A bad day for al-Qaeda

If bin-Laden and al-Qaeda really hate us because of our freedoms they had a bad day today.
Democrats Delay a Vote on Immunity for Wiretaps

WASHINGTON — In a setback for the White House, Senate Democrats on Monday put off until at least next month any decision on whether to give legal protection to the phone carriers that helped with the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping program.

The Bush administration had pushed for immediate passage of legislation to grant immunity to the phone companies as part of a broader expansion of the N.S.A.’s wiretapping authorities. But that will not happen now.

After daylong debate in the Senate on the wiretapping issue, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, announced at the end of the day that there would not be time to consider the legislation this week as he had hoped. With a dozen competing amendments on the issue and an omnibus spending bill separately awaiting consideration, Mr. Reid said he believed it would be difficult to give the wiretapping issue the close consideration that it deserved this week before the Senate leaves for its Christmas recess.

Of course the real reason it was delayed is this:
Dodd's Filibuster Threat Stalls Wiretap Bill

Senator Chris Dodd won a temporary victory today after his threats of a filibuster forced Democratic leadership to push back consideration of a measure that would grant immunity to telecom companies that were complicit in warrantless surveillance.

Yes, Chris Dodd really does love America. Now the battle is far from over. The spineless Democrats like Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein are still looking for ways to buckle under to White House pressure. This is an excellent example of why it is necessary to get more freedom loving progressive Democrats in the Senate.

We have a chance to do that here in Oregon. Jeff Merkley had this to say today.

PORTLAND—Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley, Democrat for U.S. Senate, this evening praised Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Democrats in the Senate who successfully prevented the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act overhaul from being brought up for consideration today. The FISA overhaul includes provisions to grant immunity to telecommunications companies who participated in President Bush’s allegedly illegal domestic spying program:
“Senator Dodd, Senator Wyden and the Democrats did the right thing today by delaying action on the FISA overhaul. Only a handful of Senators have been given access to the classified information necessary to make an informed decision on the bill.

“Senator Wyden needs a partner in the U.S. Senate – someone who will stand up with him on issues that are so vital to the American people. Once again, while Senator Wyden is in the trenches fighting to protect our rights, Gordon Smith supported amnesty for telecom giants who turned over the private records of law abiding Americans.

“It is the sworn duty of the President and Members of Congress to uphold the constitution of the United States, including the right to privacy guaranteed by the fourth amendment. If the telecom companies violated the privacy of Americans, we must have a full public airing of the facts.

“It isn’t clear to most members of Congress, much less the American public, why exactly these telecom companies deserve immunity. Did they break the law? Did they help the President spy on Americans? And why should Congress give them a free pass if they violated the constitutional guarantee of privacy for ordinary Americans?

“Those questions absolutely must be answered by this administration before Congress acts on the FISA overhaul.”

Now the Oregonian is trying to convince you that Gordon Smith is a moderate but his voting record shows he's a wingnut who has supported George W. Bush 98% of the time. Gordon Smith may represent the Oregonian but he doesn't represent Oregon. Jeff Merkley will!

Dead Fish, Gordon Smith and the Oregonian

When the Oregonian was finally forced into reporting on the 2002 Klamath fish kill they failed to mention Gordon Smith's involvement in spite of the fact he was a key player. Well the Oregonian is at it again.
Smith backs Cheney, farmers in fish-kill debate

Sen. Gordon Smith argues there is no evidence a massive fish kill on the Klamath River in 2002 was caused by water diversions to farmers.

Generating fresh controversy over a key Oregon environmental issue, the Republican senator also defends the role Vice President Dick Cheney played in intervening with federal officials to help farmers in the Klamath Basin. And he casts doubt on claims that the salmon die-off caused subsequent commercial fishing restrictions off the coast.

The Klamath issue is flaring anew because the House Natural Resources Committee is investigating whether Cheney exerted improper political influence to override scientifically based management of the water resources.

Environmentalists, who have long been at odds with Smith, said the senator's stance contradicts a study by the California Department of Fish and Game, which found that the water diversions played a key role in the deaths of some 77,000 salmon.

The debate over the Klamath fish kill comes as Smith is gearing up for what could be a tough re-election race next year. His staunch defense of the farmers gives him a chance to cement ties with rural voters who are a key part of his political base. But if he's seen as insensitive to environmental issues, it also could undermine his attempts to seek the political middle in Oregon.

Smith said he has no regrets about his role in pushing the administration to aid the farmers, who had their water cut off for a year to protect both the Klamath River salmon as well as suckerfish in Klamath Lake.

"Whenever the government says to any group of Americans, we are cutting you off 100 percent, not one drop (of water), that gets my blood boiling," said Smith in an interview with The Oregonian. "I make no apology for going to bat and doing what I could with the influence of my office to defend farmers."

The senator first raised the issue Tuesday in an interview with the Eugene Register-Guard in which he sought to distance the fish deaths from the water diversions to farmers.

"I don't know that there's a connection between water for suckerfish that went to farmers, and salmon 18 months later that died of a gill disease," Smith told the Register-Guard's editorial board.

Smith subsequently acknowledged in an interview with The Oregonian that the fish kill came about six months after water was first diverted to farms, but he argued that the die-off could have occurred even without the diversions.

Even the headline is misleading. Smith is not backing Cheney he is defending himself. While Cheney and Rove pulled the strings in an attempt to get Gordon Smith reelected Smith himself was an active participant. As Michelle Neumann reported over at Blue Oregon science was ignored for purely political reasons, possibly a violation of the Hatch Act.

Yes, The Oregonian continues to carry Gordon Smith's water.

