Peacemakers (and the Deans)are first

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007 Campaign Button (Why Wait Until 2008?). Evict Bush and Cheney and Put the Woman of the House in the White House

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/15/breakdown_at_the_iraq_lie_factory.php

Breakdown At The Iraq Lie FactoryRobert Dreyfuss February 15, 2007

It was, President Bush must have been thinking, a heck of a lot easier five years ago. Back in 2002, the president had a smoothly running lie factory humming along in the Pentagon, producing reams of fake intelligence about Iraq, led by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith and his Office of Special Plans. Back then, he had a tightly knit cabal of neoconservatives, led by I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, based in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, to carry out a coordinated effort to distribute the lies to the media. And he had a chorus of yes-men in the Republican-controlled Congress ready to echo the party line.

In 2007, Bush stands nearly alone, and he never looked lonelier than during a bumbling, awkward news conference on the Iraq-Iran tangle Wednesday.

Feith is long gone, and last week his lie factory was exposed by the Pentagon’s own inspector general, who told Congress that Feith had pretty much made up everything that his rogue intelligence unit manufactured. Libby is long gone, apparently about to be sentenced to jail for lying about Cheney’s frantic effort to cover up the lie factory’s work. And the congressional echo chamber is gone: In six weeks, the Democrats have held more than four dozen hearings to investigate the White House’s catastrophic Middle East policy, and even Hillary Clinton is warning that Bush had better keep his hands off Iran, saying: “It would be a mistake of historical proportions if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran.”

Without his Orwellian apparatus behind him, the president spent most of his hour-long news conference yesterday shrugging and smirking, jutting his jaw out with false bravado, joshing inappropriately with reporters asking deadly serious questions and stumbling over his words. It was painful to listen to him trying to justify the nonsensical claims that Iran and its paramilitary “Quds Force” are somehow responsible for the chaos in Iraq:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obamas-nevada-flyover_b_41455.html

Barack Obama may be the media darling right now, but he should be held to the same standards as all the other candidates, especially when it comes to forums that are meant to give primary voters insight into people who want to be president. These forums and debates that come later are the most democratic part of the presidential primary season. The first presidential forum shouldn't be optional. Mr. Obama should not get a pass because his team says he's too busy or that his schedule couldn't fit it in or whatever is the excuse de jour of the daily campaign grind. 

So, on Tuesday night Senator Obama will be eating and enjoying himself with the beautiful Hollywood people in Beverly Hills. Good for him. I used to live in Beverly Hills and I still mingle with the beautiful Hollywood people when I can. More power to Mr. Obama and his campaign team for tapping that resource.

But on Wednesday morning Mr. Obama will... will what? Be flying over Nevada while every other presidential hopeful prepares to talk to AFSCME union members in Carson City.

George Stephanopolous should bust Obama right in the middle of the forum. The AFSCME members should know that Mr. Obama is doing a flyover when every other presidential candidate made sure he or she was in front of them explaining his or her views and policies.

A lot of heavy hitters will be in Carson City as Mr. Obama flies over the state. Maybe his team feels he's not ready to compete one on one with Edwards, Biden, Clinton, Richardson and Vilsack. Or maybe after being up late they're afraid the candidate won't quite be up to the Carson City forum on Wednesday.

Well, if Mr. Obama isn't up to it, he's just not up to it.

http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=T2T4D

Howcome I haven't seen any notice of this on this blog?  Are we getting tame?

March on the Pentagon!
Protest March 17th -- the 4th Anniversary of the War!

puddle

every day that you post the candles is a blessing

there is too much love in the world not to share it

in thoughts, prayers, and actions

These days I'm really liking Obama and I am totally disgusted with Hillary.  Hillary is the only other person, besides GW Bush, who angers me enough that I throw (soft) things at the TV. 

 Hillary seems to be a good hypothetical candidate.  When she talks about the Iraq war she doesn't voluntarily mention she voted to authorize the invasion.  Instead she has the nerve to say had she been President after 9/11, she never would have invaded Iraq.  And if she is President in 2009, she will end the war. 

Why does the media and the public let her get away with this??

I am so embarrassed that she is considered my fellow Democrat. 

Phil ~~ ♥s!!!

Thomas ~~ Since Hillary and Obama are cut from the same piece of DLC cloth, I have a hard time understanding liking the one but not the other, lol!

I like Obama over Hillary for the reason I stated above and because Obama isn't taking money from lobbyists or PACS.

10.

The cloth that people are cut from come from their backgrounds. The lives that Hillary and Obama have led up to this point couldn't be more different.

Its very easy to like one and not the other. Hillary's cloth is tied alot closer to Gore's then Obama's.

SacBee - Hillary Clinton's war vote wasn't that bad by David Brooks

Far be it from me to get in the middle of a liberal purge,
but would anybody mind if I pointed out that the calls for
Hillary Clinton to apologize for her support of the Iraq
war are almost entirely bogus?

full article: http://www.sacbee.com/328/story/124314.h...

Comments

valtina at 6:12 AM PST Friday, February 16, 2007 wrote:

Doublespeak Means You're Always Right!

Brooks gives a perfect history to show Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy and self-serving actions. Prior to the war, she repeatedly said the war was wrong and unwarranted, and continually spoke out against it. Yet, when it came time to put her money where her mouth was, she voted for the war along with the majority. If things went well in Iraq, she could tout her vote as correct despite her misgivings. If things went badly in Iraq, as they have, she could tout her superior analysis prior to the war and claim she was later misled. Having taken diametrically opposed positions, either way she would turn out to be "right." Whatever one thinks about the war, or about Bush, Brooks' tortured effort to square Clinton's pre-war rhetoric with her vote for the war, reads like a playbook by her handlers to rationalize her inconsistency. But in reality, Brooks' column demonstrates even better than Clinton's opponents could, that her positions are as solid as water.

Thomas, on that basis, you should go for Edwards, who has NEVER taken money from PACs or lobbyists. . . . Obama hasn't done so well. . . .

Some of Obama's critics contend he is a recent convert to "clean" fundraising, pointing out that he has accepted PAC money and lobbyist contributions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama has taken $1.3 million in PAC donations over his political career and roughly $126,000 from lobbyists.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/02/clean_contributions.html?nav=rss_blog 

Obama *picked* Lieberman as his mentor in the Senate.  His choice. 

My mantra for this election is: What would Feingold do?  (or, Have done?)

Uh-Oh

Former US vice president Al Gore has ruled out a bid for the White House in the 2008 elections and will carry on his fight against global climate change.

"I have no intention to run for president," Gore said in an interview conducted in Los Angeles and broadcast Thursday by the BBC.

"I can't imagine in any circumstance to run for office again," said the former Democratic vice president under then-president Bill Clinton.

http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fnews%2F2007%2F02%2F16%2F070216193307.67kfaghf.html

15.

Oh dear! Barack better watch his steps when it comes to picking friends.

But, with the horrible exception of Lieberman being completely on the wrong side of the Iraq invasion and occupation, he has always been a dedicated Democrat when it came to other issues.

15.

What wasn't his choice was to have been a product of an interracial relationship with the middle name Hussien and to have been sent to an Islamic school as a child.

Try having that background and being able to get to a point where you have a realistic shot at becoming President of The United States.  Thats someone that earned everything he got.  Some people say those things don't matter. But most of those people have no idea what its like to come from that kind of background in this country.

Its a big difference from being born into a rich white Christian family from the south and marrying the man the would eventually become President of the United States and using those advantages for your own run.

The POTUS faces alot of challenges. I think I can figure out who is better at overcoming them.

The same cloth? That is laughable.

17. Really sorry to hear that about Al Gore. Perhaps he feels secure knowing we have some good Dem candidates, who of whom will certainly win the general election, since the Repugs have simply run out of any candidates who don't carry a trainload of baggage. 

Our group is having a screening of the War Tapes tonight.

Need to send out a reminder.

Saw Senator Clinton this morning. She comes across a lot better than I expected. At least today she was unequivocal about universal health care.

Program started on time and the Senator came out into the auditorium with Carol Shea-Porter, whose poise is a delight to behold.

I wonder how many times Al Gore has to say no before people acutally listen.

He has found what he wants to do. Its a positive thing and he is good at it.  We do have some good candidates.

Y'know, if I were Al Gore (and in case you're wondering, I'm not,) I wouldn't run for Pres either.  Why should he?  He keeps coming up with innovative ideas to save the planet, like his new concert series.  He is recognized all over the world with respect for his environmental expertise.  He may win an Oscar and even the Nobel Prize.

Having said that, he will be a tremendous asset to whomever he supports for President.  I could be wrong, but I doubt that he would strongly endorse Hillary.  But Obama, Edwards, Clark(?) or anybody else would be blessed to have him in their corner.

19.

 The same cloth? That is laughable.

Joe,

If you were answering my comment (15), I am at a loss to figure out what in the world you are writing about.  Same cloth? laughable? 

Furthermore, Obama will probably be my choice for POTUS if Gore doesn't run and it appears he won't.

23.

I agree  donna, Gore knows his calling is much greater than being prez.

16.

puddle,

Feingold is my lighthouse beam too. It is a little disconcerning that he hasn't been more vocal in the Senate the last few weeks -- maybe I'm just not watching when he speaks.

Speak, Russ, speak!!

Gore can only get on Rushmore one way; and the next President will be worthy if he can right this current sinking ship of State.

now there would be a trifecta

Oscar, Nobel Prize, Rushmore

I'd LIKE to see Gore run.  Maybe he was just joshin' when he said he wouldn't run.  But I don't think so.

Who is he? Vice-president for eight years under Bill Clinton and the loser of the most controversial presidential election in more than a century, against George W Bush in 2000.

Al Gore: Back in the limelightWhy take him seriously? Gore backers never fail to point out that more Americans voted for Mr Gore than for Mr Bush in 2000. He has kept largely out of politics for the past six years - but with his film about the environment up for an Academy Award, he is back in the spotlight.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

found this on the BBC website and no story like the one referenced???

