Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditSure, Arizona Senator John McCain's campaign may still be selling him as some kind of "maverick" or "independent thinker" -- and most of the media may still be buying that ridiculous line.
But when it comes to the fundamental foreign policy issue of the 2008 race – whether to continue the war in Iraq, and at what cost – McCain's a yes man.
When Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. general in charge of spinning the Iraq quagmire as something other than a quagmire, and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, the U.S. diplomat charged with similar responsibilities, appeared before Congress, McCain greeted them the on-bended-knee position he has adopted since he decided that he would rather be the Republican nominee for president than a serious member of the U.S Congress.
Declaring with as straight a face as he could muster success in Iraq was "within reach," McCain explained to Petraeus and Crocker that they would get no advice or counsel from this senator.
"Our goal -- my goal -- is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops, and I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine," McCain told his task masters. "But I also believe that the promise of withdrawal of our forces regardless of the consequences would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership."
Apparently confusing "moral leadership" with the denial of reality, McCain declared against all evidence that, "Success, the establishment of peaceful, democratic state, the defeat of terrorism -- this success is within reach. Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq. We must choose to succeed."
To describe McCain's comments at the Petraeus-Crocker hearing as "meaningless" would be an insult to meaninglessness. He added nothing to the discussion except cheerleading, and he sent the general and the ambassador back to Iraq without the benefit of the experience and insights of a member of Congress whose background could have been of value.
McCain's decision to go AWOL was as embarrassing as it was disappointing.
New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama both made more of an effort to live up to their responsibilities as senators.
As someone who voted with McCain to get into the mess that is Iraq, Clinton acknowledged reality when she told Petraeus and Crocker that it was "time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops" from Iraq.
Clinton was still a little soft when she said, "It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced results that have been promised time and time again."
But at least she was on the side of realism -- even if she arrived there late in the game.
Obama, who had the foresight to oppose authorizing President Bush to go to war, was at least as sound as Clinton Tuesday.
"The most important issue is still the one that was asked in September which is how has this war made us safer and at what point do we know that there is success so we can start bringing our troops home," the Democratic contender explained before the hearing.
"My belief is that we are not in a situation where staying another 10, 15 or 20 years is going to change the fundamentals on the ground," explained Obama, who added that, "What we have not seen is the Iraqi government using the space that was created not only by our troops but by the standdown of the militias in places like Basra, to use that to move forward on a political agenda that could actually bring stability."
So, as a senator, McCain failed the test Tuesday. But which Democrat offered the strongest challenge to the Petraeus-Crocker spin?
Clinton? Obama?
No, Russ Feingold.
The Democratic senator from Wisconsin, who is not running for president but probably should be, continued to take his job as a senator more seriously than any of his colleagues.
Feingold told Petraeus and Crocker: I hope you won't take it personally when I say that I wish we were also hearing today from those who could help us look at Iraq from a broader perspective. The participation at this hearing of those charged with regional and global responsibilities would have given us the chance to discuss how the war in Iraq is undermining our national security. It might have helped us answer the most important question we face – not "are we winning or losing in Iraq?" but "are we winning or losing in the global fight against al Qaeda?"
Like many Americans, I am gravely concerned by how bogged down we are in Iraq. Our huge, open-ended military presence there is not only undermining our ability to respond to the global threat posed by al Qaeda, but it is also creating greater regional instability, serving as a disincentive for Iraqis to reach political reconciliation, straining our military, and piling up debt for future generations to repay.
I am pleased that violence in parts of the country has declined, but as the increase in violence in Mosul and recent events in Basra and now Baghdad indicate, long-term prospects for reconciliation appear to be just as shaky as they were before the surge. In fact, the drop in violence could have serious costs, as it is partly attributable to the deals we have struck with local militias, all of which could make national reconciliation that much more difficult.
We need to redeploy our troops from Iraq and I am disappointed that you are calling for a halt in troop reductions, General Petraeus, because the presence of about 140,000 troops in Iraq will exacerbate the conflict, not stabilize it, and it will certainly not contribute to our overall national security. Some have suggested that we should stay in Iraq until reconciliation occurs. They have it backwards -- our departure is likely to force factions to the negotiating table in an attempt to finally create a viable power-sharing agreement.
If we redeploy, Iraq will no longer be the "‘cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world," as the Intelligence Community so clearly stated. Iran, as well as Turkey, Syria, and other regional actors, will have to decide if Iraqi instability is really in their interests once we are no longer on the hook. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we will be able to adequately address what must be our top priority – the threat posed by al Qaeda around the globe, and particularly its safe haven in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. Nothing could be clearer than the need to refocus all our instruments of national power to combat this threat.
Redeployment does not mean abandoning Iraq. We must work for a peaceful outcome in that country. But if we continue to leave our military caught up in the sectarian divisions that consume Iraq, we will be doing so at grave risk to Iraq's progress, the region's stability, and our own national security.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- 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
What strikes me about the faulting of Iran in all this is that no one, democrat or otherwise, seems to concede that we have engaged in not dissimilar efforts to undermine the Iranian government through clandestine support of their minority opposition groups. Who knows if we give them bombs, etc. but the fact that we have given opposition groups in Iran support, monetarily or however the CIA expresses its love nowadays, makes their charges of interference in Iraq seem so hypocritical.
Posted by DanInBoulder at 04/08/2008 @ 6:03pm
Old Conservative talking points = failiure to accept reality.
Check the debt, check military contracts, then let's talk 'Big Government'.
The dinosaurs had their time. We the people are waking up to the con.
Posted by knixphan at 04/08/2008 @ 6:03pm
I find it interesting that Petreous and the ambassador seem very nervous when Obama started questioning them I wonder if its because he oppose the war from the beginning or if they are hiding something or both. I'm guessing both. I think McCain will be a puppet President seriously I think Bush and Cheney will be pulling his strings if he wins come January. Yep we are marching towards fascism and I fear theres no turning back.
Carol
Posted by harriscrl3 at 04/08/2008 @ 6:23pm
Thank you knix. It is obvious that the vast majority of "conservatives" are anything but. They love to preach their talking points, but in reality, they are quite far from true conservatism. If true conservative republicans took a moment and looked at the state of the nation thanks to those wearing the conservative mask, they would realize their party and those espousing their rhetoric have abandoned them.
Posted by davefoley0 at 04/08/2008 @ 6:24pm
Happy2,
Wasn't there a Democratic president in office when welfare reform went into effect in 1996? Haven't welfare rolls dropped by almost 60% since that reform?
I think you need to update your "facts".
You said: "Big Gov't = Bigger Failures!"
Ironically, nobody's proven that like your man in office today.
But back to the topic: It is amazing that there seems to be no sense of responsibility from the right for what might be the biggest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history. It has undermined our security, allowed the enemy that attacked us to grow stronger, destabilized the region, empowered Iran, etc., etc., etc.
