Keith Olbermann compares Democratic leadership to Neville Chamberlain

It's a site to behold. Watch this. Then tell your friends to watch it. (You can also read the transcript via the link above).

A snippet:

You may trot out every political cliché from the soft-soap, inside-the-beltway dictionary of boilerplate sound bites, about how this is the "beginning of the end" of Mr. Bush's "carte blanche" in Iraq, about how this is a "first step."

Well, Senator Reid, the only end at its beginning... is our collective hope that you and your colleagues would do what is right, what is essential, what you were each elected and re-elected to do.

Because this "first step"... is a step right off a cliff....

That's what this is for the Democrats, isn't it?

Their "Neville Chamberlain moment" before the Second World War. All that's missing is the landing at the airport, with the blinkered leader waving a piece of paper which he naively thought would guarantee "peace in our time," but which his opponent would ignore with deceit.

The Democrats have merely streamlined the process.

Their piece of paper already says Mr. Bush can ignore it, with impugnity.

Read More......

US military kicks out 3 more Arabic linguists for being gay

Sure, we won't be able to stop the next September 11 from killing perhaps tens of thousands of people because we don't have enough linguists to translate the terrorist chatter, but at least they stopped the gay linguists. And they wonder why we're losing in Iraq? Because we have complete bozos running our military. This is criminal. Read More......

Hillary on Iraq. Kind of.

She's for the withdrawal plan. She's fuzzier on the actual withdrawal. From AP:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton prodded the Pentagon Wednesday to plan quickly for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq — even as she refused to say how she plans to vote on a critical war spending bill....

The [Iraq supplemental] bill does not impose a deadline for troop withdrawal, and the senator offered nothing to clear up her own position on such a deadline.

"When I have something to say, I will say it," said Clinton, whose recent statements have left unclear her position on when the bulk of U.S. troops should leave Iraq.

She has nothing to say. And she wonders why she increasingly worries so many of us who previously had no problem with her. Read More......

Dodd joins Edwards in opposing Iraq supplemental

So where are Hillary and Obama?

Read More......

BREAKING: Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter had a baby today with her lesbian partner

Good for her. Now help make the world a better place for your child and surprise us.

PS Check out the official White House photo, to the left. I believe it's traditional for at least one of the first baby photos to be with the parents, not the grandparents. Or are we again trying to hide the fact that baby Cheney has two mommies? These people are a real piece of work. Read More......

Edwards speech at CFR

Edwards delivered a speech today at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York. It was extremely impressive.

(A moment for full disclosure: I like Edwards as a candidate. I like his campaign, not least because I know several people working on it, including some of his foreign policy people, with whom I occasionally chat. Of course, if having friends on a campaign gave me an automatic bias, I’d be biased towards . . . all of them. I’m not on the payroll of any campaign, and in the unlikely event that ever changes, I’ll make it clear.)

The Edwards speech outlined proposals for the future of the military, both in terms of structure and use, and mentioned the foreign policy goals he feels are associated with such policies. I have long wondered exactly what kind of lessons prominent Democrats, especially Clinton and Edwards, took from the debacle in Iraq. I’m not alone in that curiosity, and today's speech was tremendously encouraging.

The speech was perhaps most notable for what it did not include: absent was the reflexive bellicosity that conventional Democratic beltway wisdom has long insisted is necessary to project "strength" on foreign policy and national defense. There was no talk of "keeping all options on the table," no insistence that the Middle East only understands strength, and no blind endorsement of plans that deserve significant debate (such as increasing the size of the military).

Edwards rejected the "war on terror", rightly identifying it as a political frame, and slammed the Bush doctrine of preventive war. He also clearly identified how the current administration is hurting the military, both in the field and at home, offering a persuasive alternative model for the civil-military relationship.

He asserted the importance of defense and foreign policy, and indicated that he understand that human rights and civil liberties are part of advancing American interests, not impediments:

As president, I will close Guantanamo Bay, restore habeas corpus, and ban torture. Measures like these will help America once again achieve its historic moral stature -- and lead the world toward democracy and peace.

Quite a contrast with the Republican candidates, who are falling all over themselves trying to most drastically depart from what America stands for. This speech will, I imagine, significantly benefit Edwards' standing among those who truly understand the state of foreign affairs in the world today. Read More......

Bill Clinton's former chief of staff says "Congress must oppose toothless supplemental"

This is one of those inside the beltway observations that you might have missed, but is actually quite important. ThinkProgress, the blog for the Center for American Progress (CAP), the organization run by President Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta, published a stern commentary today in opposition to the Iraq war supplemental agreement negotiated by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

ThinkProgress notes that "this victory for President Bush is a defeat for the American people." They go on to say that congressional leaders, including Nancy Pelosi, "need to live up to their word," and that "anyone who supports accountability for President Bush’s Iraq policy must reject this blank check for war."

