"Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.
As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true.
The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it."-excerpted from "Harold Pinter: Art, Truth & Politics," on the occasion of his acceptance of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature, December 7, 2005. Thanks to Annie Robbins for the catch.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
''Cindy Sheehan On CNN's The Situation Room''
"BLITZER: Many of Cindy Sheehan's supporters credit her with giving new life to the anti-war movement. Many of her critics accuse her of politicizing her son's death in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan has a new book that's just come out. It's entitled "Not One More Mother's Child." Cindy Sheehan is joining us now live from New York.
Cindy, thanks very much for joining us.
CINDY SHEEHAN, ANTIWAR ACTIVIST: Thank you for inviting me.
BLITZER: Well, what do you say to those critics who say you're exploiting your son Casey's death in Iraq?
SHEEHAN: Well, it's not about politics to me, Wolf. Casey was a living, breathing human being. And I have criticized leaders on the left or Democratic leaders as much as leaders on the right for getting us into this mess and for not speaking out against it.
To me, it's not about right or left, it's about right or wrong and flesh and blood. And all I'm trying to do, and since my son has been killed, all I've been trying to do is end the occupation of Iraq so no other families or mothers have to go through what I'm going through.
It's not about politics or exploiting anything. It's about getting the fact out that killing people to solve problems is barbaric. And nobody wants it to happen to them what has happened to my family.
BLITZER: I know you've been very critical of the president and his advisors. We all remember the protests outside his ranch in Crawford. But you correctly point out, you've also been critical of Democrats, including the junior senator from New York state, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
SHEEHAN: Right.
BLITZER: What are you criticizing her for?
SHEEHAN: Well, she believes that the war is a mistake. She believes that she was lied to and that the president is mishandling it, but she is not calling for a withdrawal of the troops. To me, it's not rocket science. Our troops are over there because of lies and betrayals. They're being killed, innocent Iraqis are being killed.
And to me, I side with people like John Murtha who say they're not the solution. Our military presence there is not the solution, it's a problem. And we have to get our kids out of there. And I wish she would come out and vocalize that point if she knows that it's a mistake.
BLITZER: But it's not just her, it's John Kerry, it's Joe Biden, it's Joe Lieberman.
SHEEHAN: Right, right.
BLITZER: A lot of mainstream leaders of the Democratic Party say, "Yes, there were mistakes, plenty of mistakes that were made, and maybe the U.S. should not have gotten into this war to begin with, but the U.S.," in their world, "simply can't cut and run right now."
SHEEHAN: And I totally disagree with that point. I believe that it's time for us to get our military presence out of there, send in an army of diplomats, help them solve their problems, and rebuild their country. But we don't need our military there to do that.
And I disagree with the Democratic leadership who keeps on saying those points over and over again. John Kerry came home and said, "How can we ask a soldier to be the last one to die for a mistake" when he came home from Vietnam.
I asked him about that this time. And he knows that it's wrong, and we need to come out and just start saying. We need to back up people like John Murtha, who are true American patriots and true American heroes, as is John Kerry, and say, "Let's get our kids out of there."
BLITZER: In the new book that you've just written, "Not One More Mother's Child," throughout the book, and I've gone through it, you repeatedly refer to the president as George.
SHEEHAN: Right.
BLITZER: And a lot of people will come away from that and say, "You know what? She can oppose the president's policies, but that seems so very disrespectful of the president of the United States to simply call him George, even if he calls you Cindy."
SHEEHAN: He called me Cindy, he called me mom. His lies and deceit of the American public in the world killed my son. I don't believe that we respect somebody just because of the office they sit in. I think they have to earn our respect. And once a president lies to the American public, I don't think he deserves that title. And, you know, his lies are responsible for killing my son.
BLITZER: Was your son supportive of this war when he went off to Iraq?
SHEEHAN: No, he wasn't. He didn't believe that the president, or George, was using he or his buddies wisely. And I begged him not to go, and I think I've told you this story before. I said, "Casey, I will take you to Canada. I'll run you over with a car. But please don't go because you know it's wrong."
And he said, "Mom, I have to go. My buddies are going." And he was there for five days and he was killed saving the lives of his buddies. But, Wolf, my question is, why were and of them there in the first place?
BLITZER: Cindy Sheehan's got a new book out entitled "Not One More Mother's Child." Cindy Sheehan, our heart goes out to you, our condolences once again for the loss of your son. There's no greater tragedy in the world. Thanks for coming into THE SITUATION ROOM.
SHEEHAN: Thank you."-from CNN, via AfterDowningStreet.org.
Cindy, thanks very much for joining us.
CINDY SHEEHAN, ANTIWAR ACTIVIST: Thank you for inviting me.
BLITZER: Well, what do you say to those critics who say you're exploiting your son Casey's death in Iraq?
SHEEHAN: Well, it's not about politics to me, Wolf. Casey was a living, breathing human being. And I have criticized leaders on the left or Democratic leaders as much as leaders on the right for getting us into this mess and for not speaking out against it.
To me, it's not about right or left, it's about right or wrong and flesh and blood. And all I'm trying to do, and since my son has been killed, all I've been trying to do is end the occupation of Iraq so no other families or mothers have to go through what I'm going through.
It's not about politics or exploiting anything. It's about getting the fact out that killing people to solve problems is barbaric. And nobody wants it to happen to them what has happened to my family.
BLITZER: I know you've been very critical of the president and his advisors. We all remember the protests outside his ranch in Crawford. But you correctly point out, you've also been critical of Democrats, including the junior senator from New York state, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
SHEEHAN: Right.
BLITZER: What are you criticizing her for?
SHEEHAN: Well, she believes that the war is a mistake. She believes that she was lied to and that the president is mishandling it, but she is not calling for a withdrawal of the troops. To me, it's not rocket science. Our troops are over there because of lies and betrayals. They're being killed, innocent Iraqis are being killed.
And to me, I side with people like John Murtha who say they're not the solution. Our military presence there is not the solution, it's a problem. And we have to get our kids out of there. And I wish she would come out and vocalize that point if she knows that it's a mistake.
BLITZER: But it's not just her, it's John Kerry, it's Joe Biden, it's Joe Lieberman.
SHEEHAN: Right, right.
BLITZER: A lot of mainstream leaders of the Democratic Party say, "Yes, there were mistakes, plenty of mistakes that were made, and maybe the U.S. should not have gotten into this war to begin with, but the U.S.," in their world, "simply can't cut and run right now."
SHEEHAN: And I totally disagree with that point. I believe that it's time for us to get our military presence out of there, send in an army of diplomats, help them solve their problems, and rebuild their country. But we don't need our military there to do that.
And I disagree with the Democratic leadership who keeps on saying those points over and over again. John Kerry came home and said, "How can we ask a soldier to be the last one to die for a mistake" when he came home from Vietnam.
I asked him about that this time. And he knows that it's wrong, and we need to come out and just start saying. We need to back up people like John Murtha, who are true American patriots and true American heroes, as is John Kerry, and say, "Let's get our kids out of there."
BLITZER: In the new book that you've just written, "Not One More Mother's Child," throughout the book, and I've gone through it, you repeatedly refer to the president as George.
SHEEHAN: Right.
BLITZER: And a lot of people will come away from that and say, "You know what? She can oppose the president's policies, but that seems so very disrespectful of the president of the United States to simply call him George, even if he calls you Cindy."
SHEEHAN: He called me Cindy, he called me mom. His lies and deceit of the American public in the world killed my son. I don't believe that we respect somebody just because of the office they sit in. I think they have to earn our respect. And once a president lies to the American public, I don't think he deserves that title. And, you know, his lies are responsible for killing my son.
BLITZER: Was your son supportive of this war when he went off to Iraq?
SHEEHAN: No, he wasn't. He didn't believe that the president, or George, was using he or his buddies wisely. And I begged him not to go, and I think I've told you this story before. I said, "Casey, I will take you to Canada. I'll run you over with a car. But please don't go because you know it's wrong."
And he said, "Mom, I have to go. My buddies are going." And he was there for five days and he was killed saving the lives of his buddies. But, Wolf, my question is, why were and of them there in the first place?
BLITZER: Cindy Sheehan's got a new book out entitled "Not One More Mother's Child." Cindy Sheehan, our heart goes out to you, our condolences once again for the loss of your son. There's no greater tragedy in the world. Thanks for coming into THE SITUATION ROOM.
SHEEHAN: Thank you."-from CNN, via AfterDowningStreet.org.
''Howard Dean: Just Plain Right''
The notion that we can't win is now a permanent part of the debate on Iraq thanks to Howard Dean's recent remarks.
"The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong," Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean told a San Antonio radio show on Monday. That remark flew through the news.
Asked about Dean's comments, President Bush responded to the press, "Oh, there's pessimists, you know, and politicians who try to score points. Our troops need to know that the American people stand with them, and we have a strategy for victory." And House Speaker Dennis Hastert scolded that Dean was engaging in, "negative and harmful political rhetoric."
But the "can't win" phrase is out of the box. It's much like Rep. John Murtha's call for the United States to "immediately redeploy" -- there's no going back. We can't win is now a permanent part of the debate on Iraq.
Another significant but totally overlooked voice in the discussion on Iraq -- and one who can't be accused of "political rhetoric" -- is that of Major Isaiah Wilson, who got the assignment of serving as the U.S. Army's official historian of Gulf War II, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). According to Wilson's account, the United States effectively lost its dominance shortly after it invaded Iraq; another way of saying can't win.
Wilson concluded in a presentation obtained by the Washington Post in December 2004, that three months after the invasion of Iraq, "U.S. forces slowly lost the momentum and the initiative ... gained over an off-balanced enemy. The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since."
Wilson added that the people responsible for planning the war suffered from "stunted learning and a reluctance to adapt."
Wilson, who is a professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and 2005 regional finalist White House Fellow, also concluded that the United States was "perhaps in peril of losing the 'war,' even after supposedly winning it."
The Bush administration never responded to Maj. Wilson's remarks.
More recently, Maj. Wilson gave a presentation this November to a conference [PDF] on "U.S. Military Operations in Iraq: Planning, Combat, and Occupation." The conference notes summarized Wilson's argument that "in OIF the military objective and the political objective did not coincide. This created significant tensions between plans and realities and contributed to some of the post-Phase III difficulties that have emerged."
The "post-Phase III difficulties" are, in a nutshell, the massive resistance to the U.S. occupation in Iraq by the local populace, also known as the insurgency. In the neutral language of strategyspeak, that's as a universal statement as you're going to get declaring that we can't win the war. Maj. Wilson could not be reached for comment.
In his San Antonio radio interview, Howard Dean sketched the outline of his suggested alternative:
"Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and it's a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight [terrorist leader Musab] Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion."
Asked to clarify which neighboring country Howard Dean might be referring to, his spokeswoman Karen Finney said that Dean was speaking in general terms about a plan he favors from the Center for American Progress. Authored by Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis, the plan is titled "Strategic Redeployment."
That report suggests a global redeployment of 80,000 troops in 2006 composed of all Guard and Reserve troops (roughly 46,000) back to the United States, 14,000 soldiers to Kuwait, and 18,000 to Afghanistan. One thousand would be sent to Southeast Asia and another 1,000 troops to the Horn of Africa (including Somalia and Sudan) to support "counterterrorist operations" there.
It's only a matter of time before Bush's "strategy for victory" evolves into a "strategy for withdrawal."-Jan Frel on AlterNet.
"The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong," Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean told a San Antonio radio show on Monday. That remark flew through the news.
Asked about Dean's comments, President Bush responded to the press, "Oh, there's pessimists, you know, and politicians who try to score points. Our troops need to know that the American people stand with them, and we have a strategy for victory." And House Speaker Dennis Hastert scolded that Dean was engaging in, "negative and harmful political rhetoric."
But the "can't win" phrase is out of the box. It's much like Rep. John Murtha's call for the United States to "immediately redeploy" -- there's no going back. We can't win is now a permanent part of the debate on Iraq.
Another significant but totally overlooked voice in the discussion on Iraq -- and one who can't be accused of "political rhetoric" -- is that of Major Isaiah Wilson, who got the assignment of serving as the U.S. Army's official historian of Gulf War II, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). According to Wilson's account, the United States effectively lost its dominance shortly after it invaded Iraq; another way of saying can't win.
Wilson concluded in a presentation obtained by the Washington Post in December 2004, that three months after the invasion of Iraq, "U.S. forces slowly lost the momentum and the initiative ... gained over an off-balanced enemy. The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since."
Wilson added that the people responsible for planning the war suffered from "stunted learning and a reluctance to adapt."
Wilson, who is a professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and 2005 regional finalist White House Fellow, also concluded that the United States was "perhaps in peril of losing the 'war,' even after supposedly winning it."
The Bush administration never responded to Maj. Wilson's remarks.
More recently, Maj. Wilson gave a presentation this November to a conference [PDF] on "U.S. Military Operations in Iraq: Planning, Combat, and Occupation." The conference notes summarized Wilson's argument that "in OIF the military objective and the political objective did not coincide. This created significant tensions between plans and realities and contributed to some of the post-Phase III difficulties that have emerged."
The "post-Phase III difficulties" are, in a nutshell, the massive resistance to the U.S. occupation in Iraq by the local populace, also known as the insurgency. In the neutral language of strategyspeak, that's as a universal statement as you're going to get declaring that we can't win the war. Maj. Wilson could not be reached for comment.
In his San Antonio radio interview, Howard Dean sketched the outline of his suggested alternative:
"Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and it's a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight [terrorist leader Musab] Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion."
Asked to clarify which neighboring country Howard Dean might be referring to, his spokeswoman Karen Finney said that Dean was speaking in general terms about a plan he favors from the Center for American Progress. Authored by Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis, the plan is titled "Strategic Redeployment."
That report suggests a global redeployment of 80,000 troops in 2006 composed of all Guard and Reserve troops (roughly 46,000) back to the United States, 14,000 soldiers to Kuwait, and 18,000 to Afghanistan. One thousand would be sent to Southeast Asia and another 1,000 troops to the Horn of Africa (including Somalia and Sudan) to support "counterterrorist operations" there.
It's only a matter of time before Bush's "strategy for victory" evolves into a "strategy for withdrawal."-Jan Frel on AlterNet.
Lightning Rod: ''Republicans react to Dean's comment comparing Iraq to Vietnam''
"Fighting the war of Iraq strategy: President Bush on Tuesday added his voice to Republican criticism of Howard Dean's statement that the United States cannot win the war in Iraq.
"I know we're going to win," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Our troops need to hear not only are they supported, but that we have got a strategy that will win."
Dean, the Democratic National Chairman, on Monday told a San Antonio, Texas, radio station that the United States appears to be making the same mistakes it made during the Vietnam War, and the idea that the war in Iraq can be won is "just plain wrong."
Dean drew parallels between the current administration's plan to turn security over to the Iraqis and efforts during the Vietnam War to give similar responsibilities to the South Vietnamese.
South Vietnam fell to the communists in 1975, two years after the U.S. withdrawal.
"I do not believe in making the same mistake twice, and America appears to have made the same mistake twice," Dean said during an interview with WOIA radio, adding that he wished Bush "had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there."
In response, Bush conceded that there would be disagreements over how to handle the war, but said the nation was behind its troops. (Watch the president blast back -- 2:12)
"Of course, there will be debate, and of course, there will be some pessimists and some people playing politics with the issue," he said. "But, by far, the vast majority of the people in this country stand squarely with the men and women who wear the nation's uniform." (Watch how the Bush administration is using the word 'victory' -- 1:59)
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman called Dean's comments "outrageous."
"I think that it sends the wrong message to our troops, sends the wrong message to the Iraqi people -- who [on December 15] are going to vote in elections -- and it certainly sends the wrong message to the enemy," he said.
But DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said Republicans had cherry-picked Dean's words "just like they cherry-picked the pre-war intelligence."
"Staying the course and paying for good headlines are not a strategy. It's merely a bad excuse for not having a plan," Finney said in a written statement."-from CNN.
"I know we're going to win," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Our troops need to hear not only are they supported, but that we have got a strategy that will win."
Dean, the Democratic National Chairman, on Monday told a San Antonio, Texas, radio station that the United States appears to be making the same mistakes it made during the Vietnam War, and the idea that the war in Iraq can be won is "just plain wrong."