Yet, in a strange twist, the right cavalierly blames the left for recognizing their blunder and attempting to remedy it.
They pose arguments such as "withdrawal now would be catastrophic to our national security", and charge the left with being defeatists who are attempting to undermine America. But, it's as if they have no memory that the right got us into this awful position to begin with.
Apparently, the party of "personal responsibility" believes everyone should take responsibility for their actions but them.
Posted by itstime at 04/08/2008 @ 6:31pm
Nobody forced Petraeus and Crocker to answer Obama's key question: Would the present status, messy as it is, be good enough to declare success?
Also, nobody asked the obvious question: After the Brits pulled out of combat operations in Basra, Malaki found the courage and resources to take military action there. Is there perhaps a connection between these two events?
Posted by jread_21205 at 04/08/2008 @ 7:05pm
Nobody forced Petraeus and Crocker to answer Obama's key question: Would the present status, messy as it is, be good enough to declare success?
Neither Petraeus nor Crocker were authorized to admit that the present status IS as good as we're going to get no matter how many more -- or fewer -- boots we have on the ground now or next year or 10 years from now....
Posted by Egalitare at 04/08/2008 @ 7:13pm
Oh, Oh, what is this "It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced results that have been promised time and time again" from Hillary? John Nichols might think Senator Clinton has found reality, but there is a huge qualification in that statement. Once again a reminder of that Clinton deceptiveness. Senator Clinton has consistently voted closer to Senator Lieberman who we see smiling by the side of McCain whenever the issue is foreign policy and specifically the Middle East.
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 04/08/2008 @ 7:43pm
I missed the first hearing but caught a lot of the second today. From what I read of McCain's speech, it was pretty worthless. Clinton seemed to do well. A lot of the comments were that she seemed tired. I was reading a live blog of the first hearing on Kos and it was funny. Kos is known to be pretty anti-Hillary but when Hillary was on asking the questions, everyone was rooting for her (pretty much). It gave me confidence that our party will be just fine once we can unite after the primary process.
I thought Russ Feingold did pretty well. The problem I saw was that he gave more of a speech. The questions he posed weren't really any that neither the general nor the ambassador could answer in their positions. I also thought Barbara Boxer was outstanding. She was clearly pissed about Iran's president (I know his name, just can't spell it) received red carpet treatment yet Bush had to fly in under cover of night when they each visited Iraq. But once again, this really isn't something the general or ambassador could give an answer for.
I thought Obama was very calculating and precise with his questions. He seemed to be accumulating data to use when the time comes for him to assume the mantle of Commander in Chief.
Ambassador Crocker was driving me nuts with his "um, huh, um" stammering at every question. This guy is an ambassador? He needs a refresher on public speaking. I thought General Petraeus did as well as could be expected. You have to remember that this guy is a military leader, not a politician, although he's getting a crash course. He sure wasn't going to give the answer everyone wanted to hear. He values his job.
Posted by FritztheCat at 04/08/2008 @ 7:51pm
"Obama, who had the foresight to oppose authorizing President Bush to go to war, was at least as sound as Clinton Tuesday."
obama was in no position to authorize such a thing......
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/08/2008 @ 8:07pm
I will give up my ideology when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Posted by FDR42 04/08/2008 @ 5:21pm
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
Damn right-wingers!
Posted by Sliver at 04/08/2008 @ 8:11pm
I will give up my ideology when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Posted by FDR42 04/08/2008 @ 5:21pm
At least hang onto it until you get out of school. No reason to send that over-worked and under-appreciated teaching staff to therapy. You'll get better grades if you just nod in approval.
Posted by Sliver at 04/08/2008 @ 8:17pm
Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950 (now rendered moot)
Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
a. Crimes against peace:
i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; ii. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
===========
"We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task that this Trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity's aspirations to do justice...if certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."
-- Justice Jackson at Nuremberg.
"I have no hesitancy in declaring that the historic precedent set at Nuremberg abundantly justifies the expenditure of effort, prodigious though it was. The [Nuremberg] precedent becomes basic in the international law of the future. The principles established and the results achieved place international law on the side of peace as against aggressive warfare"
-- Harry Truman.
Posted by masussman at 04/08/2008 @ 8:23pm
Thing is, Sliver, no one on the Liberal side of the argument has EVER denied that Saddam was a bad man. We just had different methods of keeping him neutralized--and he was neutralized. Neither B. Clinton nor Albright attempted to or recommended the invasion of the country. Even the current VP laid out during Desert Storm all the reasons it should not happen. Of couse that was before he gained some real power. Power has historically been demonstrated to cause the holder to shed the last vestiges of his/her restraint and common sense or what has also been known has his/her principles and morality.
Posted by mercury409 at 04/08/2008 @ 8:46pm
$10,000,000,000,000 deficit created during 6 years of complete and total conservative control over the U.S. government. Or maybe you should just vote for them again?
Posted by MADLIB 04/08/2008 @ 7:00pm
to be fair, clinton left office with a $5,000,000,000,000 deficit going away present for the incoming morons.
The cumulative debt of the United States in the past 5 completed fiscal years was approximately $2.78 trillion, or about 29.5% of the total national debt of ~$9.5 trillion.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/08/2008 @ 8:59pm
Madeline Albright, 1998
Bill Clinton in 1998
Damn right-wingers!
Posted by SLIVER 04/08/2008 @ 8:11pm
exactly.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/08/2008 @ 9:14pm
What a Crock(er) & Petraeus (or betray us) huh!? Hope that isn't taken personal! GR Co Springs
Posted by gpreichel at 04/08/2008 @ 9:25pm
Eight of the 11 U.S. troops killed in Iraq on Sunday and Monday died in fighting in Baghdad.
Four U.S. soldiers were killed Monday in the capital, the U.S. military said.
One soldier was killed by a roadside bomb, two by a rocket-propelled grenade and one by small-arms fire after a roadside bomb detonated near his vehicle during a patrol in eastern Baghdad, the U.S. military said.
The deaths bring the U.S. death toll in the Iraq war to 4,024, including eight civilian Defense Department contractors.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/08/2008 @ 9:37pm
Fascinating, this. So, just out of curiosity, who's a better judge as to the situation in Iraq? McCain? Clinton? Obama? Or a general on the ground? Just curious...
Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2008 @ 9:44pm
Thrawn, it's pretty noteworthy that you have chosen to omit
ANY ONE OF THE OVER TWENTY FIVE MILLION CITIZENS OF IRAQ
from your short list of people who might be best qualified to tell us about that "situation on the ground" that we are all so interested in hearing about.
I guess it might just not suit us so well to hear from the vast majority of Iraqis that they actually want the United States to withdraw all of its troops from Iraq immediately, as polls too numerous to count have already established.
