Bush's talent: subverting the truth
In case you hadn’t noticed, President Bush has a tendency to say things that aren’t exactly true. This is a longstanding habit. Remember, he was all for restricting greenhouse gasses…until he took office. Iraq posed a “grave” threat to the U.S.,…only it didn’t. We’ve found weapons of mass destruction there…except we haven’t. His tax cuts have reduced income inequality…in truth, well, don’t get me started.
Mr. Bush’s latest diversion into the realm of the forked tongue involves our prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In June, standing in the Rose Garden, Bush said, “I’d like to close Guantanamo,” leaving the impression he might actually be planning to do such a thing.
At that moment, his statement left room for hope that the administration was not entirely impervious to reality. “Gitmo” had already become a travesty, an affront to democratic principles, a source of national shame. The Supreme Court, which had already rejected a “blank-check” wartime presidency, was about to declare Bush’s planned military tribunals unconstitutional. Our own officers were admitting that most of the detainees were likely guilty of nothing more than bad luck.
Now, we learn that while bush mused about closing down the infamous facility, plans were being realized to expand the prison, the contract having been awarded to - who else? - a Halliburton subsidiary.
Isn’t it past time we realized that whenever Bush or his allies seem to admit an uncomfortable truth, it’s only a tactical retreat. They’re really just trying to get through the day. Then, when we’ve stopped paying attention, they’ll go back to doing what they’re good at: subverting the truth.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
A ‘do nothing’ Congress will do us good this year
So let’s explain what happens during election-year summers on Capitol Hill. Everyone and their brother is figuring out what can pass this session of Congress and what will be put off until the next Congress convenes. And there is a fair amount of anticipation for a lame-duck session. Major bills on energy, telecommunications, bankruptcy, taxes, pensions and others are awaiting congressional consideration. The fact is that the Congress is so closely divided along partisan lines that it is very hard to pass anything.
The Republican majority hasn’t been able to develop a national consensus on its views on those issues because it is pushing a special-interest agenda for corporate interests and the wealthiest few, rather than seeking balance on behalf of a majority of Americans. It also continued to push the right wing’s agenda of constitutional amendments on same-sex marriage, on flag burning, on intervening with a doctor-patient relationship and on abortion, although it has mostly failed here, as well. Meanwhile, it has done nothing to hold the administration accountable for a disastrous war effort and an illegal (as decided by the Supreme Court) detainee system for prisoners of that war effort. If it enacted legislation now to respond to the Supreme Court, we would have nothing but another attempt by the Republicans to chip away at our democratic system of justice.
And perhaps the highest-profile issue for the president this year has been immigration reform. Despite efforts by many moderates in both parties, there is no satisfying the right-wing agenda here, either. There are rumors that Sen. Kennedy and Rep. Sensenbrenner are working with the White House to develop a consensus bill before the election. I hope that isn’t the case, because anything that would satisfy the House Republicans is likely to be a punitive bill for immigrants, and it would be a shame to see the president declare a pre-election victory on such a measure when it was really the Democrats he had been agreeing with all along and not his own party.
I am not usually such a cynic about legislative action, but given the divisiveness of Congress on these key issues, I suggest it may be time for them to just go home and let the people decide. We need leadership. And if the current Republicans controlling the Congress can’t provide it, then it is time to put their majority to the test. November can’t come soon enough for the country.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Taliban is back? It never left
Remember Afghanistan? You know, the first front in America’s war on terror? Where we vanquished the Taliban, those religiously inflamed country bumpkins in the employ of Osama bin Laden? Where we almost-sort-of-but-not-quite captured bin Laden himself? Had him cornered at Tora Bora, then, strangely, decided to farm out the job to a bunch of locals whose hearts clearly weren’t in it? After which we am-scrayed over to Iraq, where we really wanted to be all along? Yeah, that Afghanistan.
You can be forgiven for not holding this shining beacon of purple-thumbed democracy at the forefront of your consciousness. After all, we’ve been a bit distracted of late, what with the convulsive chaos in Iraq and the seemingly imminent conflagration in the entire Middle East.
(Did the neocons who urged us into Iraq predict all this? I can’t quite recall.)
In case you’re curious, though, here’s a little update on Afghanistan: The Taliban, in all their Islamo-fascist, woman-hating, death-to-infidels fury, are back. In the south and east of the country, they’re ambushing American soldiers and killing their fair share of civilians — mostly those who express an interest in joining the 21st century.
Our own military commanders are warning of impending disaster as NATO forces get set to take over from American GIs. Think anyone at the Pentagon is listening? Think the White House is eager to hear that the country over which they’ve hoisted a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner is about to collapse in chaos?
So, how do the resurgent Afghan Islamists finance their nefarious and increasingly bold activity? Drugs. Opium poppies are the only sure bets left to impoverished Afghan farmers. If you’re a heroin addict, chances are your junk originated in the poppy fields of Afghanistan. The Taliban, famous for its reactionary/puritanical bent, used to “just say no” with a vengeance. But with the country now one of the world’s leading narco-states, its leaders have begun to like the feel of ready cash in their pockets. It comes in handy when you want to stock up on weapons and explosives.