Dean drew parallels between the current administration's plan to turn security over to the Iraqis and efforts during the Vietnam War to give similar responsibilities to the South Vietnamese.
South Vietnam fell to the communists in 1975, two years after the U.S. withdrawal.
"I do not believe in making the same mistake twice, and America appears to have made the same mistake twice," Dean said during an interview with WOIA radio, adding that he wished Bush "had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there."
In response, Bush conceded that there would be disagreements over how to handle the war, but said the nation was behind its troops. (Watch the president blast back -- 2:12)
"Of course, there will be debate, and of course, there will be some pessimists and some people playing politics with the issue," he said. "But, by far, the vast majority of the people in this country stand squarely with the men and women who wear the nation's uniform." (Watch how the Bush administration is using the word 'victory' -- 1:59)
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman called Dean's comments "outrageous."
"I think that it sends the wrong message to our troops, sends the wrong message to the Iraqi people -- who [on December 15] are going to vote in elections -- and it certainly sends the wrong message to the enemy," he said.
But DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said Republicans had cherry-picked Dean's words "just like they cherry-picked the pre-war intelligence."
"Staying the course and paying for good headlines are not a strategy. It's merely a bad excuse for not having a plan," Finney said in a written statement."-from CNN.
''Crosscurrents over Iraq also pulling at state's Democrats''
"Iraq has taken a toll on President Bush and his Republican allies, as spotty success on the ground and concerns about the length of America's involvement have fueled public doubts and declining poll numbers.
But Democrats are finding the issue hard as well, and the party has been unable to reconcile competing internal visions over Iraq's future or the best plan for bringing U.S. troops home.
Just how divergent those views are could come into sharp focus today as House Democrats meet to discuss the war and lay the groundwork for a more unified policy.
In that respect, the six House Democrats from Washington state offer a telling snapshot of the crosscurrents pulling Democrats nationwide. Four of them -- Jim McDermott, Jay Inslee, Rick Larsen and Brian Baird -- voted in September 2002 against going to war while Norm Dicks and Adam Smith voted to give the president permission to invade.
No one expects a consensus to emerge today. "It's part of an ongoing conversation," Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's spokeswoman, Jen Crider, said. "The leader understands that decisions about Iraq are a personal decision."
Dicks and Smith have recently said they regretted their votes. Dicks' statement was especially significant because he is among the most respected voices on military matters and has vigorously supported the Pentagon.
"Now Norm Dicks is with me and Jack Murtha is with me," McDermott said, suggesting that the two Democrats who historically have most supported the military have now joined more liberal lawmakers like himself who have opposed the war from the start.
But while most -- if not all -- Democrats agree that serious mistakes were made and that the White House blundered into war and mishandled the postwar reconstruction, there is little agreement beyond that. Nor is there agreement among Democrats about whether a specific plan is needed. Some believe that they will benefit simply by doing nothing if the Iraq policy continues to falter.
Inslee admits the issue is complex. "There are no easy, guaranteed solutions," he said. "Whether it can be put back together again, there just aren't guarantees."
Larsen, who like Smith serves on the Armed Services Committee and who generally backs the military, said Bush has failed the nation and its soldiers by not precisely defining the "militarily achievable goals" that must be met.
Smith, who recently visited Iraq, urged Democrats to temper their rhetoric. "It's not helpful for Democrats to say all is lost. We need a stable Iraq that is not a haven for terrorists. We need a legitimate government that the people of Iraq believe in."
But some broad outlines are emerging, mostly a result of comments made two weeks ago by Murtha, the gruff former Marine from Pennsylvania who fought in Vietnam and historically is among the Pentagon's most loyal defenders.
Murtha proclaimed the Iraq strategy a failure and called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops within six months. Other Democrats have said that most troops should leave Iraq by the end of 2006 if certain specific benchmarks are reached.
Inslee said he could support such a framework.
While holding back for more than a week, Pelosi finally endorsed Murtha's position last week. Yet the No. 2 Democrat in the House, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, refused. "A precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq," he said, "could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility."
If not for Murtha, Dicks' reversal could well have been the most significant defection. Dicks, like Murtha, has historically supported the military, even when it angered his party. He was a vocal advocate for such controversial programs as the B-2 bomber.
Yet when asked last week if he would vote again to invade Iraq given what he knows today, Dicks said, "Absolutely not."
McDermott says the lack of agreement among Democrats should not obscure the progress made within the party. Not long ago, he said, "We in the 'Out of Iraq Caucus' were frustrated out of our minds" that Democrats wouldn't even discuss the issue.
With today's meeting, Iraq has moved onto the agenda. And McDermott said, "what looks disorderly is part of the regular order of the way things happen. We're in the process of sorting options."
It's likely to be messy and intensely partisan. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean on Monday likened the war to Vietnam, adding "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., responded immediately. "We should all be grateful that Governor Dean is not General Dean. ... Rather than standing by our troops who are fighting the war on terror, Howard Dean has made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender."
And Tuesday, President Bush denounced as "pessimists" those who suggested there be a timetable for withdrawal.
Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech to soldiers at Fort Drum in New York, was even tougher.
"I realize that some have advocated a sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. This would be unwise in the extreme, a victory for terrorists, bad for the Iraqi people and bad for the United States," Cheney said.
"Any decisions about troop levels," he added, "will be driven by the conditions on the ground and the judgments of our commanders, not by artificial timelines set by politicians in Washington, D.C."-from the P-I story this morning by Charlie Pope.
"Republican Hate Speak" on Daily Dissent gives us this:
"Yesterday Michael Reagan asserted that Howard Dean should be "arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war" for his comments regarding the likelihood of losing the war in Iraq. When given the opportunity on Fox News, Reagan chooses not to back down from his statement (video).
Can you even imagine the shitstorm the Republicans would create if such a statement was made regarding RNC Chair Kevin Mehlman?" I like Nancy Reagan's son better.
But Democrats are finding the issue hard as well, and the party has been unable to reconcile competing internal visions over Iraq's future or the best plan for bringing U.S. troops home.
Just how divergent those views are could come into sharp focus today as House Democrats meet to discuss the war and lay the groundwork for a more unified policy.
In that respect, the six House Democrats from Washington state offer a telling snapshot of the crosscurrents pulling Democrats nationwide. Four of them -- Jim McDermott, Jay Inslee, Rick Larsen and Brian Baird -- voted in September 2002 against going to war while Norm Dicks and Adam Smith voted to give the president permission to invade.
No one expects a consensus to emerge today. "It's part of an ongoing conversation," Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's spokeswoman, Jen Crider, said. "The leader understands that decisions about Iraq are a personal decision."
Dicks and Smith have recently said they regretted their votes. Dicks' statement was especially significant because he is among the most respected voices on military matters and has vigorously supported the Pentagon.
"Now Norm Dicks is with me and Jack Murtha is with me," McDermott said, suggesting that the two Democrats who historically have most supported the military have now joined more liberal lawmakers like himself who have opposed the war from the start.
But while most -- if not all -- Democrats agree that serious mistakes were made and that the White House blundered into war and mishandled the postwar reconstruction, there is little agreement beyond that. Nor is there agreement among Democrats about whether a specific plan is needed. Some believe that they will benefit simply by doing nothing if the Iraq policy continues to falter.
Inslee admits the issue is complex. "There are no easy, guaranteed solutions," he said. "Whether it can be put back together again, there just aren't guarantees."
Larsen, who like Smith serves on the Armed Services Committee and who generally backs the military, said Bush has failed the nation and its soldiers by not precisely defining the "militarily achievable goals" that must be met.
Smith, who recently visited Iraq, urged Democrats to temper their rhetoric. "It's not helpful for Democrats to say all is lost. We need a stable Iraq that is not a haven for terrorists. We need a legitimate government that the people of Iraq believe in."
But some broad outlines are emerging, mostly a result of comments made two weeks ago by Murtha, the gruff former Marine from Pennsylvania who fought in Vietnam and historically is among the Pentagon's most loyal defenders.
Murtha proclaimed the Iraq strategy a failure and called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops within six months. Other Democrats have said that most troops should leave Iraq by the end of 2006 if certain specific benchmarks are reached.
Inslee said he could support such a framework.
While holding back for more than a week, Pelosi finally endorsed Murtha's position last week. Yet the No. 2 Democrat in the House, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, refused. "A precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq," he said, "could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility."
If not for Murtha, Dicks' reversal could well have been the most significant defection. Dicks, like Murtha, has historically supported the military, even when it angered his party. He was a vocal advocate for such controversial programs as the B-2 bomber.
Yet when asked last week if he would vote again to invade Iraq given what he knows today, Dicks said, "Absolutely not."
McDermott says the lack of agreement among Democrats should not obscure the progress made within the party. Not long ago, he said, "We in the 'Out of Iraq Caucus' were frustrated out of our minds" that Democrats wouldn't even discuss the issue.
With today's meeting, Iraq has moved onto the agenda. And McDermott said, "what looks disorderly is part of the regular order of the way things happen. We're in the process of sorting options."
It's likely to be messy and intensely partisan. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean on Monday likened the war to Vietnam, adding "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., responded immediately. "We should all be grateful that Governor Dean is not General Dean. ... Rather than standing by our troops who are fighting the war on terror, Howard Dean has made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender."
And Tuesday, President Bush denounced as "pessimists" those who suggested there be a timetable for withdrawal.
Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech to soldiers at Fort Drum in New York, was even tougher.
"I realize that some have advocated a sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. This would be unwise in the extreme, a victory for terrorists, bad for the Iraqi people and bad for the United States," Cheney said.
"Any decisions about troop levels," he added, "will be driven by the conditions on the ground and the judgments of our commanders, not by artificial timelines set by politicians in Washington, D.C."-from the P-I story this morning by Charlie Pope.
"Republican Hate Speak" on Daily Dissent gives us this:
"Yesterday Michael Reagan asserted that Howard Dean should be "arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war" for his comments regarding the likelihood of losing the war in Iraq. When given the opportunity on Fox News, Reagan chooses not to back down from his statement (video).
Can you even imagine the shitstorm the Republicans would create if such a statement was made regarding RNC Chair Kevin Mehlman?" I like Nancy Reagan's son better.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
''Democrats fear antiwar talk could backfire''
The headline should be "some Democrats"---but what else should we expect from the Washington Post.
"Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders' rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.
Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean's declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."
The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president's growing political problems on the war and other issues. "Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful," said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean's famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy redeployment, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.
These sources said the two leaders have expressed worry that Pelosi is playing into Bush's hands by suggesting Democrats are the party of a quick pullout -- an unpopular position in many of the most competitive House races.
"What I want Democrats to be discussing is what the president's policies have led to," Emanuel said. He added that once discussion turns to a formal timeline for troop withdrawals, "the how and when gets buried" and many voters take away only an impression that Democrats favor retreat.
Pelosi last week endorsed a plan by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to redeploy all U.S. troops in Iraq within six months, putting her at odds with most other Democratic leaders and leading foreign policy experts in her party.
Two-pronged strategy
Democrats, who have not controlled the White House since 2000 and the House in more than a decade, have tried over the past year to put aside deep philosophical differences and rally behind a two-pronged strategy to return to power: Highlight the growing number of GOP scandals and score Bush's unpopular war management.
While the party is divided over the specifics of Iraq policy, most Democratic legislators are slowly coalescing around a political plan, according to lawmakers and party operatives. This would involve setting a broad time frame for drawing down U.S. troops, starting with National Guard and reserve units, internationalizing the reconstruction effort, and blaming Bush for misleading the country into a war without a victory plan.
The aim is to provide the party enough maneuvering room to allow Democrats to adjust their position as conditions in Iraq change -- and fix public attention mostly on Bush's policies rather the details of a Democratic alternative. A new Time magazine poll found 60 percent of those surveyed disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq.
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) embodies this cautious approach. He has resisted adopting a concrete Iraq policy and persuaded most Democratic senators to vote for a recent Senate resolution calling 2006 "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty" and to compel the administration "to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq." While Republicans introduced the resolution, it was prompted by a Democratic plan.
Democratic Reps. Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher, both of California, plan to push House Democrats to adopt a similar position during a closed-door meeting today that is to include debate on the Pelosi position.
Despite Pelosi's claims that she echoes the views of most members in her caucus, plenty of Democrats are cringing at her new high profile on an Iraq withdrawal. Not only did she back a position that polls show most Americans do not support, but she also did this when Bush is trying to move off the defensive by accusing Democrats of supporting a de facto surrender.
"We have not blown our chance" of winning back the House but "we have jeopardized it," said a top strategist to House Democrats, who declined to speak for attribution criticizing influential party leaders. "It raises questions about whether we are capable of seizing political opportunities or whether we cannot help ourselves and blow it" by playing to the liberal base of the party.
Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said that while Pelosi estimates more than half of House Democrats favor a speedy withdrawal, she will lobby members in today's meeting against adopting this as a caucus position.
Without naming Pelosi, Vice President Cheney told troops yesterday that the terrorists will prevail "if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission," saying such precipitous move "would be unwise in the extreme." Cheney, addressing Army units at Fort Drum, N.Y., said "any decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground and the judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timelines set by politicians in Washington, D.C."
In his comments Monday, Dean likened the president's optimistic assessment to those offered by the government during the Vietnam War. Bush fired back yesterday. "There are pessimists . . . and politicians who try to score points. But our strategy is one that is -- will lead us to victory," Bush said in response to a question about Dean's comments after a meeting with Lee Jong Wook, director general of the World Health Organization. "Our troops need to hear not only they are supported, but that we've got a strategy that will win."
‘He does not represent me’
DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said Dean's comment were taken out of context. Dean, she said, meant the war was unwinnable unless the Bush administration adopts a new strategy. Still, a number of Democrats distanced themselves from Dean. "I think Howard Dean . . . represents himself when he speaks," Tauscher said. "He does not represent me."
Democratic candidates said their biggest concern is that voters will misconstrue comments by party leaders about Bush's handling of the war as criticism of U.S. troops who are fighting in Iraq. "I absolutely disagree" with Dean, said Patrick Murphy, a Democrat who is running for the suburban Philadelphia House seat now occupied by GOP Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick.
Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who represents a district Bush won easily in 2004, said he disagrees with Pelosi and Dean but does not see that as a problem. "The national press is playing up the fact that Democrats do not speak with one voice on Iraq," he said. "We should wear it as a badge of honor because it shows we are not playing a political line with war and peace."
"Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders' rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.
Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean's declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."
The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president's growing political problems on the war and other issues. "Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful," said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean's famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy redeployment, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.
These sources said the two leaders have expressed worry that Pelosi is playing into Bush's hands by suggesting Democrats are the party of a quick pullout -- an unpopular position in many of the most competitive House races.
"What I want Democrats to be discussing is what the president's policies have led to," Emanuel said. He added that once discussion turns to a formal timeline for troop withdrawals, "the how and when gets buried" and many voters take away only an impression that Democrats favor retreat.
Pelosi last week endorsed a plan by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to redeploy all U.S. troops in Iraq within six months, putting her at odds with most other Democratic leaders and leading foreign policy experts in her party.
Two-pronged strategy
Democrats, who have not controlled the White House since 2000 and the House in more than a decade, have tried over the past year to put aside deep philosophical differences and rally behind a two-pronged strategy to return to power: Highlight the growing number of GOP scandals and score Bush's unpopular war management.
While the party is divided over the specifics of Iraq policy, most Democratic legislators are slowly coalescing around a political plan, according to lawmakers and party operatives. This would involve setting a broad time frame for drawing down U.S. troops, starting with National Guard and reserve units, internationalizing the reconstruction effort, and blaming Bush for misleading the country into a war without a victory plan.
The aim is to provide the party enough maneuvering room to allow Democrats to adjust their position as conditions in Iraq change -- and fix public attention mostly on Bush's policies rather the details of a Democratic alternative. A new Time magazine poll found 60 percent of those surveyed disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq.
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) embodies this cautious approach. He has resisted adopting a concrete Iraq policy and persuaded most Democratic senators to vote for a recent Senate resolution calling 2006 "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty" and to compel the administration "to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq." While Republicans introduced the resolution, it was prompted by a Democratic plan.
