Login Here
Well, well, well. Cards on the table. How refreshing:
WASHINGTON, March 14 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
Must be that contested CfL primary coming up. She's perfect for the spot, if a little precocious. Senator Clinton said previously she would "end the war" if elected, and now, before being elected to her desired job, basically says, "Psych!" Lieberman, on the other hand, said before elected, "No one wants to end the war more than I do." He waited until very shortly after he was elected to write an op-ed entitled, "Why We Need More Troops in Iraq."
In other news, torture survivor Khalid Shaikh Mohammed confessed to plotting 9/11 and other crimes, including halitosis, the Star Wars prequels and the plot to murder Vince Foster (he says he dumped the body). I'm just amazed they left him with enough brain cells intact to complete a coherent sentence. Thank you, Scooter Libby, Abu Gonzales and all the rest for your oh so productive deployment of torture to get people to say any fucking thing. By the way, where's Osama, again?
Now, I realize some people think it's torture to have to talk with a New York Times reporter, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Hillary's scandalous candor was not coerced, Gitmo style. Let's see how she goes about spinning being just a wee bit pregnant on neverending Iraq occupation.
Good morning, gang! What news are you reading?
UPDATE: 9:51 AM EST Sen Cornyn (R-Box Turtle) just congratulated Senator Clinton on the Senate floor for her pro-occupation stance as quoted in today's New York Times. Ellen Tauscher was once described as "Lieberman in a pants suit," but perhaps that distinction is highly coveted by others.
Share This 
Spotlight
My contempt for Joe Lieberman is boundless!
Pachacutec!
I just arrived from reading Tom Englehardt wondering why no one is paying attention to Seymour Hersch.
Holy crap. MSNBC is gonna run this Monday - all day Monday - a replay of the ‘greatest hits’ of the Iraq invasion four years ago.
WTF? War porn.
Maybe I should just shut up and be happy they don’t have any newer war footage - yet.
Good morning!
I’m extremely concerned that the Mets don’t have any pitching. And I’m praying hard for Steve Gilliard.
Off topic,
Calling Mr. Luskin?
http://salon.com:80/opinion/bl.....newsletter
if she implodes it will be gore in, while I would have loved the prospect of her husband as advisor, I don’t think she’s electable and I surely think Gore will be the greatest president this country has ever had, and we need him right about now, that is for certain
as far as our presence in IRaq, Bush submitted to bin laden’s demand after 9/11 and removed our military base in the suadi’s
so far as we need a base in the area, I probably agree…however the prive to continue in Iraq is obviously too dear…this is not black and white guys, ya, we need out of Iraq, however from what I understand militarily, we also need a base in the middle east.
never the less, I believe hilary is unelectable, gore seems to have a differant solution to the military requirements in the middle east and I would like to see this question posed directly to him
Wow, nice to see the piece on Hillary that I posted before 6am show up as a thread! Whoo hoo.
perris @ 8
Thank God she’s come out with it now. This will doom her before the first primary. She won’t even get a VP spot on anyone else’s ticket now — they wouldn’t dare.
It’s between Obama and Edwards now. The big question is going to be which one of them is Prez and which is Veep.
Phoenix Woman @ 11
I’m hoping if she steps out gore steps in
A couple of interesting things. Sen Leahy on NPR beside himself because Senate Judiciary Committee was caught flat-footed wrt the USAtty firings. Seems Alberto had left a lot out of his briefings to the committee. Wonder if that’s typical?
And Rayne’s article on the Atty firings is up at E Pluribus Media.
raven @ 9
Congrats!
This actually makes me happy, as of all the Democrats she was the toughest sell, but unfortunately also had the most corporate cash. But now she’s McCained herself by refusing to back a withdrawal.
perris @ 12
I’d love to see Gore come in, but the press would just rip him to shreds and smear him. Again. And he knows it, as Joe Conason has said.
