Login HereBrian Baird may have thought the big dog & pony show he was treated to in Iraq was impressive, but I'm guessing he was somewhat moved by this as well:
Recently returned from Iraq, U.S. Rep. Brian Baird got an earful Monday night from angry war foes who jammed a town hall meeting.
The Washington Democrat, who voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002, now opposes a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from that country.
Anti-war constituents repeatedly questioned Baird's reasons for supporting the Bush administration's decision to continued the "surge" of 20,000 additional troops at least until next spring.
"There is only one way to end an illegal and immoral war, and that's to end it," said Zamme Joi, an anti-war activist from Vancouver. Joi was among several activists who noted that they helped elect Baird to office in 1998 and continued to re-elect him in a congressional district that twice voted for President Bush. They called his position to support the war now a betrayal.
In May, Baird supported a bill that would have required troop levels to start falling by Oct. 1. But his perspective changed after a visit to Iraq in early August.
He now opposes a withdrawal timeline - and said he thinks that most of the country agrees with him.
"I have to believe that there is a quiet majority of people out there who think the war has been a terrible mistake, but they sure don't want to see us lose," he told The Columbian editorial board earlier Monday.
In fact the most recent Zogby poll, 54% of Americans U.S. should set a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. That would be a majority. Is this the kind of great "information" Baird got on his elaborately choreographed trip to Iraq?
It's becoming apparent that these people are being bombarded with such bad information, so many "experts" whose only expertise seems to be at abject failure, that they can't see the patently obvious any more. Watch the YouTube above. Baird's constituents are sputtering with rage as he sits there and rubs snake oil all over his head and says "see, really, it makes the hair grow, just like the guy said. You just watch."
Being the Michael O'Hanlon of the House may make him the darling of CNN and MSNBC, but the voters in his district who elected him as an anti-war candidate seem somewhat less than thrilled.
More from: The Stranger, Northwest Progressive Institute
(h/t swag & scarce)
Share This 
Spotlight
Jane!
2
BADA BING!
Congrats, Biodun!
Cheers, Jane!
attaaaaack!! attaaaaaaaack! get ‘em with INFO!
Jane… Thom Hartman had Margorie Cohn on his show who said that she is hearing rumors that Lieberman will be the pick to replace Gonzo…. and since he is “one of their own” he will be confirmed…
Then discussed the downstream effects, Repug replacing Lieberman and moves the Senate majority to the Repugs. OMG…
I hope he learned a lesson from that meeting. I think he was just naive in the first place, and unfortunately uninformed. Should have talked first to his neighbor Norm Dicks, whose in a strongly Dem military district (Bremerton/Bangor), and has been voting on our side. Norm’s been in DC since 1976 and presumably knows how to sift the info.
I’m telling you…there’s koolaid in the capitol hill. koolaid, I say!
(and yes that’s me above, forgot to log in *rolls eyes*)
So, if Lieberman becomes AG, then does Jodi Rell (R-Gov. of Ct) pick a replacement for Joey bag o’ donuts?
Where in the hell is the phone call from Pelosi to STFU in all of this kabuki?
I want leadership, not leaderSHEEP.
This is simply delusional. We’ll see what the country really thinks about that in election races ‘08.
Why don’t these “winning in Iraq” people get the fact that you can’t “win” an occupation.
Lieberman AG?
I don’t THINK so.. Even Joe’s not THAT dumb.
Tradin a fat job for six years for a 15 month gig ta no where? Why?
We can only hope Baird faces a serious contender in the primaries. It sounds like he could be smacked down.
katymine @ 6
Would LOVE it if Lieberman did that, but don’t think he will. I’m not that lucky.
Committee chairs and majority leader stay the same, and Lieberman votes with the GOP anyway. At least he’d be out of the Senate in 18 months and out of his committee chair.
Heh, reality check dude,people are pissed off and you just made yourself a target.
Wait till he goes to Longview tonight.
Yeah this guy really needs a primary opponent- and usually I don’t like to see that happen.
ccmask @ 9
Yep. Which is fine: at least we’ll know that person is a real Repug, not Joe-Repug-lite. But I agree with Jane. It won’t come to that. Joe-Lie will not be nominated for AG. His name is not on the list that’s floating around
ccmask @ 9
My understanding is yes. And with Craig’s imminent departure, what would that mean for the Idaho seat?
rwcole @ 13
Thom Hartman and Marjorie Cohen are talking about it and what a political coup this would be.Hartmann is very concerned
katymine @ 6
I have long predicted that.
katymine @ 6
I’ve seen rumors anout Lieberman replacing every BushCo resigner since the 2006 election. It never happens. It won’t happen. And if Lieberman himself thinks that Bush is going to offer him any payback for his betrayals, he’s kidding himself.
ccmask @ 9
I’m having trouble seeing this one, too. It’s hard to think of a pick that would more enrage the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
Jane Hamsher @ 15
And he would not be able to return to his Senate seat at the end of the 18 months, correct?