I guess the part of "democracy" that includes "making collective decisions about sovereignity and autonomy" is not part of the "democracy" that we plan to "spread" to the citizens of Iraq.
Posted by maddox at 04/08/2008 @ 10:17pm
Fascinating, this. So, just out of curiosity, who's a better judge as to the situation in Iraq? McCain? Clinton? Obama? Or a general on the ground? Just curious...
Posted by THRAWN 04/08/2008 @ 9:44pm
Depends on the general, I suppose. How many have preceded this one in Iraq? Which ones have been correct....
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 04/08/2008 @ 10:17pm
Posted by LIBSWARNEDU 04/08/2008 @ 11:14pm
CONSHAME, there are two h's in your shit, probably constipation from the Lithium and Prozac combo therapy you are on. Instead of rubbing the lotion on it's skin, try drinking it.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/08/2008 @ 11:32pm
Posted by LIBSWARNEDU 04/08/2008 @ 11:31pm
I was only kidding! Do NOT drink the lotion!
Posted by Benchrest at 04/08/2008 @ 11:46pm
watching petraeus and the ambassador on niteline. petraeus is a soldier. he has his orders and follows them. if the next prez says "we're getting out" petraeus will oversee us getting out if he's still on the job...
the american people will not tolerate a foreverwar. if 100,000 - 150,000 american troops under fire are required to keep iraq from collapsing into civil war for ever...iraq will have to have a civil war.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/09/2008 @ 12:03am
Nuremberg laws now rendered moot?
As far as US govt behavior is concerned, Nuremberg laws have been moot certainly since August 1964 & the phoney Tonkin Gulf incident tale & resolution to launch a war in revenge for an attack that hadn't happened. Agressive war is the gravest of war crimes. US Dems & GOP leaders responsible for that war all escaped scot free ... LBJ, Nixon, McNamara, Bundy brothers, Rostow brothers, Kissinger ... all off to sinecures, multimillionairedom, but never the dock.
We've already been told, in so many words, the same will happen with the Iraq invasion & occupation war ... accountability is off the table.
The result is fascism, yes, and the US economy a free-fire zone for corporate thieves & their political enablers. See today's NYTimes on the cozy deals being struck as a matter of policy between the Bush DoJ & corporate criminals, and the rich rewards those pols receive on leaving govt. More of same with McCain. Another test for the Dems if they win.
Posted by sloper at 04/09/2008 @ 01:24am
Thrawn, it's pretty noteworthy that you have chosen to omit
ANY ONE OF THE OVER TWENTY FIVE MILLION CITIZENS OF IRAQ
from your short list of people who might be best qualified to tell us about that "situation on the ground" that we are all so interested in hearing about.
I guess it might just not suit us so well to hear from the vast majority of Iraqis that they actually want the United States to withdraw all of its troops from Iraq immediately, as polls too numerous to count have already established.
I guess the part of "democracy" that includes "making collective decisions about sovereignity and autonomy" is not part of the "democracy" that we plan to "spread" to the citizens of Iraq.
Posted by MADDOX 04/08/2008 @ 10:17pm
Wow, that is a giant strawman. Yes, you're right, I am arguing that Iraqis should have no say whatsoever in what happens in their country. Oh wait...that's not at all what I'm saying.
Here's what I am saying. When it comes to evaluating a military situation from a strategic perspective, a military general is more reliable than an average civilian. They're definitely more reliable than presidential candidates who assert knowledge about Iraq, or pundits who pontificate on Iraq (which would include types like Olbermann and O'Reilly alike). Petraeus is not an idiot, and certainly should not be treated as such.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/09/2008 @ 01:58am
David R. Loy's 'Money Sex War Karma' has a chapter entitled "Why We Love War." In 12 pages he summarizes why we are addicted to war. As the U.S. military spends $.42 of every tax dollar, it is easy to see how 'dear' the manufacture of war materiel is to our economy. Could we withdraw from this addiction by redirecting the Military-Industrial complex from its military contracts to worthwhile civilian endeavors? Only with a groundswell from the voters and new politicians who aren't indebted to lobbyists, many of whom work for the Military-Industrial complex manufacturers. It may require a change in our collective psyche, too.
Posted by bcodding at 04/09/2008 @ 03:14am
Frankly, I was not impressed whatsoever with any of the candidates performance. I would have been drilling the hell out of them, and kindly pointed out that as a senator, I represent a portion of America, and a huge portions of Americans want out of Iraq yesterday. I think the biggest problem here is pride. It seems like this country allows so much death, genocide, and injustice to save the face of a bunch of old farts in the capital. Take China for instance. Sure we will gallop into Iraq on the backs of Saddam's injustice, but when Tibet remains in turmoil, we continue to borrow money from China. We have become a country that is unable to give aid to those who truly want democracy simply because of debt owed. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers are no longer just rolling in their graves, they are jumping out of them and getting the hell out of this country.
Posted by JFGroover at 04/09/2008 @ 04:19am
FDR42 wrote: "I think this is a genuine difference between liberals and conservatives; we liberals are always examining our assumptions and beliefs; we are willing to reevaluate in the face of reality."
Great quote, FDR! Of course, for many American conservatives, especially those with roots in Calvinist Protestantism, examining assumptions is dangerous. The "assumptions" written in the Bible are the only relevant ones, and to question them moves one in the direction of heresy and losing one's soul.
Posted by chendri887 at 04/09/2008 @ 04:37am
Here is this disaster of epic proportions, and when cxonfronted with THEIR reposnsibility for such, the right can just shrug it off. Astounding.
Posted by FDR42 04/08/2008 @ 5:18pm
Disaster of epic proportions for whom?
The capriciously barbaric regime of Saddam Hussein or the equally Barbaric al Qaeda-in-Mesopotamia or the vicious left over Saddam era Fayadeen or the Shia militias who think they can carve out their future in the blood and wealth of the Iraq nation?
The first three have either been eliminated or seriously degraded and the latter is in the process of learning that the new Iraq is not going to tolerate the sort of behaviour that would plunge Iraq back into the same excesses that characterised the worst of the old Baathist regime.
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/09/2008 @ 05:36am
Why do even liberals uncritically echo the mainstream US media's constant reference to 'the war' in Iraq, giving an utterly illegal action the taint of legitimacy? Damnit. It is an unprovoked invasion, pure and simple. Not a war. We should be grateful that in this discussion the Iraqis on the ground at least rate a mention. Even the lowest estimate of Iraqi civillian fatalities (350,000)dwarfs the entire British dead in the Nazi bombing raids. It's the equivalent of several Dresdens or two Hiroshimas. Has anyone noticed?