Increasing violence, a tattered infrastructure, abuse of women, warlords in control of the countryside, a government that is little more than a token of democracy — Afghanistan is what happens when a big, globe-straddling empire takes its eye off the ball. It’s what happens when the architects of our foreign policy let their ideology drag them toward incompetence.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Covering Israel
(Moshe Arenstein, “Hardball” producer)
Going to Israel to cover the war is a personal journey as well as a professional one. I grew up in the Upper Galilee Mountains of northern Israel, right next to the Lebanese border: high green elevations covered with orchards, cow pastures, Jewish kibbutzim and Arab villages. The air is pure, and the water is clean. Figs and apples can be eaten fresh from the trees. There is no natural border dividing Israel and Lebanon, only an electric fence 9 feet high and a minefield 20 feet deep. The wind carries the sound of the Lebanese mosque’s cleric humming his daily prayer, from one side of the border to the other. Farmers farm their fields simultaneously on both sides of the fence.
I spent my childhood on Kibbutz Bar-Am, a community village 300 yards from the border. Since its founding in 1949, it has enjoyed periods of calm as well as of wretched violence. I’ve driven on every single narrow road in the area, except this time I’m in a car with a foreign TV crew going north to see the action. The roads are now empty, and there is no need to worry about normal daily hazards, like bad drivers on the narrow hairpin turns. A few fields are burning after being lighted by a falling Hezbollah rocket. Military roadblocks prevent people without a permit from continuing north. Loud explosions are heard as we drive. It’s hard to tell if those are landing or launching.
Bar-Am is equipped with bomb shelters, but most people decided to leave. Sharing a shelter with 20 other people is a bit uncomfortable for the aging population. The noise from falling rockets, departing artillery and air force activity is unbearable. No one is allowed to work in the fields. The local high-tech factory was forced to close, losing millions in business. My father has packed some belongings and gone to visit a relative south of Tel Aviv until things calm down.
The children were evacuated to another Kibbutz in the south, sort of a forced summer camp, except there is no knowing when they’ll be back. Some parents left with them, and others visit as often as possible. My brother decided to stay to help guard the kibbutz but was eventually asked to take the 25 foreign volunteers who came for summer work picking apples on a field trip to see some of Israel’s tourist sites. Taking care of others helps him overcome his own fears.
As I drive through the hilly roads, passing another military convoy, I remember the wonderful innocent years I spent in this beautiful area. I see the sad and desolate reality of today and fearfully imagine the gloomy uncertainty of tomorrow.
Moshe Arenstein, a producer for “Hardball,” is a dual Israeli and U.S. citizen. He lived in Israel for 26 years and served in the Israeli Defense Force for 4½ years, reaching the rank of captain. He lives in the United States.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Israel-Hezbollah: Preparing the battlefield
We are 10 days into the Israel Defense Force (IDF) operations against Hezbollah. All indications point to an imminent ground incursion into Hezbollah’s stronghold in southern Lebanon.
Some points to consider as this operation unfolds:
The air campaign that has been ongoing since the first day has not been as successful as the Israelis had hoped. They have not been effective in preventing Hezbollah from repeated and sustained rocket attacks on Haifa and other cities in northern Israel. Despite repeated air and artillery attacks, Hezbollah has been able to strike an unprecedented 25 miles into Israeli territory, effectively putting approximately 1 million Israelis under threat of Hezbollah rockets.
I am surprised at how resilient Hezbollah has been. IDF gunners have fired a huge number of rounds into the area of southern Lebanon where the rockets missiles are thought to be located — from where they need to be launched to hit Haifa and Nazareth. Footage of these 155mm artillery batteries showed pallet after pallet, truckload after truckload of shells moved to firing positions. Still, the Hezbollah rockets continue.
Israel has mounted small-unit incursions — most likely reconnaissance and special operations missions — across the border into southern Lebanon, including many on an expected axis of attack, that being to the west of Qiryat Shimona. These incursions have met with stiff resistance by Hezbollah, despite the relentless Israeli artillery and air attacks.
Just today, we saw what are probably the final preparations of the battlefield. Additional reserve units have been called up, bringing the force levels on the border to about three divisions. In amazing footage broadcast live to the world, an Israeli combat engineering unit was seen marshaling on the border — amazing because the Israelis are usually so tight-lipped about their military operations. Leaflet drops warned residents to flee southern Lebanon in advance of the battle.
Finally, the IDF chief of staff made these remarks: “Tonight we bow our heads to the IDF soldiers who are fighting and prepare ourselves for the battles ahead. ... We left Gaza and left Lebanon in order never to go back — but now we have to fight the terror wherever it is.”