So the tigress don’t change the stripe. Gota go with the PNAC as well as pretending to be Democrat and apeact got her soul. Hasta la vista baby, tienes a good life sin my vote - ever. Once it would have been so easy to be part of the solution, now a part of the war crimes, crimes against humanity problem. And the lies don’t work anymore.
Another self-inflicted wound.
Obama and Edwards looking better all the time.
Meanwhile:
A LIST OF THINGS RON JEREMY, er KHALID MOHAMMAD CONFESSED TO!
Hillary is now albatross
So if Hill doesn’t get the nomination, maybe Joe will let her run on the C4L ticket. She can be Pres & he can be Veep, since that’s where the power is anyway, right? It’d be perfect! No chance of getting elected, of course, but think of they money they could raise.
coffee’s ready - help yourselves
Great minds, raven. I didn’t see that, but as soon as this hit the Internets lst night, I was emaaailing friends at 10:00 PM EST and wrote this before bed.
But, now I’m surfing for my next post, and while I have a bunch of possible options, topic nominations welcome. . . I post gain in a little while, covering for a sick Christy.
Send Christy your best wishes. . .
Attaturk: I saw that when I got up. Very funny. . . (but the exclamation point on my keyboard is stuck, so imagine I wrote one, please).
Totally off the subject, have you looked at Bush’s bio on the WH web page?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html
A wee bit of creative writing, that.
Good Morning Pachacutec and Firedogs,
wow, even when groggy, the toobz gods grant my wishes -
was just over at Raw Story reading her comments, trying to figure out what in the holy hell she is up to with this, knowing I could just come back over here and ask one of the more saavy ‘pups and BAM! here he is and he’s written a post on it -
so -
Is this an AIPAC dogwhistle ?
Is she covering her fanny (as all Dems will need to do) wrt the mess Chimpy will be leaving the next Pres. ?
Has someone convinced her that there’s a large block of voters who will find this appealing ?
Did she make these comments before or after Biden’s rant on the Senate floor ?
Along those lines, is this about Obama/Edwards ?
It sure as hell isn’t about Giulianni or other Rep’s b/c none of the cocktail weenie guzzlers has so much as asked their positions and none of them are talking -
hey, I said I was groggy - I’m not interested in why none of us will vote for her, I just want to know what would be the campaign rationale for such
oh crikey ! forgot the ast*r*sks, and am now in mod land - sorry
Hillary is triangulating herself right out of the race. It’s the same old DLC blargh, hold no strong principles, compromise on everything, don’t make any enemies. Except that after 16 years the Clintons don’t seem to have figured out that the Republicans are going to be their enemies no matter what, and that they are pissing off their friends by not having our backs.
morning!
sadly, it’s not just clinton and lieberman - it looks like our beautiful democratic majority house of representatives is considering passing supplemental funding (of more than $120 billion) to continue the war/occupation.
here’s an analysis of the latest version (4pm yesterday) of the house bill (via matt stoller).
the requirement for bush to go to congress before attacking iran is now gone, and there are apparently massive loopholes for bush to continue doing whatever he wants.
i wish i knew where the pressure/motivation for this is coming from.
my suggested antidotes are first, norman solomon’s new essay, “‘Pragmatism’ Is Prolonging the War” and second, david sirota’s old essay, “Partisan War Syndrome“.
the supplemental war appropriation is in markup this morning at 9am - and it is scheduled to be on c-span3.
i’m calling my rep (again) to ask him to vote against this bill unless it includes hard dates for withdrawal and restrictions on attacking iran.
She is so calculated. Why would she say this when she knows the Dems want out of Iraq.
Without that oil would the US falter?
I’m reading some clever stuff the past few days; all this atop Abu Gonzales’ very bad week (extended remix). Joseph Cannon at Cannonfire highlights Daniel Hopsicker’s latest (which discusses the Wilkes brothers and their long running shenanigans and some of the billionaires for whom they work). Jeff Wells drops a thought provoking post on his blog that leaves me asking, from inside which box (or sphere) am I regarding the crumbling of the American empire… and what parapolitical forces are in play?