Democratic Reps. Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher, both of California, plan to push House Democrats to adopt a similar position during a closed-door meeting today that is to include debate on the Pelosi position.
Despite Pelosi's claims that she echoes the views of most members in her caucus, plenty of Democrats are cringing at her new high profile on an Iraq withdrawal. Not only did she back a position that polls show most Americans do not support, but she also did this when Bush is trying to move off the defensive by accusing Democrats of supporting a de facto surrender.
"We have not blown our chance" of winning back the House but "we have jeopardized it," said a top strategist to House Democrats, who declined to speak for attribution criticizing influential party leaders. "It raises questions about whether we are capable of seizing political opportunities or whether we cannot help ourselves and blow it" by playing to the liberal base of the party.
Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said that while Pelosi estimates more than half of House Democrats favor a speedy withdrawal, she will lobby members in today's meeting against adopting this as a caucus position.
Without naming Pelosi, Vice President Cheney told troops yesterday that the terrorists will prevail "if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission," saying such precipitous move "would be unwise in the extreme." Cheney, addressing Army units at Fort Drum, N.Y., said "any decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground and the judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timelines set by politicians in Washington, D.C."
In his comments Monday, Dean likened the president's optimistic assessment to those offered by the government during the Vietnam War. Bush fired back yesterday. "There are pessimists . . . and politicians who try to score points. But our strategy is one that is -- will lead us to victory," Bush said in response to a question about Dean's comments after a meeting with Lee Jong Wook, director general of the World Health Organization. "Our troops need to hear not only they are supported, but that we've got a strategy that will win."
‘He does not represent me’
DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said Dean's comment were taken out of context. Dean, she said, meant the war was unwinnable unless the Bush administration adopts a new strategy. Still, a number of Democrats distanced themselves from Dean. "I think Howard Dean . . . represents himself when he speaks," Tauscher said. "He does not represent me."
Democratic candidates said their biggest concern is that voters will misconstrue comments by party leaders about Bush's handling of the war as criticism of U.S. troops who are fighting in Iraq. "I absolutely disagree" with Dean, said Patrick Murphy, a Democrat who is running for the suburban Philadelphia House seat now occupied by GOP Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick.
Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who represents a district Bush won easily in 2004, said he disagrees with Pelosi and Dean but does not see that as a problem. "The national press is playing up the fact that Democrats do not speak with one voice on Iraq," he said. "We should wear it as a badge of honor because it shows we are not playing a political line with war and peace."
''War of Words''
"Craig Crawford hits the nail on the head regarding the Bush Administration's ongoing campaign to resell the war to the American public -- particularly with his reference to Einstein's definition of insanity (video)."-from Daily Dissent with video from MSNBC. I enjoyed seeing the Space Needle behind Ron Reagan's head, as he moderated.
''Brand X''
Larry Beinhart, writing on The Huffington Post, does a good job of offering some suggestions of how to define the rovians in the minds of our fellow citizens. What is just as crucial is that the Democrats define themselves, before the rovians do it for them, again. Appetizer: "If we know anything from the 2004 election, we know that branding is as essential to politics as it is to selling detergents, cars and perfume.The Bush campaign branded Kerry as a flip-flopper and soft on terror. Kerry failed to brand Bush as anything. And the chicken-hawk defeated the war hero."
''Mother of All Trials...''
"One thing that struck me about what the witnesses were saying- after the assassination attempt in Dujail, so much of what later unfolded is exactly what is happening now in parts of Iraq. They talked about how a complete orchard was demolished because the Mukhabarat thought people were hiding there and because they thought someone had tried to shoot Saddam from that area. That was like last year when the Americans razed orchards in Diyala because they believed insurgents were hiding there. Then they talked about the mass detentions- men, women and children- and its almost as if they are describing present-day Ramadi or Falloojah. The descriptions of cramped detention spaces, and torture are almost exactly the testimonies of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, etc.
It makes one wonder when Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest will have their day, as the accused, in court."-excerpted from Riverbend's account of the first day of the Saddam trial, on her blog Baghdad Burning.
It makes one wonder when Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest will have their day, as the accused, in court."-excerpted from Riverbend's account of the first day of the Saddam trial, on her blog Baghdad Burning.
''Mr. Bush, have I got an exit strategy for you''
Send this to your favorite Republican who hasn't gone completely insane. It's by someone who "was a Republican" who is from Mill Creek and was a top executive for General Motors, voted against FDR, supported Reagan, etc.
"Despite much talk about an exit strategy from the Iraq quagmire in which our nation is embroiled, the No. 1 exit strategy has not been proposed. Let me fill that void. First you have a right to know where I'm coming from.
When I reached the legal voting age of 21 in 1936, I voted for Republican Alfred Landon against Franklin D. Roosevelt. I continued voting Republican through 1980, when I founded a PAC in San Diego with my own money to help Ronald Reagan defeat Jimmy Carter.
But I didn't vote for Reagan in 1984 because of his misguided trade and fiscal policies.
Whereas the United States enjoyed a $28 billion trade surplus and only $700 billion in federal debt in the previous 36 years, in eight years Reagan piled up $1.042 trillion in trade deficits and $1.692 trillion in federal debt. That was 186 percent more than all 39 prior presidents.
I haven't voted for a Republican or Democrat candidate since because I have no desire to vote for the lesser of two evils. I retired in 1976 as a senior executive of General Motors, with responsibility for more than 35,000 employees, and have been a member of the World Affairs Council, the Institute for the Americas at the University of California, the Advisory Board of the School of Education at the University of San Diego, a Rotary Club president, etc. I've traveled widely and lived in many states.
Any CEO of a corporation who screwed up as many things as George W. Bush would have been fired by its board of directors. Here's a few of the ways:
Invasion of Iraq, which is the biggest strategic blunder and scandal in U.S. history. Saddam Hussein never initiated a belligerent act of aggression or terrorism against us. The buildup to that war was based on fabrications, deception and lies.
Death of 2,100 U.S. soldiers, wounding 15,000 more, and the death of 30,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children.
Immoral and unconstitutional trade policies that caused $2.824 trillion in trade deficits in just five years.
The worst fiscal performance in our history, piling up $2.472 trillion in added federal debt in five years en route to a major economic collapse.
Tax policies that are an insult to working people who make dividends possible but who are required to pay a higher marginal tax rate than those who collect dividends without working.
Foreign policies that have alienated most of the rest of the world.
A misguided attempt to turn future Social Security pensions over to Wall Street.
In typical arrogance, Bush said we must stay the course in the Iraq war, which means continuing his tragic record while killing and wounding more U.S. soldiers. That has no more credibility than to say a fox should be put in charge of maintaining order in a hen house after he has just created mayhem therein.
Earlier this year, Terri Schiavo lay in a permanent coma connected to a feeding tube. Her husband said she would have wanted that tube removed. But Republican members of Congress passed a resolution to maintain the tube, causing Bush to fly from his ranch in Texas to Washington to sign that legislation.
As his pen was poised to sign the document, Bush said, "If there is an error in this matter, it is best to err on the side of life."
Why didn't Bush make that same judgment in early 2003 when millions of Americans protested against a possible invasion of Iraq, as did many foreign leaders? Bush had no qualms about killing and wounding thousands of soldiers and innocent civilians.
In view of his miserable record, his arrogant lack of good judgment and his failure to understand the gravity of his record, President Bush (and Vice President Dick Cheney) should be shown the exit door with a proviso to never darken the Oval Office again.
That should be exit strategy No. 1!
I was a Republican, but never a knee-jerk Republican."-from the Seattle P-I.
The guy sounds like Howard Dean, doesn't he?
"Despite much talk about an exit strategy from the Iraq quagmire in which our nation is embroiled, the No. 1 exit strategy has not been proposed. Let me fill that void. First you have a right to know where I'm coming from.
When I reached the legal voting age of 21 in 1936, I voted for Republican Alfred Landon against Franklin D. Roosevelt. I continued voting Republican through 1980, when I founded a PAC in San Diego with my own money to help Ronald Reagan defeat Jimmy Carter.
But I didn't vote for Reagan in 1984 because of his misguided trade and fiscal policies.
Whereas the United States enjoyed a $28 billion trade surplus and only $700 billion in federal debt in the previous 36 years, in eight years Reagan piled up $1.042 trillion in trade deficits and $1.692 trillion in federal debt. That was 186 percent more than all 39 prior presidents.
I haven't voted for a Republican or Democrat candidate since because I have no desire to vote for the lesser of two evils. I retired in 1976 as a senior executive of General Motors, with responsibility for more than 35,000 employees, and have been a member of the World Affairs Council, the Institute for the Americas at the University of California, the Advisory Board of the School of Education at the University of San Diego, a Rotary Club president, etc. I've traveled widely and lived in many states.
Any CEO of a corporation who screwed up as many things as George W. Bush would have been fired by its board of directors. Here's a few of the ways:
Invasion of Iraq, which is the biggest strategic blunder and scandal in U.S. history. Saddam Hussein never initiated a belligerent act of aggression or terrorism against us. The buildup to that war was based on fabrications, deception and lies.
Death of 2,100 U.S. soldiers, wounding 15,000 more, and the death of 30,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children.
Immoral and unconstitutional trade policies that caused $2.824 trillion in trade deficits in just five years.
The worst fiscal performance in our history, piling up $2.472 trillion in added federal debt in five years en route to a major economic collapse.
Tax policies that are an insult to working people who make dividends possible but who are required to pay a higher marginal tax rate than those who collect dividends without working.
Foreign policies that have alienated most of the rest of the world.
A misguided attempt to turn future Social Security pensions over to Wall Street.
In typical arrogance, Bush said we must stay the course in the Iraq war, which means continuing his tragic record while killing and wounding more U.S. soldiers. That has no more credibility than to say a fox should be put in charge of maintaining order in a hen house after he has just created mayhem therein.
Earlier this year, Terri Schiavo lay in a permanent coma connected to a feeding tube. Her husband said she would have wanted that tube removed. But Republican members of Congress passed a resolution to maintain the tube, causing Bush to fly from his ranch in Texas to Washington to sign that legislation.
As his pen was poised to sign the document, Bush said, "If there is an error in this matter, it is best to err on the side of life."
Why didn't Bush make that same judgment in early 2003 when millions of Americans protested against a possible invasion of Iraq, as did many foreign leaders? Bush had no qualms about killing and wounding thousands of soldiers and innocent civilians.
In view of his miserable record, his arrogant lack of good judgment and his failure to understand the gravity of his record, President Bush (and Vice President Dick Cheney) should be shown the exit door with a proviso to never darken the Oval Office again.
That should be exit strategy No. 1!
I was a Republican, but never a knee-jerk Republican."-from the Seattle P-I.
The guy sounds like Howard Dean, doesn't he?
Monday, December 05, 2005
''Dean: US Won't Win in Iraq''
"(SAN ANTONIO) -- Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.
Dean made his comments in an interview on WOAI Radio in San Antonio.
I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."
Dean says the Democrat position on the war is 'coalescing,' and is likely to include several proposals.
"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.
Dean didn't specify which country the US forces would deploy to, but he said he would like to see the entire process completed within two years. He said the Democrat proposal is not a 'withdrawal,' but rather a 'strategic redeployment' of U.S. forces.
"The White House wants us to have a permanent commitment to Iraq. This is an Iraqi problem. President Bush got rid of Saddam Hussein and that was a great thing, but that could have been done in a very different way. But now that we're there we need to figure out how to leave. 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, and it's their country."
Dean also compared the controversy over pre-war intelligence to the Watergate scandal which brought down Richard Nixon's presidency in 1974.
"What we see today is very much like what was going in Watergate," Dean said. "It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war. The President said last week that Congress saw the same intelligence that he did in making the decision to go to war, and that is flat out wrong. The President withheld some intelligence from the Senate Intelligence Committee. He withheld the report from the CIA that in fact there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (in Iraq), that they did not have a nuclear program. They (the White House) selectively gave intelligence to the United States Senate and the United States Congress and got them to give the go ahead to attack these people."-from the story tonight on WOAI, San Antonio (TX).
Dean made his comments in an interview on WOAI Radio in San Antonio.
I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."
Dean says the Democrat position on the war is 'coalescing,' and is likely to include several proposals.
"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.
Dean didn't specify which country the US forces would deploy to, but he said he would like to see the entire process completed within two years. He said the Democrat proposal is not a 'withdrawal,' but rather a 'strategic redeployment' of U.S. forces.
"The White House wants us to have a permanent commitment to Iraq. This is an Iraqi problem. President Bush got rid of Saddam Hussein and that was a great thing, but that could have been done in a very different way. But now that we're there we need to figure out how to leave. 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, and it's their country."
Dean also compared the controversy over pre-war intelligence to the Watergate scandal which brought down Richard Nixon's presidency in 1974.
"What we see today is very much like what was going in Watergate," Dean said. "It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war. The President said last week that Congress saw the same intelligence that he did in making the decision to go to war, and that is flat out wrong. The President withheld some intelligence from the Senate Intelligence Committee. He withheld the report from the CIA that in fact there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (in Iraq), that they did not have a nuclear program. They (the White House) selectively gave intelligence to the United States Senate and the United States Congress and got them to give the go ahead to attack these people."-from the story tonight on WOAI, San Antonio (TX).
Howard Dean on The Stephanie Miller Show
"Stephanie: What? Celebrity hotline? Why, who could that be, Chris?
Chris: Why, it's DNC chairman Governor Howard Dean! (trumpets and applause)
Stephanie: You know on this show, because we have so much respect for him, we refer to him by all three of his titles. And that is Doctor Governor Chairman Howard Dean.Doctor Governor Chairman Howard Dean, good morning sir.
Howard: Good morning, and congratulations on more than one million listeners! (more trumpets)
Stephanie: Thank you, sir. (He laughs.) You know, I told my producer, Chris, that I am not shocked that we can *get* people like you on the show, I'm surprised that we can get you *back* on the show after having once been on. And slobbering all over you. But thank you so much for taking time for us again.
Howard: A million people is an audience you do not turn down--I'm delighted. Thank you!
Stephanie: So you just had a big meetin' in Phoenix--
Howard: Yes, we had a great meeting in Phoenix. We're focusing on states like Arizona, like Texas, Arkansas, places that we believe are fundamentally *not* Republican states and that we can win back. And so we're doing a lot of work in those states, we've got organizers on the ground there, we will have for four straight years, and we're looking forward to the 06 elections.
Stephanie: You can be honest with us, 'cause there's hardly anyone listening, Governor. When you see the latest poll numbers every week, do you giggle, a little bit?
Howard: No. (Stephanie can be heard giggling in the background). I don't take any great pleasure in the poll numbers because this is fundamentally bad for America. You know, the Republican party, I think they're corrupt, and they have not done the things that need to be done in America. But this is not so great for America to have three more years of a leader who people don't trust and don't believe. Who is unfortunately in competent...incompetent in conducting the war, incompetent in dealing with the economy, incompetent in dealing with national disasters...this is a sad presidency and it's a sad day for America. But we're going to change that. We have some things that we are going to do that are going to improve things dramatically.
Howard: First of all, we're going to balance the budget--Republicans haven't done that for 40 years.
Stephanie: You know who did that before--a governor from Vermont that I've heard of. I believe it was a Democrat.
Howard: Yeah, we need to balance budgets. We need to have health insurance for all our people. Thirty-six countries have it and balance their budgets. We're losing jobs in America because businesses can't pay their health care bill. And we're going to have honesty in government. People always giggle when you say that because they believe that politicians are corrupt. The truth is, most of them aren't. Unfortunately the Republicans have brought a culture of corruption to a lot of the state governments and the federal government. I want ethics legislation, and I want Democrats to have to live under that too, and if they cross the line then they ought to be out of office too.