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47717/

There Was No 'Smart' Way to Invade Iraq

'Liberal' hawks are stuck on blaming Bush's incompetent handling of the Iraq war instead of arguing that we should never have invaded in the first place.

Victory, as John F. Kennedy observed, has a thousand fathers, while defeat is an orphan. Abandoning the orphan that is the Iraq War has clearly been a protracted, painful process for the liberal hawks, those intellectuals and pundits so celebrated back in 2003 for their courage in coming forward to smash liberal expectations and support the war.

Most liberal hawks are willing to admit only that they made a mistake in trusting the president and his team to administer the invasion and occupation competently.

The corollary of these complaints is that the invasion and occupation could have been successful had they been planned and administered by different people. This position may have its own internal logical coherence, but in the real world, it's wrong. Though defending the competence of the Bush administration is a fool's endeavor, administrative bungling is simply not the root source of America's failure in Iraq. The alternative scenarios liberal hawks retrospectively envision for a successful administration of the war reflect blithe assumptions -- about the capabilities of the U.S. military and the prospects for nation building in polities wracked by civil conflict -- that would be shattered by a few minutes of Googling.

An honest reckoning with this war's failure does not threaten the future of liberal interventionism. Instead, it is liberal interventionism's only hope. By erecting a false dichotomy between support for the current bad war and a Kissingerian amoralism, the dodgers run the risk of merely driving ever-larger numbers of liberals into the realist camp. Left-of-center opinion neither will nor should follow a group of people who continue to insist that the march to Baghdad was, in principle, the height of moral policy thinking.

Acknowledging the limits of armed intervention does, however, entail a recognition that injustice exists in the world that is beyond America's capacity to remedy. Refusal to see this -- which is part and parcel of the incompetence dodge -- may be the liberal hawks' most dangerous tic. And if a failure to internalize some trace of the tragic worldview is a common liberal danger, still further dangers abound for intellectuals and pundits: the seductions of cheap hindsight and second-guessing, the perennial inclination to sacrifice empirical grounding for lofty moralizing and aesthetic preening. Precisely because commentators face the least degree of accountability for what they advocate, they have the greatest responsibility to face matters squarely and honestly. The future of a morally serious, reality-based liberalism depends on interventionists learning from the Iraq debacle lessons more profound than that George W. Bush is a bumbler.

Hi  Folks,

I'm sorry Al Gore isn't running, but like Howard Dean, in some respects he can do much more as he is doing than by being president.

2. Huron John, I'm with you.  Impeach Bush and Cheney, Pelosi as Prez.

Thanks Judy for Dean, for the information about a new device substituting for chains.  If you hear more, let us know. Chains are a hassle, and we're about ready to go down the mountain and see if we can get our Jeep up the hill.

Sorry for all the typos, bad spelling last night.  My brain really scrambles about 9 PM.  Nostradamus, Al Franken, Bill Maher, etc.  

This from Truthout.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021707Z.shtml
By mid-March, Democratic Congressman John Murtha will offer legislation that he says would set such stringent rules on combat deployments that Bush would have no choice but to begin bringing troops home.
 

16.

puddle,

Feingold is my lighthouse beam too. It is a little disconcerning that he hasn't been more vocal in the Senate the last few weeks -- maybe I'm just not watching when he speaks.

***************************************************************

He's speaking loud and clear here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/feingold02172007.html

The question becomes, with a President unable or unwilling to fix a flawed policy that is jeopardizing our national security and military readiness, what should we in Congress do about our country's involvement in this disastrous war? Do we do nothing, and hope that the President will put things right, when he has shown time and again that he is incapable of doing so? Do we tell the President that we aren't happy with the way the war is going and hope that he will change course? Or do we take strong, decisive action to fix the President's mistaken, self-defeating policies?

It's pretty clear which course of action I support. It's the course of action that the American people called for in the November elections. It's the course of action that our national security needs, so we don't continue to neglect global threats and challenges while we focus so much of our resources on Iraq. It's the course of action that will support our brave troops and their families.

We must end our involvement in this tragic and misguided war. The President will not do so. Therefore, Congress must act.

The argument that cutting of funding for a flawed policy would hurt the troops, and that continuing to put U.S. troops in harm's way supports the troops, makes no sense. By ending funding for the war, we can bring our troops safely out of Iraq. Walter Dellinger of Duke Law School made this point when he testified about my proposal:

"There would not be one penny less for salary of the troops. There would not be one penny less for benefits of the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other areas where the armed forces are utilized."

Instead of allowing the president's failed policy to continue, Congress can and should use its power of the purse to end our involvement in the Iraq war, safely redeploying the troops while ensuring, as I do in my bill, that important counterterrorism and training missions are still carried out

you guys do realize that DFA is a PAC, don't you??? LOL!!!

The biggest and completely unforgiveable strike against Hillary is her role in helping to kill Howard's run for the White House.  Anything the Clintons did behind the scenes to derail Howard's frontrunner status changed history and things got worse.  I guess the Clintons thought it was more important to clear a spot for Hillary in 2008 than it was to get Bush out ASAP.

Printable version

The delicate interplay between the oceans and atmosphere is changing with catastrophic consequences.

Entire marine ecosystems have been wiped out, devastating populations of sea birds and larger marine mammals.

These "dead zones" occur where there are disturbances to the nutrient-rich ocean currents, which are driven by coastal winds.

Extreme marine suffocations have occurred off the west coast of the US every year for the last five years.

The most intense event, which left the ocean floor littered with the carcasses of crabs, happened in 2006.

Climate models predict increasing uncertainty with wild fluctuations.  It was unlike anything that we've measured along the Oregon coast in the past five decades," said Dr Francis Chan, of Oregon State University (OSU).

Other coastal countries including Chile, Namibia and South Africa have also been affected.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

leave a discussion of Presidential politics Al Gore less at our peril

real problems demand real solutions, and Gore is uniquely qualified

Tanner update (of a sort) at baby, and a request from his mother. . . .

I suspect that this includes Phil's little one, too.  

16.

Feingold said this morning that the Iraqis are going to have to shape up and we're going to have to spend many years there to set things right.

So, now it's the Iraqis fault that they don't appreciate the people who destroyed their cities plopping down in the middle of the country and telling them what to do.

The problem America has is that it's composed mostly of people descended from people who couldn't get along with folks at home. The folks in the old country are naturally glad when their descendants are going well, but they're not keen on being told how they're supposed to behave by these wipper-snappers.

Gore no more the bore
The once bland ex-U.S. vice-president has morphed into a cultural hero amid calls to try again for America's top job
Feb 17, 2007 04:30 AM

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/1828...

16/02/07 19h33 GMT
AFP News brief
Gore rules out bid for US White House in 2008

http://www.france24.com/france24Public/e...

ABC The Note 2/14/07

2008: Democrats: Gore:
An influential Democratic insider says that close associates of Vice President Gore "have communicated to him and other prominent fund-raisers who are uncommitted to the other '08 candidates that Mr. Gore will consider entering the race — if an opening presents itself — in September," reports the New York Observer's Steve Kornacki.
LINK: http://www.observer.com/printpage.asp?ii...+Guys

On Gore delaying his possibly entry into the race Kornacki writes, "(w)ith his Oscar and Nobel Prize nominations, upcoming Congressional testimony on global warming, and an international day of concerts to promote climate-change awareness that he's organizing for early July, Mr. Gore figures to receive more prominent news coverage in the months ahead than many of the announced candidates."

ABC The Note 2/17/07

2008: Democrats: Gore:
Former Vice President Gore announced his "Live Earth" concert.

LINK: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

mprov, almost noted that Obama took money from the DFA PAC in 2004, lol!

mprov -

ROTFLMAO

That was hilarious.  How did we end up going from hardcore grassroots leaders to political establishment hacks? 

Feingold is so pissed right now that the Dems are weak that all that comes out is pure and honest disgust.  I'm with him in his disgust.

I can't get myself to support Hillary yet (she ticks me off for the same reasons above, why does she have to be so calculating?  I actually like it when she shows us her personality, but the calculating is SO transparent and it really upsets me!), am much closer to supporting Obama (cause everytime I see him speak he brings me to tears), love Richardson, but he's too practical and is by far the most experienced, so he probably doesn't have a chance, Edwards excites me every once in a while (he was good on Maher last night), but that fades so quickly that he's sort of the back up long shot, the rest of them are not worth discussing.

 Without Russ in the race, I'm a jockey without a horse.  

looks like we're 2 peas in a pod, susan. lol.

the whole PAC is evil thing...jeez, i'm the treasurer of a PAC!!!

Kissingerian amoralism,

Huron John 
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

that was worth reading just to see that most pointed of language

and it is in the morass that Hillary is caught

Kissingerian amoralism,indeed

Is media darling and presidential contender Barack Obama re-positioning himself within the Democratic Party?

In a Washington Post interview, Harold Ford, the new chairman of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, says Illinois' junior senator has expressed interest in "find[ing] ways he could work with the DLC." Ford describes Obama as a "personal friend" and says they talk regularly. 

So far, the DLC has not expressed an official preference on the Democratic presidential candidates. Unofficially—maybe not.

By the by, Ford says he will not be attending this year's Playboy Party at the Super Bowl, probably because his love of "girls and football" got him into so much trouble the last time around.

You May Want to Read ...

Posted by Rod at 14:10 in Barack Obama, Chicago, Democratic Party, Harold Ford, Iraq, Politics, Washington Post, White House | Permalink

I was treasurer of two referenda campaigns in Wisconsin last year.  I'm never do it again.  It's funny the one thing I didn't get about ACLU positions was their position on Camp Fin Reform.  They pretty much only will accept public financing of all campaigns and no controls on outside issue campaigns (that interferes with free speech and association).  After the treasurer experience, I am fully and completely on board with the ACLU stance.  It's the only way because the incredible burden CFR had on our free speech last year in Wisconsin is just too much to ask of everyday citizens. 