Compelling stuff.
As for Hillary… she’s an establishment politician, wed to the Military Industrial Complex. She does not have my support.
Pachacutec @
21
Oh, I wasn’t compaining in the least, I thought it was cool!
Well, Hillary IS AIPAC’s candidate in the Democratic Party. She mustn’t upset the neocons.
Pachacutec @ 21
pach - thanks for pitching in for christy! one suggestion is the house appropriation committee meeting this morning for the markup of the war supplemental funding bill on c-span3 (begining at any moment).
Hillary is very insulated, and her campaign, from the start, has been focused on the members of her Davos Bubble in the DC foreign policy elite, for whom this is the Responsible Position.
These elites believe that foreign policy should not be decided by voters but by their own league of erudite experts. Hillary essentially agres with these people. They have a fundamental contempt they would never admit to themselves for democracy. They don’t believe the voters can know and see their own interests.
AIPAC is an important part of this ecosystem but it’s not as simple as that. This is a funtion of the DC/K Street Elites and the foriegn policy elites in DC, and of Senator Clinton esssentially seeing them, in Georgetown, as her constituency.
Shocked, shocked I tell you that Hill would be such a hawk ;-p
So far I’ve been throwing out her mailing. Henceforth I will mark return to sender.
I’m with perris in hoping that Gore will opt in. Time will tell.
In the mean time there’s this issue of the nation’s top lawyers subverting the legal system that just makes me kind of crazy. I keep bouncing back to a post written in Oct. on Balkinization. I wish Christy, Mary, LHP or one of our legal beagles would take it and run with it.
Phoenix Woman @ 15
The GOP via the press has already started to smear Gore anyway. The question is why are they so intent on smearing someone who hasn’t even stepped into the race. They are scared to death of Gore. The press knows that Gore is the best we’ve got and that he has the stature to pull it off. He knows that Dems will say he won before and he’ll win again. What we have to do is have his back…aggressively! Repugs have nominated the same candidate before. We were not “going to have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore” until we did. This may be the first time since Adlai Stevenson lost twice that we have twice nominated the same person, but it could and should, IMO, happen. He did not lose that election; it was stolen from him. And talk about the opportunity for a do-over! I’m ready!
fightingdem @ 30
Ding.
pach I need to talk to you right away. Please email me a phone #. It’s important
I am really disappointed in Ms. Clinton, not that I was not already, and not that I seriously considered her my presidential candidate.
This morning, f’rinstance, it has been reported that she is avoiding the question on gays in the military. See http://www.americanchronicle.c.....leID=22161 among others.
From CNN.Com:
Obama, for his part, hasn’t answered the question either.
And now Clinton and the war. Depressing, really. But not too surprising.
Where the heck is Al? (Gore, not Sharpton!)
RevDeb @ 33
me too! if it can be the new gore and not the old gore.
selise @ 39
meet the new gore, he’s the same as. . .
This makes sense. Seriously.
We withdraw our troops to the temporary/permanent bases, maintain a greatly reduced presence. Something similar to the presence we had in Saudi Arabia from 91-2002. After all, we still have a significant presence in Kuwait.
There is a geopolitical need to have troops in this area. There is a legitimate need to deter Iran. And to protect the Kurds.
I don’t know the current troop levels, perhaps 120-160k. Perhaps we scale back to 30-40k.
And of course the US will still maintain an embassy in Iraq. I don’t know that it needs to be the monstrosity currently being built, but there is a legitimate need for a US embassy.
She’s running as a Goldwater Girl. She’s going Republican Lite.
I can’t support her in the primary.
I will bite my tongue and vote for her only if she wins the primary.
It is all the more imperative that we win a veto-proof majority in House and Senate, so that no matter who wins the White House, we still have the ability to stop this madness.
If Hillary plans to stay in Iraq, she can stay in New York.
She’s had ample opportunity to correct her deadly mistake in supporting the war and the hubristic policy that led people like her into it. She has failed again, and she has failed to explain herself adequately.