Unreconstructed Iraq Hawks

Frank Rich takes on the Patriots Who Love the Troops to Death.

The ranks of unreconstructed Iraq hawks are thinner than they used to be. Some politicians in both parties (John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Gordon Smith) and truculent pundits (Peter Beinart, Andrew Sullivan) who cheered on the war recanted (sooner in some cases than others), learned from their errors and moved on. One particularly eloquent mea culpa can be found in today’s New York Times Magazine, where the former war supporter Michael Ignatieff acknowledges that those who “truly showed good judgment on Iraq” might have had no more information than those who got it wrong, but did not make the mistake of confusing “wishes for reality.”

But those who remain dug in are having none of that. Some of them are busily lashing out Korff-style. Some are melting down. Some are rewriting history. Most seem more interested in saving their own reputations than the American troops they ritualistically invoke to bludgeon the wars’ critics and to parade their own self-congratulatory patriotism.

One of those "unreconstructed Iraq hawks" is William Kristol who has always been wrong but at least believes what he is saying and has been fairly consistent. There is no mention of him in Rich's column. Rich's real targets are Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack.

It was a rewriting of history that made the blogosphere (and others) go berserk last week over an Op-Ed article in The Times, “A War We Just Might Win,” by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack. The two Brookings Institution scholars, after a government-guided tour, pointed selectively to successes on the ground in Iraq in arguing that the surge should be continued “at least into 2008.”

The hole in their argument was gaping. As Adm. Michael Mullen, the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said honorably and bluntly in his Congressional confirmation hearings, “No amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference” in Iraq if there’s no functioning Iraqi government. Opting for wishes over reality, Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack buried their pro forma acknowledgment of that huge hurdle near the end of their piece.

But even more galling was the authors’ effort to elevate their credibility by describing themselves as “analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq.” That’s disingenuous. For all their late-in-the-game criticisms of the administration’s incompetence, Mr. Pollack proselytized vociferously for the war before it started, including in an appearance with Oprah, and both men have helped prolong the quagmire with mistakenly optimistic sightings of progress since the days of “Mission Accomplished.”

You can find a compendium of their past wisdom in Glenn Greenwald’s Salon column. That think-tank pundits with this track record would try to pass themselves off as harsh war critics in 2007 shows how desperate they are to preserve their status as Beltway “experts” now that the political winds have shifted. Such blatant careerism would be less offensive if they didn’t do so on the backs of the additional American troops they ask to be sacrificed to the doomed mission of providing security for an Iraqi government that is both on vacation and on the verge of collapse.

If you read MEJ very often you will probably not be too surprised that I object to Rich putting Gordon Smith in the recanted column. Mr Smith has had no change of heart but he is a politician that knows which way the wind is blowing and wants to save his political hide.

The Oregonian and Gordon Smith

It would seem that Senator Gordon Smith can't please anyone but the Oregonian. A few weeks ago we saw the Oregonian discuss the Cheney/Rove fish kill for Gordon Smith without once mentioning Gordon Smith. A week and a half later they were all over Gordon's support for an Iraq withdrawal bill that everyone knew had no chance of passage - a safe bill. This morning they are once again pushing Mr Smith's "independence".
Gordon Smith's path for Iraq
The Oregon Republican lights a "brush fire" in the Senate while pressuring the White House to alter its war strategy

H is detractors on the far right and far left will never give him credit for it, but Sen. Gordon Smith has pushed effectively in recent days to get the Bush administration's attention on the desperate need for change in U.S. policy on Iraq.

Last week the Oregon Republican also put to rest, or should have put to rest, any lingering skepticism about the sincerity of his change of heart on Iraq.

Smith launched his offensive July 11 in a Senate floor speech in which he hailed the Levin-Reed amendment as a "glide path home for U.S. troops." That Democratic proposal, ordering withdrawal of American military forces in Iraq, was blocked by his GOP colleagues, but Smith insists many of them will eagerly join him if the Bush administration doesn't act soon.

"What I have helped to light is a brush fire in the Republican conference," Smith said in an interview last week.

That brush fire in the Republican conference may yet ignite but it won't be the result of anything Mr Smith did but what the Republicans hear when they go home in August. The fire has been started under Mr Smith because....

Smith, who is up for re-election next year, revealed his reversal on the war last December in the Senate when he assailed the president's Iraq policies as "absurd." Because of its timing, only a month after war-weary U.S. voters had removed Republicans from control of the House and Senate, the startling floor speech sparked inevitable criticism in Oregon.

After three years of steadfast support for the war, Smith's abrupt switch was derided back home as politically motivated. Then in the ensuing months he gave critics more fodder in a series of votes and statements on Iraq that struck many as contradictory or confusing.

And the Oregonian give Mr Smith plenty of opportunity to blow his own horn>

Smith earnestly believes he has been consistent since his Dec. 7 bombshell, and he says he is receiving "overwhelming appreciation" back home from "the common-sense center of Oregon." Whatever the case, he has done much this month to demonstrate the sincerity of his views on getting out of what he declared on July 11 to be a "low-grade civil war that we cannot win, and which is not ours to win."

His actions resulted two weeks ago "in a long, heart-to-heart phone conversation with President Bush on Iraq," Smith says. And on Wednesday, after he tried to rally Senate Republicans to support the Democrats' troop-withdrawal amendment, he got an hourlong private visit from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Both Bush and Rice "listened and listened intently" to what he had to say about Iraq, he said Thursday.

"They're riding a tiger now, and they need to get off of it," he said. "They need to let the American people know they're listening and making adjustments."