It is important to remember as the Israelis and Hezbollah close for battle that Israeli forces have not been in southern Lebanon since they left in 2000. Hezbollah perceived that pullout as a victory (you could make that argument). Since 2000, it has had free reign to survey the land, develop obstacles, set up planned ambush sites, etc. When the Israeli army pushes across the border, it will be met be a disciplined, committed — some would say fanatical — force. It will be a difficult fight.
The Israeli armed forces are among the finest in the world — they are well trained, well led and well equipped. They will ultimately prevail, but it will be at a steep price.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
The price of war
(Moshe Arenstein, “Hardball” producer)
Four hours after arriving from New York, we were sent to historic Nazareth, a town known mostly as where Jesus spent his childhood. Now it is the largest Arab community in Israel.
Upon arrival, we saw hundreds of people gathering outside a mosque for the funeral of two children killed there earlier in the day by a Hezbollah rocket. People say the two brothers, ages 3 and 8, were visiting their uncle and were playing on a narrow street between two houses when they got hit. A few more were injured.
People were surrounding the small crater. Some windows were blown out. Shrapnel was visible on the walls. And it was just one of 140 rockets that fell that day, throughout northern Israel.
What struck me the most was the irony of the attack. A Hezbollah rocket killed Arab children, but almost all the people we talked to blamed the Israeli government for their deaths. They argued that there were no bomb shelters in town and no air raid sirens. I agree with those facts, but I also got the sense that people were not taking warnings there seriously, thinking no Hezbollah fighters would want to aim at an Arab town.
They also blamed the government for over-reacting and ratcheting up this crisis with Hezbollah. At least five people who agreed to be interviewed thought the fault was that of the Israelis, and another family we talked to felt very uncomfortable and didn’t want to say anything. And sadly, like the reporter I produce for said, caught in the middle of all that were two small children who were just playing in the street.
Back at home base in Haifa, the third-largest city in Israel. A liberal, secular city — a working-class city with many Arabs living here. The town is feeling the effects of these rockets. Very few people in the streets, no traffic, and the roads are empty. Few stores open; most close early. The cabdriver who took us to Nazareth said most of his trips in the last few days were taking people out of town, to Tel Aviv and south.
Even the ships in the famous and busy port have left, having gone down to Tel Aviv and the port of Ashdod. Yesterday, we had two rocket attacks, although most of them hit the water, just some hitting on an open piece of land. Neither of those attacks, by the way, were preceded by sirens, so people are either staying away or staying indoors.
Even at this price, almost all Israelis agree with this operation as a window of opportunity to take Hezbollah out of the region once and for all. They believe in the power of the military and the just cause of the war. It shows in the polls, and it shows in the streets.
Moshe Arenstein, a producer for “Hardball,” is a dual Israeli and U.S. citizen. He lived in Israel for 26 years and served in the Israeli Defense Force for 4½ years, reaching the rank of captain. He lives in the United States.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
More urban, less cowboy
(Chris Matthews)
I have a theory, and it goes like this: When it comes to picking presidents, Americans have had it with ranches. They’re done. No more moving brush; no more chasing armadillos. It’s over.
When crisis hits, Americans want a president who’s on the scene, someone who runs to the fire, tells us what he sees and what we need to do about it. We don’t want a president who needs to be briefed on the basics from some remote locale. Bottom line: The cowboy is out; the sheriff is in.
Enter Rudy Giuliani. Conventional wisdom says he’s out of step on gay rights, on abortion, on his own marital propriety. Conventional wisdom says that he doesn’t fit the mold of a Republican nominee for president of the United States.
But I hate conventional wisdom. I hate it because it’s usually wrong.
As we gear up for the 2008 presidential campaign, we’ll relive raw images that have shaped all of our lives during the past eight years: crying 9/11 widows; helpless, desperate African-Americans stranded in New Orleans; blood-soaked troops; and flag-draped coffins.
These are not Republican images, and they’re not Democratic images. They’re American images, and they remind us what we value in our American leaders: honesty, truth, wisdom, a sense of history and a hands-on, boots-on-the-ground approach to the problems we face.
A new Gallup poll shows that 73 percent of Republicans deem him an acceptable 2008 nominee; just 25 percent say that he’s unacceptable. That makes him the most acceptable and the least unacceptable of all the possible Republican nominees, including John McCain, George Allen, Mitt Romney, Bill Frist and the rest.
He’s not perfect on every issue. But when the going got tough, he was there. Don’t discount him. You heard it here first.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Hezbollah and Hamas — the Iranian connection
Since late June, Israeli forces have been involved in military operations in Gaza, and since July 12 in Lebanon as well. On the surface, it appears that these are conflicts between the Israel and Palestinian Hamas (acronym for “Islamic Resistance Movement”), and between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah (the “Party of God”). It is that, but the conflicts highlight a series of complex Byzantine relationships, spanning the region from Gaza Strip, north to Lebanon, east to Syria, and finally to Iran.
