 1:34pm
"Sorry to those who can't handle the truth."
Posted by MYPARADIGM 05/17/2007 @ 12:50pm
Maybe my disgust for what BushCo has done to our once-great nation is unnecessarily nuanced here, but I think Frank's hyperbole runs the risk of glossing over an important, if not dangerous, distinction.
Saddam was a sociopathic despot who had no qualms about employing mass murder to maintain his power. He was arguably one of the most evil fuckers on the planet, but to me he was completely transparent.
I hesitate in calling Bush evil, per se. He is the product of aristocracy, a soulless plutocrat who is devoted to rigging the game so that the hyper-wealthy and their corporate extensions end up with all the world's power. What the Hell, the rich are a better class of people, right? They must be much better suited for writing the rules of the game. If they think the world should be one big ant farm, they must know what they're doing. And if a few of our brave boys and girls in uniform lose their lives in the service of that goal, well, that's just the price of America's greatness.
The problem is, this view is not articulated to the ants themselves. Instead, these trangressions are wrapped in patriotism, and Christianity, and myriad other forms of double-speak. We could easily see what Saddam was up to, but George's game has been designed to mislead, and keep us from looking into the dark corners of what now passes for our democracy.
Both men bear responsibility for thousands of needless deaths. Placing them both in the same evil box may be satisfying for some of us emotionally, but I fear we run the risk that once we have enjoyed that catharsis, we will fail to look beyond the cult of personality into the aforementioned dark corners.
And that's where the real danger lurks.
Posted by drhammer at 05/17/2007 @ 2:20pm
DrHammer, you are very good at mapping out the gray areas.
I do not place Bush and Saddam entirely in the same category. The main reason for that is that Bush is an American. When all is said and done, I will always root for the home team.
They have both sent many to their deaths unnecessarily, as you agreed above. Bush's sins are far less in scale, but in their lack of concern for the dead they are very similar. They both seem to have the same remorseless "it had to be done" attitude.
The major difference is that Saddam was protecting his own position of power, while Bush can at least claim that he was doing his duty to protect the nation. Our complaints that the Iraq adventure was unnecessary from the beginning are valid. But so is the realpolitik rationale that we had to make a show of strength somewhere in the world, or let the 9/11 event fester into a permanent disability.
It often argued that Bush, by invoking his authority as commander in chief to pursue an unnecessary war, was merely protecting his position, the same as Saddam. I am not persuaded. I think he was unprepared and badly advised. I find him vain, but not so vain as to start a war to make himself feel more secure. I won't get into the Oedipal issues he had with Saddam. I prefer to leave that for some future Shakespeare to discuss.
But in the end, Bush appears to me to be on the other side of a line I hope I never cross. A man in his position should pray every hour not to abuse the power he has been granted. It is completely obvious that he sees himself as a gift to the people, more of a monarch than the temporarily selected servant of the popular will that he ought to be.
On this side of that line, soldiers die with honor. On the other side, they die in vain.
On this side, there can be democracy. On that side, there is only a slide into dictatorship.
Posted by MyParadigm at 05/17/2007 @ 5:52pm
I won't get into the Oedipal issues he had with Saddam. I prefer to leave that for some future Shakespeare to discuss.
or a future Sophocles?
Posted by johannesrolf at 05/17/2007 @ 6:22pm