For Dems only.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Ted Haggard issued a statement today proclaiming that he was now "completely heterosexual"

[NorthSideSox72]

Ted Haggard issued a statement today proclaiming that he was now "completely heterosexual"

Has its own thread.

[Texsox]

Ted Haggard issued a statement today proclaiming that he was now "completely heterosexual"

 

So am I. Big deal. What a moron.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Ted Haggard issued a statement today proclaiming that he was now "completely hypocritical"

 

The press obviously got the statement wrong so I fixed it.

[Texsox]

The press obviously got the statement wrong so I fixed it.

[Balta1701]

Walmart, AT&T, Intel, and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) team up to support creating a universal health care system covering all americans by 2012.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Walmart, AT&T, Intel, and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) team up to support creating a universal health care system covering all americans by 2012.

 

It's the end of the world and cats are living with dogs.

[Balta1701]

Ho-hum.

Here's a story that has gotten almost no attention whatsoever: The Iraqi government appears to have failed to achieve the very first concrete benchmark that White House officials announced as part of the new combined US-Iraqi security push in Baghdad.

 

At a White House briefing on January 10 by two anonymous senior administration officials, one made this startlingly verifiable promise to a press corps highly skeptical of the administration's amorphous benchmarks for Iraq:

 

"SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, here's -- but you're going to have to -- you're going to have some opportunities to judge very quickly. The Iraqis are going to have three brigades within Baghdad within a little more than a month. They have committed to trying to get one brigade in, I think, by the first of February, and two more by the 15th. . . .

 

"So people are going to be able to see pretty quickly that the Iraqis are or are not stepping up. And that provides the ability to judge."

 

Alright, so now it's past the first of the month, and how's it going?

 

 

Steven R. Hurst reported on Thursday (Feb. 1) for the Associated Press: "Local commanders. . . . said only about 2,000 of the additional troops had reached Baghdad or were nearby. . . .

 

"An Iraqi army brigade from Irbil, about 3,000 men in principle, will have at most 1,500 men when it finally arrives in Baghdad. The commander says 95 percent of the men don't speak Arabic. A brigade from Sulaimaniyah, also in the Kurdish north, has reached the Muthana Airport in central Baghdad, but it is only 1,000-men strong, not the expected 3,000."

 

At a Defense Department briefing on Friday (Feb. 2) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace confirmed that Iraqi troop strength is not where it ought to be.

 

" Q Mr. Secretary, yesterday General Casey said that of the Iraqi units that have shown up with the new Baghdad security plan, they are at 55 to 65 percent strength. Do you consider that meeting the commitment that the Iraqis made?

 

" SEC. GATES: Well, I think that partly it will depend on how quickly they get back up to strength. . . . I guess my answer is, 55 percent probably isn't good enough. But I'm not sure that that's -- what the end strength of that unit is going to be when the time comes for it to go into combat.

 

" General, do you want to --

 

" GEN. PACE: Well, I think the secretary has it right. There's good news and bad news. The good news is that contrary to what has happened in the past, the units that were designated to arrive in Baghdad have begun to arrive on the schedule they were supposed to be there. The first brigade is there; the second brigade is en route, and the third brigade will foreclose by the end of February.

 

" However, you're correct in that right now, the initial units got there with about 60 percent. And therefore, they do need to continue to flesh out those units, get all those who may be home taking their money to their families, and get them in. So they're not at the level we would like them to be total strength-wise, but they are showing up on the time on they said they would.

 

" Q Whatever the reason, does that -- does a unit, an Iraqi unit at two-thirds strength, constitute meeting their part of the deal here?

 

" GEN. PACE: It needs to be stronger than that."

Let's simplify again for those who don't want to read all that.

 

1. Bush Administration says they're going to give victory one last shot, swears they really mean it this time, they need the Iraqi government to step up an be held accountable.

 

2. Iraqi government fails to meet simplest of requirements set by either them or us.

 

3. A lot more people die.

 

4. Repeat until January, 2009.

[kapkomet]

Ho-hum.

Let's simplify again for those who don't want to read all that.

 

1. Bush Administration says they're going to give victory one last shot, swears they really mean it this time, they need the Iraqi government to step up an be held accountable.

 

2. Iraqi government fails to meet simplest of requirements set by either them or us.

 

3. A lot more people die.

 

4. Repeat until January, 2009.

I have an idea! How about Congress set forth the plan for Iraq???!!!???

 

Oh wait a minute, all they can do is have a non-binding resolution that says George Bush's plan is wrong.

 

How cool is that?

[Balta1701]

I have an idea! How about Congress set forth the plan for Iraq???!!!???

 

Oh wait a minute, all they can do is have a non-binding resolution that says George Bush's plan is wrong.

 

How cool is that?