Stephanie: Well, you know, Governor, that is absolutely true. I mean if ever there was an operative phrase for 2006 it has to be "Throw the bums out." Because at this point you can't say it's just one guy. When you say "culture of corruption" people go "Oh, talking point!" but it's not. When in your memory was there--you've got Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, you've had the White House procurement officer arrested. You've had the Vice President's Chief of Staff indicted--it's just unparalleled in my opinion.Howard: All that is bad--very, very bad--the worst thing is that Karl Rove is still in the White House with security clearance, having given away the name of a CIA agent. Now that's not a reflection on Karl Rove, that's a reflection on George Bush. George Bush thinks it's okay to have a security clearance for somebody who leaks CIA agents' names in a time of war? This is a thoroughly corrupt, incompetent administration. And I'll tell you the last time we had one, but it wasn't quite as corrupt, and that's Watergate, and Nixon had to resign. They didn't have the House and the Senate mired in corruption at that time. Now you've got the Republican leader of the Senate under investigation for insider stock trading, the Republican leader of the House is already indicted, you've got congressmen now resigning for having taken bribes--you've got more to come, too. This is not the last one--you're going to see more Republican congressmen go down under this one. This is awful, it's awful for the country, and we *will* do better.
Stephanie: I gotta tell you, I am so thrilled to have a platform--a progressive platform to offer people. 'Cause I'm so sick of this "liberal media" thing. I read a transcript of you recently, I think it was on Nightline. But I thought where do they get this liberal--they only question this administration as roughly as they question you, I think it was about Tom DeLay. It's like, a lot of things that you say, turn out to be right, but at the time they're like "Oh! Governor Dean! Did you hear what he said about Tom DeLay?" And then of course he gets indicted!
Howard: Did you hear what I said during the campaign about how we're not any safer now that Saddam Hussein has been captured. Hell, they can't even try the guy! Lawyers keep quitting and the trial is in disarray. This is an administration that cannot get its feet out of its own way. It's just appalling to me. At least the Nixon people were smart--this is unbelievable.
Stephanie: Well, this is about people dying--this is not about a burglary.
Howard: That's right.
Stephanie: So, tell us about Iraq and what your thought are about John Murtha--Howard: I think Democrats are coming together. I had a long talk with a group of senators this weekend about this. You know, there's different points of view, but when Jack Mutha stood up, a 37 year Marine corps veteran, he really, I think, got the attention of the country. And the basis of some of his discussions were based on a paper by a guy named Lawrence Korb, who was oddly enough an official in the Reagan administration, who *has* a way out, and I think it makes a lot of sense--
Stephanie: --I do too--
Howard: --and the president is flying off someplace not paying attention. But this is a sensible plan, he calls it strategic redeployment. What he says is that we ought to take 20,000 of the troops and send them to Afghanistan, because we need more troops there, and that *is* a war that has something to do with national defense. Then we ought to bring home the 80,000 National Guardsmen and Reserves--they have no business being in a war like this. They shouldn't have been there in the first place. That we ought to take 14,000 troops and put them in a nearby friendly country. Because we are going to have a real problem--I mean this isn't going to go away when leave, all this chaos over there. And we are going to have to deal with Zarqawi, which was not a problem before--
Stephanie: Governor, I hope we've learned our lesson though as Democrats that--when you add in the phony pre-war intelligence--that we have to stop being afraid of being called weak on terror or weak on national security. I was saying earlier in the show, I feel like the Republicans take away the ability for us to have a reasonable discussion about what to do in Iraq, because they immediately call you a coward, basically. You're a "cut and run" guy--you're a coward!
Howard: I blame the Democrats for that, not the Republicans. The Republicans are a bunch of name callers and all that, but we just need to stand up against them. Jack Murtha did that. And Harry Reid did it when he shut down the Senate and said "You promised us a year ago you'd tell the truth and do an investigation, you haven't done it, and we're going to do it now. That's the kind of thing that makes people say yes, the Democrats will stand up and fight for us. If the Democrats get intimidated by a president who hasn't been truthful with us, then we deserve what we get. And I think that those days are coming to an end.
Stephanie: I was so thrilled, Governor, when you became chairman of the Democratic National Committee, because I said, we need a fighter. That's why we need to Colonel (sic) Hacketts and we need the Howard Deans. Exactly. We need people who are going to stand up and fight against these guys. Now, talk quickly--because that's what they do is divide. So, immigration is going to be their new wedge issue--
Howard: All right, there's a sensible program we can have on immigration, and oddly enough John McCain is on this bill, not just Democrats. But here's basically what we ought to do. One, we should enforce the border laws. The President's been there for five years, and all of a sudden this is a big issue now--
Stephanie: Yeah, he's on it now! He's all over it now!
Howard: --we ought to enforce the border laws. And we ought not to have the Minute Men doing it (Stephanie laughs) we ought to have employees of the U.S. Government. Secondly (laughing) the President says he's going to kick all the immigrants out, and the illegals out and send them back to Mexico or wherever. Well, this is a guy who can't find a 6'4" Saudi running around in the desert, he's not going ot find 11 million undocumented immigrants. It's ridiculous! He doesn't have the money to do it even if he wanted to do it--
Stephanie: --with a dialysis machine! Governor, we are out of time, I'm so sorry, but please, any, ANY time. Thank you so much for fighting the good fight for us!
Howard: All right, thank you so much."-from Howard-Empowered People.
Chris: Why, it's DNC chairman Governor Howard Dean! (trumpets and applause)
Stephanie: You know on this show, because we have so much respect for him, we refer to him by all three of his titles. And that is Doctor Governor Chairman Howard Dean.Doctor Governor Chairman Howard Dean, good morning sir.
Howard: Good morning, and congratulations on more than one million listeners! (more trumpets)
Stephanie: Thank you, sir. (He laughs.) You know, I told my producer, Chris, that I am not shocked that we can *get* people like you on the show, I'm surprised that we can get you *back* on the show after having once been on. And slobbering all over you. But thank you so much for taking time for us again.
Howard: A million people is an audience you do not turn down--I'm delighted. Thank you!
Stephanie: So you just had a big meetin' in Phoenix--
Howard: Yes, we had a great meeting in Phoenix. We're focusing on states like Arizona, like Texas, Arkansas, places that we believe are fundamentally *not* Republican states and that we can win back. And so we're doing a lot of work in those states, we've got organizers on the ground there, we will have for four straight years, and we're looking forward to the 06 elections.
Stephanie: You can be honest with us, 'cause there's hardly anyone listening, Governor. When you see the latest poll numbers every week, do you giggle, a little bit?
Howard: No. (Stephanie can be heard giggling in the background). I don't take any great pleasure in the poll numbers because this is fundamentally bad for America. You know, the Republican party, I think they're corrupt, and they have not done the things that need to be done in America. But this is not so great for America to have three more years of a leader who people don't trust and don't believe. Who is unfortunately in competent...incompetent in conducting the war, incompetent in dealing with the economy, incompetent in dealing with national disasters...this is a sad presidency and it's a sad day for America. But we're going to change that. We have some things that we are going to do that are going to improve things dramatically.
Howard: First of all, we're going to balance the budget--Republicans haven't done that for 40 years.
Stephanie: You know who did that before--a governor from Vermont that I've heard of. I believe it was a Democrat.
Howard: Yeah, we need to balance budgets. We need to have health insurance for all our people. Thirty-six countries have it and balance their budgets. We're losing jobs in America because businesses can't pay their health care bill. And we're going to have honesty in government. People always giggle when you say that because they believe that politicians are corrupt. The truth is, most of them aren't. Unfortunately the Republicans have brought a culture of corruption to a lot of the state governments and the federal government. I want ethics legislation, and I want Democrats to have to live under that too, and if they cross the line then they ought to be out of office too.
Stephanie: Well, you know, Governor, that is absolutely true. I mean if ever there was an operative phrase for 2006 it has to be "Throw the bums out." Because at this point you can't say it's just one guy. When you say "culture of corruption" people go "Oh, talking point!" but it's not. When in your memory was there--you've got Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, you've had the White House procurement officer arrested. You've had the Vice President's Chief of Staff indicted--it's just unparalleled in my opinion.Howard: All that is bad--very, very bad--the worst thing is that Karl Rove is still in the White House with security clearance, having given away the name of a CIA agent. Now that's not a reflection on Karl Rove, that's a reflection on George Bush. George Bush thinks it's okay to have a security clearance for somebody who leaks CIA agents' names in a time of war? This is a thoroughly corrupt, incompetent administration. And I'll tell you the last time we had one, but it wasn't quite as corrupt, and that's Watergate, and Nixon had to resign. They didn't have the House and the Senate mired in corruption at that time. Now you've got the Republican leader of the Senate under investigation for insider stock trading, the Republican leader of the House is already indicted, you've got congressmen now resigning for having taken bribes--you've got more to come, too. This is not the last one--you're going to see more Republican congressmen go down under this one. This is awful, it's awful for the country, and we *will* do better.
Stephanie: I gotta tell you, I am so thrilled to have a platform--a progressive platform to offer people. 'Cause I'm so sick of this "liberal media" thing. I read a transcript of you recently, I think it was on Nightline. But I thought where do they get this liberal--they only question this administration as roughly as they question you, I think it was about Tom DeLay. It's like, a lot of things that you say, turn out to be right, but at the time they're like "Oh! Governor Dean! Did you hear what he said about Tom DeLay?" And then of course he gets indicted!
Howard: Did you hear what I said during the campaign about how we're not any safer now that Saddam Hussein has been captured. Hell, they can't even try the guy! Lawyers keep quitting and the trial is in disarray. This is an administration that cannot get its feet out of its own way. It's just appalling to me. At least the Nixon people were smart--this is unbelievable.
Stephanie: Well, this is about people dying--this is not about a burglary.
Howard: That's right.
Stephanie: So, tell us about Iraq and what your thought are about John Murtha--Howard: I think Democrats are coming together. I had a long talk with a group of senators this weekend about this. You know, there's different points of view, but when Jack Mutha stood up, a 37 year Marine corps veteran, he really, I think, got the attention of the country. And the basis of some of his discussions were based on a paper by a guy named Lawrence Korb, who was oddly enough an official in the Reagan administration, who *has* a way out, and I think it makes a lot of sense--
Stephanie: --I do too--
Howard: --and the president is flying off someplace not paying attention. But this is a sensible plan, he calls it strategic redeployment. What he says is that we ought to take 20,000 of the troops and send them to Afghanistan, because we need more troops there, and that *is* a war that has something to do with national defense. Then we ought to bring home the 80,000 National Guardsmen and Reserves--they have no business being in a war like this. They shouldn't have been there in the first place. That we ought to take 14,000 troops and put them in a nearby friendly country. Because we are going to have a real problem--I mean this isn't going to go away when leave, all this chaos over there. And we are going to have to deal with Zarqawi, which was not a problem before--
Stephanie: Governor, I hope we've learned our lesson though as Democrats that--when you add in the phony pre-war intelligence--that we have to stop being afraid of being called weak on terror or weak on national security. I was saying earlier in the show, I feel like the Republicans take away the ability for us to have a reasonable discussion about what to do in Iraq, because they immediately call you a coward, basically. You're a "cut and run" guy--you're a coward!
Howard: I blame the Democrats for that, not the Republicans. The Republicans are a bunch of name callers and all that, but we just need to stand up against them. Jack Murtha did that. And Harry Reid did it when he shut down the Senate and said "You promised us a year ago you'd tell the truth and do an investigation, you haven't done it, and we're going to do it now. That's the kind of thing that makes people say yes, the Democrats will stand up and fight for us. If the Democrats get intimidated by a president who hasn't been truthful with us, then we deserve what we get. And I think that those days are coming to an end.
Stephanie: I was so thrilled, Governor, when you became chairman of the Democratic National Committee, because I said, we need a fighter. That's why we need to Colonel (sic) Hacketts and we need the Howard Deans. Exactly. We need people who are going to stand up and fight against these guys. Now, talk quickly--because that's what they do is divide. So, immigration is going to be their new wedge issue--
Howard: All right, there's a sensible program we can have on immigration, and oddly enough John McCain is on this bill, not just Democrats. But here's basically what we ought to do. One, we should enforce the border laws. The President's been there for five years, and all of a sudden this is a big issue now--
Stephanie: Yeah, he's on it now! He's all over it now!
Howard: --we ought to enforce the border laws. And we ought not to have the Minute Men doing it (Stephanie laughs) we ought to have employees of the U.S. Government. Secondly (laughing) the President says he's going to kick all the immigrants out, and the illegals out and send them back to Mexico or wherever. Well, this is a guy who can't find a 6'4" Saudi running around in the desert, he's not going ot find 11 million undocumented immigrants. It's ridiculous! He doesn't have the money to do it even if he wanted to do it--
Stephanie: --with a dialysis machine! Governor, we are out of time, I'm so sorry, but please, any, ANY time. Thank you so much for fighting the good fight for us!
Howard: All right, thank you so much."-from Howard-Empowered People.
''A GRASSROOTS REPORT BACK FROM THE DNC MTG. IN PHOENIX, AZ''
Erin goes to Phoenix, runs down the agenda for us and shares the advice she gave our Chairman:
"1. I mentioned to him that since he embraces Lakoff, that as far as framing the National Security debate goes, I told him that I strongly disagreed with his speech at the Veteran's mtg. where he said we need to be stronger on defense and move to the right on defense. I "requested" that he and the Democratic Party move away from framing the National Security issue within the 'right's frame' (which in action is solely and/or primarily about militarism); and that we need to frame the debate in our own terms/frame, which instead largely encompases diplomacy; cooperation; working with other nations and the UN instead of acting like an Empire; re-engaging important arms control treaties and the international criminal court; and that it is about economic policies; appropriate economic aid; fair trade; human rights; dealing with the depleted uranium issue; etc.
2. My second request was that he no longer referred to the majority progressive base as the "Democratic Wing of the Democrat of Party" as he had done a lot in the past. And, that we (the progressive majority) were the "main house" of the party and that the DLC-type Dem. Establishment were a small "wing" of the party.
He replied amicably that he had stopped using that phrase anyway. He was very attentive to what I was saying and thanked me very much for sharing my thoughts on framing. I think if more and more of us go up to him when the opportunity arises and tell him the same thing about our framing of the debate on National Security, it will have an increasing effect and impact...:)"-from AfterDowningStreet.org.
"1. I mentioned to him that since he embraces Lakoff, that as far as framing the National Security debate goes, I told him that I strongly disagreed with his speech at the Veteran's mtg. where he said we need to be stronger on defense and move to the right on defense. I "requested" that he and the Democratic Party move away from framing the National Security issue within the 'right's frame' (which in action is solely and/or primarily about militarism); and that we need to frame the debate in our own terms/frame, which instead largely encompases diplomacy; cooperation; working with other nations and the UN instead of acting like an Empire; re-engaging important arms control treaties and the international criminal court; and that it is about economic policies; appropriate economic aid; fair trade; human rights; dealing with the depleted uranium issue; etc.
2. My second request was that he no longer referred to the majority progressive base as the "Democratic Wing of the Democrat of Party" as he had done a lot in the past. And, that we (the progressive majority) were the "main house" of the party and that the DLC-type Dem. Establishment were a small "wing" of the party.
He replied amicably that he had stopped using that phrase anyway. He was very attentive to what I was saying and thanked me very much for sharing my thoughts on framing. I think if more and more of us go up to him when the opportunity arises and tell him the same thing about our framing of the debate on National Security, it will have an increasing effect and impact...:)"-from AfterDowningStreet.org.
''The Missing Democratic Agenda''
The commentary that answers the question: Do the Dems need an agenda now or not? Regarding Iraq, Armando answers in a different way on Kos. After answering the question in the affirmative, this post offers some guidance:
"Last month, Washington DC’s “Roll Call” newspaper predicted that Democrats would release their 2006 agenda “sooner rather than later.” Saturday, DNC chair, Howard Dean, stated that the Dems would not win unless they produced this agenda. Nonetheless, the document remains a work in progress. Early glimpses of the draft indicate that it has major problems.
Management guru Peter Drucker died last month. Drucker was an advocate of the K.I.S.S. principle - “keep it simple stupid.” He counseled executives to focus on doing a few things very well. Drucker often observed, “Concentration is the key to [satisfactory] results. No other principle of effectiveness is violated as constantly today as the basic principle of concentration.” Democratic leaders need a dose of Drucker wisdom.
There are two problems with the draft agenda: The first is the title, “Together, We Can Do Better,” which is wimpy. The second is that the agenda abandons the principle of concentration. It attempts to be all things to all people.