Iran’s direct involvement in Lebanon goes back to 1982 when elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were dispatched to Lebanon to provide support for the newly-created Hezbollah. The IRGC contingent provided the ingredients necessary for any successful insurgent/guerrilla operations – money, weapons and training. Their operations soon expanded south to the various Palestinian groups – including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC), several factions of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and of course, Hamas. By the early 1990’s, Iran was the primary sponsor of these groups.
How do money, weapons and training get from Iran to these groups? There are several routes, but the primary route is through Syria, a close ally of Iran. The Iranian-Syrian relationship goes back decades - Syria was the only Arab state to support Iran during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. That relationship soon matured into a formal defense cooperation agreement between the two countries. The defense pact was renewed last month in Tehran.
Over the years, the Syrians have made no effort to hide Iranian access to Damascus International Airport as a key component of the Hezbollah supply line. From the airport it is a short drive (30 minutes) on the Beirut-Damascus highway to the Lebanese border and the Biqa’ Valley. For years, Iranian air force 747 cargo aircraft have routinely delivered arms and supplies to Hezbollah and Palestinian groups at the airport – and as of March 2006 still do. This activity is not hidden on the military side of the airport – this was done on the civilian side in plain view.
I served in Syria as the air attaché at the American embassy. Often while at the Damascus airport, I observed this activity. On one ocassion, I was there with an American Congressional delegation when this activity was taking place. The aircraft were clearly labeled as Iranian air force; the trucks bore the unmistakeable Hezbollah logo. When all is said and done, the money, weapons and training used to fuel operations of Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon can be traced to Iran, but the line goes through Damascus. Without Syria’s cooperation with Iran to allow Iranian supplies to flow through Damascus, neither Hamas nor Hezbollah would be able to conduct effective operations.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
A tale of three stem cell bills
This week the Senate takes up the thorny issue of embryonic stem cell research. There are three bills on the table: one is legitimate; one is a political pose that manages to be both useless and malicious; the last is downright bizarre.
The second bill would shift funding to research on creating embryonic stem cells without the need for an embryo. At first glance, this might seem reasonable; it would end run some people’s ethical concerns. But no such science is likely to exist for decades – if ever – a long time to wait if you’re suffering from, say, Parkinson’s disease. The legislation is actually designed to starve real research of funding and provide cover for Republicans running for re-election.
The third bill, sponsored by Republicans Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback, would outlaw the practice of: “fetal farming” – harvesting fetuses for spare parts. Congressman Dave Wheldon of Florida has labeled this a “gruesome practice”. Indeed it would be if anyone anywhere had even the slightest intention of doing such a thing.
In fact, there is no such practice as fetal farming. The only people contemplating such demented weirdness are, apparently, Republican Senators. This is, purely and simply, a red herring meant to appeal to the Republican base. Like “partial birth abortion”, its primary function is to suggest that the conservative’s political opponents are irredeemably depraved.
Disturbing as it is to think that men like Santorum and Brownback actually fantasize dark scenarios like the harvesting of fetuses, it gets worse. Of the three bills – helpful; malicious; and bizarre – which one do you think President Bush has vowed to veto? But then, you knew that already? Didn’t you?
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Mideast fallout at the fuel pump
This isn’t George W. Bush’s fault. At least that is how I expect American voters to size up the emerging Arab-Israeli war as they choose a new Congress in November. For decades we have watched U.S. presidents flail away at this mess and the result is that, as Gallup pollsters recently found, by a 2-to-1 ratio most Americans see no chance of peace there ever.
Indeed, Bush could have been speaking for all of his recent predecessors — and most voters — when he used a barnyard epithet this week to sum up the situation. Even if he miraculously leads the way to peace, there is little to suggest it would help him or his party politically. Jimmy Carter is the only president to achieve anything of lasting significance, the accord between Egypt and Israel, but he still lost re-election.
And I don’t buy this argument that voters will blame Bush for taking a pass early in his presidency on leading the two sides to the bargaining table. Given that presidents had tried everything imaginable up to then, why not take a shot a doing nothing and see if Arabs and Israelis could sort out their own problems? Now we know that also doesn’t work.
The real political danger in this crisis is quite simple: If it drives gas prices up, then Bush and the GOP will definitely have something to curse about.
Read more of Craig Crawford’s thoughts on .
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Novak cracks open the door
We reported exclusively Tuesday night on MSNBC on some intriguing revelations in the CIA leak investigation. Columnist Bob Novak wrote publicly for the first time about revealing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Wilson, the wife of administration critic Joe Wilson. And Novak has added a new layer of detail about two of the three sources he spoke with before publishing his column.
Novak has also added to the intrigue by keeping secret his first and primary source about Wilson. Lawyers in the case believe Novak’s “primary source” was former Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage. Armitage refuses to comment, but he has stated publicly that he testified and cooperated in Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation early on. Novak describes his “primary source” as “not a political gunslinger.” Novak adds that the disclosure from his primary source was “inadvertent.”