As soon as the Republicans allow people to do something, something will happen. Blasted obstructionists! In 2002 being an obstructionist was the worst crime ever, if I recall. And the Filibuster was something so evil that as punishment for stopping George W. Bush's court nominees, we needed to get rid of the Filibuster in its entirety.

 

Seriously though, pretty much each major candidate already has put out a plan calling for specific benchmarks and withdrawal dates. And at least a couple of them are trying to get the Senate to bring those forwards. We may well see some of them appear when the Senate brings up the 9/11 commission reform legislation here in a week or two. Regardless of the Filibustering of the Republicans, these proposals will gradually be brought up.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

As soon as the Republicans allow people to do something, something will happen. Blasted obstructionists! In 2002 being an obstructionist was the worst crime ever, if I recall.

 

Seriously though, pretty much each major candidate already has put out a plan calling for specific benchmarks and withdrawal dates. And at least a couple of them are trying to get the Senate to bring those forwards. We may well see some of them appear when the Senate brings up the 9/11 commission reform legislation here in a week or two.

So the only answer is to withdrawl? *sigh*

[Balta1701]

So the only answer is to withdrawl? *sigh*

Name one candidate who is going to propose bringing back the draft to figure out a way to put more troops in Iraq beyond the 160k?

[kapkomet]

Name one candidate who is going to propose bringing back the draft to figure out a way to put more troops in Iraq beyond the 160k?

You don't have to. But, that sure sounds good.

 

(I forgot, I'm supposed to not be here in this thread...)

[EvilMonkey]

As soon as the Republicans allow people to do something, something will happen. Blasted obstructionists! In 2002 being an obstructionist was the worst crime ever, if I recall. And the Filibuster was something so evil that as punishment for stopping George W. Bush's court nominees, we needed to get rid of the Filibuster in its entirety.

 

Seriously though, pretty much each major candidate already has put out a plan calling for specific benchmarks and withdrawal dates. And at least a couple of them are trying to get the Senate to bring those forwards. We may well see some of them appear when the Senate brings up the 9/11 commission reform legislation here in a week or two. Regardless of the Filibustering of the Republicans, these proposals will gradually be brought up.

OK, this whole mess gets confusing, but I believe that at this time, it was the Dems that wanted to have cloture, which means no more discussion and a vote. By filibustering, the Repubs were actually leaving the door open for further discussions and the Senators to bring them forward. All the filibuster did was stop cloture on the non-binding resolution. As for the removal of the filibuster idea, I also think that was intended to be removed for judicial appointments only or something like that, not removed from the process entirely. There was much debate whether or not the filibuster was intended to stop confirmation votes or not. Without going back and checking the old posts, if you didn't have a problem with the Dem side of the ailse using all the tactics at its disposal, including the filibuster, to block the Republican agenda, then you should just shut up about it now that the same tactics are being used against them. If you did express your concerns about it back then, I will applaud your consistency.

[Rex Kickass]

OK, this whole mess gets confusing, but I believe that at this time, it was the Dems that wanted to have cloture, which means no more discussion and a vote. By filibustering, the Repubs were actually leaving the door open for further discussions and the Senators to bring them forward. All the filibuster did was stop cloture on the non-binding resolution. As for the removal of the filibuster idea, I also think that was intended to be removed for judicial appointments only or something like that, not removed from the process entirely. There was much debate whether or not the filibuster was intended to stop confirmation votes or not. Without going back and checking the old posts, if you didn't have a problem with the Dem side of the ailse using all the tactics at its disposal, including the filibuster, to block the Republican agenda, then you should just shut up about it now that the same tactics are being used against them. If you did express your concerns about it back then, I will applaud your consistency.

 

 

Sometimes parliamentary tactics use the same tools for different purposes. A cloture vote can be used to prohibit a vote on a measure, but I do believe - if I understood what this cloture vote was for - can also be used to prohibit debate on a measure because it doesn't allow any specific resolution (which may be different than any kind of binding legislation) come to debate without it. I think.

 

But this whole thing confuses me right now.

[Balta1701]

Sometimes parliamentary tactics use the same tools for different purposes. A cloture vote can be used to prohibit a vote on a measure, but I do believe - if I understood what this cloture vote was for - can also be used to prohibit debate on a measure because it doesn't allow any specific resolution (which may be different than any kind of binding legislation) come to debate without it. I think.

 

But this whole thing confuses me right now.

I think this WaPo piece gives a good summary of what happened with Monday's cloture vote.

Congress is grappling with several nonbinding resolutions, each of which addresses Bush's deployment plan, even as public support for the war declines and conditions on the ground grow increasingly perilous. The debate has particularly vexed Republicans, who are reluctant to abandon Bush at a critical moment but who also regard the party's defeat in the November midterm elections as a signal that voters want Congress to challenge White House war policy more aggressively.