Failure of the Levin-Reed amendment means no change in Iraq strategy is likely before Sept. 15, when Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is required to report to Congress on the war. Regardless of the content of that report, the prospects for a much-needed change in U.S. policy on Iraq appear to have been significantly improved by the fire Smith helped light within the Republican Party.

Sorry, but Smith's change of heart is all about saving his own political hide. He may not be a moderate but he is a politician that knows which way the wind is blowing. He also knows that his friends at the Oregonian will be there to help him push his faux moderate credentials.

Thanks to Kari at Blue Oregon for the mention.

Enabling Incompetence

The National Intelligence Estimate released in part yesterday makes it clear that the Bush strategy for fighting the war on terror is a failure and that Even Bush's intelligence report says the war in Iraq is making us less safe at home. But as Harold Meyerson points out the Republicans continue to support him even risking political suicide to do so.
Spineless Sages
Top GOP Senators Only Talk Against the War

Anyone searching for the highest forms of invertebrate life need look no further than the floor of the U.S. Senate last week and this. These spineless specimens go by various names -- Republican moderates; respected senior Republicans; Dick Lugar, John Warner, Pete Domenici, George Voinovich.

They have seen the folly of our course in Iraq. The mission, they understand, cannot be accomplished. The Iraqi government, they discern, is hopelessly sectarian.

In wisdom, they are paragons. In action, they are nullities.

Perhaps they are simply farsighted. They have seen the problem with Nouri al-Maliki's administration in faraway Baghdad. They seem unable to see the problem with the Bush administration at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Lugars and the Warners seem to share with many of their Democratic colleagues a common assessment of our presence in Iraq: It has become an unfocused and costly occupation in a land beset by civil war. We should, in good order, pull back, leaving behind only what we need to deter jihadists who threaten us.

Problem is, the Warners and the Lugars don't actually want to act on their perception. They oppose the legislation by Democrats Carl Levin and Jack Reed that would require the administration to begin reducing our forces in Iraq within 120 days and to remove all but that anti-jihadist force by next April.

Instead, they have drafted legislation that would require the administration to draw up plans for a pullback -- but not to implement them. Indeed, they act continually as if George Bush and Dick Cheney are amenable to argument and open to facts. "I'm hopeful they'll change their minds," Domenici said last week after a meeting with national security adviser Stephen Hadley. "I think we should continue to ratchet up the pressure, in addition to our words," said Voinovich, "to let the White House know we are very sincere."

Very sincere -- now there's a threat that concentrates the mind. These Republicans who proclaim their independence without acting on it have failed to come to terms with the single most important reality confronting them: that Bush and Cheney will keep the war going until Congress forces them to stop.

I'm not sure that Meyerson is entirely correct. He's right, they are spineless, but I think there is more to it than that. They simply can't stand the idea that the Democrats might win this fight. Yes that is what it's come to. They would rather let the Bush administration continue down the same disastrous path than give the appearance that the Democrats actually have the power to do what a majority of Americans know is the right. There thinking is that it's worse to do something that might give the Democrats a political advantage that continue to do the wrong thing.

Another problem I have with Meyerson's commentary is the kudos he gave to Oregon's Gordon Smith.

A few Republicans have come to terms with that. When the Senate votes, probably today, on ending the Republican filibuster against the Levin-Reed legislation, three Republicans -- Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith and Olympia Snowe-- have pledged to side with those who would compel the administration to begin withdrawals.

We have seen that Mr Smith will never vote with the Democrats when his vote would actually make a difference.

Digby has some thoughts:

This is one reason why I really hate calling the Democrats spineless. It's true that they sometimes are, but compared to their single cell invertebrate comrades on the other side they are super-heroes. The Republicans laid down for Dick Cheney's Unitary executive like a bunch of cheap hookers during fleet week with nary a thought for the constitution or even their own prerogatives.

Read the entire thing.

A Quote of the Day Plus

The Quote of the day and the Plus both come from Larry Sabato, Director, U.Va. Center for Politics. First the Quote of the Day:

We have heard and seen more than a few Republican leaders brighten up about their 2008 prospects by saying, "2006 was the worst of it, and 2008 will have to be better." They are dreaming. Not only can 2008 be as bad as 2006 for the GOP, it can be a good deal worse. Something we've learned from studying the 220 years of our Republic's elections: the political party that is found whistling past the graveyard usually ends up six feet under.

And as a bonus we have a second quote of the day from Sabato:

Democrats keep looking for another John F. Kennedy and the Republicans continue to search for a second Ronald Reagan; neither party will ever find its man.

The above is obviously in reference to Fred Thompson.

But Larry has a lot more than quote of the day fodder. There is this on the Republicans and the legacy of George W. Bush.

Naturally, everyone focuses on the candidates vying for the GOP nod, but the biggest elephant in the room is not them but Iraq. There will be many factors producing the 2008 November result, but none so critical as the state of the Iraq War. If the situation is anywhere near as bleak as it appears today, it is difficult to imagine any major Democrat losing the White House, even the weakest of the major Democrats, Senator Hillary Clinton. (Antagonism towards her creates at least 46 percent of the vote for a Republican in a two-way race before the campaign begins in earnest--not a bad starting point for the GOP nominee.) Any Republican candidate--any Republican candidate--is going to be held accountable for Bush's policies, no matter how much the presidential hopeful tries to distance himself. (See Humphrey, Hubert Horatio, the election of 1968 and President Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam disaster.) That is the way our party system works, and arguably should work.

That's right, George W. Bush is going to be the biggest boat anchor since Lyndon Johnson.