Novak goes on to talk about conversations with two other officials, presidential adviser Karl Rove and CIA spokesman Bill Harlow. Through lawyers in the case and legal documents, we’ve know for several months that Rove was a Novak source and that Harlow and Novak had two conversations before Novak published his column. What’s so interesting now is that Novak reveals that his recollection of his conversation with Rove was different from what Rove remembered. Novak also says there is a discrepancy with what Harlow remembers in his conversation with Novak. Novak says Harlow was a “confirming source.” Harlow has denied this.
Bob Novak has gotten his share of criticism over the years. This new information will likely add to it. Because in addition to the discrepancies with Rove’s and Harlow’s accounts, Novak revealed Tuesday that he didn’t put nearly the kind of effort into fighting to protect his pledges of confidentiality as other journalists did. Reporter Judith Miller went to jail until she got a personal waiver to testify from her source, Scooter Libby. And Time’s Matt Cooper was a few hours from going to jail when his source — Rove — provided a personal waiver authorizing him to testify.
Both Rove and Libby had signed “general waivers” authorizing reporters to testify about conversations. Novak has now indicated that in 2004, he felt the general waiver signed by White House officials was sufficient for him to break any pledges of confidentiality. Novak said he started testifying in 2004. At that very time, other reporters were just starting to fight in the courts. And indeed, Matt Cooper and Judy Miller didn’t testify until the summer of 2005.
So why did Novak write now about Rove and Harlow, but not about his “primary source”? Here again, the Novak episode gets intriguing. Novak writes that he revealed Rove’s name because Rove’s attorney divulged the substance of the conversation. And Novak said he revealed Harlow’s name because Harlow has publicly disclosed his version of the Novak conversation. Novak writes, “My primary source has not come forward to identify himself.” Novak points out, however, that the primary source did identify himself to prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
There are still many unanswered questions. First of all, was Novak’s primary source Richard Armitage? Second, what did Rove and Novak talk about, and why is their recollection different? Was this a reason prosecutors kept Rove under investigation for so long? What did Harlow tell Novak that Novak interpreted as being a green light to publish the identity of a covert CIA operative? Novak’s answers to these questions remain a mystery.
There are also questions remaining for prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. If Fitzgerald knew that the initial leak was “inadvertent,” did he believe that other officials acted deliberately in telling reporters, including Novak, about Valerie Wilson? Or does Fitzgerald believe that all of the “leaks” were inadvertent, as well? If that was the case, why didn’t he drop the investigation? If prosecutors weren’t sure about whether the actions of certain White House officials were “inadvertent” or deliberate, how do you explain the alleged actions of Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff? Why would Libby allegedly lie about his conversations with reporters? And if Libby was deliberately trying to lie — and remember that “intent” is a key issue prosecutors will have to prove at trial — what was Libby’s motive? Was Libby allegedly lying to protect his boss and possibly others?
One final point: At its heart, the CIA leak investigation is about how the administration sold the war to the American people and how the administration defended the war after it began. The prosecutor’s job was to determine whether there was criminality on the part of Bob Novak, Karl Rove and others. It was not the job of Patrick Fitzgerald, as he himself suggested last fall, to determine whether anybody in the administration, in undercutting a critic and that critic’s wife, acted ethically or fairly.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
The Republicans’ secret weapon
Talk about keeping your powder dry. Now that Republican congressional leaders have decided to postpone until the fall any legislation on the legal rights of suspected terrorists, they are sitting on a time bomb that could wipe out Democratic hopes for a takeover in the November elections.
The Supreme Court did Democrats no favors in ruling against the Bush administration's plan for military tribunals for prisoners of war. It might seem at first like a great blow to the president — and in the long run it, certainly was a strike against the expanding powers of the executive branch. But on the midterm political front, the court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld actually sets up Democrats to lose the national security debate in congressional campaigns. The ruling shifts power to Capitol Hill in deciding how to treat those terror suspects long held at Guantánamo Bay and other overseas locations without formal charges or access to lawyers — and whether to use interrogation tactics bordering on torture.
With Congress now center stage in this debate, the rights of terror suspects becomes a hot and relevant issue for House and Senate candidates. An up-or-down vote on these matters before November would be a nightmare for Democrats. Will their opposition to the president’s policies, as demanded by their party faithful, extend to putting themselves in the position of defending the rights of terrorists? Fair or not, there is every chance that the issue will be framed as a choice between defending terrorists or defending Americans. If so, Democrats will have to begrudgingly sign on to legislation restoring presidential powers denied by the court, turning this challenge to Bush into a political advantage for his party.
Read more of Craig Crawford’s thoughts on .
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
We’ve lost Iraq
Iraq is over. There will be no Rose Garden announcement. Network anchors will not pronounce it so. You will not see it printed above the fold. But, trust me, we’re through.
Iraqis see our troops as rapists and murderers. The neighborhoods of Baghdad are devolving into mayhem. Our military brass is eyeing the exits. Colin Powell is telling people we won’t like what we leave behind.