Jane you have such a way with words. I love the way you hand pick words, arrange them in sentences, creating paragraphs that are so great.
katymine @ 6
Wouldn’t have any effect. The committee chairs are “fixed” until the next Congress. Getting rid of Lieberman would be great..special election or another Senate election in ‘08 for Lieberman’s seat. Lamont would be a shoe in.
puma
That’s a hell of a “payback” 16 months in a serpent’s nest- with nothin ta gain an plenty ta lose…
Pretty Pictures:
http://freewayblogger.blogspot.....-soon.html
Coming Attractions!
Ah, the old “silent majority” claim, last refuge of the deluded.
rwcole @ 27
Well, I didn’t say Lieberman was looking for the nod. But I can’t imagine anybody thinking this nomination would be a good deal.
This reminds me of the comments by the soldiers who wrote the op/ed about the war recently. As they said, the dog-n-pony show gives a completely different perspective - the Pentagon’s sales pitch - to visiting dignitaries. It is foolish for anyone who drops in for a quick visit to buy the sugarcoated version they are presented.
My goodness, isn’t this something we all should have learned in Critical Thinking 101?
mc @ 19:
Idaho is so deeply red I doubt a Dem could capture that seat.
here’s what’s totally bizzare about that youtube;
biard says “they are standing up against al qaeda”
what is wrong with this guy?, these are insurgents that want America out of their country…this guy is repeating the bush lines like he has been zombified and is now a mariontte
Redshift @ 29
When Baird says the public agrees with him, he’s rounding to the nearest majority.
IIRC, Lieberman meets with both the D’s and R’s in private senate strategy meetings.. Why on earth would the R’s want to change that?
Maybe Joe is ready to come out.
We need some libertarian dems for the mountain states.
ccmask @ 36
Uggggh.
Biodun @ 32
I’m assuming the Gov in Idaho is a Republic as well, meaning Craig’s replacement would be an appointed R.
“I have to believe that there is a quiet majority of people out there who think the war has been a terrible mistake, but they sure don’t want to see us lose,”
This reminds me. My beloved Democrats STILL keep getting beat on the head with the “losing” thing. You see, most Americans DO like a winner. We like to WIN. Maybe it doesn’t resonate as strongly here at fdl….but being a WINNER resonates very well throughout America.
As to winning/losing….long, long, ago both Ms. Taylor Marsh and our own Mr. TSF got it right: We WON the war. Now let’s end the Occupation.
The cold hard facts are that the US military kicked the holy snot out of the “vaunted” Iraqis. The Iraqis can barely fight their way out of a paper bag.
I just think that the sooner the D team restores the talk to how we already WON, how our military DID win the war….the more and more many Americans will move even stronger and faster towards withdrawal. I believe it’s time for the D team to start talking about our VICTORY, and then combine it with Bush’s LOSS of an occupation. But give Americans the room to say “we won”.
Ghostman
katymine @ 6
I was thinking last night about Hatch, to whom the same arguments have been applied. We know that what Hatch really wants is to be on the Supreme Court. What if he made a deal that he takes the AG’s job and in return, if there’s another Supreme Court opening, he gets it?
It doesn’t seem like he has much to lose — if he doesn’t get appointed by Bush, the chance of there being another Republican president before he’s too old is slim. (This scenario is less plausible for Lieberman since he’s younger.)
What do you guys think?
OT,
Gee why does Lierman speculation highjack our thread everytime? He’s a frickin bogeyman and a symbol, but I thought we were riffin about the turncoat democrats Like Baird? Oops, same topic.
I am tired of Lieberman, I just wish He would LEAVE.
Redshift @ 29
I thought of that too, but the post was getting long.
I personally think Bush is just floating names to see what the reactions are. And the msm is more than happy to oblige, at this point in time. But whether he will pick someone who will piss the Dems off, well, that would be so Bushlike.
mc @ 39:
Gov. “Butch” Otter, Repug-ID
perris @ 33
Insurgents or resisters of occupation? And how do you tell the difference?
Biodun @ 45
“Butch Otter?!?!” Let the fun begin….
landofthefree @ 31
You’d think so. And be careful never to take any investment advice from anyone comparing casualties to last winter instead of last summer; they probably don’t understand “compared to the same quarter last year” in finance either.