Little W simply wanted to be president. He didn’t prepare for the job except by inheriting power and money. Hillary doesn’t deserve to be president simply because she wants it real bad.
The Democratic Party can do better. If it doesn’t, it’s time for a change.
just starting on c-span3:
live coverage of house appropriates committee hearing on markup of supplemental war funding. it’s now at $124 billion - $21 billion more than bush requested.
obey chairing.
I actually thought the Times handled the KSM thing pretty well. They couldn’t not report it, and it did run above the fold on the right. But they also led with a strong Gonzalez 8 piece and a piece on Iraq missing Bush targets.
And pro-war Hillary.
Glenn Greenwald linked to an interesting American Conservative piece that discusses how the left blogosphere is creating interference in the AIPAC influence in the Democratic party.
I don’t see Hill’s idea of keeping a scaled down force in Iraq as being much different than Murtha’s plans.
I also think some of the reactions here and elsewhere (See! See! Hillary is a war-lover!) resemble our friends on the other side.
And I don’t even like Hillary, nor would I have voted for her anyway.
agree, agree, agree,
yeah, but those pesky unwashed, unknowing masses will be doing all the voting - and considering she is married to one-of-the-smartest-political-minds of the late 20th Century™, this is a stumble. why didn’t she just make these comments @ Davos or some groovy Foreign Policy forum before she declared - not the NYFT, and certainly not now
VOR @ 41
There is? From what?
catching up on my reading, and this caught my eye…
From Janes’ post about House Dems who won’t support the Iraq Bill…
Anyways, I found it rather shocking that someone who is on this list was on the Blue America list, so I checked Arcuri’s campaign website for his stated position on Iraq . Here is where Arcuri stood when he was asking US for money….
Arcuri recieved $14,000 through BlueAmerica, and over Move-On’s “Call for Change” campaign resulted in over 68,000 calls being made to voters in NY-24 urging them to vote for Arcuri — and that money and those calls were based on Arcuri’s stated support for ending the Iraq war, and redeployment in 2007.
Personally, this pisses me off…
Bay State Librul @
7
Rove is running a racket out of the White House and using presidential control of US prosecutors to protect it.
RICO! RICO! RICO!
I’m disappointed, but not surprised. Not surprised because she is the candidate of the CW and her base in the Democratic Party is pro-war. Disappointed because whether she wants it or not, whether she is elected or not, the United States is suffering a major strategic defeat in the Middle East. Our presence, whatever it is, will no longer be as dominant as it was before 2003. This is a simple fact, and her being elected or not elected won’t change it. Unless she is prepared to come out for a draft, which is a necessary condition for maintaining a real American presence in the Middle East, she’s talking through her hat. My disappointment is that she might not know it.
Pachacutec @
33
Biden has this disease as well. They really see themselves as a ruling elite, and, therefore, do a poor job of demanding accountability because they see themselves, in the future in the Oval Office, and don’t want to be accountable themselves.
Not that Biden matters.
But the larger point–that this is not just Senators but a whole class of media, elected officials and money sources–is dead on.
And is very hard to crack. For people whose Senators are from NY, at least. I’ve heard things are better elsewhere.
I don’t have CSpan3 gang, so keep me updated, please!
Clinton does nothing that is not calculated. My guess is that she/Bill are betting that the sustained “surge” may actually reduce violence (or at least reported violence) in Iraq, that some political accommodations will occur that look like progress, and that Republicans will be boasting in 2008 that Iraq was a success and Bush was right. Hillary then looks like the Dem that criticized the war’s implementation but never renounce her vote for it. Her supporters then claim she’s the responsible, experienced realist who didn’t panic when others, like Edwards/Obama, did. Just a guess.
stream CSPAN 3 from here
(the CSPAN 3 topic is mislabeled BTW)
p.lukasiak @ 49
I’ve passed this on to the NY netroots folks.