 

The Senate was poised to debate a nonbinding resolution opposing the additional troop deployment and calling for a diplomatic initiative to settle the conflict in Iraq. Republicans refused to allow the resolution to reach the floor, relying on a standard procedural objection.

 

Five of the seven Senate signatories to yesterday's letter -- including Warner, the bipartisan resolution's chief author -- had voted Monday to block the debate. By showing party solidarity, they had hoped to pressure Democrats into allowing the consideration of other nonbinding measures, namely two that are more supportive of the administration's policy. But Democratic leaders refused to relent, and the long-awaited war debate -- or at least the opening chapter -- ended almost as soon as it began.

 

The Republican senators attempted in their letter to clear up the apparent contradiction. "Monday's procedural vote should not be interpreted as any lessening of our resolve to go forward," the senators insisted. But they voiced the GOP leadership's view that other resolutions should receive an equal vetting.

 

"The Senate should be allowed to work its will on our resolution as well as the concepts being brought forward by other senators," the letter stated.

 

The other Republican senators who signed the letter were Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Norm Coleman (Minn.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), and George V. Voinovich (Ohio).

 

Democrats brushed off the Republicans' declaration as too little, too late. Reid spokesman Jim Manley said in a statement: "Senator Reid gave Senator Warner and the others a chance to vote for their own resolution on Monday, but only two of them chose to do so. Hopefully this letter signifies that the others have had a change of heart, and will be willing to vote for their own resolution in the future."

 

After reading the text on the Senate floor, Warner hurried back to his office, declining to answer questions. He would not specify whether he and his allies would seek to block specific bills, including a huge spending package that the Senate is expected to take up today, to fund government activities for the current fiscal year. Warner did indicate whether he will attempt to amend the funding package with his resolution.

 

In the letter, the senators said they will offer the resolution "where possible" on bills as they come before the Senate.

[Balta1701]

I don't think I have any reason for posting this one other than entertainment

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY): Well, it seems that the military has gone around and fired a whole bunch of people who speak foreign languages — Farsi and Arabic, etc. — after they trained them in their foreign language schools for 63 weeks, and presumably they all pass all kinds of security things, and many of them told on themselves and were fired. For some reason, the military seems more afraid of gay people than they are against terrorists, because they’re very brave with the terrorists. I mean, if the terrorists ever got a hold of this information, they’d get a platoon of lesbians to chase us out of Baghdad. The affirmative suggestiong that I would make is why can’t the State Department look to pick up all those people that were fired from the military because apparently you don’t have a policy, and put these three dozen Farsi and Arabic people to work doing what you’re suggesting would cost a lot of money to train, etc., because we have them. Can we marry up those two — or maybe that’s the wrong word — can we have some kind of union of those two issues, that you might be willing to –

 

RICE: Congressman, I’m not aware of the availability of people, but I certainly will look at what we are doing right now.

[Balta1701]

Writing this took some Balls.

Aman with no face stares at me from the corner of a room. He pleads for help, but I'm afraid to move. He begins to cry. It is a pitiful sound, and it sickens me. He screams, but as I awaken, I realize the screams are mine.

 

That dream, along with a host of other nightmares, has plagued me since my return from Iraq in the summer of 2004. Though the man in this particular nightmare has no face, I know who he is. I assisted in his interrogation at a detention facility in Fallujah. I was one of two civilian interrogators assigned to the division interrogation facility (DIF) of the 82nd Airborne Division. The man, whose name I've long since forgotten, was a suspected associate of Khamis Sirhan al-Muhammad, the Baath Party leader in Anbar province who had been captured two months earlier.

 

The lead interrogator at the DIF had given me specific instructions: I was to deprive the detainee of sleep during my 12-hour shift by opening his cell every hour, forcing him to stand in a corner and stripping him of his clothes. Three years later the tables have turned. It is rare that I sleep through the night without a visit from this man. His memory harasses me as I once harassed him.

 

Despite my best efforts, I cannot ignore the mistakes I made at the interrogation facility in Fallujah. I failed to disobey a meritless order, I failed to protect a prisoner in my custody, and I failed to uphold the standards of human decency. Instead, I intimidated, degraded and humiliated a man who could not defend himself. I compromised my values. I will never forgive myself.

 

American authorities continue to insist that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident in an otherwise well-run detention system. That insistence, however, stands in sharp contrast to my own experiences as an interrogator in Iraq. I watched as detainees were forced to stand naked all night, shivering in their cold cells and pleading with their captors for help. Others were subjected to long periods of isolation in pitch-black rooms. Food and sleep deprivation were common, along with a variety of physical abuse, including punching and kicking. Aggressive, and in many ways abusive, techniques were used daily in Iraq, all in the name of acquiring the intelligence necessary to bring an end to the insurgency. The violence raging there today is evidence that those tactics never worked. My memories are evidence that those tactics were terribly wrong.