“Roll call” provided some agenda details. “Among the proposals are: real security for America through stronger investments in U.S. armed forces and benchmarks for determining when to bring troops home from Iraq; affordable health insurance for all Americans; energy independence in 10 years; an economic package that includes an increase in the minimum wage and budget restrictions to end deficit spending; and universal college education through scholarships and grants as well as funding for the No Child Left Behind act. Democrats will also promise to return ethical standards to Washington through bipartisan ethics oversight and tighter lobbying restrictions, increase assistance to Katrina disaster victims through Medicaid and housing vouchers, save Social Security from privatization and tighten pension laws.” We’re told the agenda will also include a new national institute for science and technology as well as a healthcare plan for working Americans and a bipartisan summit on the budget.
When Morgan Freeman received his Oscar he quipped, “I want to thank everyone I ever met.” Imagine if he had then named each of them. That’s the crux of the Democrats problem - they love all of these ideas and feel compelled to highlight each. If Drucker were with us, he’d ask, “Where’s the concentration?”
Howard Dean restated the obvious: Democrats must say something definitive about withdrawal from Iraq. “Benchmarks for determining when to bring troops home” won’t cut it. Rumor has it that publication of the agenda is stalled while top Dems grapple over Iraq. One group believes it’s okay to have no position. They argue that the public should focus solely on Bush failures. The obvious problem with this stance is that it does not demonstrate leadership. Voters want a plan that they can have confidence in.
The Democratic Party might look to Frank Rich for sage advice. In the November 20th New York Times, “One War Lost, Another to Go,” Rich pointed out that the real problem with deteriorating public support for the occupation of Iraq “is that the public, having rejected one [war], automatically rejects the other… The percentage of Americans who now regard fighting terrorism as a top national priority is either in the single or low double digits in every poll.”
Democrats can make a compelling case that Republicans are not defending America. That because of Bush ineptitude, we are fighting the wrong war. Dems should argue that the policies of the Bush Administration have weakened the US: The War on Terror is failing. George’s invasion of Iraq has strengthened the hand of terrorists. Republicans have ignored vital aspects of Homeland Security while favoring cronies with no-bid contracts.
Rather than the tepid motto, “Together, We Can Do Better,” Democrats should consider a substitute such as, “Protecting America.” This has the virtue of simplicity. Conceivably, Protecting American would link together several themes.
Democrats should attack Republicans for shamelessly pandering to the rich and powerful while leaving the rest of us behind. Protecting America suggests strengthening the social safety net. Providing security for all citizens not just the wealthy.
Protecting America can also mean caring for the environment. It can represent shepherding our natural resources and moving towards energy independence. Restoring environmental safeguards and recognizing the threat of global climate change.
If Peter Drucker were advising the Democratic leadership he would tell them to keep their agenda simple. Use a basic theme and link it to a handful of major points: Protect America. Fight the real war on terrorism. Watch over all our citizens. Guard the environment.
American voters believe they know what Republicans stand for: cutting taxes, strengthening national defense, reducing the role of government, and guarding the traditional family. They aren’t clear what the Democrats represent.
In 2006, Dems have to have an agenda that is as pithy. "Protecting America" can do this. It can build upon the growing anti-war sentiment. Highlight that by fighting Bush’s ill-conceived war in Iraq, we are not defending the USA.-Bob Burnett on The Huffington Post. David Sirota isn't shy about his point of view: "Dems Flaunt Their Lack of Courage On the Iraq Issue."
"Last month, Washington DC’s “Roll Call” newspaper predicted that Democrats would release their 2006 agenda “sooner rather than later.” Saturday, DNC chair, Howard Dean, stated that the Dems would not win unless they produced this agenda. Nonetheless, the document remains a work in progress. Early glimpses of the draft indicate that it has major problems.
Management guru Peter Drucker died last month. Drucker was an advocate of the K.I.S.S. principle - “keep it simple stupid.” He counseled executives to focus on doing a few things very well. Drucker often observed, “Concentration is the key to [satisfactory] results. No other principle of effectiveness is violated as constantly today as the basic principle of concentration.” Democratic leaders need a dose of Drucker wisdom.
There are two problems with the draft agenda: The first is the title, “Together, We Can Do Better,” which is wimpy. The second is that the agenda abandons the principle of concentration. It attempts to be all things to all people.
“Roll call” provided some agenda details. “Among the proposals are: real security for America through stronger investments in U.S. armed forces and benchmarks for determining when to bring troops home from Iraq; affordable health insurance for all Americans; energy independence in 10 years; an economic package that includes an increase in the minimum wage and budget restrictions to end deficit spending; and universal college education through scholarships and grants as well as funding for the No Child Left Behind act. Democrats will also promise to return ethical standards to Washington through bipartisan ethics oversight and tighter lobbying restrictions, increase assistance to Katrina disaster victims through Medicaid and housing vouchers, save Social Security from privatization and tighten pension laws.” We’re told the agenda will also include a new national institute for science and technology as well as a healthcare plan for working Americans and a bipartisan summit on the budget.
When Morgan Freeman received his Oscar he quipped, “I want to thank everyone I ever met.” Imagine if he had then named each of them. That’s the crux of the Democrats problem - they love all of these ideas and feel compelled to highlight each. If Drucker were with us, he’d ask, “Where’s the concentration?”
Howard Dean restated the obvious: Democrats must say something definitive about withdrawal from Iraq. “Benchmarks for determining when to bring troops home” won’t cut it. Rumor has it that publication of the agenda is stalled while top Dems grapple over Iraq. One group believes it’s okay to have no position. They argue that the public should focus solely on Bush failures. The obvious problem with this stance is that it does not demonstrate leadership. Voters want a plan that they can have confidence in.
The Democratic Party might look to Frank Rich for sage advice. In the November 20th New York Times, “One War Lost, Another to Go,” Rich pointed out that the real problem with deteriorating public support for the occupation of Iraq “is that the public, having rejected one [war], automatically rejects the other… The percentage of Americans who now regard fighting terrorism as a top national priority is either in the single or low double digits in every poll.”
Democrats can make a compelling case that Republicans are not defending America. That because of Bush ineptitude, we are fighting the wrong war. Dems should argue that the policies of the Bush Administration have weakened the US: The War on Terror is failing. George’s invasion of Iraq has strengthened the hand of terrorists. Republicans have ignored vital aspects of Homeland Security while favoring cronies with no-bid contracts.
Rather than the tepid motto, “Together, We Can Do Better,” Democrats should consider a substitute such as, “Protecting America.” This has the virtue of simplicity. Conceivably, Protecting American would link together several themes.
Democrats should attack Republicans for shamelessly pandering to the rich and powerful while leaving the rest of us behind. Protecting America suggests strengthening the social safety net. Providing security for all citizens not just the wealthy.
Protecting America can also mean caring for the environment. It can represent shepherding our natural resources and moving towards energy independence. Restoring environmental safeguards and recognizing the threat of global climate change.
If Peter Drucker were advising the Democratic leadership he would tell them to keep their agenda simple. Use a basic theme and link it to a handful of major points: Protect America. Fight the real war on terrorism. Watch over all our citizens. Guard the environment.
American voters believe they know what Republicans stand for: cutting taxes, strengthening national defense, reducing the role of government, and guarding the traditional family. They aren’t clear what the Democrats represent.
In 2006, Dems have to have an agenda that is as pithy. "Protecting America" can do this. It can build upon the growing anti-war sentiment. Highlight that by fighting Bush’s ill-conceived war in Iraq, we are not defending the USA.-Bob Burnett on The Huffington Post. David Sirota isn't shy about his point of view: "Dems Flaunt Their Lack of Courage On the Iraq Issue."
Sunday, December 04, 2005
ABC's ''Ths Week'': Hadley and Murtha on Iraq
"Congressman John Murtha and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley individually debate the conditions for withdrawal. As expected, Hadley repeats the same old tired talking point of staying the course -- if we leave now we are surrendering to the terrorists. Hadley also duplicitously asserts that the White House does not promote the use of propaganda in the Iraqi press. Murtha continues to speak truth to power, and predicts we will be out of Iraq by the fall of '06 (video)."-from Daily Dissent.
"WA GOP’s sweep in 1994, a model for Dem sweep in 2006"
"Jonathan Singer has an interesting piece on MyDD, presenting a model for Democrats taking back the House of Representatives in 2006. And what is that model? The overwhelming Republican sweep in WA state back in 1994.
'Going into the 1994 midterm elections, Washington state Democrats appeared poised to continue their dominance. In both 1988 and 1992, the Evergreen state had thrown its electoral votes behind the Democratic candidate, and the state had not elected a Republican Governor since 1980. Looking more closely at the 1992 election, the Democrats won eight of the state’s nine House seats, winning the overall House vote by a 56 percent to 41 percent margin, and House Speaker Tom Foley, a Spokane Democrat, was at the peak of his power.
But come November 6, 1994, the Democrats’ fortunes reversed. Republicans won the statewide House vote by a 51 percent to 49 percent margin, defeating the Democrats in seven of the state’s nine districts for a net pick up of six seats, and GOP Senator Slade Gorton was handily reelected with 56 percent of the vote. What happened on election day, and the months leading up to it, should serve as a stark warning to Republicans who believe they are set maintain control of the House in 2006 and should further provide lessons to Democrat hoping to win back the lower chamber.'
Singer notes that the GOP picked up seats in four Democratic-leaning districts in WA in 1994, and 16 Democratic-leaning districts nationally. He concludes that Democrats should not shy away from targeting Republican-leaning districts in 2006, particularly in Ohio, which somewhat mirrors WA in 1994.
Personally, I remain hopeful that Democrats will target the three Republican-leaning districts in WA state. Everybody knows that freshman incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert is vulnerable; the 8th District continues to lean Democratic in statewide and Presidential races, and should be within reach of a strong challenger (and I’m not yet convinced that either of the declared candidates, Darcy Burner and Randy Gordon, are up to the task.) But given the right circumstances, the right challenger – and enough money – Democrats could have a shot in Eastern WA too.
Representatives Cathy McMorris and Doc Hastings have voted with the Republican leadership 98% of the time – often against the interests of their Eastern WA constituents – and each has their unique vulnerabilities. While McMorris has done little to distinguish herself during her freshman year, Hastings is finally making a name for himself as the do-nothing chair of the House Ethics Committee at time his own party appears to be collapsing under the weight of its own corruption.
Both deserve strong challengers who can make the 2006 election a referendum on George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Tom Delay, Bill Frist and the rest of the Republican leadership. If Eastern WA voters are in the mood to throw the bums out next November, Democrats need to be prepared to offer them a viable alternative. There’s a chance McMorris may draw a strong challenger in Peter Goldmark, but Hastings seat has thus far drawn little interest from Democrats.
As Singer points out, the lesson both parties should learn from WA in 1994, is that Republican domination is not safe in any part of the country right now. Democrats have a shot at retaking the House… but only if we mount strong challenges in Republican leaning districts."-from Goldy on HorsesAss.org.
'Going into the 1994 midterm elections, Washington state Democrats appeared poised to continue their dominance. In both 1988 and 1992, the Evergreen state had thrown its electoral votes behind the Democratic candidate, and the state had not elected a Republican Governor since 1980. Looking more closely at the 1992 election, the Democrats won eight of the state’s nine House seats, winning the overall House vote by a 56 percent to 41 percent margin, and House Speaker Tom Foley, a Spokane Democrat, was at the peak of his power.
But come November 6, 1994, the Democrats’ fortunes reversed. Republicans won the statewide House vote by a 51 percent to 49 percent margin, defeating the Democrats in seven of the state’s nine districts for a net pick up of six seats, and GOP Senator Slade Gorton was handily reelected with 56 percent of the vote. What happened on election day, and the months leading up to it, should serve as a stark warning to Republicans who believe they are set maintain control of the House in 2006 and should further provide lessons to Democrat hoping to win back the lower chamber.'
Singer notes that the GOP picked up seats in four Democratic-leaning districts in WA in 1994, and 16 Democratic-leaning districts nationally. He concludes that Democrats should not shy away from targeting Republican-leaning districts in 2006, particularly in Ohio, which somewhat mirrors WA in 1994.
Personally, I remain hopeful that Democrats will target the three Republican-leaning districts in WA state. Everybody knows that freshman incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert is vulnerable; the 8th District continues to lean Democratic in statewide and Presidential races, and should be within reach of a strong challenger (and I’m not yet convinced that either of the declared candidates, Darcy Burner and Randy Gordon, are up to the task.) But given the right circumstances, the right challenger – and enough money – Democrats could have a shot in Eastern WA too.
Representatives Cathy McMorris and Doc Hastings have voted with the Republican leadership 98% of the time – often against the interests of their Eastern WA constituents – and each has their unique vulnerabilities. While McMorris has done little to distinguish herself during her freshman year, Hastings is finally making a name for himself as the do-nothing chair of the House Ethics Committee at time his own party appears to be collapsing under the weight of its own corruption.
Both deserve strong challengers who can make the 2006 election a referendum on George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Tom Delay, Bill Frist and the rest of the Republican leadership. If Eastern WA voters are in the mood to throw the bums out next November, Democrats need to be prepared to offer them a viable alternative. There’s a chance McMorris may draw a strong challenger in Peter Goldmark, but Hastings seat has thus far drawn little interest from Democrats.
As Singer points out, the lesson both parties should learn from WA in 1994, is that Republican domination is not safe in any part of the country right now. Democrats have a shot at retaking the House… but only if we mount strong challenges in Republican leaning districts."-from Goldy on HorsesAss.org.
Maria Makes the National News, Again
"In the state of Washington, no one has howled louder about Stevens's bill -- and has more to gain from voter awareness -- than Senator Maria Cantwell.
The first-term senator, a Democrat from Washington, is up for reelection next fall. She has a formidable Republican challenger and has been described by some political analysts as ''beatable."
But she has won effusive praise from local editorial writers and political veterans for standing up to the powerful senior senator from Alaska.
''This is a great issue for Maria," said Representative Norman D. Dicks, a Democrat and senior member of Washington's congressional delegation. ''The only thing more holy in this state than keeping Californians from taking water from the Columbia River is protecting Puget Sound."
Cantwell has made a none-too-subtle reference to the nation's worst oil spill, which occurred in the waters of Stevens's home state after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989. ''We learned valuable lessons when nearly 11 million gallons of oil spilled in Alaska's Prince William Sound," Cantwell said. ''We don't need to relearn them in Puget Sound."
Forced by Cantwell's headline-grabbing objections, her probable Republican opponent in next year's Senate race, Mike McGavick, met with Stevens on Nov. 15 and, as he informed reporters later, told the senator that his bill is a ''nonstarter" in the state of Washington.
Cantwell, meanwhile, has had a number of testy exchanges with Stevens, who serves as chairman of the Commerce Committee.
He angrily cut her off during a recent hearing with oil industry executives, when she insisted that they be sworn in before testifying.
It has been an exasperating autumn for Stevens. Once again, his effort to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling has stalled in Congress. Stevens said earlier in the year that he had seen a doctor because he was ''depressed" by his failure to open up the refuge.
In October, Stevens threatened to quit the Senate if funding were cut for two costly bridges in his home state. Derided as ''Bridges to Nowhere," the projects have become nationally known as symbols of pork-barrel spending.
In challenging Stevens, Cantwell has repeatedly invoked the sainted name (in Washington state) of the late senator Warren G. Magnuson, who in his era was as powerful -- and shameless at dishing out pork -- as Stevens is now."-excerpted from the Washington Post story today, "The Puget Sound and the political fury" via The Boston Globe.
The first-term senator, a Democrat from Washington, is up for reelection next fall. She has a formidable Republican challenger and has been described by some political analysts as ''beatable."
But she has won effusive praise from local editorial writers and political veterans for standing up to the powerful senior senator from Alaska.
''This is a great issue for Maria," said Representative Norman D. Dicks, a Democrat and senior member of Washington's congressional delegation. ''The only thing more holy in this state than keeping Californians from taking water from the Columbia River is protecting Puget Sound."
Cantwell has made a none-too-subtle reference to the nation's worst oil spill, which occurred in the waters of Stevens's home state after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989. ''We learned valuable lessons when nearly 11 million gallons of oil spilled in Alaska's Prince William Sound," Cantwell said. ''We don't need to relearn them in Puget Sound."
Forced by Cantwell's headline-grabbing objections, her probable Republican opponent in next year's Senate race, Mike McGavick, met with Stevens on Nov. 15 and, as he informed reporters later, told the senator that his bill is a ''nonstarter" in the state of Washington.