Posted by pongacat at 04/09/2008 @ 05:50am
Posted by PONGACAT 04/09/2008 @ 05:50am
We have noticed, and that figure which is probably inflated by a factor of about three (ref Iraq Body Count) is still considerably less than the rate at which Iraqis were being killed during the Saddam years and which would in all likelihood have continued until today if the Coalition had not removed that regime.
Of course Saddam did all the dirty killing and torturing work through the apparatus of his totalitarian state. A large percentage, if not most, of those you refer to were not killed by the Coalition forces but by those who are in opposition to the present Iraqi government.
It in turn is recognised by the United Nations, Europe and Asia etc as the legitimately elected government of Iraq.
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/09/2008 @ 06:33am
Not sure why JOHN NICHOLS gets all indignant about establishment spin. Its not all THAT different from his. Right, JOHN? Oh wait, I forgot, you give us just the facts-sorry.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/09/2008 @ 08:47am
the phoney Tonkin Gulf incident tale & resolution to launch a war in revenge for an attack that hadn't happened.
Posted by SLOPER 04/09/2008 @ 01:24am
don't forget the Straits of Hormuz incident of late 2008!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/09/2008 @ 09:39am
Sorry Harvey (two above) but you're entirely wrong. As far back as October 2006 the leading UK medical journal, The Lancet, reported a 650,000 overall death toll in Iraq. These statistics were compiled in co-operation with the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, and further checked and verified by four independent experts. Of course they conflict what you were told by that impeccable source of knowledge and truth - the Bush admninistration.
I should add, since you don't, that while Saddam was doing his earlier dirty work in the 1980s, he was a friend of the US. Reagan's envoy, one Donald Rumsfeld, provided him with chemical and biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, assuring him of Washington's friendship. It seems that Washington names a street after you one day and hangs you in it the next.
Posted by pongacat at 04/09/2008 @ 09:54am
Frosty Zoom,
I don't know where you got your information about the deficit that Clinton supposedly left for the current morons, but this picture speaks for itself:
http://www.facingup.org/image/deficit-surplus-image
Posted by chinesebandit at 04/09/2008 @ 10:05am
Egalitaire says: Neither Petraeus nor Crocker were authorized to admit that the present status IS as good as we're going to get no matter how many more -- or fewer -- boots we have on the ground now or next year or 10 years from now....
I think that what Obama was trying to get at was that nobody in the Administration has any idea what would constitute an acceptable endpoint condition in Iraq. Clearly, this is a key point. Petraeus and Crocker should have been hammered by questioners until they were forced to admit that that is the case. Although, maybe they did by dancing around and evading the issue...
Posted by jread_21205 at 04/09/2008 @ 10:10am
The definition of meaningless-------the opinions of John Nichols
Posted by Len Mosse at 04/09/2008 @ 10:11am
All of these generalizations about liberals and conservatives are silly. There are conservatives who opposed the invasion of Iraq and the Bush Administration's assault on the Constitution. There are liberals who are free speech absolutists and ones who support speech codes, and liberals who oppose militarism while others support "humanitarian" military intervention ("Out of Iraq and into Darfur" has got to be one of the stupidist slogans I have ever seen).
And FREIHEIT, believe me, quite a few conservatives are raised that way, by their family, their church and their community. Ditto for liberals, centrists and "Red Diaper Babies" as well, but it takes some major socio-economic and political earthquakes to move large parts of the population to the right or the left. We saw such shifts in the 30's and 40's to the left, and in the 70's-90's to the right. We might be seeing another such shift back to the left, but it's a bit early to tell at this point.
Posted by cka2nd at 04/09/2008 @ 10:22am
Thrawn,
Petraeus' point of view is fairly meaningless because he is carrying water for the Bush Administration and parroting their party line. The question is merely whether he is deluding himself or just lying to the rest of us. In any case, his opinion has about as much validity as General Westmoreland's had about Vietnam or most of the British and French generals had about the Western Front during the first two or three years of World War I. At least many of the latter learned from their experience. So far, the same cannot be said for the American generals actually in command in Iraq.
Posted by cka2nd at 04/09/2008 @ 10:28am
Posted by LIBSWARNEDU 04/09/2008 @ 09:42am
WOW, three normal and reasonable posts in a row. I am impressed and stunned. Keep it up!
Posted by Benchrest at 04/09/2008 @ 10:33am
Freiheit wrote: "They [liberals] mean well, but are sadly oblivious of the unintended consequences of the collectivist policies they generally support." Yes, the consequences of 'conservative' policies we are living with are intentional. 'Nuf said.
Posted by blurejoindr at 04/09/2008 @ 10:47am
A pullout is not defeat or surrender. It is simply an admission that this war is illegitimate and that it was mistake made by an administartion with either little foresight or plenty of foresight and misguided intentions.
Yes leaving Iraq will result in a certain level of chaos. However, it may be more important for this country's future to show the executive branch that it cannot start illegitimate wars based on lies, that those wars will eventually be ended, and that the administration responsible will bear the embarassment of their decions, if not receive the deserved legal punishment.
Plus, pulling out of Iraq and spending a fraction of the cost for the war on the intelligence community will probbaly result in greater saftey for the US than remaining there.
Posted by danconstan at 04/09/2008 @ 10:54am
Posted by PONGACAT 04/09/2008 @ 09:54am
Not too many who can count and have kept up with the news take that figure seriously. Check out Iraq Body Count's (and others with specialist stats training) critique of that methodology and remember IBC always has been much opposed to the war.
Here is the Lancet survey:
"The second survey[2][3][4] published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006. The new study applied similar methods and involved surveys between May 20 and July 10, 2006." wikipedia
The Lancet survey purported to be estimating all war related deaths including infrastructure such as water and medical facilities war damaged or destroyed that may have contributed to those numbers. It was suggested and I'm sure we have all read figures of a million plus children dying because of the pre-war sanctions, which of course if verifiably accurate makes a nonsense of the claim that there was an increase because of the war.
However the following is clearly incredible:
"601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were due to violence. 31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%)."
Now 600,000 violent deaths works out at just over 500 deaths every single day without missing a beat, day in day out for 3.25 years (Mar 03 to Jun 06).
For those of us who have followed the war and record of deaths that simply does not compute. About the highest number of Iraqis dying violently, per month, during 2006 was about 2500 per month or about 80 per day and remember after the Samara mosque bombing 2006 was much higher than the overall average number of deaths.
Let's suppose that 2500/month obtained for the 39 months (3.25 years) that is 97,500, which is closer to the IBC number. So on both counts, indirect and violent deaths I'm pretty sure one should take the Lancet survey with a grain of salt.
As far as our support for Saddam goes that is a shameful part of our history and it is to GW Bush's credit that he took to heart the gist of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Which as you know centers on Saddam's human rights abuses. It took us a while but we got there eventually. And don't you think our shameful behaviour then gives us a reason to make it up to the Iraqis now?