Even the good news has a bad side. Happy that al-Zarqawi is dead? Turns out, so is al-Qaida. The smart money says Bin Laden ratted him out so one of his own could take over. This does not count as an improvement.
President Bush can offer our troops all the birthday cake in the world, but photo ops can’t change the truth on the ground. Dick Cheney can grumble about the media, and Karl Rove can wave his little phony flag, but the Iraqis dying on the streets every day — like the Sunnis dragged out of cars and homes this past Sunday to be gunned down in broad daylight — know better. We’re done. Iraq’s future is chaos.
Confidential documents from within the new Iraqi government backed up by the assessments of our own State Department tell the story. The Iraqi police force, the very agency charged with maintaining order and enforcing the law on the avenues of Iraq’s ostensibly burgeoning democracy, have instead been fully infiltrated and corrupted by Shiite militias. Using assassination, torture and rape — and, naturally, collecting bribes along the way — these militias use the cover of the Iraqi police to wage their part of the country’s percolating civil war.
In a little over three years, Iraq has gone from an oil-rich kleptocracy under a frozen regime to an oil-rich road warrior outtake whose new best friend is the Mad Hatter theocracy in Iran. Some progress.
Of course, while we at home may have reached a psychological watershed regarding the war, Iraq is decidedly not over for the thousands of American soldiers trapped in the crossfire. And no, that’s not the good news.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Showdown in Connecticut: What the Net says
As CNBC’s John Harwood just said on MSNBC, "The netroots count for something," and they provide Lamont much of his support — and much of the opposition to Lieberman. So how is the debate playing out on the netroots?
Here’s a snapshot of comments from Daily Kos, which has been one of Lamont’s biggest champions and perhaps Lieberman’s biggest nemesis:
"Go Ned! Just be yourself and tell the people how we can do it better!!"
"Ned seems a little nervous. Though I think he’s getting his footing."
"Joe Attacks Like A Republican. I smell Rove ..."
"God this is a great match. This really should be Lieberman’s easy win, and he’s fighting like hell, but Lamont is a REAL FIGHTER."
"Wow... Lieberman really has those Republican talking point DOWN. He is digging his own hole deeper."
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Showdown in Connecticut: Where was this Joe in 2000?
I wish Joe Lieberman had been this aggressive against Dick Cheney in 2000. It may not work in a Democratic primary, but it would’ve worked in that general election.
Lieberman did fail to satisfy Democrats upset about his potential independent candidacy. His only recourse was to fiercely hold on to every Democratic name he could from JFK to Bill Clinton — although he also purloined "there you go again" from Ronald Reagan. Democratic primary voters may ask: Why should we nominate him if he doesn’t trust us?
Lamont seemed to handle Lieberman with confidence and strength, leaving the impression, fair or unfair, that Lieberman is a Democrat in Connecticut and too often a Republican in Washington. Maybe it’s Lamont who could’ve beaten Cheney in the 2000 debate.
Halfway through this debate Lamont, with help from the voters and their e-mail questions, did expand the issues landscape — for example to jobs, trade and health care, where he asked why Lieberman had never sponsored a single national health reform bill.
Lieberman was relentless but playing a game I know well, the political consultant’s game. But usually the ads, not the candidate, are the attack vehicle. How do voters react to Joe Lieberman as someone carrying a hatchet etched with personal attacks? If they don’t like it, then the only thing Lieberman won was the coin toss.
This strategy was a chance he had to take. He’s trying to leave people with the impression that Lamont, who is the most visibly anti-Iraq war challenger in the country, doesn’t stand for anything. If Lieberman stops Democrats from voting on the basis of Iraq, he wins. If Iraq is the issue, this debate changed nothing and Lieberman is still in danger.
The line of the debate was spontaneous and smart. Lamont to Lieberman: "this isn’t Fox News, sir."
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Showdown in Connecticut: The tax man cometh
Sen. Lieberman says he has released his federal and state tax returns and challenges Lamont to do likewise. Lamont replies, "We’ve submitted hundreds of pages of financial documents" — but he doesn’t say if that includes his tax returns.
Lieberman says Lamont’s lack of commitment to release his tax returns is "an insult" to Connecticut voters. Lieberman seems exasperated by Lamont — almost as if he can’t believe this rookie is in the same game with him.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Showdown in Connecticut: You’re no Dutch, Joe
I am not an expert at winning Democratic primaries in Connecticut, but were I in Joe Lieberman’s shoes, I would stay away from Ronald Reagan quotes. But early in tonight’s debate, there was the candidate the Left loves to hate telling his upstart opponent "There you go again."
That well-rehearsed line helped the Gipper bury Jimmy Carter’s re-election hopes in 1980, but it may not be as effective in a Democratic contest for the heart and soul of the party 26 years later.
While very few outside D.C. are focused on this Connecticut race, the results have broad implications for the Democratic Party. If the man who received more votes for vice president than any other Democratic candidate just six years ago ends up being rejected by his own party, the war debate will be yanked leftward overnight.