Cantwell, meanwhile, has had a number of testy exchanges with Stevens, who serves as chairman of the Commerce Committee.
He angrily cut her off during a recent hearing with oil industry executives, when she insisted that they be sworn in before testifying.
It has been an exasperating autumn for Stevens. Once again, his effort to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling has stalled in Congress. Stevens said earlier in the year that he had seen a doctor because he was ''depressed" by his failure to open up the refuge.
In October, Stevens threatened to quit the Senate if funding were cut for two costly bridges in his home state. Derided as ''Bridges to Nowhere," the projects have become nationally known as symbols of pork-barrel spending.
In challenging Stevens, Cantwell has repeatedly invoked the sainted name (in Washington state) of the late senator Warren G. Magnuson, who in his era was as powerful -- and shameless at dishing out pork -- as Stevens is now."-excerpted from the Washington Post story today, "The Puget Sound and the political fury" via The Boston Globe.
''Paging Frank Rich! GAO confirms - 2004 Election Was Stolen''
"I had a chance to talk to my hero, Frank Rich, a few months ago about election fraud and he claimed he didn't know much about it. Perhaps he has his plate full unraveling the administration's lies about Iraq, but with the midterm elections coming up someone has to take this issue on."
Paul Loeb and I got the same reaction from Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker a few weeks ago at the U-Dub. Is there something in the air in New York City that keeps people from educating themselves on this issue?
Lyn Davis Lear makes the case, again, on The Huffington Post.
Paul Loeb and I got the same reaction from Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker a few weeks ago at the U-Dub. Is there something in the air in New York City that keeps people from educating themselves on this issue?
Lyn Davis Lear makes the case, again, on The Huffington Post.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
''Dean Hammers Bush On War, Immigration'' (UPDATED)
Dean talks. The Beltway's stenographer writes: "PHOENIX, Dec. 3 -- Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean offered a preview of the 2006 elections here Saturday with a blistering critique of President Bush's policies on Iraq and immigration and the Republicans' ethics scandals. But he warned Democrats they cannot expect to win next year without offering an agenda of their own.
Speaking at the fall meeting of the Democratic National Committee, Dean pledged that Democrats would offer tax policies aimed at middle-class voters, a plan to provide health insurance to all Americans, immigration proposals that offer a path to legalization for illegal immigrants, and defense policies that would protect the nation and expose the "hollow promises" of the Bush administration.
Dean warmly praised Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for "standing up and telling the truth" about Bush's policies in Iraq, and suggested that the Pennsylvanian had offered a vision around which Democrats could rally. But Dean stopped well short of embracing Murtha's call for a withdrawal plan that would redeploy all U.S. troops within about six months. Instead Dean called on Democrats to coalesce around a proposal that would keep some U.S. forces in Iraq for two more years.
The former Vermont governor's remarks underscored the party's continuing debate over Iraq and the reluctance of many party leaders to support Murtha's call for a speedy withdrawal strategy. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) announced her support for Murtha's plan last week, but others in the party leadership have declined to do so, in part out of fears that a swift withdrawal could leave Iraq worse off than it is today and hand the GOP a political weapon.
Dean came to national prominence in 2003 by opposing Bush's decision to invade Iraq and has spoken for the party's antiwar grass-roots activists. But in his speech he blended strong criticism of the president for going to war under false pretenses with a more measured endorsement of a plan promoted by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, which would redeploy about 80,000 U.S. troops from Iraq in 2006 and the remainder by the end of 2007.
Displaying the fiery style that excited many Democrats during his unsuccessful presidential campaign, Dean attacked "political hacks and cronies" of the president for eroding civil rights and voting rights protections, and said of Republicans: "Theirs is a party of self-absorption and selfishness."
Saying Bush had used race and gay rights to divide the electorate, Dean said, "In 2006, it's going to be immigration; that's who he's going to scapegoat next." He said Democrats must favor tougher enforcement of existing immigration laws and provide tighter border security, but said a balanced immigration policy would provide a way to give many of the 11 million illegal immigrants a path to legal status.
The Democratic meeting came at a time of growing confidence within the party that 2006 could bring significant gains in Congress and the statehouses because of Bush's low approval ratings and public anxiety about Iraq. But Dean said those conditions alone are not sufficient to produce Democratic victories. "We're doing the things that need to be done, but we have a long way to go," he said. "The collapse of confidence in the Republican leadership is not enough to elect Democratic leadership. We have to stand up for what we believe."
Dean has faced criticism within some parts of the party for his stewardship at the DNC, particularly the pace at which the national party has been spending money -- something that has alarmed many Democratic strategists who fear Republicans will have a huge financial advantage next year.
But he won near-universal praise among the DNC and state party leaders who gathered here this weekend, saying his emphasis on grass-roots organization was a welcome change from the past. Dean built his campaign for chairman by courting state party leaders, and many said this weekend that he had delivered on his promise to shift money and resources into their states. They defended the money he has spent by saying it represents an investment in party-building in places long ignored by the national party.
Keelan Sanders, executive director of the Mississippi Democratic Party said that with Dean's support, the state party staff had grown from one full-time person to four. Others cited examples of additional staff and help with technical problems. Bobby Kahn, the Georgia Democratic chairman, said the relationship between the national and state parties is the best he has seen in almost two decades.
The weekend meeting offered the first tentative signs of the party's determination to address military and religious matters that have often cost them in elections. "We will not run from the debate on moral values," Dean said. "We will embrace it."
To that end, Democrats held two organizing sessions for new bodies within the DNC, one called the "people of faith" group and the other open to veterans and military families. But apparently fearing potential divisions at the preliminary discussions, DNC officials closed both meetings to reporters, angering some DNC members."-from Dan Balz' story in Sunday's Washington Post.
Update: Other writers at other papers in California have put a different bunch of words together for this story's headline: "Dean attacks Bush 'hacks, cronies'." The Knight Ridder story, "Democrats rally for Iraq redeployment," stresses the foreign policy nuances under discussion in Phoenix.
Update II:
"From the DNC National Meeting in Phoenix, AZ" on the post by Josh Feit on The Stranger's Blog (Slog): "I just talked to State Democratic Party Chair Paul Berendt, who's in Phoenix, where the DNC is holding its annual meeting right now.
With Howard Dean at the helm, the 400 DNC members are working on "messaging" for the big '06 election. Berendt said antsy Democratic voters shouldn't expect a Democratic version of Gingrich's '94 "Contract w/ America" just yet. (He reminded me that the Republicans' Contract w/ America didn't hit until Sept. '94, just 2 months before the Rs' big takeover.)
However, Berendt did say the Republicans' "Culture of Corruption" (DeLay, Frist, Libby, Halliburton, Cunningham) is figuring prominently as the Dems start to determine how to frame 2006.
Berendt also reports that while the Democrats in Washington, DC might have problems with Howard Dean, support remains "rock solid" among the DNC delegates who are gathered at the Wyndham Hotel in downtown Phoenix."
Speaking at the fall meeting of the Democratic National Committee, Dean pledged that Democrats would offer tax policies aimed at middle-class voters, a plan to provide health insurance to all Americans, immigration proposals that offer a path to legalization for illegal immigrants, and defense policies that would protect the nation and expose the "hollow promises" of the Bush administration.
Dean warmly praised Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for "standing up and telling the truth" about Bush's policies in Iraq, and suggested that the Pennsylvanian had offered a vision around which Democrats could rally. But Dean stopped well short of embracing Murtha's call for a withdrawal plan that would redeploy all U.S. troops within about six months. Instead Dean called on Democrats to coalesce around a proposal that would keep some U.S. forces in Iraq for two more years.
The former Vermont governor's remarks underscored the party's continuing debate over Iraq and the reluctance of many party leaders to support Murtha's call for a speedy withdrawal strategy. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) announced her support for Murtha's plan last week, but others in the party leadership have declined to do so, in part out of fears that a swift withdrawal could leave Iraq worse off than it is today and hand the GOP a political weapon.
Dean came to national prominence in 2003 by opposing Bush's decision to invade Iraq and has spoken for the party's antiwar grass-roots activists. But in his speech he blended strong criticism of the president for going to war under false pretenses with a more measured endorsement of a plan promoted by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, which would redeploy about 80,000 U.S. troops from Iraq in 2006 and the remainder by the end of 2007.
Displaying the fiery style that excited many Democrats during his unsuccessful presidential campaign, Dean attacked "political hacks and cronies" of the president for eroding civil rights and voting rights protections, and said of Republicans: "Theirs is a party of self-absorption and selfishness."
Saying Bush had used race and gay rights to divide the electorate, Dean said, "In 2006, it's going to be immigration; that's who he's going to scapegoat next." He said Democrats must favor tougher enforcement of existing immigration laws and provide tighter border security, but said a balanced immigration policy would provide a way to give many of the 11 million illegal immigrants a path to legal status.
The Democratic meeting came at a time of growing confidence within the party that 2006 could bring significant gains in Congress and the statehouses because of Bush's low approval ratings and public anxiety about Iraq. But Dean said those conditions alone are not sufficient to produce Democratic victories. "We're doing the things that need to be done, but we have a long way to go," he said. "The collapse of confidence in the Republican leadership is not enough to elect Democratic leadership. We have to stand up for what we believe."
Dean has faced criticism within some parts of the party for his stewardship at the DNC, particularly the pace at which the national party has been spending money -- something that has alarmed many Democratic strategists who fear Republicans will have a huge financial advantage next year.
But he won near-universal praise among the DNC and state party leaders who gathered here this weekend, saying his emphasis on grass-roots organization was a welcome change from the past. Dean built his campaign for chairman by courting state party leaders, and many said this weekend that he had delivered on his promise to shift money and resources into their states. They defended the money he has spent by saying it represents an investment in party-building in places long ignored by the national party.
Keelan Sanders, executive director of the Mississippi Democratic Party said that with Dean's support, the state party staff had grown from one full-time person to four. Others cited examples of additional staff and help with technical problems. Bobby Kahn, the Georgia Democratic chairman, said the relationship between the national and state parties is the best he has seen in almost two decades.
The weekend meeting offered the first tentative signs of the party's determination to address military and religious matters that have often cost them in elections. "We will not run from the debate on moral values," Dean said. "We will embrace it."
To that end, Democrats held two organizing sessions for new bodies within the DNC, one called the "people of faith" group and the other open to veterans and military families. But apparently fearing potential divisions at the preliminary discussions, DNC officials closed both meetings to reporters, angering some DNC members."-from Dan Balz' story in Sunday's Washington Post.
Update: Other writers at other papers in California have put a different bunch of words together for this story's headline: "Dean attacks Bush 'hacks, cronies'." The Knight Ridder story, "Democrats rally for Iraq redeployment," stresses the foreign policy nuances under discussion in Phoenix.
Update II:
"From the DNC National Meeting in Phoenix, AZ" on the post by Josh Feit on The Stranger's Blog (Slog): "I just talked to State Democratic Party Chair Paul Berendt, who's in Phoenix, where the DNC is holding its annual meeting right now.
With Howard Dean at the helm, the 400 DNC members are working on "messaging" for the big '06 election. Berendt said antsy Democratic voters shouldn't expect a Democratic version of Gingrich's '94 "Contract w/ America" just yet. (He reminded me that the Republicans' Contract w/ America didn't hit until Sept. '94, just 2 months before the Rs' big takeover.)
However, Berendt did say the Republicans' "Culture of Corruption" (DeLay, Frist, Libby, Halliburton, Cunningham) is figuring prominently as the Dems start to determine how to frame 2006.
Berendt also reports that while the Democrats in Washington, DC might have problems with Howard Dean, support remains "rock solid" among the DNC delegates who are gathered at the Wyndham Hotel in downtown Phoenix."
''Dean says immigrants a new Republican scapegoat''
"PHOENIX (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic Party chief Howard Dean predicted on Saturday that Republicans would make illegal immigrants their new scapegoats during the 2006 elections, and said splintered Democrats were starting to find common ground on the Iraq war.
At a Democratic National Committee meeting, Dean criticized the Republican emphasis on illegal immigration and ridiculed President George W. Bush's recent tough talk about stronger enforcement of border security.
He said Republicans exploited the topic of gay marriage in the 2004 elections with a series of state referendums on the issue, and were at it again with another hot-button social issue in immigration.
"In 2006, it's going to be immigrants -- that's who he is going to scapegoat next," Dean said of Bush. "Once again, the Republicans create a problem so they can think to come in and solve it."
Dean, whose strong antiwar stance fueled his presidential campaign in 2004, said Democrats were beginning to rally around a "strategic redeployment" approach in Iraq that would phase out U.S. troops and make Americans safer while there.
Congressional Democrats, nervous about the ramifications of an issue likely to top the agenda in the 2006 elections, have shown no sign of agreement on the war and bickered openly during the week about the right path.
The redeployment plan would offer another approach to Democrats torn between the idea of setting a hard withdrawal timetable or waiting until more Iraqi security forces are ready for duty.
"It shows how we ought to strategically redeploy our troops, including sending our National Guardsmen home," Dean said of a report on the strategy published by the Democratic think tank Center for American Progress. "The Democrats now have a vision around ... which we're starting to coalesce."
PHASED TROOP REDUCTION
The plan includes a phased drawdown of U.S. troops through 2006 and 2007 and a redeployment away from high-risk urban areas, with Iraqi troops taking over the security efforts there.
Dean said it would allow Americans to "protect ourselves against terrorism, which the president invited into Iraq with his actions, and at the same time stop making our own troops a target."
Dean criticized Bush's speech on Wednesday that improvements in Iraqi security forces could clear the way for a reduction in U.S. troops there.
"If the president had taken the advice of his military men before he went there instead of showing us his strategic plan for Iraq three years after he got there, he would be better off today," Dean said. "We have seen the hollow promises of this Republican administration."
The speech to the full Democratic National Committee was the first for Dean since he took the helm of the committee in February. He said Democrats would offer voters tangible reforms and proposals on health care, education and national security.
"Our party is the party that believes we're all in this together," he said. "Their party is the party of self-absorption and selfishness."-from the Reuters story this afternoon. "Dean: GOP Will Use Immigration to Divide" is the headline on the AP story.
At a Democratic National Committee meeting, Dean criticized the Republican emphasis on illegal immigration and ridiculed President George W. Bush's recent tough talk about stronger enforcement of border security.
He said Republicans exploited the topic of gay marriage in the 2004 elections with a series of state referendums on the issue, and were at it again with another hot-button social issue in immigration.
"In 2006, it's going to be immigrants -- that's who he is going to scapegoat next," Dean said of Bush. "Once again, the Republicans create a problem so they can think to come in and solve it."
Dean, whose strong antiwar stance fueled his presidential campaign in 2004, said Democrats were beginning to rally around a "strategic redeployment" approach in Iraq that would phase out U.S. troops and make Americans safer while there.
Congressional Democrats, nervous about the ramifications of an issue likely to top the agenda in the 2006 elections, have shown no sign of agreement on the war and bickered openly during the week about the right path.
The redeployment plan would offer another approach to Democrats torn between the idea of setting a hard withdrawal timetable or waiting until more Iraqi security forces are ready for duty.
"It shows how we ought to strategically redeploy our troops, including sending our National Guardsmen home," Dean said of a report on the strategy published by the Democratic think tank Center for American Progress. "The Democrats now have a vision around ... which we're starting to coalesce."
PHASED TROOP REDUCTION
The plan includes a phased drawdown of U.S. troops through 2006 and 2007 and a redeployment away from high-risk urban areas, with Iraqi troops taking over the security efforts there.
Dean said it would allow Americans to "protect ourselves against terrorism, which the president invited into Iraq with his actions, and at the same time stop making our own troops a target."
Dean criticized Bush's speech on Wednesday that improvements in Iraqi security forces could clear the way for a reduction in U.S. troops there.
"If the president had taken the advice of his military men before he went there instead of showing us his strategic plan for Iraq three years after he got there, he would be better off today," Dean said. "We have seen the hollow promises of this Republican administration."
The speech to the full Democratic National Committee was the first for Dean since he took the helm of the committee in February. He said Democrats would offer voters tangible reforms and proposals on health care, education and national security.