It would be a big mistake for Obama to go DLC!  He'd certainly lose the main advantage he has over Hillary on the left and the DLC will stand with Hillary regardless because she and Bill effectively created it...

41. in the recent caususes to elect new delegates down in SoCal, there was talk of "new-new" people winning against "old-new" delegates. a little ironic? the slide left continues...and the convention this year should be fun.

46. being a treasurer is a little scary. its like voluntarily putting your head in the noose while entering data into your spread sheet.

Maybe he's just trying to build concensus within the party (reaching across the internal lines).  That would be a good thing and if he could pull that off and unite the Dems under true progressivism, he would be the only candidate that deserves POTUS on either side of the isle.  If Reagan could unite the right wing libertarians and the Christian conservatives with the fiscal Republicans, to win in the 80's and keep a party strong for decades, we are going to need to do the same to gain and hold power into the next decade.  We all need each other and if we can find some values we all hold dear and then agree to talk about the ones we split on, perhaps Obama (hopefully as strong a progressive as he says he is) is the person to do it (better him than a DLC leader doing the same).

What say? 

40. PAC money doesn't interfere with the concept of "clean money," right? isn't it the size of the donation more than who its from? i mean, if you have to get "X" number of $25 donations to qualify, couldn't a PAC give one of the $25??? or is it that "all" donations have to be from"real" people???

Instead of allowing the president's failed policy to continue, Congress can and should use its power of the purse to end our involvement in the Iraq war, safely redeploying the troops while ensuring, as I do in my bill, that important counterterrorism and training missions are still carried out


Let's see what that means. If what strikes terror into the hearts of the occupants of the Pentagon are the Russians and the Chinese, then that's who the terrorists are and all the monitoring and tracking and missile defense equipment they've installed on the hardened bases will need to stay.
Of course, if the folks on those bases aren't safe, then the combat troops that are providing "security" can't be redeployed elsewhere safely, can they? So, how is this different from what the putz has approved?

We now know from the historical record that JFK ordered missiles taken out of Turkey as part of resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis. Why wasn't that announced at the time? Because the presence of missiles was classified and, in the end, JFK didn't want to admit that his order not to deploy them had been disobeyed.
So, somebody got away with putting the whole world at risk of a nuclear confrontation because the President was proud. Could the same thing happen today? No, because the current President is too stupid to care what happens as a reult of his bull-headedness.

50. the problem with that is that the DLC is founded on the premise that "our" way doesn't work, therefore, "their" way does work. i don't see room for their joining us???

48. yeah.  I was running around the office for days before a report was due saying facetiously "I need 'this' (insert whatever info I was looking for) so I don't have to go to jail"  Every penny and I found everyone, but I only ran two campaign with less than $20,000 in expenditures each.  I cannot IMAGINE what it would take to do a multi-million dollar campaign! 

Renee, I'm with you on that.   (Nice to see you back!!)  More on Obama. . . .

I’ve been suspicious of the Obama parade from the beginning - it’s been my experience that ‘attractive’ Democrats whom the media fawns over and regard as safe can usually trace their roots back to the Democratic Leadership Council, otherwise known as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

Obama’s no easy case, though. There are messages in the smoke.

Alexander Cockburn, as left as left can be, has written a couple of pieces on Obama. This was before the media discovered him. That’s a recent phenomenon.

Here’s Cockburn:

It’s depressing to think that we’ll have to endure Obamaspeak for months, if not years to come: a pulp of boosterism about the American dream, interspersed with homilies about “putting factionalism and party divisions behind us and moving on.” I used to think Sen. Joe Lieberman was the man whose words I’d least like to be force fed top volume if I was chained next to a loudspeaker in Camp Gitmo, but I think Obama, who picked Lieberman as his mentor when he first entered the U.S. Senate, is worse. I’ve never heard a politician so desperate not to offend conventional elite opinion while pretending to be fearless and forthright.

That’s right - Joe Lieberman is Obama’s mentor, and Lieberman brags that Obama picked him, not the opposite.

Cockburn also notes that Obama, around the time that Murtha was making a stink about Iraq, spoke before the elite of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Democrats fled Murtha, few with more transparent calculation than Obama who voyaged to the Council on Foreign Relations on November 22, there to ladle out to the assembled elites such balderdash as “The President could take the politics out of Iraq once and for all if he would simply go on television and say to the American people ‘Yes, we made mistakes’”, or “we need to focus our attention on how to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say ‘reduce,’ and not ‘fully withdraw’”, or “2006 should be the year that the various Iraqi factions must arrive at a fair political accommodation to defeat the insurgency; and , the Administration must make available to Congress critical information on reality-based benchmarks that will help us succeed in Iraq.”

Smooth as syrup. There’s a wave of discontent int his country, voiced in the November elections, that we want out of Iraq - no redeployment or scaleback, but o-u-t. No worthy politician can ignore this. But the war from the beginning has been an elite undertaking with unstated objectives. Americans have only been cajoled and frightened into following, and are seeing more clearly now.

It is going to take a politician of considerable skill to 1) heed to public demand to get out, and 2) keep us in. The media, subservient to power as always, will glom on to any politician who can serve those objectives. So, for now, Obama is their man.

[Obama] lobbed up the first signal flare during the run-up to his 2004 senate race, when his name began to feature on Democratic Leadership Council literature as one of the hundred Democratic leaders to watch.

The DLC doesn’t necessarily pre-select candidates, but they do keep an eye out for possibilities. Obama has been on their watch-list for some time. Now that they see his sex appeal, they may rally behind him. He could be Hillary without the polarizing effect, a real possibility to hold the office.

Obama has voted to close filibuster on both of Bush’s Supreme Court selections, to re-up the Patriot Act, for “tort reform”. He’s sent up plenty of signals that he could be Republican-lite enough to be ‘electable’ - code word for no threat to power.

Obama is one of those politicians whom journalists like to decorate with words as “adroit” or “politically adept” because you can actually see him trimming to the wind, the way you see a conjuror of moderate skill shove the rabbit back up his sleeve. Above all he is concerned with the task of reassuring the masters of the Democratic Party, and beyond that, the politico-corporate establishment, that he is safe. Whatever bomb might have been in his head has long since been dis-armed. He’s never going to blow up in the face of anyone of consequence.

There’ll be other candidates testing the wind. Vilsack, another DLC guy, might catch on. Anyone of the left need not apply - Feingold has already ascertained that there is no support among those who matter for a man who really would get us out of Iraq, who really would change our health care system, who really cares about campaign finance reform. We’re pretty much stuck with the DLC, sex appeal, and no substance.

Obama had his fingers stuck in the wind as always. He bends to every breeze, as soon as he identifies it as coming from a career-threatening quarter. This man is no leader.

53.  The elections in November proved almost nationwide that "their way" of being Dems was no longer cutting it.  The milk toast approach to being democrats does not wash with an American public that didn't want a war in the first place, wasn't given a real choice in 2004 and when given real choices nationwide (with the exception of Loserman in CT who sold out to the Repugs for their vote-mark my words, he's getting worse before he gets better) of strong voices against the war (not the wish wash of Hillary, but the get out now dems), the anti-war dems with strong voices of opposition win.

Hillary's in trouble.  Her campaign is in REAL trouble and she (and all the other Dems) know that it's because the DLC positions don't work with the American public as a whole.  Everyone seems to like Obama and I am guessing that the DLC will try to stop him, but if he has strong allies like Ford for personal reasons on his side, he could split the DLC down the middle and effectively negate their effectiveness all together. 

It's not out of the question that they could compromise for the sake of winning and come over to the progressives just long enough for Obama to win the primaries.  Everytime Hillary moves a little more left, it actually seems to strenghthen Obama's campaign.  We progressives have a win-win this time around...

The thing about Obama is that my most radically right wing fiscally conservative, pro-war and unfortunately "racist without thinking he's racist" friend asked me the other day if he supported Obama, would I work with him on it.

I asked him why he was thinking of supporting Obama and he said, "I'm sick of it.  I'm sick of this country being so horribly divided and I think he may be the only person who could unite us all."

I said, "If you are willing to support Obama, than maybe he is the only candidate who can fix the country."

55.