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/09/2008 @ 11:05am
Tucker Carlson is a bum and while I don't like the politics of William F Buckley, I can respect his intellect. Tucker Carlson, on the other hand, never has anything original or interesting to say. He is of mediocre intelligence, at best.
Sorry, I just hate Tucker and had to respond to FDR42.
Posted by rasalula at 04/09/2008 @ 11:21am
Posted by LIBSWARNEDU 04/09/2008 @ 09:32am
You may think I'm a liar but that may be due to your profound ignorance of pre-war Iraq or maybe just a little paranoia on your part. Anyway let me help you improve yourself by learning something about this dictator, that you obviously don't yet know and who is regarded as among the worst of them in the past hundred years or so.
Now the following is not from a left or right wing idiot sheet but from a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence titled:
"SADDAM HUSSEIN'S HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD"
And here is a bit to whet your appetite as you begin to educate yourself:
"(U) Iraq's long history of human rights abuses under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship is well documented in publicly available records. Intelligence analysis also indicated that Iraq under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship practiced a range of abuses that included political imprisonment, rape, torture, intimidation, murder and killing on a massive scale."
Here's where you can get more on the rest of his reign of terror:
http://tinyurl.com/4owpoj
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/09/2008 @ 11:27am
LIBSWARNEDU,
I'll be the first to tell you the Iraq war was a mistake from the start and represented an obsessed president attacking the wrong guy at the wrong time. (Kind of like attacking Spains Franco when Hitler and Mussolini were the REAL problems)
However, if you think reports that there was less killing, torture, etc, lets just call it all around evil), reports that are highly suspect due to their sources, are true or even make a difference then you belong right down there with Neville Chamberlain and Henry Petain. The man was a butcher on the order of Pol Pot. His son had an IRON MAIDEN for Christ sake. How evil does one need to be before you think its worth taking him out?
And don't quote numbers to me: Hitler killed six million jews during the war, and the allies lost over seven million before it was all over. Does that mean it wasn't worth taking him out?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/09/2008 @ 11:47am
I found it very interesting no matter how the questions were asked,the General and the Ambassador were both talking fast and saying nothing
Posted by eniobob at 04/09/2008 @ 11:57am
The war in Iraq has certainly succeeded in distracting the majority of Americans so that the Bush administration could gleefully go about slashing social programs. The Right would rather waste all of our current and future tax dollars on a senseless war than see them go toward a better health care system for Americans.
Posted by jillers at 04/09/2008 @ 12:28pm
HAPPY2
Before you go and flaunt liberals as Big Gov't = Bigger Failures look at what the US taxpayer being handed as the republicans leave office ... $3 trillion plus deficit and no means to pay it off without resorting to higher taxes; and blame the liberals, a banking/investment system almost dragging the US and world economy into a depression; no need to regulate a self-regulating system, massive home mortgage defaults and bankruptcys; its' their own fault, abnormally high work layoffs; people need to be more competitive, high gas prices that are rising; not going down, and inflating costs for basic food items with shortages soon to come.
The liberal label of Big Gov't = Bigger Failures is quite small when compares with the feats of the conservatives over the past 7 years.
Posted by Tahut at 04/09/2008 @ 12:34pm
Russ Feingold has it right!
Thank heaven someone had the guts to speak out and tell it like it is.
We have to open our eyes and deal with reality. It's time to redeploy our troops and focus on Al Qaida.
Prior mistakes have left us with only bad options. We have to select the option that will cause the least damage and that means a phased withdrawal and redeployment as soon as possible.
Posted by CrushInfamy at 04/09/2008 @ 12:44pm
"Saddam Hussein's dictatorship practiced a range of abuses that included political imprisonment, rape, torture, intimidation, murder and killing on a massive scale"
Gee ... too bad no one "remembers" that while Saddam was doing all this, he had declared war on Iran shortly after our own hostage situation. And those whom he commits said atrocities upon, as mentioned above, were those Shitte's along the Iraq/Iran border ... the same ones our troops are have problems with today. Also, at this same point in time, Iraq was in good graces with the Reagan administration ... he was doing our dirty work; proxy war against Iran, and was receiving US aid for his efforts.
History has an interesting way of twisting spin straight.
Posted by Tahut at 04/09/2008 @ 12:48pm
Afternoon FROSTYZOOM,
One thing I've observed is that revisions on conventional historical facts themselves become the norm and hence resistant to new facts. Such is the case with the Tonkin Gulf Incident. The Anti Vietnam feeling in this country, combined with some bonafide bullshit from the Johnson administration, has led to the notion that the whole incident was phoney. Check out THE MCNAMARA ASCENDENCY 1961-1965 for yet another review of it. You'll find revisionism can be as misleading as what was revised. History is truly written in the context of its times.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/09/2008 @ 12:52pm
Neither the U.S. or Iran will be able to control Iraq. The peace agreement brokered by Iran between the Shia factions lasted about five minutes. Iraqis are going to do what Iraqis want to do. If we really wanted to damage Iran, we would let them take our place in Iraq and try to micromanage Arabs. We are not going to fix Iraq! Iraqis will either fix or destroy Iraq! It would be nice if Democracy took in Iraq, but it is more likely that some strongman will emerge and bring Iraq together by force. This has been the historical narrative of the Middle East and most of the world. Whatever "solutions" emerge, they will not be American or Iranian. Iraqis will find these "solutions" the "Iraqi Way". We need to get out of Iraq now and take care of our own problems.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 04/09/2008 @ 1:12pm
I think we should withdraw as quickly as possible and watch as the Iraqis kill each other. It would be great for the media.
Posted by abell12ct at 04/09/2008 @ 1:44pm
First off lets get it straight that this is no longer a "left -right" issue. for years many true conservatives have been against this failed "war". For some reason that is overlooked by many of the war-is-the-only answer folks.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/09/2008 @ 2:40pm
I think we should withdraw as quickly as possible and watch as the Iraqis kill each other. It would be great for the media.
Posted by ABELL12CT 04/09/2008 @ 1:44pm |
As opposed to what is happening now?
I find it fascinating that the General and Ambassador can relate exactly what will happen if we pull out, but cannot answer what will happen if we stay, or when we will be able to pull out, or under what conditions we will be able to leave.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/09/2008 @ 2:46pm
Lets see, we can leave when:
1: an Iraqi guvt is elected- done
2: the Iraqi army and police are trained up- Rumsfeld told us in 05 that this was almost done.
3: AQ is driven from Iraq (after not having been there)- Bushco tells us this is almost done.
4: wmd programs are wiped out- done
5: benchmarks set by BushCo are met due to the effectivness of "the surge"- oops, 13 of 15 benchmarks not met after the surge.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/09/2008 @ 2:53pm
neo-cons, this war cost about $12,000,000,000/month. Are you willing to pay more tax to continue funding?