It's Iraq and Bush stupid

Dissension about the Iraq War has dominated this week's congressional headlines, but it is unlikely that major change will come this summer. Possibly the last real pre-election window for the Republicans to change the Iraq paradigm will come this autumn, after the report of General David Petraeus. The distinguished general will have no credibility if he paints a truly rosy picture, so logically he will either admit the failure of the "surge" or claim that it is a partial success with lights ablaze at the end of the tunnel. Here's betting it's the latter. After all, when has anyone in power come before the President and public and admitted his best efforts have been for naught--especially when it is crystal clear that General Petraeus's commander-in-chief wants to hear a positive spin? Interestingly, the GOP is far better off with "partial success" as the general's evaluation. That gives congressional Republicans and other senior GOPers the opportunity to give President Bush a political ultimatum if they dare. Either he announces a gradual but noticeable troop pull-out by year's end, or they will join Democrats in going beyond vague benchmarks to an actual, legislatively mandated, de-escalation schedule. We suspect that the recent Republican defections from the Bush-Iraq model (Senators Gordon Smith of Oregon, Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Dick Lugar of Indiana, George Voinovich of Ohio, John Warner of Virginia, and Pete Domenici of New Mexico) are the vanguard of a much larger, deeply concerned party contingent.

Just as Senator George Aiken of Vermont advised Presidents Johnson and Nixon to pursue a strategy in Vietnam that came to be known as "declare victory and get out,"* so too can today's Republicans--the ones who, unlike Bush, are on the ballot in November 2008 and can lose--see a persuasive motive to push for a significant troop withdrawal by election time. Even 50,000 troops on the way home might well lower the voting saliency of Iraq for much of the public, who would believe the crisis is on its way to being resolved. Then other issues, more favorable to the GOP, could rise on the voters' agenda and give the sitting White House party a real shot at holding its fortress on Pennsylvania Avenue.

From the vantage point of summer 2007, little else holds promise for a troubled Republican party. Can congressional Republicans gather the kind of high-powered conservative delegation that visited Richard Nixon in early August 1974? Senator Barry Goldwater and his colleagues laid bare the facts before a sinking President, and however reluctantly, Nixon resigned. No one is seriously talking about a Bush resignation or impeachment, but the electoral stakes for Republicans are just as high. Could George W. Bush be more resolute--or stubborn--than Richard Nixon? In a few months, nervous Republicans may find out.

The answer to that last question is yes although perhaps Sabato should have said Bush/Cheney. I suspect that even if he was threatened with impeachment the adolescent occupying the White House would not back down. I have said here before that Bush reminds me of my oldest son when he was 14 years old and he wouldn't have backed down. We all know that the Democrats can't make a change in Iraq without major Republican defections. That means at least 7 or 8 Republican senators walking the walk when it comes to opposing Bush. This may prove to be a lose - lose for them. Oregon's Senator Gordon Smith has been talking the talk if not walking the walk and the Republican base in Oregon is not happy.

Gordon is at it again

Yes Gordon Smith is at it again. He has thrown his support to a safe Iraq withdrawal bill, one that has no chance of passage, for some good press from the Oregonian which will prove he is a moderate.
Smith backs Iraq withdrawal by spring

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., will be the lead Republican co-sponsor of legislation that would withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the spring of 2008.

Under the proposed amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill, sponsored by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the United States would begin withdrawing troops within 120 days. It calls for withdrawal of all troops but those involved in counterterrorism efforts by the spring.

Smith voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq in 2002 and was a public supporter of President Bush's war strategy until December, when he gave a speech calling the Iraq policy "absurd."

Now the "O" to it's credit does point out that Gordon still supports super Iraq war hawk John McCain's bid for the presidency.

Smith has been among a small group of senators advising Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. The Arizona Republican, however, has supported President Bush's strategy of increasing troops in Iraq and in a statement on the Senate floor today cautioned against withdrawal.

Considering the condition of McCain's failing campaign this would indicate that Gordon is not only a hypocrite but a dumb hypocrite.

Update
Gordon gets some national press:

That proposal, sponsored by Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), would begin troop reductions no later than 120 days after enactment. U.S. forces would then shift their efforts to targeted missions such as counterterrorism. The process would have to be completed by April 30, 2008.

The plan "says that America will no longer be the policeman of a civil war," said Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.), the sole GOP co-sponsor of the Levin-Reed measure. "But no terrorists in Iraq can ever sleep peacefully because it does not call for a pullout from Iraq, but a responsible way forward."

But will they walk the walk?

There are only to opinions on Iraq that aren't based on mind boggling delusion.

1. It was a really bad idea from the beginning.
2. It was a good idea but the incompetence of the Bush administration resulted in a catastrophic debacle that can't be reversed.

In both cases we can only conclude that we must withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible.
The New York Times reports that:
G.O.P. Support for Iraq Policy Erodes Further

WASHINGTON, July 5 — Support among Republicans for President Bush’s Iraq policy eroded further on Thursday as another senior lawmaker, Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, broke with the White House just as Congressional Democrats prepared to renew their challenge to the war.

“We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress,” said Mr. Domenici, a six-term senator who has been a steadfast supporter of the president.

So Mr Domenici joins the growing list if Republican lawmakers who are talking the talk. Oregon's own Senator Gordon Smith started talking the talk after the Republican defeat in November of 2006 was one of the first on the list. Like the other lawmakers on the Republican list Mr Smith has failed to walk the walk, voting with George W. Bush at every opportunity. So as the number of Republican dissenters continues to grow what will they do?

Thus Mr. Domenici joined a growing number of Republican voices in opposition to the war just as Senate Democratic leaders are readying plans to put the political and policy focus back on Iraq next week.