 Obama, Lieberman, and the DLC January 18th, 2007

Posted by Mark Tokarski Filed

~~~~~~~

Do we know which party Tokarski represents?

And if we oppose any and all candidates with DLC connections somewhere, will there be any left?

Our nominee will have to be supported in some measure by the Democratic Party no matter how far left or right he/she leans.

Of course, there's always Nader:))

It's good to be back puddle!  I have to go though.  My family demands only one thing from their very busy mom/wife.  When I'm home, I'm theirs ;)  I may try to sneak back on later.

Rae

Michael Gordon-Judy Miller's worthy successor at NYT!

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02172007.html

It requires no special skill to sell Michael Gordon, chief military correspondent of the New York Times, the Brooklyn Bridge. All you have to do is whisper down the phone to him that the transaction will occur at a background "briefing" by anonymous intelligence sources and a "senior official" or two.

On September 8, 2002 the New York Times editors published Gordon and Judith Miller's fictions concerning aluminum tubes in Iraq, supposedly part of Saddam's nuclear program. Much too late this bout of bridge-buying on the part of the Times duo prompted widespread derision and finally the embarrassed Times editor banned Miller from bridge-buying altogether.

No such restraints were placed on Gordon. After lying low while Miller took the heat, he was back late last year, promoting the famous "surge", sold him by General Petraeus and others. Then, Saturday, February 10, the Times excitedly announced another major purchase.

The story was from the usual salesfolk, unnamed "American officials." Their mission: get Gordon to boost Bush's anti-Iran propaganda drive by promoting the story that Iran is supplying Iraqi Shi'a with the new "explosively formed penetrator," the war's "most lethal weapon" now killing American boys in their Humvees, Bradleys and even Abrams tanks.

Though the Times itself allowed a follow-up news story and an editorial to express caution about Gordon's alarums, his February 10 story gave status to the government's scaremongering about Iran's role in Iraq. So there it is. Another bridge in Gordon's real estate portfolio, as the New York Times puts its editorial shoulder behind Bush's war, as it has done from the start. Times chairman Sulzberger told the grandees assembled in Davos last January, "I really don't know whether we'll be printing the Times in five years." Hasten the day.

60. So much for the "liberal media bias led by the radically left-wing NYT". 

Okay, now I'm going to go... ;)

Repugs looking very pathetic on the Senate floor giving their whiny little speechs about not having a chance to vote on their resolution -- like they would have had one if the  Democrats hadn't forced the issue.  And, oh yes, it's such a meaningless resolution -- like theirs would have been.

Sad, sad, sad. Their party is unfortunately sinking every day. Who will take their place. We need a two-party system.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp02172007.html

Larisa Alexandrovna has recently written an excellent article detailing the neoconservatives' six-year long project to use American power to attack and produce regime change in Iran. Appended to the piece is a timeline including key Bush administration statements about Iran, "news" stories and neocon writings abetting efforts to vilify Iran, and the antics of such characters as former Congressman Curt Weldon, Iran-Contra arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar, and spy-for-Israel Larry Franklin who have worked to facilitate that attack.

Don't expect the neocons urging the Iran attack to apologize after the event, not matter how catastrophic the consequences. Consider Douglas Feith's response to the report by the Pentagon's inspector general that his Office of Special Plans peddled allegations about Iraq "not supported by the available intelligence" in order to get the U.S. into a bloody war.

"All of that was wrong, wasn't it?" Feith was recently asked by Chris Wallace in the most neocon-friendly environment imaginable, Fox News studio.
"No, not at all," Feith responded. "There was substantial intelligence. . . . There was a lot of information out there."

A lot of information indeed. Lots of stuff to believe and fear. That's how it works, again and again, in the history of U.S. imperialism. From the imaginary Spanish sinking of the USS Maine to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to Saddam Hussein's WMD to Iran's plans for genocide. Disinformation has a long proud history of working well when deployed by amoral, unscrupulous, maybe insane men holding state power. Will it work once more?

Procedural vote is scheduled for 1:45 today. 60 votes required to end debate and bring about a vote after the break.

30.

There was injustice in Iraq. There is injustice in this country. The injustice in Iraq was aided, if not created, by the United States. Be that as it may, the invasion of Iraq was not in any way related to correcting an injustice; it was related to the failure to get the head of the Iraqi government to comply with demands that he grant free access to American military assets. Since he wouldn't let us in, we had to knock his house down. The problem we have now is that the other little piggies don't want us to stay either. And neither do the neighbors. Think of the U.S. military as one of those pig farms in North Carolina--a not inapt comparison since the U.S. military has a record of leaving behind environmental devastation whenever it does leave.

There do seem to be some liberals now who are trying to convince themselves that there were moral intentions behind the intervention. There weren't and there aren't. The notion, as Biden suggests, that we are saving the world from a "rising China" and a "re-emerging Russia" is truly offensive. Coming up with these after-the-fact rationalizations demonstrates more than anything else that they did know the score and have something to be guilty about.

Russian efforts to dominate Eastern Europe were wrong. American efforts to dominate the Middle East are wrong.

11.

Thomas Janowski
Sat, 02/17/07
11:06 am

Reply to this

I like Obama over Hillary for the reason I stated above and because Obama isn't taking money from lobbyists or PACS.

__________________________________________

This is almost laughable if it weren't that running for the Presidency is one of the most serious topics of conversation.


Regardless of what names want to pop up that are supporting specific candidates, are you really that blindly following a specific candidate? Do you really believe this stuff you claim or do you just not have a problem lying for your "cause"(Jihad Joe's famouns)?

Obama hooked himself up with the DLC, elite, Clinton backers and beltways guys in 2003. It is documented all over the place. He got holy heck for being a member and the DLC THEN promised to go quiet about their membership unless the members wanted it out.

". But by September 2003, six months before the primary, Obama was winning support from not only African Americans but also Chicago’s “Lakefront Liberals” and other progressives. He was still largely unknown in Washington circles, but that changed the following month when Vernon Jordan, the well-known power broker and corporate boardmember who chaired Bill Clinton’s presidential transition team after the 1992 election, placed calls to roughly twenty of his friends and invited them to a fund-raiser at his home.

That event marked his entry into a well-established Washington ritual—the gauntlet of fund-raising parties and meet-and-greets through which potential stars are vetted by fixers, donors, and lobbyists. Gregory Craig, an attorney with Williams & Connolly and a longtime Democratic figure who, as special counsel in the White House, had coordinated Bill Clinton’s impeachment defense, met Obama that night. “I liked his sense of humor and the confidence he had discussing national issues, especially as a state senator,” Craig recalled of the event. “You felt excited to be in his presence.” Another thing that Craig liked about Obama was that he’s not seen as a “polarizer,” like such traditional African-American leaders as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton."

They were starting to groom him for his next role.

"Word about Obama spread through Washington’s blue-chip law firms, lobby shops, and political offices, and this accelerated after his win in the March primary. Mike Williams, vice president for legislative affairs at The Bond Market Association and a member of an African-American lobbying association, had been following the race in Illinois and was introduced to Obama through acquaintances in Washington who had known him at Harvard Law School.

Williams subsequently set up a conference call between Obama and a group of financial-industry lobbyists. That, too, went well, and in June of 2004, Williams helped organize “a little fund-raiser” for Obama at The Bond Market Association. “It wasn’t just the financial community. There was a broad cross-section,” he said of the 200 or so people who turned out. “There was overwhelming support, not just people from associations giving $2,000 but from individuals who just wanted to meet him, giving smaller contributions.”

Robert Harmala, also a big player in Democratic circles and a colleague of Quinn’s at Venable, attended the association’s event as well. He had been invited by Larry Duncan—an African-American lobbyist for Lockheed Martin, a Venable client—who helped Williams organize the affair. Harmala liked what he saw and continued to be impressed by Obama. “There’s a reasonableness about him,” he said. “I don’t see him as being on the liberal fringe. He’s not going to be a parrot for the party line.” Like Quinn, Harmala donated $500 to Obama and made calls to a number of political donors (“Some usual suspects in California whom I’ve worked with before”) and urged them to support Obama’s campaign. Other fund-raisers were soon organized—one at the Four Seasons Hotel, another at a Dupont Circle restaurant, yet another at the Clintons’ home off Embassy Row. “He was hitting his stride. There were people clamoring to help,” said Williams.

and beholding?

It’s not always clear what Obama’s financial backers want, but it seems safe to conclude that his campaign contributors are not interested merely in clean government and political reform. And although Obama is by no means a mouthpiece for his funders, it appears that he’s not entirely indifferent to their desires either.

Consider the case of Illinois-based Exelon Corporation, the nation’s leading nuclear-power-plant operator. The firm is Obama’s fourth largest patron, having donated a total of $74,350 to his campaigns. During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects. The loan guarantees were called “one of the worst provisions in this massive piece of legislation” by Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste; the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default.

In one of his earliest votes, Obama joined a bloc of mostly conservative and moderate Senate Democrats who helped pass a G.O.P.-driven class-action “reform” bill. The bill had been long sought by a coalition of business groups and was lobbied for aggressively by financial firms, which constitute Obama’s second biggest single bloc of donors. "


Do you really want me to go on?

senate is voting now.

Anyone who repeats Obamas talking points that he can "fix/unite" this country, can't even say WHY? What is it that he is doing that can? Nothing, he gives his down the middle, NO Idealism, no goal, lets just "work togeher" (Conservative talking point) meme.

sounds like party line vote.

lieberman-no.

where's obama?

Obama picked Lieberman for his mentor?  No way!  Next, you're going to tell me that Gore chose Lieberman for his running mate.

The guilt by association canard is like 6 degrees of separation.  I wonder if I can get Howard Dean somehow affiliated with Lieberman.  Let's see, Dean went to Yale. 

The best are Obama's DLC leanings. I'll let Alexander Cockburn explain it: "The DLC doesn’t necessarily pre-select candidates, but they do keep an eye out for possibilities. Obama has been on their watch-list for some time. Now that they see his sex appeal, they may rally behind him."

That's fantastic.  Obama appears on the DLC's list of 100 Democratic leaders to watch.  He tells them to get his name off the list, and now he's smeared as a DLC sympathizer.  Vilsack chairs the group for 18 months and is heralded as a liberal peace candidate.  Who falls for this moronic bullshit?

