For Dems only.

[kapkomet]

I saw some of Lieberman on MTP this morning w/ Dodd, Kyl and Hagel. He was justifying his support for the escalation to Russert by explaining that U.S. soldiers are fighting the people who attacked us on 9/11. Hearing that from an average citizen makes me sad, but from a U.S. Senator who is chairman of Homeland Security, I don't even know anymore.

If that's what he said, that's piss poor. Now if he would have said they have the same ideology as the people who attacked us on 9/11, that's much more fair.

[Balta1701]

If that's what he said, that's piss poor. Now if he would have said they have the same ideology as the people who attacked us on 9/11, that's much more fair.

Even if it's more fair, I'm still not sure I'd agree with it as an intelligent characterization of why we're stuck in Iraq right now.

 

I think I've been pretty sparing in throwing around Vietnam metaphors, but I think that in this case, its a fairly apt one. In 'Nam, we were there because we were fighting the communists. The North Vietnamese were the Commies and they had to be stopped. But, breaking things down to that level of simplicity wound up ignoring the key features of the 30 years war in Vietnam; yes, the key party was a communist one, and there were plenty of people who were motivated by that belief, but vastly more important in motivating the opposition was the fact that they were fighting for what they felt was their country. The Vietminh may have been communist, but that's not why they won, they won because they were Vietnamese, and not French or American.

 

To some extent, the same exact thing is happening in Iraq. Yes, a few of Bin Laden's actual guys have certianly shown up there. But that's not nearly been the motivating factor that the simple fact of occupation has been. These people are living in a country with tanks on their streets, bullets flying through their hair, their family members being jailed or killed, their lives being destroyed, themselves targeted specifically because of their faith, and so on.

 

To simply say that it's the same ideology that attacked us on 9/11 is to perpetuate some of the very reasons why we're performing so poorly there. It neglects the anti-imperialist, anti-conquest beliefs that almost any state would have, it neglects the deep divisions Saddam created in that country to solidify his power structure, it neglects the real suffering of the people, and it neglects all of the other religious motivations in there.

 

Edit: Btw, here's Lieberman's actual quote:

I think the consequences for the Middle East, which has been so important to our international stability over the years, and to the American people, who have been attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that we’re fighting in Iraq today, supported by a rising Islamist radical super-powered government in Iran, the consequences for us, for—I want to be personal—for my children and grandchildren, I fear will be disastrous.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Balta1701

[Balta1701]

Remember how the Democrats just last week decided to put their 2008 convention in Denver?

 

One of the farthest right-wing Senators in the Republican party, Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado, has decided to honor his term-limits pledge and will not run for reelection in 2008.

 

The Democrats already were lining up a potentially strong challenger in Rep. Mark Udall. This looks like a potentially very very strong pickup opportunity for 08.

[Soxy]

I'm really looking forward to Jim Webb's rebuttal to the State of the Union. Should be interesting.

[Rex Kickass]

Rumsfeld Leaves Most Recent Job off his Resume

ST. MICHAELS, MD—A resumé apparently written by Donald Rumsfeld that omits his position as Defense Secretary in the current Bush administration was leaked to the press Monday, approximately one month after his departure from the post.

 

The resumé lists Rumsfeld's most recent position as chairman of the biopharmaceutical firm Gilead Sciences, from which he resigned in 2001.

 

Dated Jan. 2007, the resumé was distributed at D.C.–area offices, think tanks, lecture agencies, and high-end department stores. It emphasizes Rumsfeld's pre-War On Terror job experience, leaving recipients to wonder why he neglected to cite his most recent and recognizable credential.

 

"It's a very notable work history as is, but I'm not sure why he chose to stress his cofounding of the Japanese–American Inter-Parliamentary Council as much as he did," said Crystal Hopewell, Director of Human Resources for Nordstrom, Inc. "Perhaps to demonstrate that he could work well with others?"

 

Contacted for comment at the phone number listed on the resumé, the former defense secretary said that he wanted to present a "well-rounded" account of his lengthy career, not an "exhaustive list of every last little thing [he] had ever done."

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm really looking forward to Jim Webb's rebuttal to the State of the Union. Should be interesting.

um... why?

 

BTW, I read that Bush will be talking about Global Warming in the SOTU address. So, if he makes some grand promises about environmental legislation, will he then have Tony Snow follow the speech immediately afterwards with words amounting to "he didn't really mean it"? Like he did last year?

[Soxy]

um... why?

 

BTW, I read that Bush will be talking about Global Warming in the SOTU address. So, if he makes some grand promises about environmental legislation, will he then have Tony Snow follow the speech immediately afterwards with words amounting to "he didn't really mean it"? Like he did last year?

I just find him interesting, to me Webb seems kind of unpredictable and unusual. That's pretty much it. He's just interesting to me.