The Democrats intend to use a Pentagon policy measure to force votes on proposals limiting spending on the conflict and setting a timetable for withdrawing most troops by next year — an idea Mr. Bush has already vetoed.

Mr. Domenici made it clear Thursday that he did not support such measures either, saying, “I’m not calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops, but I am calling for a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to continuing home.”

Still, within hours after Mr. Domenici spoke to reporters in a conference call, Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, called on him to join Democrats and like-minded Republicans to bring the war to a close.

“Beginning with the defense authorization bill next week, Republicans will have the opportunity to not just say the right things on Iraq, but vote the right way, too,” Mr. Reid said, “so that we can bring the responsible end to this war that the American people demand and deserve.”

So Mr Domenici and you too Mr Smith, talking the talk won't cut it - you need to walk the walk as well. You will have the opportunity very soon and we will all be watching. The time for listening is over.

Where's Gordon?

The Oregonian this morning was forced into doing an article on the Cheney/Rove fish kill in 2002. That's good, but they did it without once mentioning the name of the person for whom it was done, their golden boy Gordon Smith.
Cheney and the Klamath salmon kill

T he Washington Post concluded an amazingly detailed series on Vice President Dick Cheney this week with a disturbing revelation involving Oregon and California.

Cheney, the paper said, played a key role in events leading to the 2002 die-off of more than 70,000 salmon in the Klamath River near the border of the two states. He reportedly did it by getting Interior Department bureaucrats to override government biologists and divert water from the river to irrigate farms, dooming the protected fish.

If true, the political interference may have broken laws under the Endangered Species Act. The allegations call for a serious inquiry, and they're going to get just that in the form of a congressional hearing.

Credit Rep. Darlene Hooley, D-Ore., for responding quickly to The Washington Post disclosure. She and Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., circulated a letter Wednesday and got 34 colleagues, including Oregon Democrats Peter DeFazio, Earl Blumenauer and David Wu, to join in asking the House Resources Committee to investigate.

The panel's chairman, Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., agreed, and that's welcome news. Also welcome is the fact that Oregon's DeFazio is a senior member of the committee and a close longtime ally of Rahall, so we can hope for a sincere and vigorous inquiry.

The Oregonian notes that Cheney's plan worked but the fail to mention that it worked for Gordon Smith and is what got him elected.

One of his favorite tools, the Post series showed, is secrecy -- pulling strings in ways unseen by the public, Congress or even other administration insiders. "Stealth," the series concluded, "is among Cheney's most effective tools."

His use of that tool was a central theme of the series' fourth and final installment, on the Klamath fish kill. A midlevel Interior Department official told the Post about getting a phone call from Cheney in 2001, setting in motion a secret move to undermine the science of federal biologists who had said diverting water from the Klamath would violate the Endangered Species Act and devastate two imperiled species of fish.

Cheney's Machiavellian tactics worked. He reportedly strong-armed the National Academy of Sciences into providing the Interior Department a murky justification for overruling the Bureau of Land Management, and the Klamath water was diverted.

That led to the largest adult salmon die-off in the modern history of the West, and the biggest commercial fishing closure in the history of the country.

Outraged critics complained of possibly unlawful political meddling at the time but couldn't prove it. The Washington Post's series offers strong evidence they may have been right.

Oregon's DeFazio, and colleagues Rahall & Co., have many good questions to ask.

Yes, ask those questions Mr DeFazio but unlike the Oregonian make sure Gordon Smith's name comes up. Even if the Oregonian doesn't recognize it Mr Smith is a key player in all of this.

Thanks to Loaded Orygun for the link.

Where's The Beef? Part III

Yesterday I asked "Where's The Beef/" in relation to comments by Sen. George Voinovich and Richard Lugar in relation to the occupation of Iraq.(here and here)

"Where's The Beef"? The Bush/Cheney cabal will change nothing on their own while still in office. Neither one of them gives a damned about the Republican Party or the country. If the Republican lawmakers really want to change the course rather than stay the course they will have to do it with the only weapon they have available, the budget. The democrats can't and won't do it on their own - it's up to the Republicans to walk the walk. Will Lugar and others be willing to do that in September?

Matthew Yglesias thinks it's really too late for them anyway.

It's frustrating to see this level of attention given by the MSM and the Huffington Post alike to the theory that GOP Senators are taking on Bush over the war. I was writing about this yesterday and have a Guardian column out about it but we're way past the point for this kind of B.S.

Democrats had a bill that passed congress that would have substantially rolled back the war. Bush vetoed it. The GOP helped Bush sustain that veto. When Republicans want to revisit that legislation and vote to override Bush's veto, then they'll be breaking with Bush on Iraq. Until then, both the ones talking a good game and the ones talking bad one are, in fact, backing the president.

What's more, it seems to me that we're well passed the point where any political purpose is avdanced in a useful way by deliberately exaggerating the extent of intra-GOP disagreement. Before the 2004 election was a good time to hear about Republican dissent. Before the 2006 election, even. But folks who wait until after an electoral drubbing to start distancing themselves from their party's leaders don't deserve to be hailed as great independent thinkers.

I don't see any indication that the Republican tribe is ready to take on Bush in a meaningful way - the tribe still comes first even if it leads over a cliff. But Matt is right, it's too late anyway. That includes my own Senator Gordon Smith. Talking the talk is simply not enough.

Dead Fish, Gordon Smith and Dick Cheney

Over at The Left Coaster paradox give some national exposure to the story of how Karl Rove destroyed a salmon run and a fishing industry in order to get Gordon Smith re-elected in 2002. Oh, and he throws Cheney into the mix as well.

Update
I see Michelle Neumann has this covered over at BlueOregon as well.