BTW, incase you all can't gather. The other candidates keep putting out the "Al Gore isn't Running" stuff. Al Gore, at his press conference, that everyone is trying to push as "Gore not running", he said "As I've been saying for the past several years, I am on a different campaign. I have not intention of running".

Can you believe how much they keep doing this? If Al Gore said something already that they weren't worried about, why do they keep coming out with these same stories?

Just like Hillary's man Mark Penn came out bashing Al Gore. The others are just trying to squelch his much and heavy support.

We have a long way to go for Al to get in the race. Sit tight, it will be a long and bumpy ride along the way.

obama-yes

When campaigning for Joe Lieberman in the Primary.

"Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf." Barack Obama

btw, hillary-yes also

Senate voting to invoke cloture on House resolution. Looks the rethugs will vote to quash debate again. I called Lugar's office and noone was there. Left a message on his machine. He voted nay. Gutless. Sen. Bayh voted aye. How did your Senator vote. Call them now!

boxer/feinstein-yes

Obama voted aye as did Clinton. No surprise there.

Yeah, did Obama and McCain ever make up? He aligned himself with Lieberman and McCain. When the Dem's were coming up with their own Ethics Bill and Harry Reid pressured Obama to backing the Dem's and he pulled himself from McCains, McCain went batty on him.

Are they friends again?

since senators vote on the behalf of states, i wonder if a comparison could be made between their votes and the for/against of the 50 governors? make any sense???

Joan* In*Florida
Sat, 02/17/07
1:35 pm

Pathetic is right. That is the only thing good that will come out of this. It exposes the rethugs and a few who call themselves Dems as whiny and gutless. Some repubs are voting aye, notably Hegal. What about Warner? 

Did anyone watch Real Time with Bill Maher lastnight?

It was good.

He gave great kudos to Governor Dean for being right on everything and how the media manipulated YEAAHH that stopped him from being our President is a great disservice.

When campaigning for Ned Lamont in the general:

"Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grassroots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election. He has a vision for his state and country, and his campaign has been about presenting that vision to Connecticut voters.

"Ned Lamont and I share a commitment to bringing our troops home safely from Iraq, to achieving energy independence, to helping all our citizens realize the American dream, and to empowering the American people to reclaim their government. Ned Lamont’s campaign is about delivering on these goals in Washington.

"The November 7th election is right around the corner. Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign.

"We all watched Ned’s improbable primary victory two months ago. His campaign generated a record turnout that saw 30,000 new Democrats vote to change course at home and abroad.

"Ned earned the Democratic Senate nomination through his hard work and clear message. And his victory paved the way for an entire crop of Democratic challengers to stand up and fight for the common good. Today the candidacies of Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy are integral to the Democrats’ strategy to regain the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

"A majority of Connecticut Democrats supported Ned Lamont in the August primary. I hope they will see this impressive movement through to the end by volunteering their time with Ned in these next two weeks."

Hubby is trying to download video of the Impeachment Hearing passage yesterday.

Will let you know.

56/34, they're going to vote on the resolution now.

It's official--Hillary does not want your vote.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47717/

There Was No 'Smart' Way to Invade Iraq

'Liberal' hawks are stuck on blaming Bush's incompetent handling of the Iraq war instead of arguing that we should never have invaded in the first place.

-------------------

Have not read the whole article, but having been against the war from the beginning myself,  part of the reason I was against it was because there were many early signs that it was not even being prepared for properly (I was also against it for humanitarian reasons.)

Having said that, I would not jump to condemn anyone who criticizes the failure of strategy and preparation.  I for one, cannot say if I would have supported it had we gone in there with superb language and cultural preparation, with no "shock and awe" and with a coalition of a million soldiers and relief worker.  The "rush to war" was the biggest precursor to failure IMO.

Red State moderates can greatly benefit from the criticism of the overall Iraq strategy (or lack of strategy.)

vote should go faster now that they're all actually in the room.

86.

Such hubris is frightening.

hagel, coleman, smith, warner, snowe, spector, collins voted with the dems.

Motion for cloture fails. No vote on the resolution. Republicans really don't want to debate anything.

 The vote was 56-34. 60 was needed to pass. LIEberman voted no.

8.

Thomas Janowski~

 I agree with you. They way I look at it, as of right now, there are three candidates...

...Obama, Clinton, and Edwards.

The last two sicken me because of their initial 'yes' vote on the war; that's what I'm basing my decision on.   

And, yes, Obama has strikes against him but not enough to lose my support. There's not now or ever will be the *perfect candidate*. That concept was flushed down the toilet with the end of Howard Dean and Al Gore.

91.

Joan* In*Florida



So nice to see Lieberman stay truth to his convictions and supporting the NeoCon agenda.

bayh voted no on the resolution.

There's a big problem if you use the words of writers from Counterpunch to diminish the credentials of candidates you don't support, namely, they hate Democrats.  Why stop at Obama if you can use them to hack at Dean, too?  Or, why not go for it, Al Gore,who, according to former BFA blogger Josh Frank:

"Perhaps Al Gore's greatest blunder during his years as vice president was his allegiance to the conservative Democratic Leadership Council and their erroneous approach to environmental policy. Gore, like Clinton who quipped that "the invisible hand has a green thumb", extolled a free-market attitude toward environmental issues. "Since the mid-1980s Gore has argued with increasing stridency that the bracing forces of market capitalism are potent curatives for the ecological entropy now bearing down on the global environment," writes Jeffrey St. Clair in Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: The Politics of Nature. "He is a passionate disciple of the gospel of efficiency, suffused with an inchoate technopilia."

" . . .

So while Al Gore flies a polluting jet around the country and overseas to preach to the masses about the dangerous effects of global warming and its inherent threat to life on Earth -- you may want to ask yourself whether the hypocritical Gores of the world are more a part of the problem than a solution to the dire climate that surrounds us all”

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank05312006.html

Proof positive that Gore is an environmental hypocrite who is in the pocket of the DLC and his generous corporate donors.  You read it on Counterpunch.  It must be true.

10 Senators didn't vote. Guess they didn't feel it important enough to stick around. The idea of working on Saturday doesn't appeal to them....probably too many golf and fundraising appointment.s.

What are they voting on now?

the resolution. the first vote was to deny/end debate on the question.

McCain missed the vote. Wimp.

97.

I believe its a Motion to go home for a week:))

Are you sure? How can they vote on the resolution if they voted to deny cloture???

Biden voted no???? 

since the quorum is 90, they only need 46 to pass, right?

Indy - McCain was one of the ten, he's in Iowa today.

Proof positive that Gore is an environmental hypocrite who is in the pocket of the DLC and his generous corporate donors.  You read it on Counterpunch.  It must be true.

biden changed to yes.

unless i'm on another planet right now, they are voting on the resolution.

indy, are you watching cspan?

Thankful2Thankful4Dean
Sat, 02/17/07
2:34 pm

Yes, we knew that McCain would find campaigning more important than the Iraq war. Hope AZ is watching. Who else missed the vote and took the day off with pay? 

mprov
Sat, 02/17/07
2:36 pm

Yes. cspan2 

47/33, the resolution passes!!!

Yes, they're voting on adjourment, not the resolution.

John wrote "Don't kill the messenger Tom. Counterpunch has a dim view of Democrats--so do I. "

I don't view this as a problem.  If as Frank and his colleagues insist, Gore, Dean and Obama are all poor excuses for presidential candidates, we're all going to have to be steered towards some preferable option.

quorum call: a parlimentary trick?

mprov,

I believe they're voting to adjourn. Need a quorum to do that.

Dems ought to vote to keep them all there as punishment! 

102.

It doesn't matter what the quorum count is, they still needed 60 votes to pass.

They already voted on the Adjournment which passed.

I don't know why they need a quorum now, you would think they would just leave.

ok, so, i am wrong.

Senate gridlocks on Iraq war resolution

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070217/ap_o...

HI Folks,

We did get our Jeep up the impossible hill, though now the "check the engine" light is on.  This winter is getting very old.

Watched the vote for cloture.  Just 4 votes short, but as Harry Reid said, the majority voted to have the debate.  Just think though, when the Rethugs said they were going to change the rules of the Senate, and 16 senators agreed not to filibuster, if they had gone ahead and filibustered and the rules had been changed, the Democrats would have been able to vote for this resolution.  

 I was furious that Senator Salazar had not voted to filibuster.  When will the Democrats show some spine?

About the presidential candidates, I agree with the post that Edwards did well on Bill Maher, but I wonder how effective he is.  It's the old "show me" need to see something concrete.  He certainly said all the right things.

 Probably every Democratic candidate except for HIllary would at least be better than our Criminal in Chief now.  I looked at his eyes in one photo, and he has mean eyes, resentful eyes. 

Well, we'll see.  A sunny day today and lots to do.  Glad to see old faces back on the blog. 

113.

You are right Steve and they did as you suggested. 47 Dem voted against the Adjournment Motion.

I guess too many rethugs are off in the cloakroom congratulating themselves on wasting taxpayer money and REFUSING to debate the Iraq war escalation....while our troops die in Iraq.

Not! I was backwards. 47 Dems voted Yea to go home. So leave already.

Tom wrote:Proof positive that Gore is an environmental hypocrite who is in the pocket of the DLC and his generous corporate donors.

Did you know that Al Gore is also a participant in an Offsetter program that measures you output of carbon and puts back to in to the environment make you carbon neutral? So everytime Al Gore flies, he is offsetting his carbon output to make him carbon neutral by planting trees, etc?

Linda wrote "Did you know that Al Gore is also a participant in an Offsetter program that measures you output of carbon and puts back to in to the environment make you carbon neutral? So everytime Al Gore flies, he is offsetting his carbon output to make him carbon neutral by planting trees, etc?"

I did not know that.  You should drop a line to Josh Frank over at Counterpunch and let him know. 

Joan,

I doubt the 47 were Dems. Many of them voted no to adjourn. Wouldn't that be great if 51 voted to stay and kept them in constant session to continue the filibuster over President's day. 

BTW, ALL Dems voted for the Cloture Motion. Independent Lieberman voted against, the jerk. Isreal is more important to him than America!

Connecticut recall, send Ned.

I am grateful the Dems can control the process as much as possible in both Houses. We would not even be seeing this debate over Iraq and the escalation without it.

Vote to stay in session.....keep 'em talking about Iraq until they drop. 

123.

I like that idea Steve.

121.

I admire very much Al Gore's environmental activism (present tense). It is a sad fact, alas, that he did little as vice president to lower greenhouse gases and advance other environmental causes.

 One of his "reinventing government" actions was to close down geothermal energy research in the Geological Survey. Now that was smart!

Joan wrote to Joe, saying "If you were answering my comment, I am at a loss to figure out what in the world you are writing about.  Same cloth? laughable?"