I am willing to pay more taxes to fund child healthcare, fix my roads, give care to veterans and prop up SS.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/09/2008 @ 2:57pm
Same message, different day: If conservatives want to finish the job in Iraq with a win, all they have to do is tax their rich buddies and advocate a universal draft. Lacking that, I'm for getting the hell out.
Posted by barnesgene at 04/09/2008 @ 2:59pm
I happened to see Sen. Feingold address Gen. Betrayal and Ambassador Cracker Barrell, and when he finished I practically stood up in my chair and cheered out loud. Having watched a goodly portion of the morning and afternoon hearings, I don't know which was more disgusting: Watching two political hacks defend an indefensible policy, or watching members of the US Senate refuse to call them what they are: Delusional liars.
Posted by Curmudgeon at 04/09/2008 @ 3:51pm
Petraeus' dog-and-pony show was same-old, same-old. One can only wonder why these people are so intent on staying in Iraq. My late husband would say "It always gets back to money." You have ask who has the vested interest, and where. Excuse the pun, but we are between Iraq and a hard place. If I didn't laugh, I'd cry. Our young generation is IED fodder in the interest of a bunch of people who would never go themselves, or, Heaven forbid! let their kids go. Somebody has to get real--yesterday!
Posted by Janet Shawl at 04/09/2008 @ 4:00pm
I think we should withdraw as quickly as possible and watch as the Iraqis kill each other. It would be great for the media.
Posted by ABELL12CT 04/09/2008 @ 1:44pm | ignore this person
what have Iraqis done for the past 5 years? kill each other
and WE helped
Posted by emile duBois at 04/09/2008 @ 4:04pm
Petraeus' dog-and-pony show was same-old, same-old. One can only wonder why these people are so intent on staying in Iraq. My late husband would say "It always gets back to money." You have ask who has the vested interest, and where. Excuse the pun, but we are between Iraq and a hard place. If I didn't laugh, I'd cry. Our young generation is IED fodder in the interest of a bunch of people who would never go themselves, or, Heaven forbid! let their kids go. Somebody has to get real--yesterday!
Posted by Janet Shawl at 04/09/2008 @ 4:04pm
I'm for Obama but I too wish Feingold had run; he would make the best President of anybody out there.
Posted by Steve1us at 04/09/2008 @ 4:11pm
I'm for Obama but I too wish Feingold had run; he would make the best President of anybody out there.
Posted by STEVE1US 04/09/2008 @ 4:11pm | ignore this person
to me the fact that he did not run, argues against the theory that he would make the best pres.
it is in the crucible of the campaign that we find out whom we want for pres.
everything else is just woulda coulda shoulda.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/09/2008 @ 4:26pm
Where have all those liberals of the 60's and 70's gone?
They have gone soft in the head and hard in the heart. I, for one, am pretty pissed off at how the vast majority sold out to conservatism. And don't give me that Winston Churchill quote either. He never said "If you aren't a liberal when you are 25 ....etc."
It is easy to be a liberal when you have few or no assets, are going to college, and are into drugs, sex and rock 'n roll. It seems as soon as they got some assets and started drinking Starbucks lattes they also started listening to some Rush, Bill, Ann, and Sean. They became their own youthful nightmare -- "I've got mine ... f**k you Republicans."
I am encouraged when I see someone who had the guts and motivation to learn the "other history" of America instead of going nowhere beyond "George Washington chopped down the cherry tree and could not tell a lie." In the Viet Nam War, the big scare was --- if we let the commies have Vietnam, it will move to the Philipines. then Australia, and eventually to our doorstep at Mexico and Canada. t was called "The domino theory" What a crock that turned out to be.
That great Republican warrior Ike Eisenhower in his last major speech while in office warned us about the "military-industrial complex," but how many Americans today know a damn thing about that speech and what he meant.
I can't wait to see the end of the current culture of greed, corruption, denial and incompetence.
Posted by uknowit at 04/09/2008 @ 4:29pm
I'll say it again:
the original draft of Eisenhower's speech referred to the CONGRESSIONAL military industrial complex.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/09/2008 @ 4:37pm
Russ Feingold, as usual, speaks the truth. Did he also ask some tough questions, and demand some cogent answers? Apparently not - I wasn't watching. Obama and Clinton are being very cautious, lest they lose a vote or two in the remaining primaries.
Posted by normcp at 04/09/2008 @ 4:43pm
Obama and Clinton are being very cautious, lest they lose a vote or two in the remaining primaries.
Posted by NORMCP 04/09/2008 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person
Feingold has very little to lose.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/09/2008 @ 4:50pm
You can't possibly really believe that, can you?
Posted by FDR42 04/09/2008 @ 4:40pm | ignore this person
oh yes he can, and does.
that is why I no longer read him or respond to him
Posted by emile duBois at 04/09/2008 @ 4:58pm
the mealy mouthed desk general reportedly has presidential ambitions. maybe HE would be a suitable VP choice for the old old soldier. an all military ticket so to speak.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/09/2008 @ 5:06pm
General Petreaus argues that "significant progress has been made toward stabilizing the country." Things could be better, mind you, but we're on the right track. Deaths are down, suicide bombings are down, mortar attacks are down, now up...but we can't leave no matter what and we don't know when we can leave. Aside from the Bush team's penchant for fixing facts around the policy, it seems George Bush is trying to keep his deadly house of cards (Iraq) upright until he leaves office and if the Democrats do win the presidency, and the US leaves the place, he can blame the ensuing chaos on them, --if the new President does leave and if there is, indeed, chaos.
While the politicians dawdle and try to avoid the blame game, the death and destruction continues to rise. Hasn't out presence in Iraq become rather hopeless ? Hasn't it become obvious that this country cannot repair the pottery that was once Iraq and by staying is only creating more chaos? The time is long past for us to leave.
{"But you say there is oil in them thar hills...we can't leave till we suck it dry...")
Posted by hkaplan at 04/09/2008 @ 5:19pm
This is clearly Bush's war and no one should forget it. This war had nothing to do with honoring our democratic principles.It had to do with greed and power and was badly executed with no exit strategy in mind.This is what the conservatives will be remembered for and they deserve it.I pity the next president who has to clean up this mess and try to bring the troops home.
Posted by selvia at 04/09/2008 @ 5:22pm
What in the world is a Mitch McConnel ad asking us to oppose Moveon and thank Petraeus doing on a Nation article
Posted by tompratt at 04/09/2008 @ 5:34pm
What is that McConnell Senate election add and thank you General Petraeus card, and all those anti-move-on statements doing at Nation's website? .. and I sincerely wonder how many nation readers have actually signed in with that add?