Where's The Beef? Part II

This morning I discussed Richard Lugar's come to Jesus moment on Iraq and expressed some doubts that it really had any significance. Well the WH must see some significance as Lugar has been invited to a secret bunker for some re-education if not water boarding. But that didn't stop Sen. George Voinovich from delivering another meatless burger.
Another GOP Senator Urges Pullout

Sen. George Voinovich said Tuesday the U.S. should begin pulling troops out of Iraq, joining Richard Lugar as the second Republican lawmaker in as many days to suggest President Bush's war strategy is failing.

He said the Iraqi people must become more involved and "I don't think they'll get it until they know we're leaving."

But where it the beef?

"We must not abandon our mission, but we must begin a transition where the Iraqi government and its neighbors play a larger role in stabilizing Iraq," Voinovich wrote in a letter to Bush.

Lugar and Voinovich said they were still not ready to insist on a timetable for withdrawal.

So what are the ready to do? Hold their breath until they turn blue. I'll repeat what I said this morning:

"Where's The Beef"? The Bush/Cheney cabal will change nothing on their own while still in office. Neither one of them gives a damned about the Republican Party or the country. If the Republican lawmakers really want to change the course rather than stay the course they will have to do it with the only weapon they have available, the budget. The democrats can't and won't do it on their own - it's up to the Republicans to walk the walk. Will Lugar and others be willing to do that in September? I'm not going to hold my breath.

Where's The Beef?

We have already had Senators Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith and even John Warner talk the talk when it came to Iraq but none of them have walked the walk. Well Senator Richard Lugar has become the latest to take the walk.
Lugar urges Bush to change course soon in Iraq

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican support for President Bush's Iraq war policy suffered a significant crack Monday evening when Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana urged the president to change course in Iraq "very soon."

The well-respected GOP voice on foreign affairs took to the Senate floor to urge Bush to avoid further damage to America's military readiness and long-term national security.

"Our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond. Our continuing absorption with military activities in Iraq is limiting our diplomatic assertiveness there and elsewhere in the world," he said.

Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also sounded a pessimistic note on the prospects for internal political progress in Iraq.

He said he sees "no convincing evidence that Iraqis will make the compromises necessary to solidify a functioning government and society, even if we reduce violence to a point that allows for some political and economic normalcy."

The senator said continuing military operations in Iraq were putting a damaging level of stress on U.S. forces, "taking a toll on recruitment and readiness."

"The window during which we can continue to employ American troops in Iraqi neighborhoods without damaging our military strength, or our ability to respond to other national security priorities, is closing," he said. "The United States military remains the strongest fighting force in the world, but we have to be mindful that it is not indestructible."

Lugar also said he believes the chances for success of Bush's strategy of boosting troop levels in Iraq to try to get the security situation there under control is "very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate."

"The costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Lugar said. "Persisting indefinitely with the 'surge' strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests in the long term."

Sounds good alright but how does he plan to force Bush's hand? "Where's The Beef"? The Bush/Cheney cabal will change nothing on their own while still in office. Neither one of them gives a damned about the Republican Party or the country. If the Republican lawmakers really want to change the course rather than stay the course they will have to do it with the only weapon they have available, the budget. The democrats can't and won't do it on their own - it's up to the Republicans to walk the walk. Will Lugar and others be willing to do that in September? I'm not going to hold my breath.

Update
Rick Moran feels vindicated.

It’s just that when everything that I’ve put into building this site up has basically gone for naught because so many of my friends on the right have abandoned reading this blog – mostly because my position on the Iraq War has diverged from GOP and conservative orthodoxy – that I now feel compelled to do a little fist pumping because more and more Republicans are saying exactly the same things I’ve been saying for months; that it’s time to start redeploying our troops so that we can salvage something short of an unmitigated disaster from this military adventure:

[.....]

Every single conclusion reached by Lugar in the above excerpt was reached by me late last year. The lack of progress by the Iraqi government in dealing with their problems making the surge an exercise in futility; the toll on our military; and the ticking clock of public support for the war were all pointed out by me – for which I received the most vile criticism imaginable from some of my erstwhile friends.

It's not easy being Gordon

I'm sure that it was with great joy the the Gordon Smith fan club at the Oregonian put George Will's column on Gordon on the op ed page today. Yes with his political career on the line wingnut Bush sycophant, Senator Gordon Smith, has suddenly seen the light when it comes to the Bush/Cheney cabal's debacle in Mesopotamia. And alone he is, or so says Will.

An Iraq Caucus of One

Last month in Iraq, Sen. Gordon Smith, the Oregon Republican, had lunch with three soldiers from his state, one of whom had been working with an Iraqi officer training police cadets. That soldier told Smith that when the cadets learned that the Iraqi officer was Catholic, they stoned him. To death.

As the legislative branch gropes for relevance regarding Iraq, attention is focused on Democrats. They control Congress and could end American involvement in Iraq, but -- so far -- they flinch from wielding the only power that can do that, the blunt instrument of cutting off funds. Consider, however, Smith's plight.

The commander in chief is of Smith's party; Smith's Oregon base retains a loyalty, albeit attenuated, to the president; Smith's party is a minority in Congress, and he is essentially a one-man minority faction in the Republican Senate Caucus. So far.

Actually George I think Chuck Hagel has been in that "caucus of one" a lot longer than Mr Smith who apparently saw the light last July.

His path to this uncomfortable position began when he boarded a red-eye flight to Washington from Portland last July, carrying what he thought might be interesting reading -- the book " Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq" by The Post's Tom Ricks. "By the time I landed at Dulles," he remembers, "I was sick to my stomach." He was convinced that the American mission in Iraq was (in the words of a U.S. official in Iraq, quoted by Ricks) like pasting feathers together and hoping for a duck.