[Balta1701]

um... why?

 

BTW, I read that Bush will be talking about Global Warming in the SOTU address. So, if he makes some grand promises about environmental legislation, will he then have Tony Snow follow the speech immediately afterwards with words amounting to "he didn't really mean it"? Like he did last year?

Actually, they've already beaten you to it. Some British paper reported that the U.S. was going to go ahead and accept climate caps, and Tony Snow bluntly said today Absolutely not. So in other words, Bush is going to address global warming, by talking about it. Not by addressing it as a problem.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has the honor of having a phrase she coined entered into the popular Urban Dictionary site, Roll Call's "Heard on the Hill" reports in a subscriber-only column.

 

In a column item entitled 'Stewardess, I Speak Jive,' Ben Pershing writes he's "intrigued to learn that Pelosi is the first-ever female Speaker to create a phrase that actually made it into the Urban Dictionary, which can be peeped at urbandictionary.com."

 

Pelosi is credited for the phrase "marble ceiling," which according to the site is defined as "a discriminatory barrier keeping a certain class of people out of an upper echelon of American government. Distinguished from a glass ceiling because not only is this class prevented from rising to the next level, they cannot even see what is going on up there."

 

Pershing writes that "Pelosi's office declined to say whether she is geeked by this honor."

 

[Balta1701]

Jim Lehrer asks Bush the sacrifice question. Here's how it goes:

LEHRER: Let me ask you a bottom-line question, Mr. President. If it is as important as you’ve just said - and you’ve said it many times - as all of this is, particularly the struggle in Iraq, if it’s that important to all of us and to the future of our country, if not the world, why have you not, as president of the United States, asked more Americans and more American interests to sacrifice something? The people who are now sacrificing are, you know, the volunteer military - the Army and the U.S. Marines and their families. They’re the only people who are actually sacrificing anything at this point.

 

BUSH: Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night. I mean, we’ve got a fantastic economy here in the United States, but yet, when you think about the psychology of the country, it is somewhat down because of this war.

 

Now, here in Washington when I say, “What do you mean by that?,” they say, “Well, why don’t you raise their taxes; that’ll cause there to be a sacrifice.” I strongly oppose that. If that’s the kind of sacrifice people are talking about, I’m not for it because raising taxes will hurt this growing economy. And one thing we want during this war on terror is for people to feel like their life’s moving on, that they’re able to make a living and send their kids to college and put more money on the table. And you know, I am interested and open-minded to the suggestion, but this is going to be -

 

LEHRER: Well -

 

BUSH: — this is like saying why don’t you make sacrifices in the Cold War? I mean, Iraq is only a part of a larger ideological struggle. But it’s a totally different kind of war, than ones we’re used to.

You know, sometimes I wonder if he really believes the things he says. This is the most important war in American history, but all that people need to sacrifice is their peace of mind?

[Damen]

Jim Lehrer asks Bush the sacrifice question. Here's how it goes:

You know, sometimes I wonder if he really believes the things he says. This is the most important war in American history, but all that people need to sacrifice is their peace of mind?

 

So how is Barbara Bush sacrificing, with her beautiful mind in tact?

[Gene Honda Civic]

So last night I was flipping channels...

 

On MSNBC, I caught about a minute of a report on Bush on the Sadam execution. The factbar read that Bush said they "fumbled" the execution.

 

Flipped the channel to FOX News. They were discussing the same issue. Except they spent almost 5 minutes ripping apart the NYT because they said that Iraq "botched" the execution. One of the talking head sharks even went so far as to drop this quote "Most of the people on death row are liberals. Of course the NYT is going to come out against the execution. Every time somebody is put to death, they lose a reader."

 

Well, at least they can claim that they're not just a spokestation for the White House... Fair and balanced.

[Balta1701]

Michael J. Fox will be in the audience for President Bush's State of the Union address this month. He will be there as an invited guest of Rhode Island Rep. Jim Langevin, who has been confined to a wheelchair all his life after an accidental shooting.

[longshot7]

Does Obama have a chance? what do you guys think?

[Balta1701]

Does Obama have a chance? what do you guys think?

Personally, I think the only thing that could stop Obama is himself. Either he decides he doesn't want to run or he starts making monumental mistakes of the sort we have not seen him make in the last 2 years.

[Balta1701]

House votes to cut student loan interest rates, again under threat of a Bush veto (gotta help them banks!).

 

I believe this is check number 5 on the list now.

[Balta1701]

Republicans filibuster senate ethics reform package.

Senate Republicans scuttled broad legislation last night to curtail lobbyists' influence and tighten congressional ethics rules, refusing to let the bill pass without a vote on an unrelated measure that would give President Bush virtual line-item-veto power.