Russ Feingold also said he’s for leaving some troops in Iraq …
Edwards stance is …
When I saw the Hillary-Iraq headline, I had the same immediate reaction, but I think the press is blowing this out of proportion. Although I think it’s worth getting her — and the other candidates — to clarify their positions, I do think most of them, including Obama and Edwards, will leave some troops in Iraq for support, training and border security, and not kicking down doors.
The more Hillary talks, the more she sounds like, well, Hillary.
charlietuna (89) — I’m sorry, and you are…?
Read the letter. Again. Carefully.
Fitz was checked up short by the USAG. He’s given Waxman et al as many breadcrumbs as he can without risking getting himself treated like the rest of the Gonzales 8-plus. And yeah, they would do that, in spite of the hue-and-cry; they only have to say that Fitz broke the law, failed to observe Rule 6(e) handling of Grand Jury testimony.
No, this is not why some of us blogged 24/7 on this topic. It is because Fitz has been so damned good and careful that we even got this far, that a senior administration official was successfully prosecuted without the trial being shut down by greymail and claims of state secrets and national security.
Jebus, what is going on today? Caffiene shortage out there or what?
p.lukasiak @ 47
the current version of the appropriations bill does NOT look like it will end the war (at least to me).
i hope i’m wrong - but if i’m not…. i think the right call for anti-war house members is to vote AGAINST this bill.
as always, if i have this wrong, i’d love someone to walk me through it…
CaptCT @ 57
When I saw the Hillary-Iraq headline, I had the same immediate reaction, but I think the press is blowing this out of proportion. Although I think it’s worth getting her — and the other candidates — to clarify their positions, I do think most of them, including Obama and Edwards, will leave some troops in Iraq for support, training and border security, and not kicking down doors.
Here’s the transcript so people can judge for themselves.
Hilary your probush keep the war going stance just lost you the democratic Primary you are never going to be president. After the last election the Democrats got a majority because everyone wants an end to this war. Everyone but g.w bush and you it seems, what part of government for and by the people don’t you understand? How can you expect to win our votes for president when you don’t support the most important issue to the biggest part of the vote?
VOR, and where are we going to maintain that embassy? Because saying we WILL, presupposes that there won’t be ANY faction there, needing a little mortar practice.
One sliiight difference with the Saudis and the Kuwaitis, from Iraq; both governments were glad to have us there, at least in the short-term, after GWII. The Kuwaitis, of course, were VERY grateful for our returning their country to them, and the Saudi Royals hung with us for a while, but then our presence there began to smell like an occupation, to some extent, and it became a political liability to them.
In Iraq, name me one faction other than the Kurds (who really, down the road, will have no say in what goes on in the lower 2/3rds of the country) who will be publically tolerant of permanent U.S. bases there. If there are U.S. troops in Iraq, there will always be someone shooting at them…AND at any Iraqis who are remotely supportive of their presence.
Now, for the capper: As you read Pacho’s excellent call-out of HRC, for her on-again, off-again, blowjob to bushCo, ask yourself which presidential candidate is going to be talking about “maintaining a presence” in Iraq with those big bases you’re talking about, 16 months from now, in the heat of the campaign, and with U.S. casualties still coming in?
(and they will be; Petraeus and the other generals saying “no military solution” is an understatement.)
For Hillary to do this, is just more of the mind-boggling political stupidity that she’s shown from the gitgo. How can she be elected, when the republicans hate her with a white-hot hatred, and when she’s writing off a third of the democratic party, and a third of it that will, as I’m going to do, work their asses off to get her out of the race so that we can nominate someone who is at least, electable.
It’s looking like, other than her name and her money, she has not the slightest qualification for becoming the party’s nominee, much less, the president. That is, unless you add in the fact that it’s time we had a woman president. (Just not this woman. :o) )
WADR, I think your scenario projects a happy ending in Iraq that just isn’t real. ANY embassy there should be painted with a large bullseye, because that’s what it will be; a perpetual target.
i hope i’m wrong - but if i’m not…. i think the right call for anti-war house members is to vote AGAINST this bill.
baby steps, selise, baby steps.