It looks like Joe has flown, but he was answering puddle's comment to Thomas Janowski that "Since Hillary and Obama are cut from the same piece of DLC cloth, I have a hard time understanding liking the one but not the other,"

Elephant Dung Ho!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-weber/duck_b_41471.html

The Elephants are spewing again, once more counting on the unflinching, lemming-like fealty of those American Idiot Sleeper Cells to get good and scared, never doubt what their nefarious, double-deaaling leaders say and buy the snake oil, even though it's been eating away at their gizzards since 2000.

With their scary-ass chop-logic that turns truth inside out and shifts blame with a stunningly brazen lack of subtlety they have converted the nation's capitol into one gigantic cistern and, doodiful soldiers all, have begun the big flush. During this last meaningless/meaningful debate as to whether to send 21,000 troops to Iraq, the Republican't's fretted like children throwing tantrums when faced with certain discipline; a conniption of historic proportions, mewling and puking and kicking up all the botheration their little colic-ridden brains could muster. Wielding their favorite tool---deliberately using our fighting men and women as puppets and pawns to perpetuate their hold on power---the Repooplicans stated that a vote for the resolution would be the first step toward complete defunding, putting our men in the field in harm's way and sending a "cut and run" message that would have our enemies dancing and Osama slapping his crutches in laughter (note the same thought process that extrapolates fornicating with dogs and goats from gay people having the legal right to marriage). A vote against the resolution would give our Commander in Chief the tools to spread democracy to those scimitar shaking Muslims and reassert the American Way in that crazy, mixed up part of the world (so that when Jesus finally comes back---you forgot about Him in this whole mess, didn't you?---He'll at least have a McDonald's to slake his thirst at before starting His surge).

Thanks Tom.

Does anyone know where one can obtain a copy of the  War Tapes?

121. John, so how much policy making from the Vice President, not the President, do you think normallly occured, besides this historical presidency?

I mean, I've (as I thought most) have known the past to be, like when Mondale appeared on CNN with Jimmy Carter a few months ago, said he "served the President" and any concerns he has even now, about his current book, he will have with him in private.

23 June 2006
An Interesting Anecdote About That Bill Clinton Thing I Was at Last Week

According to my friend, David Rolland:

...When I finally reached the front, I found myself face to face with him, and I decided to ask my question. “Sir,” I said, “you signed three laws that contained elements that I think are inconsistent with some of the themes [cautions against consolidation of wealth and power, and advocacy of a more humane global community] in the speech you just gave. NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act and welfare reform—what, if anything, do you regret about them?”

His response knocked my socks off, not necessarily in its content, but more in the manner of its delivery.


Clinton took the time to methodically take me through each law, citing facts, figures and circumstances of the time, telling me his regrets and allowing me to chime in when I had something to add or ask. Because I didn’t think I’d be talking to him, I wasn’t holding pen and paper, and I didn’t have my recorder with me. So I stood there, arms folded, trying futilely to absorb it all. I have to admit, much of it went over my head. I got some of it, but I couldn’t do the answer justice by trying to relay it to you here.

In a nutshell, he expressed regret over precisely what I didn’t like about those laws. He regrets the “social” impacts of NAFTA. The agreement, he told me, was a fait accompli, but he said he was certain Al Gore would beat George W. Bush and that Gore would fix it. He regrets the media-merger mania that resulted from the Telecom Act and seemed to blame it, at least partly, on the dot-com bust. It was a case of unintended consequences. “I didn’t see that coming,” he said. (I would love to have had time to press him on that one.) And he didn’t like welfare reform’s provision to boot mothers off the dole after five cumulative years. Perhaps that can be altered when the law is reauthorized this year, he said. (Not likely.) ...

Dear Karen,

The House of Representatives already voted 246-182.

Now it's the Senate's turn to send a message to George Bush that his plan to send tens of thousands more American soldiers to a civil war in Iraq is wrong. That is why I scheduled a rare Saturday vote. However, I just left the Senate floor where Republicans once again voted to block debate on the President's escalation plan.

Tens of thousands of you joined me two weeks ago and sent a message to Senate Republicans: Stop blocking debate on escalating the war in Iraq - let's have an up or down vote on the President's plan.

If you already signed this petition, please forward this email to ten of your friends or family and ask them to sign. If you haven't please sign right now by visiting:

http://giveemhellharry.com/iraqresolution

Those who decided to block debate made a choice: instead of joining the American people in opposing more of the same in Iraq, they essentially gave the President a green light to escalate the war.

Most of the Republican minority voted to protect George Bush from an embarrassing vote because they are trying to divert attention from the issue at hand and tie the Senate in procedural knots. They are hiding behind weak and misleading arguments about the Senate's rules.

These arguments are diversions.

Tell Senate Republicans: Stop blocking debate on escalating the war in Iraq - let's have an up or down vote on the President's plan.

http://giveemhellharry.com/iraqresolution

In the six weeks since the start of the 110th Congress, the Senate has accomplished so much. We passed sweeping ethics legislation. We passed a minimum wage increase. And we kept the government open for business by finishing up the appropriations process the 109th Congress failed to complete.

Compared to previous Congresses, it's an impressive record of achievement. But there's still one issue that demands the Senate's attention: the war in Iraq. We can't put this issue off any longer.

Thank you,

Harry Reid
 
 

Lieberman: "I'd Walk Three Miles to Support a Stupid War!"
by DHinMI
Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 11:24:12 AM PST

Some may know of the old advertising slogan "I'd Walk a Mile for a Camel." Well, how's this for a political ad: "I'd Walk Three Miles to Support a Stupid War":

Lieberman is a strong adherent to his Orthodox Jewish faith. He does not work on the Sabbath, which begins at sundown Friday and ends at sundown Saturday. If an important Senate vote fell on the Sabbath, Lieberman would walk three miles to cast his vote. He never campaigns on the Sabbath and regularly misses Connecticut's state Democratic nominating convention, even when he is a candidate, because it falls on the Sabbath. He supports allowing a moment of silence in public schools.

Joe Lieberman wouldn't campaign for President on the Sabbath. Fine, I have absolutely no problem with that, and I respect anyone who abides by what they believe are the obligations of their religious faith. But isn't it revealing that Joe Lieberman wouldn't campaign to win the presidency on the Sabbath, but a few minutes ago--remember, it is the Sabbath--Lieberman voted against cloture in the Senate and thus against permitting a vote on a resolution repudiating the President's plan for a military surge in Baghdad, a strategy which is supported by almost nobody except a few neocon and Republican dead-enders?.

LOL, that is pretty telling.

http://dailykos.com/

Linda quoted DHinMI about Lieberman.

One more for the pantheon.  DHinMI would about throw up everytime someone wrote at dKos to compliment Dean.  I got in one argument after another with him there, just so he would know what a crap candidate I considered Kerry to be next to Dean.

Qoute from a section of an email from Harry Reid:

"Those who decided to block debate made a choice: instead of joining the American people in opposing more of the same in Iraq, they essentially gave the President a green light to escalate the war.

Most of the Republican minority voted to protect George Bush from an embarrassing vote because they are trying to divert attention from the issue at hand and tie the Senate in procedural knots. They are hiding behind weak and misleading arguments about the Senate's rules.

These arguments are diversions.

Tell Senate Republicans: Stop blocking debate on escalating the war in Iraq - let's have an up or down vote on the President's plan."

http://giveemhellharry.com/iraqresolution

137.

Tom Bearse


YOU CRACK ME UP.

I guess we'll just ask your permission of whom we can post something from.

Well back from the break.

Here's my take on the vote:

http://crawfordstake.blogspot.com/2007/02/mccain-bails-loserman-fails-vote.html

I watched the vote to debate the Iraq war resolution today and was disgusted by a few things. First and foremost, Loserman. This guy has to go! He's a disgrace to the country and deserved to be kicked out of the democratic party last year. Let him "caucus" with anyone he wants. We don't want or need him and should we not accomplish anything at all in the next two years in the Senate without him, it would be just fine with me. Disgusting failure.

McCain bailed altogether on the vote on his idea! No balls. He was the one who first said, "We need more troops." and when he gets a chance to actually stand behind that statement. He bails. His candidacy is done. He's out of the race. A man who has no balls, cannot and will not be elected POTUS. Who could respect him for hiding out at a campaign rally today? Everyone else cancels their day (except for the other 9 ball-less Republicans which included Hatch), and he has the utter arrogance to bail altogether? The so-called "moderate vote" that he's courting will not be impressed, the crazy right has no crazy love for him anyway and his candidacy is done. How could he stand on his record of service in a campaign if he abandoned the troops today? One year before the primaries and he doesn't even have the guts to show up to support his own idea. Nice move Senator. Good luck with that strategy...

So what do the Dems do now? Well, if the "gang of seven" cannot find 4 more, the Senate is deadlocked until we kick out at least 4 more in 2008. That's just fine with me. We can wait and with only 4 seats to focus on in '08, we will have a lot more money to fight the good fight for the Presidency. If Hagel wants to run in '08, nows the time to show some leadership and find those 4 votes. Without them, the Republicans' chances to lose it all are looking pretty good to me.

Let them wallow in their idiocy. Do they really think the American people admire them for supporting a President who sits at around 30% approval rating consistently? What America do they live in? It's certainly not ours.

This is what the Dems need to do now. Nothing. They need to shut down the Senate altogether until the Republicans agree to talk. Shut it down. Show some courage. The American people are with you on this one. No spending bills, no progressive programs, no budget, no debate on ANYTHING else until they agree to debate on this. Shut the damn place down when they come back into session in a week. Refuse to allow anything until the Republicans will talk about this. Let the government shut down. Stop the paychecks. Sit back and wait.

If the gang of 7 (or at least 4 of them) and the Democrats really want to do anything over the next year and a half, it's the only option.

Shut down the Senate!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said it was significant that a majority of senators, including seven Republicans, had voted for the debate.

"The majority in the U.S. Senate just voted against the escalation of the war in Iraq," he said.

"The Senate is not done with this issue," he added. "The Senate will keep trying to force U.S. President George W. Bush to change course in Iraq."

Reid said that the chamber would not return to non-binding resolutions but he did not spell out the next step.  

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-02-17T201337Z_01_N17326263_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-USA.xml

OK, here is the local tv KOAT 7 that coverred the Impeachment Hearing passage on Bush and Cheney yesterday.