ThinkProgress wouldn't take this bold a position on the most important legislation in America today, in opposition to the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, without the Center for American Progress's approval. And you'd better believe that the Center isn't going to approve of such an important statement of policy without John Podesta personally signing off. The man was the former White House chief of staff - we can assume he doesn't miss details.

Things get even more interesting when you consider that inside the beltway CAP is perceived by many, rightly or wrongly, as a front for Hillary's presidential run. And there is no way, in my view, that CAP's position on the supplemental helps Hillary (who would prefer to remain perpetually obtuse when it comes to Iraq).

Podesta is a big deal in Washington. If he's not happy with this "compromise," to the point of publicly challenging Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and putting Hillary in an awfully uncomfortable position, then that means discontent with the way the Democratic party leadership is handling Iraq goes far deeper than a few "crazy" bloggers or the party's supposedly-liberal base. Read More......

John Edwards calls on Congress to vote NO on Iraq "blank check" supplemental

Mr. Edwards is looking better and better every day. I'm very interested in hearing what Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have to say about this joke of a "compromise."

Senator John Edwards released the following statement today about the latest congressional developments on a bill to fund the war in Iraq.

"The so-called compromise under discussion in Congress that would give the president another blank check to continue his failed war is a serious mistake. Full funding is full funding, no matter what you call it. Every member of Congress who wants to support our troops and end the war should oppose this proposal. If you're in Congress, and you believe this war is wrong, I urge you to use every power you have to stop it if it's brought up for a vote. Block the blank check.

And I urge all Americans who want this war to end to tell your representatives in Congress that you will support them if they stand up to the president. Tell them you understand that when the president vetoes a bill that funds the troop and ends the war, he is the only person in America stopping support for the troops. It is time for this war to end. As I have said repeatedly, Congress should send the president the same bill he vetoed again and again until he realizes he has no choice but to start bringing our troops home. Anything less is everything he needs to prolong the war."

Feel free to contact your two Senators and your House member and ask them whether they plan on voting for this blank check Iraq supplemental? Read More......

Bush reviewing plans to hand over Iraq to UN

I don't see him handing over anything until his own days in office are numbered and he is then ready to set up a scenario where he will pass on all of the blame, much like the neocons who cheered on the invasion and then complained that it wasn't run the way they wanted:

Mr Bush will sweeten the pill by pursuing a series of steps intended to "hand off" many current US responsibilities to the international community, the former official said. The president would try simultaneously to placate congressional and public opinion by indicating willingness to talk about a future troop "drawdown".

The US plan is expected to call for:

· Expanded UN involvement in overseeing Iraq's full transition to a "normal" democratic state, including an enhanced role for UN humanitarian agencies, the creation of a UN command, and possibly a Muslim-led peacekeeping force

· Increased involvement in Iraq policymaking of UN security council permanent members, Japan and EU countries - in particular, the new conservative government of French president Nicolas Sarkozy

· A bigger support role for regional countries, notably Sunni Arab Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, and international institutions such as the World Bank and IMF

· Renewed efforts to promote Iraqi government self-reliance, including attainment of national reconciliation "benchmarks"

· The accelerated removal of US troops from frontline combat duties as the handover to Iraqi security forces, backed by an increased number of US advisers, proceeds.

Plenty of recycled ideas here and it just looks like an effort to pass on blame to the world community. He made this problem, let him solve it. Read More......

Veto Override Smokescreens

There's a post over at Firedoglake about the Iraq supplemental debacle. It does a good job of explaining the Democratic leadership's conventional wisdom that there is little the Democrats can do to stop the war until we get a veto-proof majority in the Congress. Per FDL:

Democratic leaders tried to put the best face they could on the reality that they do not have enough votes to force an obstinate President to accept a timetable or binding benchmarks on the Iraq supplemental funding bill.

Yes, that's Harry Reid's argument. He said the following yesterday:

"We don't have a veto-proof Congress."

Only problem? It's just not relevant.

When you need to pass affirmative legislation in order for the war to continue, the veto is meaningless. Bush can't veto nothing, and nothing is all that is needed to stop the war (i.e., don't pass any more funding bills, and the war stops). I don't necessarily think the Dems can get away politically with stopping all funding for the war - the public just isn't there yet - nor do I think an immediate 100% stop is militarily wise. But the point is that Bush's veto threat has nothing to do with who has the power to stop this war. The power is in the hands of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The public handed it to them last November. The only question, the only issue, is whether the public, and the Democrats, are ready and willing to have this war come to a close.

There's a second reason the "veto override" argument is a red herring. You don't need the votes to override a veto if you're willing to send the same legislation back to the president again and again and again. Bush was willing to risk cutting off funding by continually vetoing the funding bills. If the Democrats are correct, and risking shutting down funding for the troops is a third-rail of political death, then why do the Democrats not believe that it's a third-rail of political death for Bush as well? We gave the troops their money, Bush took it away. We chickened out, he didn't.