"Our party is the party that believes we're all in this together," he said. "Their party is the party of self-absorption and selfishness."-from the Reuters story this afternoon. "Dean: GOP Will Use Immigration to Divide" is the headline on the AP story.
Maria hangs with Hillary, Debbie, Barbara, and Carl
"LANSING, Mich. U-S Senator Debbie Stabenow is getting a little fundraising help from some of her Senate friends, including Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Clinton and fellow Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer of California, Maria Cantwell of Washington state and Carl Levin of Michigan are to appear tonight with Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm at an event at The Henry Ford in Dearborn."-from the AP story on Thursday.
Clinton and fellow Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer of California, Maria Cantwell of Washington state and Carl Levin of Michigan are to appear tonight with Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm at an event at The Henry Ford in Dearborn."-from the AP story on Thursday.
Dean's New Five Point Plan
"• Honesty and integrity in government
• New Iraq policy to reduce the military’s role and its vulnerability to attack
• Limit outsourcing of American jobs and create new ones through energy independence
• Moving toward universal health care
• Improving public education"
-from the story in today's East Valley Tribune (AZ), "Howard Dean in the Valley shaping Dems."
• New Iraq policy to reduce the military’s role and its vulnerability to attack
• Limit outsourcing of American jobs and create new ones through energy independence
• Moving toward universal health care
• Improving public education"
-from the story in today's East Valley Tribune (AZ), "Howard Dean in the Valley shaping Dems."
''Richard Conlin Is In, Ed Murray Isn't (Yet), Dwight Pelz Might Be''
Swell gossip from Belltowner on Pike Place Politics: "It was between Jean Godden and Conlin for Council President, and Conlin gets it. Greg Nickels is going to get everything thing he wants for the next two years. Conlin will have to dig down deep to find the guts to take on Nickels. Doesn't look good.
Meanwhile, Rep. Ed Murray needs to pull the trigger on whether to challenge Sen. Pat Thibaudeau. It's bad form to tell people you're thinking about it, and then not do it. Seems Murray has ruled out going after Jim McDermott's seat.
Josh Feit has an interesting tidbit... Is Paul Berendt out as the Democrats' chief? If so, does Dwight Pelz have the inside track? Is he right for the job? I would prefer to have him on the City Council."
Meanwhile, Rep. Ed Murray needs to pull the trigger on whether to challenge Sen. Pat Thibaudeau. It's bad form to tell people you're thinking about it, and then not do it. Seems Murray has ruled out going after Jim McDermott's seat.
Josh Feit has an interesting tidbit... Is Paul Berendt out as the Democrats' chief? If so, does Dwight Pelz have the inside track? Is he right for the job? I would prefer to have him on the City Council."
Friday, December 02, 2005
Howard Dean on the Tonight Show
"Dean addresses Lieberman's views on the war, Murtha's call for redeployment of the troops, Bush's speech, and the future of the Democratic Party (video)."-from Daily Dissent.
''Bob Woodward, the Dumb Blonde of American Journalism''
"So how come Woodward, supposedly the preeminent investigative reporter of our time, missed the biggest story of our time -- a story that was taking place right under his nose?
Some would say it's because he's carrying water for the Bushies. I disagree. I think it's because he's the dumb blonde of American journalism, so awed by his proximity to power that he buys whatever he's being sold.
In her scathing 1996 essay in the New York Review of Books, Joan Didion criticized Woodward's reporting as marked by "a scrupulous passivity, an agreement to cover the story not as it is occurring but as it is presented, which is to say as it is manufactured."
And far from shying away from his reputation as a stenographer to the political stars, Woodward has embraced his inner bimbo and wears his "scrupulous passivity" as a badge of honor, proudly telling Larry King that his "method" means that "everyone in the end... pretty much gets their point of view out."
Woodward also told King: "I am strictly in the middle." The problem is, the truth isn't always in the middle; it's often located on the sidelines, or hiding in the shadows amidst the endless rush of detail Woodward so loves to fill his books with.
What Woodward fails to do again and again is connect the dots. He prefers to gather as many dots as he can, jam-pack his pages with them, and then let the little buggers hang out by themselves. Critical thinking that draws conclusions can be such a messy thing."-excerpted from Arianna Huffington's commentary on The Huffington Post.
Some would say it's because he's carrying water for the Bushies. I disagree. I think it's because he's the dumb blonde of American journalism, so awed by his proximity to power that he buys whatever he's being sold.
In her scathing 1996 essay in the New York Review of Books, Joan Didion criticized Woodward's reporting as marked by "a scrupulous passivity, an agreement to cover the story not as it is occurring but as it is presented, which is to say as it is manufactured."
And far from shying away from his reputation as a stenographer to the political stars, Woodward has embraced his inner bimbo and wears his "scrupulous passivity" as a badge of honor, proudly telling Larry King that his "method" means that "everyone in the end... pretty much gets their point of view out."
Woodward also told King: "I am strictly in the middle." The problem is, the truth isn't always in the middle; it's often located on the sidelines, or hiding in the shadows amidst the endless rush of detail Woodward so loves to fill his books with.
What Woodward fails to do again and again is connect the dots. He prefers to gather as many dots as he can, jam-pack his pages with them, and then let the little buggers hang out by themselves. Critical thinking that draws conclusions can be such a messy thing."-excerpted from Arianna Huffington's commentary on The Huffington Post.
''NBC News Announces Baghdad Blog''
"NBC News announced Thursday that it is launching a "Blogging Baghdad" platform Dec. 5 that will expand its coverage of the situation in Iraq. Available on MSNBC.com, "Blogging Baghdad" will feature additional reporting from the network's team of correspondents led by Richard Engel, video clips and video blogs from members of the network's Baghdad bureau.
NBC News President Steve Capus described the new site as "a unique means of storytelling and further transparency in our reporting."
Mr. Engel said, "On a day-to-day basis, there is so much news coming out of Baghdad, and not all of it makes air. Blogging is a great way to report anecdotes, impressions and experiences that might not develop into full-blown stories but are nonetheless terribly revealing about the situation in here in Iraq."-from TV Week via mediachannel.org.
NBC News President Steve Capus described the new site as "a unique means of storytelling and further transparency in our reporting."
Mr. Engel said, "On a day-to-day basis, there is so much news coming out of Baghdad, and not all of it makes air. Blogging is a great way to report anecdotes, impressions and experiences that might not develop into full-blown stories but are nonetheless terribly revealing about the situation in here in Iraq."-from TV Week via mediachannel.org.
Voter suppression: another rovian ''strategy for victory''
Goldy connects the dots: "During the 2004 presidential election, in hotly contested Ohio, Republicans issued hundreds of flawed voter challenges that ultimately failed for exactly the same reason that King County Republican Lori Sotelo’s challenges failed this year — because the Republicans in Ohio couldn’t provide the addresses at which the challenged voters actually lived, even though they’d signed forms under oath claiming they knew just that information. Clearly, the type of uninformed mass challenging that we saw in King County this year from Sotelo is not a new Republican tactic."-from HorsesAss.org, quoting from Eli Sander's post on The Stranger's blog, SLOG. Switzerblog has some ideas on follow-up, on Washblog.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
''Senators Boxer, Cantwell, Questioning Oil Execs' Testimony on Capitol Hill''
"Washington, DC – U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) sent the following letter today to Senators Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee, in response to reports that top oil company executives have revised their November 9 hearing testimony.
December 1, 2005
To: The Honorable Ted Stevens (Chairman) and The Honorable Daniel Inouye (Ranking Member), Senate Commerce Committee, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Inouye:
Oil company executives have now revised their misstatements to the Senate Commerce and Energy Committees on whether they participated in Vice President Cheney’s energy task force in 2001.
Now that we know the oil executives misled the Committee on this matter, the truthfulness of their entire testimony is in question. These executives must be brought back before the Committee and placed under oath to explain themselves.
It would be a dereliction of our duty – to our constituents and to the American people – if we failed to do so.
Thank you so much for your consideration. We look forward to a prompt response.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator
-from BUZZFLASH.
December 1, 2005
To: The Honorable Ted Stevens (Chairman) and The Honorable Daniel Inouye (Ranking Member), Senate Commerce Committee, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Inouye:
Oil company executives have now revised their misstatements to the Senate Commerce and Energy Committees on whether they participated in Vice President Cheney’s energy task force in 2001.
Now that we know the oil executives misled the Committee on this matter, the truthfulness of their entire testimony is in question. These executives must be brought back before the Committee and placed under oath to explain themselves.
It would be a dereliction of our duty – to our constituents and to the American people – if we failed to do so.
Thank you so much for your consideration. We look forward to a prompt response.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator
-from BUZZFLASH.
''Gregoire’s Poll Numbers Rising''-- Great Governor, Lousy Campaigner
"The Public Works magazine's November cover story recognized Gregoire as one of "the most influential, high impact leaders in the public works community” for her work getting the high-performance green building bill passed in this state.
Working with Democratic legislators and a few courageous Republican moderates, she passed the best budget for K-12 education that this state has seen in more than a decade, including a targeted and permanent funding source for I-728 to reduce class size, and reinstatement of I-732 to increase pay for teachers. They also reinstated coverage for 23,000 children stranded without health care in the previous Republican/Rossi – led Legislature and extended coverage to 17,000 more children.
Again, working with legislative allies, she fought for and created the Life Sciences Discovery Fund, using the $350 million bonus from the federal tobacco settlement that accrued to Washington State because she was the chief negotiator. Those funds will support cutting-edge research and technology and create many new jobs.
She led a bipartisan group of state legislators and business-folk to Japan and China earlier this fall, focused on building relationships and creating jobs. She just doesn’t stop. And boy, are we lucky.
As we look forward to the next legislative session starting in January, it’s useful to remember how much was accomplished during this first year of the Gregoire administration. We are blessed to live in a state that is moving forward because we have a Democratic-controlled legislature, albeit just barely, and a Democratic governor. Whatever we can do to assist them and give them more recognition, we should do."-from Evergreen Politics.
Working with Democratic legislators and a few courageous Republican moderates, she passed the best budget for K-12 education that this state has seen in more than a decade, including a targeted and permanent funding source for I-728 to reduce class size, and reinstatement of I-732 to increase pay for teachers. They also reinstated coverage for 23,000 children stranded without health care in the previous Republican/Rossi – led Legislature and extended coverage to 17,000 more children.
Again, working with legislative allies, she fought for and created the Life Sciences Discovery Fund, using the $350 million bonus from the federal tobacco settlement that accrued to Washington State because she was the chief negotiator. Those funds will support cutting-edge research and technology and create many new jobs.
She led a bipartisan group of state legislators and business-folk to Japan and China earlier this fall, focused on building relationships and creating jobs. She just doesn’t stop. And boy, are we lucky.
As we look forward to the next legislative session starting in January, it’s useful to remember how much was accomplished during this first year of the Gregoire administration. We are blessed to live in a state that is moving forward because we have a Democratic-controlled legislature, albeit just barely, and a Democratic governor. Whatever we can do to assist them and give them more recognition, we should do."-from Evergreen Politics.
''Murtha: Military Supports Call for Iraq Withdrawal''
"December 1, 2005 · U.S. Rep. John Murtha, a Democrat from Pennsylvania with strong ties to the military, catapulted into the spotlight recently with his call for a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Murtha says U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq support his position."-audio today from NPR.
''Howard Dean on Jay Leno (Transcript)'' (Part Two)
"Leno: Let me ask you something. Now, normally-the President's approval rating is 35%, it's the lowest it's ever been. It seems in years past that when one party was down, the other party would be up. For all the things the Republican are doing wrong, the Democrats don't seem to be gaining. Why aren't they gaining?
Dean: Well in some ways we are. The polls show that if the election were held tomorrow that we would take back Congress and all that. But, the Democrats have a lot to learn about standing up for what we believe in. You cannot win elections simply by criticizing the other guy, you gotta stand up for what you believe in. We're beginning to do that. I thought Harry Reid was really courageous when he shut down the Senate and demanded some honesty out of Republicans about why we got in Iraq in the first place. And I thought John Murtha, a decorated 37 year Marine Corps veteran was incredibly courageous when he got up and said, "Look, this isn't working. We need a strategic redeployment in Iraq. We're going to have to do a lot more of that. We're going to have to do it on jobs, we're going to have to insist that we have health insurance for everybody in this country like 36 other countries in the world do. We've got to stand for something different from the Republicans and then we can win.
Leno: I remember once you said you HATED Republicans-you remember saying that? You said you hated--(There was some crosstalk here, and it's hard to hear Dean's response, but watching the video one could see the immediate bemused reaction on Howard's face, and he interjected something like, "Well, I was kind of misquoted there…") In the spirit of bipartisanship, can you think of one Republican you like?
Dean: Abraham Lincoln! (Laughter and applause)
Leno: The very first one! All right--
Dean: If he were alive today, he'd be a Democrat!
Leno: You're sure of that-really? Do you think Rove will be indicted?
Dean: I'm not a lawyer, but…I would say there's a reasonable chance. You generally speaking don't get asked to go to a grand jury and testify four times during the life of the grand jury without being under some suspicion. So, I guess that, though I'm not a lawyer, I'd be nervous if I were him.
Leno: This culture of corruption we see now…we were just joke about this congressman, 2 point (couldn't hear) MILLION dollars. Okay, he's a Republican, but this is the perception about politicians. Because this happens on both sides-how do we change that? Do we need campaign finance laws?
Dean: What we need is real ethics legislation in Congress, because the Ethics Committee has been a farce. There was a truce at one point where nobody would indict anybody, or complain about anybody else. That was ridiculous.We really do need real campaign finance reform. We need to get the big money out of politics.
Leno: How do you do that?
Dean: You know, in the state of Arizona, there's a wonderful Democratic governor by the name of Janet Napolitano who got elected on a clean money campaign. She did not have to go to special interests to raise money to do it. They've got a great law that was put in by the voters, because the legislature of course wouldn't do it. The voters of Arizona put in a law that said there would be public financing of campaigns, so that if somebody comes along and wants to spend a gazillion dollars of their own money, the state will give you more to combat it. Now, nobody who runs on that clean elections plan in Arizona owes anybody anything. All they have to do is go in there and do what they think is right, which is really what the American people want. It's not so much about being a conservative or a liberal or a Democrat or a Repubublican. What people are mad about is that politicians go to Washington and then they won't stand up for anything, and that's what has to be changed. (Applause)
Leno: What I would like to see is some sort of truth in campaigning law, because we see these ads, "My opponent voted to give handguns to pedophiles" But that isn't EXACTLY what the law was...and you end up voting for which one you hate the least.
Dean: (reception was bad here and I can't make this first part out). But the flip side is something that's been very good for this country, and that's the First Amendment. Being able to say pretty much whatever you want, within some reason. Britain actually has laws where you can sue somebody for something like that, and maybe we need to do something like that, but free speech is very important in this country.
Leno: Yeah, law suits, we need more of those! (Laughter.) Okay, how about the 2008 presidential election? I know you can't pick somebody. Hillary seems to be way ahead. Could a Democratic candidate, late in the game, come
from behind, out of nowhere? And possibly--
Dean: I know one that did, but unfortunately he went back to nowhere after that.
Leno: (Laughing) Really? Well, would you ever run again?
Dean: Not in 2008. I've sworn--well, not sworn, but I've said that as long as I took this job as DNC chair my job is to fix the party. I'd like to make a big change in the White House. Whether I'm there or not is not so important.
Leno: Like in 2012, you'll still be a young man, you could do that.
Dean: (Smiling) That's right…you're very kind. Thank you."-from Howard-Empowered People.
Dean: Well in some ways we are. The polls show that if the election were held tomorrow that we would take back Congress and all that. But, the Democrats have a lot to learn about standing up for what we believe in. You cannot win elections simply by criticizing the other guy, you gotta stand up for what you believe in. We're beginning to do that. I thought Harry Reid was really courageous when he shut down the Senate and demanded some honesty out of Republicans about why we got in Iraq in the first place. And I thought John Murtha, a decorated 37 year Marine Corps veteran was incredibly courageous when he got up and said, "Look, this isn't working. We need a strategic redeployment in Iraq. We're going to have to do a lot more of that. We're going to have to do it on jobs, we're going to have to insist that we have health insurance for everybody in this country like 36 other countries in the world do. We've got to stand for something different from the Republicans and then we can win.