OT..This story has “legs” and might be the straw that breaks Bush’s back. (But I also thought trashing the Constitution would have done it)
August 28, 2007
Iraq Weapons Are a Focus of Criminal Investigations
NYT link
The odds of a supreme court opening in the next year are pretty slim- and once we get past Christmas or so- dems aren’t gonna let Bush make a pick- it’s too late. Hatch is evil- but he ain’t stoopid.
The Bush administration is effectively over- bout the only think left to do is to preside over the defeat in Iraq.
ccmask @ 44
Word has it that Ted Olson might get it. (Word through the grapevine.)
Arizona polls at around 65% of All voters wanting to get out of Iraq.
How can a so called Red state turn against the war?
Pat Tillman…
Lori Piestewa - she was the first woman killed in Iraq and was with Jessica Lynch
Spc. Alyssa Peterson’s suicide after refusing to participating in “enhanced interrogation”
http://www.commondreams.org/he.....102-05.htm
OT — sorry, Jane, but I have to ask this after Scarecrow’s critique of NYT this morning.
Is Stolberg on the take? Or simply stupid?
She’s quoting Ari Fleischer about Gonzo — but Fleischer’s not a White House staffer, a PR flack paid by the White House to promote the failed Iraq War.
Was Fleischer paid to get Stolberg to post something positive about Gonzo in scope with his PR efforts?
I may need to re-SPOTLIGHT Scarecrow’s piece once again and ask those questions. Shills, the lot of them; the least they could do is tell us they’re shilling.
I love how citizens who came to hear and talk to their Congressman are characterized by the anchorman as “an angry mob” in the introduction to the segment. Then, he says in the wrapup that it “takes a lot of guts” to change positions. Both the reporter and the anchorwoman agree with him that the Congressman is doing the right thing.
The fix is in on Baird, folks.
ccmask @ 9
I hope Rell has some sense not to appoint a Republican. If she has to nominate anyone, Lamont would deserve it.
Jane Hamsher @ 43
Well, we appreciate your leaving some room for us to be clever, and not taking all the good snark yourself. *g*
Steve-AR @ 49
Excerpt:
An eye-opening assertion, considering that the Iraq occupation has been little more than an enormous ring of fraud and kickbacks.
Fern @ 46
well that’s my point, they are the resistance to our occupation, there are very few al qaeda
yet baird says “they are standing up against al qaeda”
he is zombified and a bushie, that is the only explanation
As I pointed out last night, Baird has no background in foreign affairs. He does have a PhD in clinical psychology so you would think he had some understanding of “denial”.
A “quiet majority” like the Silent Majority before it is a political ploy to validate the unconscionable by appealing to a non-existent majority. Baird has nothing and a majority of incorporeal invisible Americans support him on this.
Perhaps the Dog & Pony Show includes giving the Rep. a ‘brick’ of cash from the Billions we sent over there.
Steve-AR @ 49
“involves a senior American officer who worked closely with Gen. David H. Petraeus in setting up the logistics operation to supply the Iraqi forces when General Petraeus was in charge of training and equipping those forces in 2004 and 2005, American officials said Monday”
Pretty much says Petraeus was in charge and the officer followed his orders, doesn’t it?
From the vid: “He (Baird) said he doesn’t care about the political fallout…”
well, *that’s* convenient… so he won’t mind when he gets voted out, presumably.
TV guy wails:
Aaanngggrryy mob, in introducing the story.
I hope someday he sees an actual angry mob.
The “liberal” press, yeah right.
Joel
NPR trotted Baird out last week as “proof” that the surge was working-not in Iraq, but as a PR strategy to convince so-called moderates that we need more time.
Because I was driving at the time, in order to not smash my forehead repeatedly against the dashboard, I made a supreme effort to remain in my “happy place” until the story was over.
What is this a$$hole’s IQ? Did he graduate from high school? And, how in the he** did he get elected? By default?
TeddySanFran @ 54
KATU sucks, it is a horrible news station.
Their big thing is blowing coverage of storms so out of proportion it is infuriating.
Usually you can see why a congresscritter takes the position he does- in this case- it’s a fuckin mystery.
Maybe this guy got convinced that we’re gonna be clearly winning by november and wanted ta get on the bandwagon while there was still a seat?
Beats me!
LS @ 60
I bet that won’t be in the September report.
mc @ 24
How would he? I don’t know how CT deals with replacements. But once HoJo is out, he’d have to try and fight Dodd in ‘10, at the earliest.
rwcole @ 50:
I agree that the Bush administration is more or less over. But I’m afraid Cheney is still dangerous. He has nothing to lose, has no horizon, and is playing an end game. He’s gunning for Iran, and Chimpy might just let him do it. Going after Iran would be suicidal, IMO.