Pachacutec @ 51
lots of gabbing before starting…
here comes the gravel.
obey says it looks like a 5 pencil day. request all members to stay for the entire proceeding. expect lots of amendments. serious long day. will go around the clock if necessary. lifeline send out for a sandwich if needed.
largest appropriation supplement request in the history of the world.
selise @ 60
Obey pointed out to his justly angry constituent that it took 31 votes to get out of Vietnam. This cannot happen quickly, in our system, with the president opposed to withdrawal.
And, as Pach is pointing out, there is a substantial group of people in the ruling elite who really do want to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq. It’s not just Republicans.
I am loving my coffee this morning. I lost 5 pounds in 2 days just having my coffee after 9:30 AM. I was not taking my thyroid medication on an empty stomach since my surgeries like I was supposed to. I was cranky & tired….now I take it early in the morning and I am like a different person. Just thought I’d interrupt Pach’s post for the update.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled program. Go Gore!
Pachacutec @ 53
You can usually go to the C-span website and listen online. Put it in a different window or a different tab?
Pachacutec @
33
An Irish investigative reporter has written a book covering the beginnings, development and history of what you are speaking of here. I highly commend getting it although I don’t know if it is available in the US. It can be gotten at amazon.co.uk in sterling (about $1.9X to the pound) the link is: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Americ.....mp;sr=1-51 and should be in every self-respecting library.
p.lukasiak @
49
Does huh?
Some of that money is mine and I get the bastard as my representative.
I was surprised when Patrick Murphy talked about what a straight shooter Arcuri was when he was interviewed on FDL.
Are we better off than when we had a maverick Republican representative who had Newton Gingrich throwing brickbats at him?
Best, Terry
ROFLMAO.
OT, Democrats have got to embrace the Powell Doctrine for speaking about the use of military force.
Joe Wilson also illustrated this in his comments here at FDL: “Based on current US deployments to Iraq, what are the troop to task ratios and the force protection requirements?”
Congress is supposed to apply “Principles” for the use of military force anywhere in the world, then the experts provide specifics and then Congress can decide.
The other area we have lost in is calling Iraq/Afghanistan a “war.” They are occupations, that cost $267,000,000/DAY not “wars.”
haha. severly EPUd and now on topic. http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....ent-559669 re: Hilary’s “stay the course” quote. BANG THE GONG. Bill, please take your wife home. She’s had too much to drink (Koolaid???). We need a new frontrunner. Where the heck is Al?????
HotFlash @ 3
What is implied is: not only are CheneyCo the ones not supporting our troups, but they are engaging in terror acts (in Iran). Strong stuff.
Ann in AZ @ 66
The laptop I’m on get’s overwhelmed easily, and I already have a bunch of windows open. But CSpan2 also has the Senate talking about Iraq, and I have that on the teevee.
Perhaps Candidate Hillary, only The Lobby’s LEADING candidate, will demonstrate just how Owned she is by inviting the Also-Owned Nancy pelosi to be her VP Support? I say leading candidate because A*IP*C (Do we really have to drop in the asterices? Is it to counteract that Moss*d proxy, the N*A data trawling software?) pays most of the members of Congress.
To get our troops out of Iraq and to stop our Administration from bullying the world we of common sense and reality, we of the middle ground and points Left must hammer away that The lobby must be stopped now.
Perhaps letters to all those listed as supported by A*PAC/The Lobby/PNAC/the neocons (Rest assured, Hillary’s team, I know you are monitoring these posts, you are in their camp!) telling them to choose if they are americans or not would help.
sorry for the driveby. staying home tomorrow. more to come.
This is disappointing http://thinkprogress.org/2007/.....h-15-2007/
jayackroyd @ 63
can we have the first of those 31 votes now, please? i understand it will take time. i don’t understand why giving bush an extra $21 billion for his war does not.
baby steps are ok… i just want them to be in the right direction.