OK, if he saw the light in July why did he wait until after the November elections to say anything?

A few hours after Smith arrived in Washington that day, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld attended the Republican senators' weekly lunch, where Smith asked if he had read "Fiasco." Rumsfeld said he had not and asked the name of the author. Smith recalls that when Rumsfeld was told it was Ricks, he dismissively said, "Oh, that guy writes for The Post." Five months later, Smith went to the Senate floor, where, distraught and speaking extemporaneously, he declared:

"I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal."

And you can tell how serious he is, he still supports the senile uber hawk John McCain.

Smith has endorsed John McCain's presidential campaign. But the core of McCain's campaign is the puzzling doctrine that if we do not win in Iraq "they will follow us home." The global threat of terrorism cannot be defeated in Iraq, so, will terrorists not "follow us home" only if U.S. forces continue to engage them in Iraq -- where Gen. David Petraeus says there can be no military solution to that nation's afflictions? If so, that implies a need for endless engagement in Iraq, which is not a politically possible option.

I'm sorry Mr Will, The Oregonian, I'm not buying Gordon's born again change of heart. He is a wingnut politician who sees his career on the line and will say anything to save it.

Listen to the Base

A few weeks ago The Pew Research Center had a poll that showed that more people identify themselves as Democrats and fewer as Republicans than at any time since 1990.

Even more striking than the changes in some core political and social values is the dramatic shift in party identification that has occurred during the past five years. In 2002, the country was equally divided along partisan lines: 43% identified with the Republican Party or leaned to the GOP, while an identical proportion said they were Democrats. Today, half of the public (50%) either identifies as a Democrat or says they lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 35% who align with the GOP.

Yes, the United States has become a country of "lefties". Paul Krugman observes that Democratic politicians have been slow to recognize this and in fact are being forced to take popular opinions by the "leftie" base. The Republicans have the opposite problem - they are forced to take unpopular stands to appease the out of touch base.
Way Off Base

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Normally, politicians face a difficult tradeoff between taking positions that satisfy their party’s base and appealing to the broader public. You can see that happening right now to the Republicans: to have a chance of winning the party’s nomination, Republican presidential hopefuls have to take far-right positions on Iraq and social issues that will cost them a lot of votes in the general election.

But a funny thing has happened on the Democratic side: the party’s base seems to be more in touch with the mood of the country than many of the party’s leaders. And the result is peculiar: on key issues, reluctant Democratic politicians are being dragged by their base into taking highly popular positions.

Iraq is the most dramatic example. Strange as it may seem, Democratic strategists were initially reluctant to make Iraq a central issue in the midterm election. Even after their stunning victory, which demonstrated that the G.O.P.’s smear-and-fear tactics have stopped working, they were afraid that any attempt to rein in the Bush administration’s expansion of the war would be successfully portrayed as a betrayal of the troops and/or a treasonous undermining of the commander in chief.

Beltway insiders, who still don’t seem to realize how overwhelmingly the public has turned against President Bush, fed that fear. For example, as Democrats began, nervously, to confront the administration over Iraq war funding, David Broder declared that Mr. Bush was “poised for a political comeback.”

It took an angry base to push the Democrats into taking a tough line in the midterm election. And it took further prodding from that base — which was infuriated when Barack Obama seemed to say that he would support a funding bill without a timeline — to push them into confronting Mr. Bush over war funding. (Mr. Obama says that he didn’t mean to suggest that the president be given “carte blanche.”)

But the public hates this war, no longer has any trust in Mr. Bush’s leadership and doesn’t believe anything the administration says. Iraq was a big factor in the Democrats’ midterm victory. And far from being a risky political move, the confrontation over funding has overwhelming popular support: according to a new CBS News poll, only 29 percent of voters believe Congress should allow war funding without a time limit, while 67 percent either want to cut off funding or impose a time limit.

But it's not just the war.

Health care is another example of the base being more in touch with what the country wants than the politicians. Except for John Edwards, who has explicitly called for a universal health insurance system financed with a rollback of high-income tax cuts, most leading Democratic politicians, still intimidated by the failure of the Clinton health care plan, have been cautious and cagey about presenting plans to cover the uninsured.

But the Democratic presidential candidates — Mr. Obama in particular — have been facing a lot of pressure from the base to get specific about what they’re proposing. And the base is doing them a favor.

The fact is that a long time has passed since the defeat of the Clinton plan, and the public is now demanding that something be done. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll showed overwhelming support for a government guarantee of health insurance for all, even if that guarantee required higher taxes. Even self-identified Republicans were almost evenly split on the question!

Krugman points out that this puts the Democrats in a position to win in 2008. Both Democratic and Republican candidates must cater to their base to win the nomination. The Republican base is shrinking and out of touch while the Democratic base is growing and represents a majority of Americans. The only question is will the Democrats listen to their base or listen to the DLC and the DC punditry who are just as out of touch as the Republicans.

Note
Here in Oregon we are seeing this play out. Our wingnut Republican Senator, Gordon Smith is up for reelection in 2008. He has made a mad rush to the center the last few months and in the process as alienated the wingnut base and may face a challenger in the primary.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.

Draft DeFazio

Our friends at Loaded Oregon have started a draft Peter DeFazio blog. I am all for anything that will drive a stake through the heart of Gordon Smith. You can contribute through Act Blue.