NM-Impeach-Bush-Legislation.mpg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

136.

Linda,

Telling indeed! Joe Lieberman is a farce, as phony as Bush. He hides behind his religion to cop out on Saturdays, leaving Gore to do it all, then this.

Connecticut, please recall you Independent nothing. Send Lamont.

142.  Thanks Linda!  I'm putting the video on my blog.  We should do everything we can to promote this.

Joan yes,
Renee COOL! Thanx.

Obama hanging with Harold Ford if true would sour me. He has a streak in him like that and if he lets it come to the fore the result would be the same for the big one as it was in TN for Ford. (if I were Ford on the other hand I would want very much to have Obama with me)

I'm still leaving myself open to backing Obama for now.

If I go with a DLC type I will want to at least have one who has the war figured out and that is Vilsack.

and thanks again CT for putting an (I) behind Lieberman's name

Linda wrote "I guess we'll just ask your permission of whom we can post something from."

I don't give a flying fuck whose words are broadcast here.  I'm just making a point.  If you or anyone wants to quote someone as  persuasive authority for some kind of proposition, it should at least be relevant who the person is and what their past positions on matters such as, just as an example, how qualified Howard Dean or Al Gore are to be President.

Listening to spew from Counterpunch, whether it concerns Dean, Gore or Obama, is annoying and, furthermore, offensive because of  their political viewpoint.  You can post it or stupid shit from DHinMI, but why in the hell would you expect me to sit here and listen to it with dispassion?  Aren't my objections useful or germane, so long as they're based on demonstrable, readily substantiated, empirical evidence?  You can certainly respond by showing me that DHinMI is some kind of class act or something.  It would help much more than to suggest you require some kind of permission to post something.

Phil wrote "Obama hanging with Harold Ford if true would sour me."

Hanging with the chair of the DLC?  Gross!  Think if Obama was the chair of the DLC.

DFA-Link Stats

# of members: 40,343
# of new members today : 75
# of groups: 823
# of Congressional Districts: 428
# of upcoming events: 695

Only seven more districts to go. Good job.

Now, if I could just get someone to use the Districtblogs-----

http://districtblogs.com/default.asp

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IS?????

Let's not forget that next year we get to elect all the critters again.

There was a bit of a brouhaha on bluehampshire this week because the DCCC put out a list of candidates they would be supporting and Carol wasn't on it.

147.

Tom Bearse
Sat, 02/17/07
4:09 pm

Reply to this


Linda wrote "I guess we'll just ask your permission of whom we can post something from."

I don't give a flying fuck whose words are broadcast here.

______________________________

Really Tom, evidence to the contrary. You slam anyone for posting any article, blog post, website that you have some link to a disagreement, and call them vile, or what ever name, but are the first to name call and post an article that benefits your rhetoric. Just like when you dragged Al Gore in to your own argument name calling rant on Hillary Clinton when you said you're sure Al Gore calls Hillary a witch. Really, what wisdom lead you to that opinion.

And I hardly think that type of language is called for. You are like the person who is wrong and likes to shout louder just to stop the other person from pointing out your own inaccuracies.

man, its 70 f here today!

Linda wrote "You slam anyone for posting any article, blog post, website that you have some link to a disagreement, and call them vile, or what ever name, but are the first to name call and post an article that benefits your rhetoric."

Please get this straight.  I respond to the contents of the article or source of the information.  If my criticism is not based on reasonably demonstrable evidence, I expect the person posting the original to correct me.  

I did say I was sure Al Gore would call Hillary Clinton a witch.  The reason was because I had just quoted from an article whose author had reported on the speculation that Gore was contemplating running, based on the common knowledge that the two don't like each other and he would not want to stand by and watch her become the candidate.  That "wisdom" led me that "opinion," but what do I know?  I'll just go back and read the article.  In fact, feel free and do the same. 

Language is expression.  You have to criticize the language of others who use exactly the words I do here for me to regard your criticism as legitimate.

148.

Good job pointing out the obvious hypocracy of alot of the Obama critics around here.

i don't like obama, am i a hypocrite?

Gore as prez would be just as effective, if not more so, than he is now, plus he can delegate more help.

If Gore doesn't run, we're likely headed for a war, possibly nuclear, which will make global warming moot and destroy all the good Gore is doing.  At the very least, the three "leading" candidates will keep up in war, you watch.  Our biggest problem, this minute, is stopping the neo-cons NOW. IMO.

Shut down the Senate and the House should impeach Cheney even if the votes aren't there in the Senate to indict.  These bullies, especially Prez Cheney, need to be taken down at least one notch.  House impeachment would do that.

I'd like to think my calls to Sen Smith helped motivate him to vote yes.  But I know in his heart, he's a very conservative repub and needs to be voted out of office, unless he does something startling regarding Iraq.  Even then, he'd have to reverse a lot of his opinions.  Opposing medical marijuana is draconian.

I hope you're all going to call and write letters to your critters who voted no.  What a travesty!   

{{{{{ hugs}}}}

bbl

mprov - nah, course not. Cathcha later, yer the tops :-)
~ ~ ~

&hearts to all

Kindness is free

I'm very cool towards Obama.  Too bad Vilsack doesn't have his *star power.*

My heart stays with Gore right up to when I'm certain he won't run.  The candidate will be chosen long before I get a chance to vote anyway, so what I want prolly doesn't matter a whole lot, since I think the primaries are just as, if not more important than the election.  We are again headed for the *lesser of two evils* and frankly, I'm tired of that. And if Gore doesn't run, Nader's going to step in again and likely mess things up. Coming out of his hole once every four years to meddle is unconscionable.  If he really wants a third party, he should be working 24/7 like Gore works on climate.  Nader has gone lazy, egocentric and I truly hope he gets no press this time.  Plus I think he might be a paid shill for the repugs.

It seems that if we don't nominate Hillary we will have to nominate Obama, (short of anything remarkable or scandalous happening in the mean time.)  Considering her popularity in the polls, to not nominate Hillary would be perceived as sexist - except to nominate an African-Amrerican, which would get us off the "sexist" hook.

Best to let the process play out with the primary voters.

This is from the May 29, 2006 online edition of New York Magazine, an article by John Heilemann entitled "The Comeback Kid"   The word fuck appears in it.

Here is the link: http://nymag.com/news/politics/17065/index5.html

"Gore’s relationship with Hillary has long been the subject of close study by those in their respective orbits. But few of the extant theories involve the concept of bonhomie. 'He intensely dislikes her,' says one former Gore adjutant. 'It all goes back to 1993 and 1994, when there were two vice-presidents: Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. They fought for turf, for resources, for projects. It was almost like a sibling rivalry over who was the second-most-important person in the White House. Second, they’re highly similar people. They’re very intellectual, very moralistic, very black-and-white—whereas President Clinton’s view was "You’re my enemy today, you’re my friend tomorrow. You fuck up today, you’re going to save the day tomorrow. I want to get along with everybody." And third, when Gore-istas say, "We think Clinton was a negative for Gore in 2000,’ high on that list is Mrs. Clinton’s running for Senate in 2000—so instead of her and the president being seen as a fading force and letting Gore emerge, it was the Clinton dynasty being seen as an ever-present force in American politics."'"

You must take into account the context of what was my question to others on the blog, which was whether anyone else believed, as I did, that Gore, Roy Neel and some other old Gore cronies would agree that Clinton is a witch while playing cards and drinking bourbon late at night.  I have to be honest and explain that it was a joke. 

seashell wrote "Too bad Vilsack doesn't have [Obama's] 'star power.'"

He has his former leadership position in the DLC as immediate past chair, the predecessor to the toxic Hal Ford.  That should count for something.  From reports, he would have stayed chairman if the group hadn't found Clinton to be, of the two, the more intriguing member of their leadership to endorse. 

160.

FRED from OR

Two of the same is not a choice. It would be an annointing of the Corporate's chosen. This is exactly what we had 4 years ago.

No my time, my money and my vote will not be thrown away on someone who doesn't represent me, the people.

a race to the middle leaves you unfulfilled or satisfied.

160.

Hi, Fred, I don't understand your reasoning.  I've never voted for gender, ethnic group, or race and don't ever intend to do so. I don't care what people say.  Why would or should we pay any attention to name calling?

 I don't like HIllary Clinton.  I'm not sure of Obama.  It seems to me a mistake that he is running for president with so little experience in national politics, and I'm suspicious of all the adulation, much the way I was when Edwards was being touted in the 2004 election.  

I'm interested in character, gravitas, good reasoning, modesty, the perspicacity that says this democratic republic is under attack, and most Congress critters are despicably vain and afraid to think or speak.  

Surely, we have better leadership than Hillary available. 

Joe Lieberman
Richard Gephardt
John Kerry
John Edwards
Bob Graham
Howard Dean
Dennis Kucinich
Al Sharpton

I'm interested in character, gravitas, good reasoning, modesty, the perspicacity that says this democratic republic is under attack, and most Congress critters are despicably vain and afraid to think or speak.  

Surely, we have better leadership than Hillary available. 

******************************************************************

The statement of the day (if not the month)!

We don't have to choose between Clinton and Obama. I prefer Edwards to either, and Kucinich wins hands down on the issues, even if he is not considered a serious candidte by most.

I like Denny!

Thankfully a reminder to me 4 years ago is that, I was hoping for Al Gore to get in the race then, but he said he wouldn't run.

We were being pushed with Joe Lieberman and Richard Gephardt as being the front runners with John Kerry following. I didn't know what to do. In March I started paying attention this guy Howard Dean. The media was bashing him already talking about "fighting" with Kerry etc. And I at first was unsure, that quickly changed as I started looking elsewhere for my information.

No more talking points. Substance. No more Anybody But _________. The bs of "electability". No more feeling I owe them because they put a D next to their name.

Pat, just saw your note upthread ... and the product is called AutoSock.

As of November 2006, it couldn't be found in the US.

But here's a link.

 http://www.automotiveblogger.net/ditch-your-snow-chains-and-put-on-some-socks/

And there is a new thread. 

169

Linda

amen

Progressive Avenger  74:

 Propaganda is never dynamic.

The DLC will protect the DLC. 

What one has to remember is that Grassroots Democrats have a dynamic agenda to bring our troops home and for a democratic presidency, but the DLC and Republican propaganda is not dynamic. 

Propaganda is NEVER dynamic. 

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/20/1523250

AMY GOODMAN: With me now in Washington is Raed Jarrar. He is the Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange, and he has obtained a copy of the proposed oil law, which he translated from Arabic and posted on his website, http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com. Antonia Juhasz is also with us on the telephone. She has written extensively about the economic side of the US occupation of Iraq and is author of the book, The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time. Antonia is currently a Tarbell Fellow at Oil Change International. We welcome you both to Democracy Now!.