 

While I was appalled by the conduct of my friends and colleagues, I lacked the courage to challenge the status quo. That was a failure of character and in many ways made me complicit in what went on. I'm ashamed of that failure, but as time passes, and as the memories of what I saw in Iraq continue to infect my every thought, I'm becoming more ashamed of my silence.

[Balta1701]

So, it appears that back in 2003, the Iranians sent a Fax to the State Department through a Swiss intermediary proposing the outlines of negotiations towards a full long-term settlement, on topics including full transparency of Iran's nuclear program, agreements on disarmament of Iran's other chemical weapons systems, ending of Iranian military assistance to Hezbollah, Iranian support of the Saudi proposal for a 2-state solution in Palestine, and support for the establishment of a democratic and independent Iraqi government.

 

As far as we can tell, the U.S. government appears to have not even bothered replying, and in fact responded by complaining to the Swiss about it. Seems we thought that Iran was about to fall apart completely, or something like that. Oops. Whether or not it was 100% sincere, if nothing else, basically it seems to have offered up everything the U.S. could have wanted from Iran, and therefore could have formed the basis for talks (and in fact it seems to have even included an outline for how the talks could progress).

 

And on top of that, for some strange reason, our current Secretary of State testified yesterday that she did not remember the U.S. receiving that fax. link, but thankfully, the good people at Newsweek happen to have unearthed a copy of it to jog her memory a little more.

 

So, let's see, Iran offers up everything we want, we say no, and before 6 years are up, we wind up bombing them for the same things they offered. This will truly be a triumph of something. Not sure exactly what.

[Damen]

So, it appears that back in 2003, the Iranians sent a Fax to the State Department through a Swiss intermediary proposing the outlines of negotiations towards a full long-term settlement, on topics including full transparency of Iran's nuclear program, agreements on disarmament of Iran's other chemical weapons systems, ending of Iranian military assistance to Hezbollah, Iranian support of the Saudi proposal for a 2-state solution in Palestine, and support for the establishment of a democratic and independent Iraqi government.

 

As far as we can tell, the U.S. government appears to have not even bothered replying, and in fact responded by complaining to the Swiss about it. Seems we thought that Iran was about to fall apart completely, or something like that. Oops. Whether or not it was 100% sincere, if nothing else, basically it seems to have offered up everything the U.S. could have wanted from Iran, and therefore could have formed the basis for talks (and in fact it seems to have even included an outline for how the talks could progress).

 

And on top of that, for some strange reason, our current Secretary of State testified yesterday that she did not remember the U.S. receiving that fax. link, but thankfully, the good people at Newsweek happen to have unearthed a copy of it to jog her memory a little more.

 

So, let's see, Iran offers up everything we want, we say no, and before 6 years are up, we wind up bombing them for the same things they offered. This will truly be a triumph of something. Not sure exactly what.

 

Speaking of Iran, here's something highly worth reading, given the administration propaganda granted front page status in the (liberal) New York Times

[Balta1701]

Here we go again.

Some view the spiraling attacks as a strand in a worrisome pattern. At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," says Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs. U.S. officials insist they have no intention of provoking or otherwise starting a war with Iran, and they were also quick to deny any link to Sharafi's kidnapping. But the fact remains that the longstanding war of words between Washington and Tehran is edging toward something more dangerous. A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test. With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident's spiraling into a crisis are higher than they've been in years.

[Damen]

http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/iraq/

[bmags]

i'm estimating that a pretty badass piece by seymour hersh is gonna come out in the next couple of months.

[Balta1701]

The Clinton and Obama campaigns are getting into a bit of a scuffle over some remarks by former Clinton funder and current Obama backer David Geffen which were printed in the NYT.

 

While it's not all that surprising to see campaigns blasting each other, it's pretty darn surprising to see them doing so when we're still 2 baseball seasons from the next election. And it's also worth noting that this is exactly what Edwards would like to see; the Obama and Clinton campaigns hammering each other for months while he sits on the sidelines...that's exactly the strategy Kerry used to win Iowa in 04 (let Gephardt, Lieberman, and Dean batter each other for months with attack ads, have some of your friends fund a 527 or two going after Dean on top of that, and come out looking moderately clean compared to those guys)

[southsider2k5]

Hopefully no one minds the visitor, but I was reading the samethings and just shaking my head. I know the two big kids on the block were destined to rumble, but I hate to see the fire back to the Clinton campaign go down the predictable road of their ethics. I'd really like to see the Obama camp stay above that, but it doesn't look like that is going to happen. This is going to be a long, long 21 months, isn't it?