Redshift @ 29
That really surprised me too — this guy Baird is old enough to remember the first Silent Majority, and that it’s a Nixonism.
LS @ 61
or he was being set up as scapegoat from the get-go
Iran-Contra Redux anyone?
rwcole @ 67
You have to wonder what the Rethugs have on him, don’t you?
If Lieberman left, shouldn’t he be replaced with another Independant?
Bustednuckles @ 66
Most TV news is horrid. No matter where you are from.
Puma
Does he fly through Minnesota to get to Ideeho?
Ghostman - very well said. You can’t “win” or “lose” an occupation. You are either occupying a sovereign nation or you are not.
Heh, remember back a couple years ago when the Republicans would get their panties in a wad when people started to refer to the Iraq War as an occupation? At first, they bristled and said it was horrible to refer to us as an occupying force. “We’re liberators, not occupiers!” They sure dropped that dead-end argument quickly, didn’t they? (Of course, it helped that many of the military leaders “on the ground” agreed that we were occupying that nation).
Kathy/Fozzetti @ 74
I see your reasoning, but it just doesn’t happen that way in practice.
“I have to believe that there is a quiet majority of people out there who think the war has been a terrible mistake, but they sure don’t want to see us lose”
How does that work exactly. How can we “lose” a civil war?
“The Iraqi people are standing up to Al Qaeda…”
He sounds just like Scott McClellan.
What a himbo.
Interesting, the Baird thing sounds Rovian to me; threaten him to go along with the story, or else…perhaps exposure…causing it piss off the Dems, and let the Dems eat their own. Leaving no fingerprints.
rwcole @ 76
I wasn’t going to be the first to say it.
rayne @ 53:
Stolberg is mostly a stenographer, sometimes a reporter.
perris @ 58
I agree with you - it’s just that I’m getting uncomfortable with using the term “insurgency” to describe this.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency
TRex @ 80
But if they’re standing up, shouldn’t we be standing down?
Bio
I really don’t think that even Cheney REALLY wants to invade Iran- I think it’s sabre rattling- but what the hell- these guys often surprise me.
rwcole @ 86
I don’t see Cheney leaving office with Iran as it is.
EvilDrPuma @ 57
LS @ 60
And combined with the law suit by the two Americans who were put in solitary for 97 days and tortured by the US Military.
Coz
yeah the whole “win/lose” dichotomy is a joke when applied to this thing- but he’s probably right in thinking that if and when our troops come out of there- there will be a very bad feeling among a majority of americans. You’d have to do it at night–
Re Petraeus, from my scandals list:
I shall have to add a line about criminal investigations into this.
RW,
snip
http://rawstory.com//news/2007....._0828.html
kdh22 @ 65
He has a PhD in clinical psychology.
in reading about baird’s town-hall meeting (and good for him for doing it - too many of our reps hide from their constituents), i can’t find any report that he actually laid our his reasoning let alone any evidence to back it up. (can anyone confirm or deny that?)
if that’s true, then it sounds a bit like mcnerney’s visit - repeated talking points.
why not explain the rational? that doesn’t sound like someone who’s changed their mind.
Me at 88..oops.. can someone fix that mess?
We’ve been openly arming both sides in the war- so that should be no surprise.
Ghostman at 40
FWIW, I don’t like the idea of saying we won in Iraq.
Invading Iraq was a war crime, as I read Nuremberg. It was wrong legally, morally and every other way, in my view.
To say we won the war is to approve an illegal action, I believe.
I agree that Americans like to win.
In the case of Iraq, however, Americans need a cold, hard dose of reality — something our government has wrongfully withheld.
rwcole @ 76
Minneapolis-St Paul airport is a hub for several airlines.
rwcole @ 95
I guess if the purpose of war is to sell arms, they have won.
Baird reminds me of another officeholder who traveled to an American war zone, but who was much more honest about the dog-and-pony show he was subjected to, forty years ago this month:
Steve-AR @ 88
Isn’t this what Althespook was hinting at a few weeks ago?
Where’s Baird living in DC? Pricey area? Who is he rooming with, anyone? Who is paying the tab? Who takes him to lunch/dinner/etc.? What parties does he go to, if any? Who is being so nice and kind to him he’s feeling beholden to them instead of his OWN Damn Constituents fCHsakes?
I mean really, fuck collegiality. Politics is to be waged, not played at. Replace him.
demi @ 100