Raed Jarrar, first, how did you get this document?

RAED JARRAR: The document was leaked by Professor Fouad Al-Ameer and published on a website called al-ghad.org. And then it was leaked to other important websites like niqash.org and other places. There are different ways of -- different copies of it. Some of it are scanned, and others of the original document, but it just hit the internet last week.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain what it says, now that you’ve finished translating it.

RAED JARRAR: It said so many things. I don’t think we can summarize it this short, because it’s a very long document, around thirty pages. But majorly, there are three major points that I think we should talk about. Financially, it legalizes very unfair types of contracts that will put Iraq in very long-term contracts that can go up to thirty-five years and cause the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars from Iraqis for no cause.
And the second point is concerning Iraq's sovereignty. Iraq will not be capable of controlling the levels -- the limits of production, which means that Iraq cannot be a part of OPEC anymore. And Iraq will have this very complicated institution called the Federal Oil and Gas Council, that will have representatives from the foreign oil companies on the board of it, so representatives from, let’s say, ExxonMobil and Shell and British Petroleum will be on the federal board of Iraq approving their own contracts.

And the third point is the point about keeping Iraq’s unity. The law is seen by many Iraqi analysts as a separation for Iraq fund. The law will authorize all of the regional and small provinces’ authorities. It will give them the final say to deal with the oil, instead of giving this final say to central federal government, so it will open the doors for splitting Iraq into three regions or even maybe three states in the very near future.

AMY GOODMAN: Antonia Juhasz, what is the significance of this for Western oil companies?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, in my mind, the law certainly opens the door to US oil companies and the Bush administration winning a very large piece of their objective of going to war in Iraq, at least winning it on paper. The law does almost word for word what was laid out in the Baker-Hamilton recommendation, which I discussed previously on your show, which is, at the very basic level, to turn Iraq's nationalized oil system, the model that 90% of the world’s oil is governed by, take its nationalized oil system and turn it into a commercial system fully open to foreign corporate investment on terms as of yet to be decided. So it leaves vague this very important question of what type of contracts will the Iraqi government use. But what it leaves clear is that basically every level of the oil industry will be open to private foreign companies.
And, as Raed said, it introduces this very unique model, which is that ultimate decision making on contracts rests with a new council to be set up in Iraq, and sitting on that council will be representatives -- executives, in fact -- of oil companies, both foreign and domestic. In addition, it does maintain the Iraq National Oil Company, but gives the Iraq National Oil Company almost no preference. It’s almost in all cases just another oil company among lots of other companies, including US oil companies. And this council, the new oil and gas council, is going to be the decision making body to determine what kind of contract the Iraqis can sign, and all contract models are still on the table, yet to be determined. I think that’s left vague or open, so that the very necessary criticism to earlier drafts of the law, which included specifically production sharing agreements, might be quieted.

But the law definitely sets up a very dangerous setup for Iraq's future economic stability, economic development, and certainly sets the stage for a tremendous amount of increased hostility and violence to US soldiers positioned on the ground, as being seen as the implementers of this oil hijack.

AMY GOODMAN: Antonia, what about the advocates’ argument for Western company involvement, that they need to come into Iraq to kick-start the oil development?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Iraq's oil development has actually been going quite well since the invasion under the guidance of the Iraqis themselves. Prior to the war, Iraq produced 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. Since the war, it’s been producing about 2.2 million barrels of oil a day. That’s definitely dropped most recently, because of the intense violence in Iraq of late. And there have definitely been targeted actions against the oil system as demonstrations of opposition to the occupation. So I believe there is a very concrete argument that can be made that the best thing that Iraq can do right now to see its oil infrastructure secure and pumping at a reasonable level is to see the US occupation end.

Given that Iraq's oil only costs less than a dollar per barrel to pump and oil is selling at over $50 per barrel, the Iraqis are already making a tremendous return on their oil. The danger is that under the different models of oil contract that are being put on the table, that the Iraqis would lose the vast majority of that profit to the foreign oil companies.

Now, just really quickly, Iraqis have lost a fair amount of expertise, technical know-how, as technology has increased over the past eleven years and the Iraqis were shut out because of the sanctions. The answer to that is found in the models put forward by their neighbors, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are technical service contracts that countries sign with foreign companies to bring in that expertise, but under very limited time frames and very specific economic benefits to the companies and to the country, not these 35-year contracts, as Raed said, and the potential for vast profits leaving the country.
AMY GOODMAN: Raed Jarrar, what is the response of Iraqis, of people in Iraq?

RAED JARRAR: No one in Iraq knows about the law. The law has been kept in a very low profile, and there is a huge propaganda campaign by the government trying to portray the law as straight and good for Iraq, a law that will turn Iraq into heaven on earth, because it will bring all of the foreign investments. Even parliamentarians in the Iraqi government, the ones who will have the final say to pass this law, haven’t received a copy of this law yet. I sent them the copy three or four days ago, and I sent a copy to many of the other Iraqi bloggers and journalists, because I think it’s very important to raise awareness about this and make it an issue. The Iraqi government and the Bush administration are trying to keep a very low profile in Iraq on this law. I think they’re planning just to, you know, surprise the parliamentarians one morning and have them vote on it without any knowledge of what the law actually causes.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk, Raed Jarrar, about the control, the dispute over federal or regional control of oil in Iraq?

RAED JARRAR: Most of the control will be under the regional and provincial authorities. They have all of the authority of monitoring and even dealing with small disputes. Now, there is this bigger council that is very complicated, very bureaucratic. This council just has the authority to veto what the regional and provincial authorities decide. So in case the council just stayed silent, everything can go without any interruption. So, you can see that this council is kind of controlled by foreign companies, as well, so the possibilities of the council vetoing what’s happening on the regional level will be very small. So we end up having a situation where Iraqis in different provinces will start signing contracts directly with foreign companies and competing between themselves, among themselves, among different Iraqi provinces, to get the oil companies to go to there without any centralized way in controlling this and thinking of the Iraqi interest and protecting Iraq as a country.

AMY GOODMAN: This document that you’ve translated into English was originally written in Arabic?

RAED JARRAR: No, the document was originally written in English. It was sent to the Iraqi oil ministry, and some parts of it were changed, and some parts were edited, some parts were added. So when I translated it, I made my translation based on a previously leaked English copy, which is the original version of this law. The English copy leaked in mid-2006. So this -- the Arabic version now is totally based on that one. There are, I think out of the twenty-nine or thirty pages, there are around six or seven totally new pages, and there are new sections here and there.

But the major differences, as I mentioned, are regarding the authorities that can control oil, and it can show very clearly what the Iraqi leaders, who are influential and can control these laws, are planning to do. It can show very clearly that there are very influential separatist Iraqi leaders who are trying to use this law to fund the separatist project and to turning Iraq into three states.

In fact, one of the things that I did while translating is I kept some traces of the original one and put a line over the -- like struck them, so that people can see the small differences, how many of the authorities that were supposed to be a given to the central government and to the ministry now were shifted to the regional authorities. Like, this is the most interesting thing that happened in the changes. But overall, it’s a law that is promoted by the Bush administration and the IMF. It’s not at all an urgent item on the Iraqi agenda. It’s just an urgent item on the Bush and the IMF agenda.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Antonia, who has the largest oil reserves in the world, the top three?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Saudi Arabia is one. Iraq is two. Iran is three. And I think in that list, particularly obviously Iraq and Iran, you can see pretty clearly a key focus for the Bush administration in its remaining years in office.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that is related to this current intensification of focus on Iran, the possibility of a US strike on Iran?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Oh, most certainly. You know, to be clear, oil is about a lot of things. Oil is about profit, and it’s about the money that the oil interests in the United States, which of course also include members of the Bush administration, can get.

But controlling the second and third largest oil reserves in the world also has a tremendous amount to do with imperial power and global power that the Bush administration wants. Controlling that oil denies it to other countries that want it, like China and India, countries that the Bush administration now sees itself in rivalry to.

And it also gets the government in control of a resource that is obviously dwindling in supply and which they want to hold onto. And they have been quite clear, meaning members of the Bush administration, but also the United States government, in its dedication to securing Middle East oil for the United States, and that agenda has hit high speed under this administration, where corporate and oil interests are part and parcel to government interest.
And I definitely think that if we in the United States want to end the war in Iraq and want to prevent another war in Iran, we have to pull back this curtain over that three-letter word, “oil,” and expose this agenda. The four-year anniversary of the war, coming up March 19th, is a critically important opportunity to do that and in the lead-up to that anniversary to really target our attention on demanding that our members of Congress defund the war and that we direct our attention and our protest energy on revealing this oil agenda. And to that end, Oil Change International, the organization I work with, is going to be in the coming weeks working with our allies to pull together some clear lists of activities and actions that folks can do, particularly on exposing the oil law in Iraq. So I encourage folks to come to our website to check that out.

AMY GOODMAN: Antonia Juhasz, I want to thank you for being with us, Tarbell Fellow at the Oil Change International, author of The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time. And Raed Jarrar in Washington, D.C., is the Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange. His blog is
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com