Leno: I remember once you said you HATED Republicans-you remember saying that? You said you hated--(There was some crosstalk here, and it's hard to hear Dean's response, but watching the video one could see the immediate bemused reaction on Howard's face, and he interjected something like, "Well, I was kind of misquoted there…") In the spirit of bipartisanship, can you think of one Republican you like?
Dean: Abraham Lincoln! (Laughter and applause)
Leno: The very first one! All right--
Dean: If he were alive today, he'd be a Democrat!
Leno: You're sure of that-really? Do you think Rove will be indicted?
Dean: I'm not a lawyer, but…I would say there's a reasonable chance. You generally speaking don't get asked to go to a grand jury and testify four times during the life of the grand jury without being under some suspicion. So, I guess that, though I'm not a lawyer, I'd be nervous if I were him.
Leno: This culture of corruption we see now…we were just joke about this congressman, 2 point (couldn't hear) MILLION dollars. Okay, he's a Republican, but this is the perception about politicians. Because this happens on both sides-how do we change that? Do we need campaign finance laws?
Dean: What we need is real ethics legislation in Congress, because the Ethics Committee has been a farce. There was a truce at one point where nobody would indict anybody, or complain about anybody else. That was ridiculous.We really do need real campaign finance reform. We need to get the big money out of politics.
Leno: How do you do that?
Dean: You know, in the state of Arizona, there's a wonderful Democratic governor by the name of Janet Napolitano who got elected on a clean money campaign. She did not have to go to special interests to raise money to do it. They've got a great law that was put in by the voters, because the legislature of course wouldn't do it. The voters of Arizona put in a law that said there would be public financing of campaigns, so that if somebody comes along and wants to spend a gazillion dollars of their own money, the state will give you more to combat it. Now, nobody who runs on that clean elections plan in Arizona owes anybody anything. All they have to do is go in there and do what they think is right, which is really what the American people want. It's not so much about being a conservative or a liberal or a Democrat or a Repubublican. What people are mad about is that politicians go to Washington and then they won't stand up for anything, and that's what has to be changed. (Applause)
Leno: What I would like to see is some sort of truth in campaigning law, because we see these ads, "My opponent voted to give handguns to pedophiles" But that isn't EXACTLY what the law was...and you end up voting for which one you hate the least.
Dean: (reception was bad here and I can't make this first part out). But the flip side is something that's been very good for this country, and that's the First Amendment. Being able to say pretty much whatever you want, within some reason. Britain actually has laws where you can sue somebody for something like that, and maybe we need to do something like that, but free speech is very important in this country.
Leno: Yeah, law suits, we need more of those! (Laughter.) Okay, how about the 2008 presidential election? I know you can't pick somebody. Hillary seems to be way ahead. Could a Democratic candidate, late in the game, come
from behind, out of nowhere? And possibly--
Dean: I know one that did, but unfortunately he went back to nowhere after that.
Leno: (Laughing) Really? Well, would you ever run again?
Dean: Not in 2008. I've sworn--well, not sworn, but I've said that as long as I took this job as DNC chair my job is to fix the party. I'd like to make a big change in the White House. Whether I'm there or not is not so important.
Leno: Like in 2012, you'll still be a young man, you could do that.
Dean: (Smiling) That's right…you're very kind. Thank you."-from Howard-Empowered People.
''What Bush Didn't Say''
"In today's Iraq "Victory Plan" speech, as kissfan points out in a great diary you should read, Bush discussed a letter found on the laptop of Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr:
One of those fallen heroes is a Marine Corporal named Jeff Starr, who was killed fighting the terrorists in Ramadi earlier this year. After he died, a letter was found on his laptop computer. Here's what he wrote, he said, "[I]f you're reading this, then I've died in Iraq. I don't regret going. Everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so they can live the way we live. Not [to] have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators_. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
Bush left out, as Paul Harvey says, the rest of the story. kissfan describes it, from a NYTimes story:
Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents' home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.
But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.
Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. "I kind of predicted this," Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. "A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."
Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr died for his country. We honor his sacrifice.
The President of the United States should have respected his memory by being honest about Cpl. Starr's story. He was not.
Please read kissfan's diary which is simply wonderful."-from Armando on Kos. Thanks to Washblog for the tip.
One of those fallen heroes is a Marine Corporal named Jeff Starr, who was killed fighting the terrorists in Ramadi earlier this year. After he died, a letter was found on his laptop computer. Here's what he wrote, he said, "[I]f you're reading this, then I've died in Iraq. I don't regret going. Everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so they can live the way we live. Not [to] have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators_. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
Bush left out, as Paul Harvey says, the rest of the story. kissfan describes it, from a NYTimes story:
Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents' home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.
But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.
Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. "I kind of predicted this," Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. "A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."
Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr died for his country. We honor his sacrifice.
The President of the United States should have respected his memory by being honest about Cpl. Starr's story. He was not.
Please read kissfan's diary which is simply wonderful."-from Armando on Kos. Thanks to Washblog for the tip.
''John Murtha rips the Speech''
"Rep. Murtha joined Anderson Cooper yesterday and responded to President Bush's speech.
This man puts it on the line and tears into the President's speech, essentially calling it, "not a reality-based speech."-from Crooks and Liars, with video from CNN.
This man puts it on the line and tears into the President's speech, essentially calling it, "not a reality-based speech."-from Crooks and Liars, with video from CNN.
''The People of Fallujah Love Cindy Sheehan''
"Sunni leaders who are still willing to participate in the Dec. 15 elections told Marines in a meeting in Iraq that they are encouraged by the actions of activist Cindy Sheehan and others who are calling for a U.S. withdrawal.
According to a Washington Post report:
The people of Fallujah love Cindy Sheehan,” declared Farouk Abd-Muhammed, a candidate for National Assembly in Dec. 15 elections, referring to the mother of a slain Marine who became a U.S. antiwar activist. He spoke Tuesday at a pre-election meeting of local leaders in Fallujah, 35 miles west of Baghdad, scene of the largest U.S. offensive of the war in November 2004. Abd-Muhammed described watching recent television reports with his family showing Americans waving banners that read “Stop the war in Iraq.” “I salute the American people because we know after watching them on satellite that they are ready to leave,” Abd-Muhammed said.
“We know that there are now voices, even in the Congress, that want America to leave Iraq as soon as possible,” said Fawzi Muhammed, an engineer who is the deputy chairman of Fallujah’s reconstruction committee. “It makes us feel very happy and comfortable because it is the only solution to the problems in Iraq."
Sheehan should be congratulated for showing the Iraqi people and the rest of the world what democracy is all about."-Robert Scheer on the new blog, Truthdig.
According to a Washington Post report:
The people of Fallujah love Cindy Sheehan,” declared Farouk Abd-Muhammed, a candidate for National Assembly in Dec. 15 elections, referring to the mother of a slain Marine who became a U.S. antiwar activist. He spoke Tuesday at a pre-election meeting of local leaders in Fallujah, 35 miles west of Baghdad, scene of the largest U.S. offensive of the war in November 2004. Abd-Muhammed described watching recent television reports with his family showing Americans waving banners that read “Stop the war in Iraq.” “I salute the American people because we know after watching them on satellite that they are ready to leave,” Abd-Muhammed said.
“We know that there are now voices, even in the Congress, that want America to leave Iraq as soon as possible,” said Fawzi Muhammed, an engineer who is the deputy chairman of Fallujah’s reconstruction committee. “It makes us feel very happy and comfortable because it is the only solution to the problems in Iraq."
Sheehan should be congratulated for showing the Iraqi people and the rest of the world what democracy is all about."-Robert Scheer on the new blog, Truthdig.
''Dean's Leno interview, Part 1''
"Here's the first part of the interview on Leno. I wanted to get some of it up tonight, because it looks like we need a new thread. I will post more of the interview tomorrow.(Thursday)
Leno: Let’s talk about some of the issues. Bush’s speech today, what did you think?
Dean: Part of my job is I’m supposed to be tactful now, and it doesn’t come easy.
Leno: Oh no—forget that!
Dean: I thought it was his usual nonsense and repetetive…drivel that we’ve heard for the last 4 1/2 years.
Leno: Well, that’s tactful. (Yep, cause we know there’s a less tactful word than drivel that would have fit perfectly at the end of that sentence!)
Dean: He didn’t say anything new. He’s defending a strategy that was built on things that weren’t true, and of course we’re in trouble. And I think “staying the course” is not a strategy, especially when you didn’t tell the truth to get us there in the first place.
Leno: Well, how about Joe Lieberman, a fellow Democrat—
Dean: Now I really have to be tactful!
Leno: He’s been there a few times to Iraq, and he more or less agrees with the President.
Dean: Everybody gets to march to their own drummer in this party. What we need to do is have a real plan for strategic redeployment. We need not to have 150,000 troops that are being attacked every single day in Iraq. We shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and the fact is we’ve made a big mess over there. We’ve created more of a danger than there was in the first place, and probably one of the results is that we did something that Iran couldn’t do, we helped them win their objectives in the Iran-Iraq war. So, we’re in a lot of trouble in Iraq, and John Murtha’s right, we ought not to be hurting more Americans, and having more American wounded kids come home.
Leno: So what would your plan be?
Dean: I think withdrawing immediately is not the right thing to do, but there is a plan that was authored oddly enough by a guy who worked in the Reagan defense department by the name of Lawrence Korb. Where we would withdraw the National Guard troops over 2006, and even Joe Lieberman voted for 2006 being the year of transition there. We would withdraw the Guard troops, move 20,000 troops to Afghanistan, where they are needed, keep a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq, because we are going to have to deal with the terrorist threat that Bush created by going in there in the first place. And then the rest come home over the period of 2006 after this election. That gives us a redeployment opportunity, it doesn’t show weakness, and it does show the ability to continue to deal with the problems in Iraq without having our guys be the targets."-from Howard-Empowered People.
Leno: Let’s talk about some of the issues. Bush’s speech today, what did you think?
Dean: Part of my job is I’m supposed to be tactful now, and it doesn’t come easy.
Leno: Oh no—forget that!
Dean: I thought it was his usual nonsense and repetetive…drivel that we’ve heard for the last 4 1/2 years.
Leno: Well, that’s tactful. (Yep, cause we know there’s a less tactful word than drivel that would have fit perfectly at the end of that sentence!)
Dean: He didn’t say anything new. He’s defending a strategy that was built on things that weren’t true, and of course we’re in trouble. And I think “staying the course” is not a strategy, especially when you didn’t tell the truth to get us there in the first place.
Leno: Well, how about Joe Lieberman, a fellow Democrat—
Dean: Now I really have to be tactful!
Leno: He’s been there a few times to Iraq, and he more or less agrees with the President.
Dean: Everybody gets to march to their own drummer in this party. What we need to do is have a real plan for strategic redeployment. We need not to have 150,000 troops that are being attacked every single day in Iraq. We shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and the fact is we’ve made a big mess over there. We’ve created more of a danger than there was in the first place, and probably one of the results is that we did something that Iran couldn’t do, we helped them win their objectives in the Iran-Iraq war. So, we’re in a lot of trouble in Iraq, and John Murtha’s right, we ought not to be hurting more Americans, and having more American wounded kids come home.
Leno: So what would your plan be?
Dean: I think withdrawing immediately is not the right thing to do, but there is a plan that was authored oddly enough by a guy who worked in the Reagan defense department by the name of Lawrence Korb. Where we would withdraw the National Guard troops over 2006, and even Joe Lieberman voted for 2006 being the year of transition there. We would withdraw the Guard troops, move 20,000 troops to Afghanistan, where they are needed, keep a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq, because we are going to have to deal with the terrorist threat that Bush created by going in there in the first place. And then the rest come home over the period of 2006 after this election. That gives us a redeployment opportunity, it doesn’t show weakness, and it does show the ability to continue to deal with the problems in Iraq without having our guys be the targets."-from Howard-Empowered People.
''No Voice''
"I didn’t get to see the Saddam trial- our electricity was out and the neighborhood generator was down. All I’ve been seeing these last two days are bits and pieces of it on various channels (they keep repeating the part where he scolds the judge).
The electricity schedule in what appears to be most areas in Baghdad is currently FIVE hours of no electricity for every one hour of electricity. It’s very frustrating considering the fact that it’s not really cool enough yet for excess electrical heater use- where is it all going? If the electrical situation is this bad now, what happens later when the populace starts needing more electricity?
I intend to spend the rest of the night reading about Bush’s ‘strategy’ for Iraq. I haven’t seen it yet, but I expect it’ll be a repetition of the nonsense he’s been spewing for two and a half years now. Don’t Americans get tired of hearing the same thing?
It’s unbelievable that he’s refused to set a timetable for withdrawal (is he having another "Bring it on..." moment?). It’s almost as if someone is paying him to intentionally sabotage American foreign policy. With every speech he seems to sink himself deeper into the mire. A timetable for complete withdrawal of American forces would be a positive step- it would give Iraqis hope that, eventually, sovereignty will return to Iraq.
As it is, people fear the Americans will be here for the next twenty years- unless they are bombed and attacked out of the country. Although many Iraqis support armed resistance in theory, I think that the average Iraqi simply wants to see them go back home in one piece- we feel sorry for them and especially sorry for their families at times. There are moments when you forget the personal affronts- the raids, the checkpoints, the fear of bombing, the detentions, etc. and you can see through it all to the actual person behind the weapons and body armor... On the other hand, you never forget that it's a foreign occupation and will meet with resistance like all foreign occupations.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice can all swear that American troops will not pull out of the country no matter how many casualties they sustain, but history has proven otherwise…"-Riverbend, excerpted from her latest post, on her blog Baghdad Burning.
Riverbend news: "Earlier this year, Baghdad Burning the blog was turned into "Baghdad Burning" - the book. Feminist Press published the whole first year of blogs in book form and it was a huge honor. The book is available at both Amazon and Barnes & Noble. The British version was published by Marion Boyars Publishers.
As if having the blog published as a book wasn't enough- the book itself won the third prize of the Lettre Ulysses Award for the Art of Reportage in October... An amazing honor.
Also- Baghdad Burning in Japanese... and Baghdad Burning in Spanish. Many, many thanks to the people taking so much time to translate the blog!"
The electricity schedule in what appears to be most areas in Baghdad is currently FIVE hours of no electricity for every one hour of electricity. It’s very frustrating considering the fact that it’s not really cool enough yet for excess electrical heater use- where is it all going? If the electrical situation is this bad now, what happens later when the populace starts needing more electricity?
I intend to spend the rest of the night reading about Bush’s ‘strategy’ for Iraq. I haven’t seen it yet, but I expect it’ll be a repetition of the nonsense he’s been spewing for two and a half years now. Don’t Americans get tired of hearing the same thing?
It’s unbelievable that he’s refused to set a timetable for withdrawal (is he having another "Bring it on..." moment?). It’s almost as if someone is paying him to intentionally sabotage American foreign policy. With every speech he seems to sink himself deeper into the mire. A timetable for complete withdrawal of American forces would be a positive step- it would give Iraqis hope that, eventually, sovereignty will return to Iraq.
As it is, people fear the Americans will be here for the next twenty years- unless they are bombed and attacked out of the country. Although many Iraqis support armed resistance in theory, I think that the average Iraqi simply wants to see them go back home in one piece- we feel sorry for them and especially sorry for their families at times. There are moments when you forget the personal affronts- the raids, the checkpoints, the fear of bombing, the detentions, etc. and you can see through it all to the actual person behind the weapons and body armor... On the other hand, you never forget that it's a foreign occupation and will meet with resistance like all foreign occupations.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice can all swear that American troops will not pull out of the country no matter how many casualties they sustain, but history has proven otherwise…"-Riverbend, excerpted from her latest post, on her blog Baghdad Burning.
Riverbend news: "Earlier this year, Baghdad Burning the blog was turned into "Baghdad Burning" - the book. Feminist Press published the whole first year of blogs in book form and it was a huge honor. The book is available at both Amazon and Barnes & Noble. The British version was published by Marion Boyars Publishers.
As if having the blog published as a book wasn't enough- the book itself won the third prize of the Lettre Ulysses Award for the Art of Reportage in October... An amazing honor.
Also- Baghdad Burning in Japanese... and Baghdad Burning in Spanish. Many, many thanks to the people taking so much time to translate the blog!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)