 

The bill could be brought back up later this year. Indeed, Democrats will try one last time today to break the impasse. But its unexpected collapse last night infuriated Democrats and the government watchdog groups that had been pushing it since the lobbying scandals that rocked the last Congress. Proponents charged that Republicans had used the spending-control measure as a ruse to thwart ethics rules they dared not defeat in a straight vote.

 

"It's as obvious as the sun coming up somewhere in this world that they tried to kill this bill," a furious Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said last night in an interview. "And all 21 Republican senators up for reelection are going to have to explain how they brought down the most significant reform ever to come before this Congress. They brought this baby down."

 

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said insistence on a line-item-veto vote was proof that the GOP is serious about passing the toughest possible overhaul of the way Congress conducts its business. Efforts to give Bush power to strike individual items from spending bills have been struck down by the Supreme Court, but Senate Republicans insist that the latest version will pass constitutional muster.

 

The bill was to be the Democratic-controlled Senate's first piece of legislation, a statement of bipartisanship and a break from the scandals that helped return the party to power. Instead, a measure that began with Reid and McConnell as co-sponsors was chased from the floor in a partisan showdown when Republicans prevented the Democratic leadership from bringing it to a vote. The 51 to 46 vote was nowhere close to the two-thirds majority needed to break the Republican filibuster.

 

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said he hopes "this is just going to be a bump in the road," but, he added, "this is going to be a long road over the next two years and this is not a good start."

 

The bill matched the rule changes approved earlier this month in the House, banning meals, trips and gifts from lobbyists. But it went beyond those internal alterations to effect legal changes that would have reached far beyond Capitol Hill. Democrats pushed amendments that would have forced lobbyists to publicly divulge the small campaign contributions they collect from clients and "bundle" into large contributions. Lavish gatherings thrown by lobbyists and corporate interests at party conventions would have been banned.

[kapkomet]

I'm torn on this one. I want to see reform, and I also want to see the line item veto. But it sounds like it can't be both because these knuckle heads want to throw their "power" around.

[Balta1701]

I'm torn on this one. I want to see reform, and I also want to see the line item veto. But it sounds like it can't be both because these knuckle heads want to throw their "power" around.

I doubt this is people throwing their "Power" around. Something tells me that even if the Democrats fully gave in on the line-item veto, McConnel would find some other reason to filibuster this thing. He knows that any reform package that passes has the strong potential to help the Dems and hurt his side, which is why they couldn't even pass a rudimentary one last year, so he's trying to pick a popular issue that is only remotely related to the actual reform package, paper-clip those 2 issues together, and use that as an excuse to filibuster the bill he doesn't want to get through.

[kapkomet]

I doubt this is people throwing their "Power" around. Something tells me that even if the Democrats fully gave in on the line-item veto, McConnel would find some other reason to filibuster this thing. He knows that any reform package that passes has the strong potential to help the Dems and hurt his side, which is why they couldn't even pass a rudimentary one last year, so he's trying to pick a popular issue that is only remotely related to the actual reform package, paper-clip those 2 issues together, and use that as an excuse to filibuster the bill he doesn't want to get through.

You know what, though? I think the Democrats WANT this to be tabled. But that's just me.

[Balta1701]

You know what, though? I think the Democrats WANT this to be tabled. But that's just me.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were a bunch on both sides who wanted it to just disappear, but it's certainly worth noting which group decided to make it happen.

[kapkomet]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were a bunch on both sides who wanted it to just disappear, but it's certainly worth noting which group decided to make it happen.

You see, I think this is all prescripted. Sorta like 9/11 was an inside job by Bushco.

[Balta1701]

House passes bill cutting subsidies to oil companies and fixing a $10 billion error in the original writing of the leases for several Gulf of Mexico drilling regions.

 

That makes 6/6 in the House if I'm counting correctly. And in about 42 hours of time-on-the-floor.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Balta1701

[NorthSideSox72]

House passes bill cutting subsidies to oil companies and fixing a $10 billion error in the original writing of the leases for several Gulf of Mexico drilling regions.

 

That makes 6/6 in the House if I'm counting correctly. And in about 42 hours of time-on-the-floor.

I have to say, overall (a few embarrasing shortfalls aside), I am impressed. They are doing pretty much exactly what the promised. I forgot that politicians were capable of that.

[Balta1701]

Senators Feinstein (D-CA) Leahy (D-Vt) and Pryor (D-Ark) have introduced legislation to remove a newly discovered provision of the USA Patriot act, inserted casually by Arlen Specter, which alllows the Executive Branch to appoint prosecutors to fill any vacancies that appear in the federal prosecutor brigade without having the appointee approved by the Senate. In the past month or so, 7 different prosecutors, including the Prosecutors who went after Barry Bonds and Duke Cunningham, have resigned, possibly at the insistance of the White House, which has left the White House able to appoint their replacements with no debate or approval.