That will be great news for the president, Karl Rove and the swarms of GOP candidates running for president in 2008.
When it comes to matters of war, Democrats can’t follow their hearts any more than they can follow the latest polls. They are still the party of George McGovern and defeatism to millions of Middle American voters — who still blame them for losing the Vietnam War.
Hey. Don’t get snippy with me, Alger. I’m just giving you the facts from Red State America. Follow Ned Lamont if you want. Just don’t be surprised if your little parade dead-ends into another six years in the minority.
There you go again!
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Showdown in Connecticut: Turning the tables
Much of this can probably be attributed to his past experience in debates, but it’s just worth noting how Lieberman has been trying — and largely succeeding — in making this debate about Lamont, even when the primary thus far has been about Lieberman and his support for the Iraq war. "The point is, who is he?" Lieberman just asked. "People have to ask themselves who is Ned Lamont?"
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Showdown in Connecticut: Who’s best for Connecticut
Lieberman was just asked one of the big topics on this race: about the Democratic Party and the fact that Lieberman might run as an independent if he loses the primary. Lieberman invoked John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton in talking about his love for the Democratic Party. “Each election is about the future,” he said, quoting Clinton. “I can do more for you and your family. That is what the Democratic Party is about.” Lieberman then took a swipe at Lamont: “He is a single-issue candidate who is applying a litmus test to me.”
Lamont fired back that Lieberman doesn’t stand up to the Bush administration and that his votes too often “undermine” the Democratic Party.
Asked more directly about why Lieberman might run as an independent, Lieberman replied, “I can do a better job for Connecticut than either [Lamont] or [Republican] Alan Schlesinger can.”
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Showdown in Connecticut: Taking a break
We’re told the two foes will have a 15-minute cooling-off period after the debate, then will allow the 40 reporters here — including one from The Times of London and one from a German magazine — to enter the studio and ask questions.
Team Lieberman seemed frankly surprised that “Hardball” is airing this — and that international media are here. They may be a bit spooked by their intense media interest
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Showdown in Connecticut: Lieberman takes off the gloves
Another point on Lieberman’s aggressiveness so far: In his 2000 vice presidential debate, he was widely criticized for treating Dick Cheney with kid gloves. Lieberman was cordial and cautious then. But tonight is different — he’s swinging at Lamont and not giving up.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Showdown in Connecticut: Lamont holding his own
Lieberman will get some credit in the press for the fact that he came out fighting. But so far Lamont seems up to the battle. Lieberman’s rip-off of Lloyd Bentsen’s 1988 line was interesting. He says, "I’m not George Bush." He even says that on the war he’s been critical of Bush but doesn’t specify where. When he cites Lamont’s supposedly different positions on whether and how long to stay in Iraq, he might be better off just reading his piece of paper and stopping. Instead he goes the next step and challenges Lamont to unequivocally state his view. Lamont replies it’s time to get out, it’s time to stop being a cheerleader for Bush — and by the way, got off his own good line when he said that Lieberman must be the only person in Connecticut not to know where he, Lamont, stands on the war. After Lamont says he favors a specific withdrawal date, Lieberman lapses into Bush speak when he argues that it would be disastrous to set a deadline because the enemy would find out. Lamont’s challenge is not just to win on the war issue, but to broaden his appeal, which is what he was trying to do in his opening statement when he spent real time on the economy. Lieberman’s challenge is to show Democrats he understands their feelings on the war even if they disagree with him.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Showdown in Connecticut: Lieberman on the offensive
It is surprising how aggressive and abrasive Lieberman is acting in this debate: He has repeatedly interrupted his novice challenger, seemingly trying to rattle him.
“Ned, when you’re a senator you’ve got to make decisions,” Lieberman says early on — a bit of a patronizing note. Fourteen minutes into the debate, he accuses Lamont of having taken a sixth different position on Iraq and calls Lamont’s latest statement “dumb.”
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Showdown in Connecticut: Sticking point — Iraq
In Lieberman’s opening statement he stresses his 18 years of Senate service. He accuses Lamont of focusing solely on Lieberman’s stand on one issue, Iraq. “I’ve worked against George Bush. ... I’ve run against George, but, Ned, I’m not George Bush,” said Lieberman, turning to look at Lamont.
“So why not stop running against him?”
Lieberman said: “I’ve voted with my Democratic colleagues 90 percent of the time.” According to the Congressional Quarterly, that’s true.
“If you won’t challenge President Bush and his failed agenda, I will,” Lamont says.
In his opener, Lamont paints a gloomy picture of America “more dependent on foreign oil; more dependent on foreign capital.”
On Iraq, Lamont says, “Those who got us into this mess should be held accountable.”
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Showdown in Connecticut: Differing strategies
In his opening remarks, Joe Lieberman came out throwing uppercuts at Lamont: “Ned Lamont just seems to be running against me, and he is distorting who I am and what I have done.” He also parried one of Lamont’s biggest attacks on Lieberman: that he’s a lackey for President Bush. Lieberman — paraphrasing Lloyd Bentsen’s old debate line — said he knows George Bush and has opposed George Bush. “But Ned, I’m not George Bush."