Posted by kumru at 04/09/2008 @ 5:43pm
Nation ads take on anybody. Hitler, Stalin, even Bush could advertise here. Makes it kinda an equal-opportunity place.
Posted by hkaplan at 04/09/2008 @ 5:45pm
not only did they not have an exit strategy, they had no entry strategy beyond the Blitzkrieg rush to Baghdad.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/09/2008 @ 5:51pm
All this talk of 'liberal' vs 'conservative' ideology is egotistical babble. Few people on this blog could actually define liberalism or conservatism, or know either if they saw them. The invasion of Iraq was ideological, though not in the way that bloggers on here have described. It was planned and decided well in advance of any 'diplomatic attempts' that were made, was sold to the American public through an attack on its collective senses via lies, and was executed by bumbling fools who refused to implement the plans or heed the advice or their military leaders.
The intent from day one of this administration was to execute simultaneous wars in the Middle East to project American power and scare the living daylights out of anyone that thought that the U.S. might not have the guts to use its military supremacy anywhere on the planet to suit its own purposes.
We will never leave the Middle East. That is a given. It doesn't matter who gains control of the U.S. Presidency, Congress or courts. We finally have the means to control the vast majority of the planet's remaining petroleum reserves. We also have a toehold in a region that could serve as the next source of cheap labor and markets for our products, and can be exploited by the neo-liberal institutions that are running out of regions to exploit. It also doesn't hurt that $3 trillion of taxpayer money is going into SOMEONE's pockets. Is it yours? Or mine? I can tell you that I didn't vote for anyone that decided that this is where my dollars should go. Nor will I. Will you?
Europe has been conquered by creating the EU. Asia will soon be conquered, as it comes closer to merging into a single trading bloc, and the West is moving toward an American Union. (Why do you think that in-migration is of little concern to your Congresspersons? Because they know that people will, relatively soon, move freely throughout the Americas).
These plans have been decades in the making, and will take further decades to achieve, but Bush's puppeteers decided that the time was ripe to bring the Middle East into the plan. They aided and abetted the New Pearl Harbor (9/11/01) as a catalyst, and their plans are irreversible, short of a worldwide revolution. That would require, however, a recognition on the part of humankind that they are being manipulated, slaughtered and deceived. Fat chance.
The final joke is that none of this will matter in a couple of generations or less because the planet cannot sustain the consumption and waste of our 'technologically superior', over-populated species. We have passed the tipping point of sustainability, and that's the elephant in the room that nobody will recognize.
It's one huge comedy, but I'm not laughing.
Posted by jlsolley at 04/09/2008 @ 6:00pm
Russ's vigorous final send up in this same speech, is also worth repeating. " Osama's strategy is to BANKRUPT us in Iraq."
Posted by hcamp at 04/09/2008 @ 6:01pm
General Petraeus is telling the Senate/House what Bush told him he had to. He's already said the Iraqi problems can't be fixed militarily. He just wasn't under government auspices at the time. He has 9 or more months to try to improve the conditions under his "tutelage" in Iraq and then, he has to follow the NEW Commander-in-chief's directives. He's not going to give up a 20plus year stint in the military with only 9 months to go. He and Crocker have succeeded with diplomacy in minor ways for the last two years but they gain no assistance from Rice, Cheney or the Iraqi president and his "minions." Feingold was correct in what he mentioned and Petraeus had no ready answer to contradict him. David Brooks of the NYTimes talked about the peace coming from the ground up, not from the federal government. But it's not the ground level as much as the sheiks and imams of various groups and tribes that are setting the pace on both sides but esp. the Sunnis. If they get a better position in the Parliament this fall they will have more say-so about oil money, social services, military/police positions etc. The tribes are still the major factor in the lives of most Iraqis other than 50% of those in Baghdad who have mixed and mingled for 3 or more generations and don't have a tribe to turn to. Maliki may be making some of the same kinds of moves for fall voting by keeping his military in shape and giving them some experience. He may not have smashed al-Sadr and his militia but they came to standstill and the Mehdi militia is seldom firing under al-Sadr's orders. Some are firing at whomever they wish. One or the other will bring them down if he wishes to remain on top--al Sadr and/or Maliki.
Posted by Patricia Wilson at 04/09/2008 @ 6:26pm
Right on, Russ! We're proud of you!
Posted by tedvothjr at 04/09/2008 @ 7:33pm
Food for thought:
Veterans care may run into $600,000,00,000 over time. That is an unfunded mandate brought to us by the "conservatives".
39% of gulf War I vets applied for disability benefits. That undeclared war lasted a month or so.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/09/2008 @ 8:08pm
This was a most insigtful article concerning Senator Feingold. Only one detail bothered me: Mr. Feingold's allusion to "the global war on Al Qaeda." First of all, it's doubtful that Al Qaeda is sufficiently well-heeled to make war on the rest of the globe. I have long harbored the opinion that Bush's "war on terror" and the various legerdemain of lies pertaining to it have revealed it as a uniquely unpleasant, Bush-Cheney construct. Their endless warnings of "Barbarians at the Gates"--which presupposes a homogeneous, monolithic mob of lunatics, chafing at the bit to do all of us in at any unguarded moment, has served Bush with the flawless precision of a Swiss watch. Throughout these five-plus years, it has sufficed to frighten the population into looking the other way while war crimes were in progress in all of our names. Mr. Feingold, by contrast, is head and shoulders above most of his colleagues, but he should have known better than to ever credit the Bush-Cheney thugs with the least scintilla of honesty or--saints preserve us!--compassion.
I apologize for my natural tendency to nitpick. And for conveying my negative convictions, strong enough, I fear, to cast a pall over a lovely spring day..
Posted by ellieremore at 04/09/2008 @ 10:50pm
If we are to make any progress, we need to lose these broad generalizations.
Posted by ron cypert at 04/10/2008 @ 01:36am
Frankly I think Petraeus gave hints to his real feelings- 'No light at the end of the tunnel','Progress 'fagile and reversible'. Had he been able I think he was saying to Congress- 'The Ball has been in YOUR court the whole time'. We do not need Hearing to KNOW this was a Mistake and it Not Worth it to continue. We are only making things Worse. Congress needs to FINALLY STOP FUNDING this fiasco.I found the Hearings to be nothing more than Public Servants trying pass the Buck and LOOK like they are Doing THEIR JOBS.WE told them what to do in '06.
Posted by Purple girl at 04/10/2008 @ 05:48am
I often times wonder how many Republicans remained silent with their objections about the Bush regime's war policy. Their silence was bought and paid for by Tom Delay and his K-street lobbyists. It takes a ton of money to get elected/re-elected. The RNC would give you the money you needed if, and only if, you toed the party line. The Republicans should be ashamed for selling their political souls to the Warmonger devils. I am sick and tired of politicians doing what is best for their respective parties and not what is best for AMERICANS. The GOP had absolute power for the 1st 6 years of Bush's regime. Look where it has taken us. They still maintain much power by blocking any meaningful legislation they don't agree with by using the filibuster and signing statements. Ultimately, the blame lies with the media and the American people for (1)believing all the falsehoods presented to them and (2)electing our leaders based on these falsehoods. It is amazing to me that no matter what Bush has done that 25/30% of the U.S. will never believe that he has done anything wrong. If he is so perfect, why are we in the predicaments that we are in?