And finally, there's a third reason the "veto override" argument is simply not relevant. The Democrats could have funded the first half of the surge now, and then revisited the issue in July. Bush said he would veto this proposal too, that's true. But so what? I'm willing to bet that the public would have been on our side. The Democrats weren't.

Finally, there's the matter of Speaker Pelosi, someone we have defended and admired greatly these past few months. Speaker Pelosi, today, lauded the Iraq supplemental as a huge step forward:

"I think it's a giant step to begin the end of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

And such praise is understandable. After all, she negotiated the deal. A few paragraphs later we learn that Speaker Pelosi is likely to vote against this huge victory that she negotiated:

Pelosi's declaration of victory was in spite of her inclination to vote against the war funding measure because it does not include a timetable for troop withdrawals.

Putting aside for a minute the oddity of Pelosi voting against her own deal, we're to accept that Pelosi couldn't put her foot down and demand that the bill include a timetable because Bush would veto it, killing the legislation, the troops wouldn't get their funding, and then we'd be to blame. Okay, but then we're to accept that she can vote against the legislation, which if a majority of members of Congress join her, would kill the legislation and the troops again wouldn't get their funding. But in that case, she wouldn't be to blame? That makes no sense. If she votes against the bill and it dies, she's to blame. Unless she's only voting against the bill because she knows it's going to pass anyway (and the corollary, that she'd really be voting for the bill if the vote were close). And if that's the case, then we have bigger problems.

But let's give the Speaker her due, and take her at her word. She's been a straight shooter and a great ally on this issue and many others during her short tenure. We should urge all Democrats, and all Republicans, to follow the Speaker's lead and vote against this blank check that does nothing except continue a devastating war and perpetuate the myth that Democrats have no spine. Read More......

Monica Goodling testifies today

UPDATE: The hearing is live on C-SPAN3 and there's a live webcast on the House Judiciary Committee site (that I can't get on my MacBook).

The most (in)famous graduate of Pat Robertson's law school will testify before the House Judiciary Committee today at 10:15 a.m.:

After taking the Fifth Amendment to avoid detailing her role in the Justice Department ouster of eight U.S. attorneys, Monica Goodling finally appears ready to talk.

Goodling, who resigned last month as the department's White House liaison, is set to testify Wednesday about the firings that have resulted in lawmakers' demands for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' own resignation.

Her appearance before the House Judiciary Committee is part of Congress' investigation into whether last year's firings were politically motivated.

Bush and Gonzales have a Monica problem. Read More......

Death toll in Iraq keeps escalating: Nine U.S. soldiers killed in past two days

Bush just keeps sending more U.S. soldiers to die. Apparently, Congress can't find the will to stop his disastrous war:

The U.S. military said nine soldiers and Marines were killed in five separate roadside bomb and shooting attacks across Iraq on Monday and Tuesday.

Eighty soldiers have now been killed since the beginning of the month and 3,431 since the U.S. invasion.

Read More......

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Not happy reading all the articles this morning about Democrats giving up on a timeline for ending our engagement in Iraq. So, Bush is crowing that he won. But what did he win? He hasn't won the war. He won one concession about the war from Congress because his GOP allies stuck with him again. Iraq is still a disaster and that's not going to change. More U.S. soldiers will die. More Iraqis will die. That's a big win for Bush.

But for now, not happy with the Democrats. Not happy at all.

Thread please. Read More......

Opium now being grown in Iraq

Heckuva job, Bushie.

Farmers in southern Iraq have started to grow opium poppies in their fields for the first time, sparking fears that Iraq might become a serious drugs producer along the lines of Afghanistan.

Rice farmers along the Euphrates, to the west of the city of Diwaniya, south of Baghdad, have stopped cultivating rice, for which the area is famous, and are instead planting poppies, Iraqi sources familiar with the area have told The Independent.

The shift to opium cultivation is still in its early stages but there is little the Iraqi government can do about it because rival Shia militias and their surrogates in the security forces control Diwaniya and its neighbourhood. There have been bloody clashes between militiamen, police, Iraqi army and US forces in the city over the past two months.

Read More......

Bush declassifies bin Laden information, still unable to find him though

Classic Bush from the 2001-2004. Yes, the just declassified information about bin Laden and Iraq from 2005 was so hot that even the Bush administration did not change the national terror alert level. Wow, bin Laden talking with Iraq in 2005 after the brilliant invasion that was going swimmingly, who would have guessed? So Bush was doing such a great job with Iraq and Afghanistan that there were regular communications between the terrorist groups. It's all so scary and I don't think we've heard this story before from Team Terror who take delight in regularly terrorizing the American public for their own political gain, which backfired in 2006.

If Bush knows so damned much about bin Laden, find him and quit terrorizing the public with unnecessary fear. Too bad the Democrats folded and failed to see that the American public overwhelmingly rejects Bush's war and his silly rants. Read More......

Open thread

Off to bed Read More......