By contrast, Lamont was more reserved in his opening remarks, highlighting his past volunteer work and the fact that he’s not a traditional politician. But he did get in this zinger: “If you won’t challenge George Bush and his failed agenda, I will.”
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Showdown in Connecticut: Attack-dog Lieberman
You always know a candidate is in trouble when he attacks his opponent in the first few sentences of his opening statement, as Joe Lieberman did. Obviously worried about the effect of his cozy relations with George Bush, the incumbent went negative to defend himself against Lamont’s attacks on his friendliness with the president.
Lamont delivered a less polished opening than Lieberman but kept his first remarks on a positive note — which debate watchers always appreciate. In a quick aside to Lieberman, he noted that the incumbent was unwilling to part with the president on the war.
Early on, this debate framed the issues that will likely govern the party’s 2008 presidential campaign — a struggle between appealing to Democrats fully against the war vs. those, like Lieberman, who strive to keep an eye on general election voters who fear the party is weak on defense.
Read more of Craig Crawford’s thoughts on .
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Showdown in Connecticut: A little help from a friend
Washington lawyer Lanny Davis, an old Lieberman pal and classmate, was one of the pre-debate preparation team for the senator.
Team Lieberman faced an unusual task: no film or video of the opposing candidate, Ned Lamont, in a debate, so little way to get a sense of the foe as a real debater. Davis said Team Lieberman studied Lamont’s written statements and got judgments of his performance as a selectman in Greenwich.
Davis also told us that despite the vast potential of the nearly 930,000 independent voters, the Lieberman campaign was focusing its limited resources on the registered Democrats and appealing to those who were willing to look beyond their feelings about the Iraq war and assess the whole Lieberman record.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Showdown in Connecticut: Say it ain’t so, Joe
What can Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., say tonight during his debate with challenger Ned Lamont to stop both the unprecedented outcry against him as well as the hemorrhaging of his campaign in the Democratic primary?
Just say it ain’t so, Joe. Say you’ve made a huge mistake and you have reconsidered your position not to support the Democratic nominee if you lose the primary.
Remind people that you were the original reformer battling complacent and arrogant incumbency when you first ran for the Senate and toppled the giant Lowell Weicker.
If you don’t change your mind, here is the case stacked up against you:
- Your complaints that a loss by you in the primary will prove that Democrats have a litmus test on the war will go by the wayside when Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Ben Nelson and others are victorious in their primaries. These senators are not preparing for a third-party bid to undermine the Democrats; they are taking the heat, defending their votes and proving that they have core values that matter to Democratic voters. Instead of whining that this is all about the war, can you demonstrate a core commitment to Democratic Party principles?
- In 2000, you didn’t give up your Senate seat to run for vice president because you were afraid to give up the power. Rather than have confidence in the voters, you clung to power. Perhaps you are still pleased that you did, but it suggests to voters now that you will do anything to retain your power, including undermine the political system in Connecticut and hurt the Democratic Party.
- There are other issues on which Democrats have been frustrated with your positions that take the challenge against you beyond the war: blind support for the USA Patriot Act; brokering a deal to approve President Bush’s right-wing judges, which will change the direction of the judiciary for years to come; opposing contraceptive help for rape victims; aligning with the right wing to promote religious exemptions to basic civil rights protections, etc.
Tonight’s debate is a key moment in this race and in this 2006 election. Voters in Connecticut must make this decision, but Democrats across the country will be watching. And we will resent it if Sen. Lieberman dismisses the core principles at stake in this debate in favor of the weak arguments he has been making to hold on to his incumbency.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com
Not so smart about smart cars
If you’re going somewhere this Independence Day — the beach or the family farm or just to the market — chances are you’re driving. If you’re the typical American, that means hitching up a couple of hundred horses to something that outweighs the Chrysler Building. Think about it — a beer run to the grocery: Does it really require the Budweiser Clydesdales?
Another option is about to arrive on our shores. Look out for the “smart” cars, an import from Europe. They can park on a bottle cap; they get a million and a half miles per gallon; a child can lift one up and carry it into the back yard. Yet they’re comfortable enough, with plenty of head room and storage space. In short, smart cars are more or less perfect for going to work or running errands around town, just about anything within a 25-mile radius — roughly 90 percent of what we do with our cars.
Naturally, they’re doomed to fail.
Smart they may be, but they look like something you tuck into bed with your 3-year-old. Americans — in particular, American men, who still do most of the auto buying — don’t much like cute in a car. That may wash in countries where they eat snails, but in the U.S. of A. driving is all about having bigger ones than the next guy. Even if the next guy is a girl. In Europe, they prize modesty; we project testosterone. They want convenience; we want to survive an RPG attack.
No, in America we don’t like small, and we don’t trust smart. Given today’s world, that’s just dumb.
Comments? Email Hardblogger@msnbc.com