Posted by UTByrd at 04/10/2008 @ 10:01am
John -- Interesting blog post about Russ Feingold telling it like it is. However, you made one IMMENSELY huge error -- one that I have also seen in other stories from the Mainstream Media -- when you state:
> Obama, who had the foresight to oppose authorizing President Bush to > go to war, was at least as sound as Clinton Tuesday.
Excuse me? Obama NEVER opposed authorizing President Bush to go to war! He couldn't have, as he wasn't a US Senator until 2004! All he's ever said on that particular matter was that he wasn't sure what he would have done, had he been a senator at the time.
He has stated many times during the campaign that he personally was against the war from the beginning. That's very nice, but it really doesn't mean anything as he simply wasn't there. It carries about as much weight as when *I* say I was against the war from the start. Which I was. But who cares?
It's stunning to me how this blatant falsehood keeps getting repeated in the press, while HRC gets pilloried for her vote to authorize. Doesn't anyone remember what the country was like at the time? Any politician who dared to speak out against Bush's plans was immediately denounced as a traitor from not only Fox News but more respectable outlets as well. Not to mention, HRC was the senator from NEW YORK -- the only state directly affected by 9/11, and whose constituents, at the time, were in large part looking for payback. How well do you think her "no" vote would have played?
Anyway, I digress, but I still have steam coming out of my ears . . .
Posted by Gruberman at 04/10/2008 @ 11:19am
John -- Interesting blog post about Russ Feingold telling it like it is. However, you made one IMMENSELY huge error -- one that I have also seen in other stories from the Mainstream Media -- when you state:
> Obama, who had the foresight to oppose authorizing President Bush to go to war, was at least as sound as Clinton Tuesday.
Excuse me? Obama NEVER opposed authorizing President Bush to go to war! He couldn't have, as he wasn't a US Senator until 2004! All he's ever said on that particular matter was that he wasn't sure what he would have done, had he been a senator at the time.
He has stated many times during the campaign that he personally was against the war from the beginning. That's very nice, but it really doesn't mean anything as he simply wasn't there. It carries about as much weight as when *I* say I was against the war from the start. Which I was. But who cares?
It's stunning to me how this blatant falsehood keeps getting repeated in the press, while HRC gets pilloried for her vote to authorize. Doesn't anyone remember what the country was like at the time? Any politician who dared to speak out against Bush's plans was immediately denounced as a traitor from not only Fox News but more respectable outlets as well. Not to mention, HRC was the senator from NEW YORK -- the only state directly affected by 9/11, and whose constituents, at the time, were in large part looking for payback. How well do you think her "no" vote would have played?
Anyway, I digress, but I still have steam coming out of my ears . . .
Posted by Gruberman at 04/10/2008 @ 11:25am
Posted by GRUBERMAN 04/10/2008 @ 11:19am | ignore this person
a specious argument, as almost half of the dem senators voted against the war.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/10/2008 @ 11:25am
There is no reason to go ga-ga over Feingold's remarks. Someone remind me again about why we need to go after the real seat of "Al Qaeda," the real threat. The real threat to what? Years of imperialist policy, unbridled support of the Zionist ethnic cleansing. Let that policy fall, and the "threat" will go away.
Posted by sailorman at 04/10/2008 @ 12:07pm
Somebody tell Gruberman that Obama made his pronouncement in a public speech BEFORE Dubya and his henchmen committed the violent overthrow of a sovereign nation, allowed by cowardly Democrats. It is on record.
Posted by gkam at 04/10/2008 @ 1:18pm
Reply to Posted by FREIHEIT 04/08/2008:
"I contend that most liberals have no concept of reality. They are void of fundamental beliefs and core values, therefore prone to weathervane the common wisdom of the day.
Every 'conservative' I know including myself was once very 'liberal.' It is a progression borne of actual experience, FDR42, that teaches one about that face of reality you are so willing to "reeveluate."
I like liberals a lot. I believe most of them have great hearts and are nice people. They mean well, but are sadly oblivious of the unintended consequences of the collectivist policies they generally support."
I disagree with you, Freiheit. I am a liberal with both core values and strong beliefs. I believe as all civilized nations except the U.S. believe, that health care is a RIGHT, not simply a privilege for those who can afford to subsidize insurance companies and their shareholders. I believe that war should be a last resort to be used only in defensive situations when all diplomatic measures have failed. We don't walk down the street with a gun shooting everyone we THINK may be out to harm us; but if attacked in our homes we defend ourselves using all the help and support we can muster.
The very definition of 'conservative' embodies an unwillingness to change. Life IS change; change can be great progress or it can be taking the wrong path, and we liberals like to think it through. We're usually smart and we can be sassy, speaking truth to power.
Posted by sassy&smart at 04/11/2008 @ 4:04pm
FEINGOLD FOR PRESIDENT!
Posted by Janet Shawl at 04/11/2008 @ 5:21pm
Anyway, I digress, but I still have steam coming out of my ears . . .
Posted by GRUBERMAN 04/10/2008 @ 11:25am
It doesn't make steam come out of my ears but I would suggest that you have it right only about Obama and you also are willing to distort Congressional history for your own agenda.
This was not ideologically Bush's war only but can also be laid at the feet of all those, including many Democrats, who signed on to "The Iraq Liberation Act 1998". This act had little reference to Iraq's WMD and more to do with Saddam's human rights abuses as the reason given for its proposed removal of his regime.
The existence of this Clinton era document goes a long way to explaining why so many Democrats, including Hillary, were so quick to give their authorisation, in Oct 2002 to remove Saddam's regime from power. No doubt the events of 9/11 strengthened their resolve but that desire had already been expressed in that legislation well before Bush came to office.
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/11/2008 @ 10:11pm
If our Senators were to actually solve problems maybe they would spend more time at home listening to our real life problems. However, our system has become one of checks and balances of attacks from the right to destroy the left and conquor the world for profit. So there is no time to here the voice of reason such as that of Senator Feingold.
Posted by luckyt at 04/14/2008 @ 09:40am
A question my conservative friends have never been able to answer; name one legislative bill that has been beneficial to the general public? When it comes to the poverty issue in this country the Republicans ask, what have the Democrats Done over the last four decades? Well one of their biggest obstacles has been republican obstructionism.
Posted by luckyt at 04/14/2008 @ 10:03am