Gordon Must Be Worried

The Democrats in the Senate turned back an attempt by Republicans to drop a timetable from the emergency spending bill.
Senate Signals Support for Iraq Timeline

The Senate today narrowly endorsed a Democratic-led effort to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq a year from now, voting down a Republican amendment that would have stripped the provision from a $122 emergency spending bill.

Senators voted 50 to 48 to reject the amendment, which was introduced by Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

And there was a sign that Oregon's own Gordon Smith is getting really worried about his election next year. He voted against Cochran's amendment.

Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Gordon Smith (Ore.) voted with the Democrats. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) voted against the timetable, as did Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) an Independent who caucuses with Democrats.

Pandering to no where

We have seen John McCain's attempts to pander to the Religious Right get him no where with the American Taliban and alienate everyone else.
Poor Gordon Smith seems to be having a similar problem in his attempt to remain the US Senator from Oregon. Shortly after the November elections we saw him do a major flip flop on the Iraq war which is looking more and more like a belly flop. He has not convinced any of the progressives or moderates that he's sincere and has alienated his wing nut base.
Smith defends Iraq views to GOP

SEASIDE -- U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith defended his rapidly changing stance on the Iraq war to a roomful of Republicans on Friday night, drawing cheers but also some harsh questions at the annual Dorchester Conference.

Won't pulling back in Iraq only cause more violence? Don't your words demoralize the troops? Aren't you empowering Democrats?

Smith stood his ground. He said he has visited Iraq twice, once three years ago and once in May. Both times he saw the same thing: U.S. troops would go out, "shoot it up" and come back to the Green Zone, often missing a soldier.

"That's what I don't support any more," Smith said. "Tactics that don't equal victory."

Explaining himself further, Smith said, "I don't want to be caught in the quicksand of this ancient civil war, because we can't fix that."

While the reactions to Smith's speech were mixed most were similar to this:

"He's wrong," said Dorothy Moshofsky, one of about 500 attending the conference. "We've got to get in there and finish the job."

There is already talk of the Smith having an opponent in the Republican primary. The activists in Oregon's Republican Party are still cultists.

A genuine change of heart or political pandering?

Smith is up for re-election in 2008. Until recently, he was a steadfast supporter of Bush's earlier policies in Iraq. He has voted to authorize the war, pay for it and continue it. He has made floor speeches defending the war as part of the fight against terrorism.

His rhetoric began shifting about the time of last year's election, in which Democrats took control of Congress on a wave of anti-war sentiment. Smith has said he began having questions about the war long before that.

"I'm continually baffled that he claims to have started changing his mind in May (of 2006) but fiercely defended the war" in later votes, said Steve Novick, a Portland Democratic activist who has said he might run against Smith.

Gordon Smith - the wingnut resurfaces

Last night on KGW's Townhall Gordon Smith couldn't even play a moderate on TV and his wingnuttery was front and center. You can watch it here. Over at Blue Oregon possible Smith challenger Steve Novick gives us a rundown, Smith on KGW: Absurdly Misleading.

So on the KGW Town Hall tonight, I thought Senator Smith said six things especially worthy of note: one flatly false, and one absurdly misleading, statement about the Bush tax cuts and the economy; one statement about his change of heart on Iraq that re-raises a credibility issue; a statement about Medicare negotiating drug prices in which he failed to acknowledge a flip-flop; a statement on global warming suggesting he still doesn't really believe it exists; and an interesting reaction to Ron Wyden's proposal to disallow tax deductibility of prescription drug advertising.

Head over to Blue Oregon for the specifics.

The "O" takes it to Gordon Again

For the second time in a week the normally Smith friendly Oregonian has taken the Senator to task for his stand on the Iraq war.
Follow the bouncing senator
U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith owes his Oregon constituents a better explanation of his contortions on the Iraq war

T his is a real challenge, writing about U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith's views on the war in Iraq.

Because he's been here, there, everywhere on the war, on a Senate resolution opposing President Bush's troop escalation, even on the question of debating the issue in the Senate. Of course, Smith is far from alone in being confused and conflicted about the war, and about the best next course of action for the United States in Iraq.

But Smith represents the people of Oregon. And he owes his constituents a better and fuller explanation than he has given so far of his shifting views on the war and the role he intends to play among a group of Republican senators who have challenged President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.

Late last year, Smith delivered a remarkable and blunt speech on the Senate floor describing how he had come to recognize that the war in Iraq, which he had supported, was now a failure. He said it was wrong, maybe even "criminal," to keep sending more and more soldiers into a losing battle. Then last month, after President Bush announced his plan for a surge in U.S. troops, Smith again spoke out in opposition.

But on Monday, Smith joined all but two other Republican senators in blocking deliberations on a resolution opposing Bush's new troop deployments in Iraq. Smith had openly announced his support for the resolution, yet when push came to shove, he joined the other GOP senators in blocking a vote on it. One of Smith's spokesmen claimed that Smith's stance was "an effort to expand, not restrict, debate on Iraq," since the senators were trying to force consideration of a third resolution that Democratic leaders would not allow onto the floor.

Then on Wednesday, Smith and five other Republican senators signed a letter to their leadership hurriedly distributed to reporters (who received copies before Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom it was addressed to, saw theirs) vowing to force a debate and vote on the resolution opposing the troop buildup.

Follow all that? We don't. And we can't imagine that many of Smith's Oregon constituents have a clue about what their senator is now trying to accomplish on Iraq.

Before Monday we might have been able to give Gordon Smith the benefit of doubt and assume his new found objection to the debacle in Iraq came from the heart. But after his vote on Monday and his request for a do over on Wednesday we must assume his conversion is politically driven and not a change of heart. And by the way Senator Smith, where so you stand on the Invasion of Iran?