Zbigniew Brzezinski - certainly fits in to the aforementioned DC Foreign Policy Elite crowd - and he does not agree with the junior senator from NY
Zbigniew/1/7 Statement to Congress
now that I’m in to my 2nd cup, it may indeed have been blown out of proportion, but I will stick with my ’she should’ve stated “the responsible position” in another, more exclusive forum
selise @ 26
IMHO: A*PAC and DLC
localroger @ 25
I believe she is going by the conventional (ie, consultant) wisdom that the winner is the one with the most bucks, so she is courting campaign $ rather than votes.
Things have changed, tho, and we have shown that a good campaign can be run on a shoestring. My worry is that having spent the bucks will legitimize the outcome, even if it’s done with Magic Machines…
Oh, speaking of Magic Machines, I linked to this yesterday, but it’s *important*. Avi Rubin, computer voting specialist @ Johns Hopkins, says he’s read the Fl State U analysis of the ES&S software used in Sarasota Co and he’s shocked. He also posts his March 7 testimony before the US House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government — well worth a read if you’re interested in getting our votes properly counted in 2008. And he demands a recount from American Idol. Hey, fraud is fraud!
And one last thought before I go to do something billable — Rupert is spending $ on Hill b/c the R’s would rather run against her than anyone. Also, remember that Rupert isn’t really giving away all that much. A large proportion of campaign $ end up being used for media advertising, and what does Rupert own? Right!
house appropriations committee:
obey giving an intro now… on everything from walter reed to bird flu.
(i won’t be able to live blog, but will try to come to the computer for highlights if there is an interest… hopefully twolf1 and others are around).
Bring on the subpoenas! It’s about time Congress grew some balls…
Leahy will subpoena Rove to appear before his panel regarding the eight US attorneys fired.
HuffPo
Wigwam @ 76
probably… but, i think they are fronts for (primarily) the military/industrial complex.
selise @ 76
Believe me, I’m with you. I think they should force the Blue Dogs and the Republicans to cast a clear vote. I’d rather lose a clear vote than win an inconsequential vote. But that’s not how these guys work.
Pachacutec @ 21
What about that Tom Engelhardt article in truthout, about the Sey Hersh article in the New Yorker.
HotFlash @ 3
I’ve read him and quoted him in various places.
Maybe it’s the shock of so many scandals at once. People are just beginning to get that Iraq was based on manufactured evidence, now we want them to think about another huge scandal, on top of Walter Reed, US attorneys, etc? Yes, but those who are outraged are busy, and those who are beginning to be outraged are dizzy with confusion.
inmymind’seye @ 75
Waxman’s letter asking Fitz to come was written all wrong, for in a variety of ways we will get to later on the front page tody.
This is fixable, but the bad execution of the letter from Waxman’s committee left Fitz no choice. He cannot offer opinions, for one thing. And for another, well, there’s a right way to get this stuff before Congress, legally speaking, and a wrong way. Fitz has to get approval for his testimony from elsewhere in DOJ, so as a matter of process, this can be fixable. We’re studying the matter and will publish on it.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has turned down requests from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to testify on the Valerie Plame leak case. Fitzgerald said he did “not believe it would be appropriate for me to offer opinions…about the ultimate responsibility of senior White House officials for the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity.”
So are people ready to admit that fitz was not really the hero that many made him out to be? Looks like the net result of his investigation was a whitewash that diverted attention from high crimes and treason in the White House to a single scapegoat - scooter.
Is this what we blogged about 24/7 for 2 1/2 years?
Pachacutec @ 87
Thanks Pach - breathing deep sigh of relief.
RevDeb @ 33
Thanks for the link to that excellent article at Balkinization.
selise @ 77
This bill is a step in the right direction — it requires that benchmarks be met that will result in all troops being withdrawn by August 2008.
Now, there are lots of flaws in the process — like its dependent upon Bush telling the truth about the “progress” in Iraq — but those flaws are (IMHO) part of the process. (Bush lies about the progress, the lies are exposed a month later, and another more restrictive bill results….)