(A thoroughly disgusting state of affairs - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
After Ahmed Ghailani was found guilty of participating in a conspiracy to bomb two U.S. embassies in November, a conviction that could land him life in prison (his sentencing hearing is scheduled for January), the usual slate of right-wing pundits took to the airwaves, eager to denounce President Obama for trying the suspected terrorist at all.
Liz Cheney declared that the guilty verdict "signals weakness in a time of war."
John Yoo said prosecutors were "lucky to even get one conviction," adding that "It is really hard to see what the upside is to having civilian trials."
And Laura Ingraham, sitting in for Bill O'Reilly on Fox, called trying terror suspects in federal court "insane," "wrong" and "potentially dangerous."
As an Internet Organizer for Progressive Future, I've been busily spreading the otherwise buried reports of the atrocities and abuses committed by military contractors in Iraq. As outraged as they made me, I had to wonder why these stories failed to reach the mainstream American public. Now I know why.
Brandon Friedman explains the mathematics behind the President's announcement that on August 1st he will shorten deployments from 15 month tours to 12 months tours, and how that won't actually affect a single soldier until August 2009, 7 months into the next president's administration. (vetvoice.com)
John McCain still hasn't signed on to Jim Webb's 21st Centuty GI Bill, which would provide the first update to the bill since 1947. (huffingtonpost.com)
Veterans of America is proud to sponsor the Our Troops Newsladder, a new tool to find the top news and articles in the progressive community by, about and for our troops.
We at Veterans For America released two new reports this week: "The Consequences of Churning, about the toll that repeated deployments are taking on frontline Army units, and "Weekend Warriors to Frontline Soldiers", about the effects felt by National Guard combat teams. (veteransforamerica.org)
Lastly, New York Senator Charles Schumer and Virginia Senator Jim Webb are co-sponsoring a plan to create a bigger and better GI Bill that extends benefits and offers more money for living costs and educational programs, in an effort to update the program which has not been amended since the end of World War II. (wwnytv.net)
Veterans of America is proud to sponsor the Our Troops Newsladder, a new tool to find the top news and articles in the progressive community by, about and for our troops.
While in Florida, I complained to a reporter about Steny Hoyer and the Bush Dogs and how bad they are on Iraq. The reporter also talked to Steny Hoyer, who was at the convention.
A few minutes later Buzz asked Steny Hoyer about the influence of MoveOn and the liberal netroots on the party and he spoke of how much the party appreciates them.
1. Chris Murphy (D-CT) - $502,997.60
2. Jason Altmire (D-PA) - $447, 939.94
3. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) - $378,950.54
4. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) - $183,495.05
5. Zack Space (D-OH) - $170,158.40
6. Nick Lampson (D-TX) - $168,200.01
7. Chris Carney (D-PA) - $168,107.14
8. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX) - $163,643.00
9. Tim Mahoney (D-FL) - $159,580.97
10. Paul Hodes (D-NH) - $150,017.00
11. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) - $148,812.62
12. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) - $146,645.72
13. Joe Courtney (D-CT) - $113,157.99
14. Tim Walz (D-MN) - $103,438.05
15. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) - $91,284.24
16. Bruce Braley (D-IA) - $87,004.67
17. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) - $53,043.62
18. Steve Kagen (D-WI) - $11,846.04
19. Baron Hill (D-IN) - $11,711.72
20. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) - $10,823.76
Since they voted to condemn Moveon's ad, they have neutralized Moveon's ability to help them. And how did our candidates do from the netroots page? Not well. Hodes, Walz, Murphy, McNerney, Sestak, Webb, and Tester all voted badly. Every. Single. One.
Obviously, one vote is just one vote, and these public servants have mixed records. Webb for instance has led the fight against the Iran nonsense, and Pat Murphy has voted well on Iraq and been a leader among Freshmen.
We achieved some remarkable things in 2006, and I don't think our calculation of trying and succeeding in winning Congress back by supporting the party was wrong. But now we have to reassess our strategic objectives, and that starts with understanding where there's leverage. That's already started, with us asking the Blue Majority candidates how they would have voted on FISA and the supplemental, and engaging in more House primary fights.
But there's a HUGE amount on the table, in terms of money and energy from us that's going to people who vote against our values. We ought to think through the massive betrayal that we're experiencing, not as a loss, but as an opportunity to learn how to deal with leverage. After all, in 2009, a whole lot of Americans are probably going to wake up to a new female leader, and they are going to believe that everything is fresh and new, that the bad people are finally gone and good governance and a real America can finally return even as the new administration is packed with status quo Democrats.
Fortunately, those of us on the blogs and not in thrall to the Presidential race will have practice at dealing with precisely this situation.
The vote today condemning the Moveon Petraeus ad is an excellent example of the Iron Law of Institutions-ie, that people within institutions act to increase their own power rather than the power of the institution itself.
A retarded baboon could understand it was in the long run best interests of the Democratic party as an institution to stand united against the bill. Yet 22 Democrats voted for it, thus passing it 70+ to 25.
Why? I guarantee you because in many cases the Democratic Senators don't like Moveon. It may be good for the party overall, but any new constituency usually creates enormous problems for those already in power. (At the least it requires you to spend time for their care and feeding.) Why would you want to change the status quo when you're the status quo? Far more appealing to take these interlopers down a peg.
We already know that Republicans are a gang of psychotic criminals. The lesson I'm drawing from this episode is any non-progressive Democrat may and often will betray us at any time.
"I commend MoveOn for their ad and for speaking truth to power," said Stark. "Up is not down, the earth is not flat, and the surge is not working. General Petreaus betrayed his own reputation by standing with George Bush in opposition to the timely withdrawal of all of our brave men and women from Iraq. I thank MoveOn for their patriotic ad and call on Petreaus to help Bush end a war the President should have never started."
If anyone can recommend an audio hosting service, please email me at stoller at gmail.com so I can post the audio file of the interview.
I just did an interview with Wes Clark, and there's a bunch of newsworthy stuff in there, from residual troops to Clinton's vote for the war to what do about the lawbreaking in the Bush regime after the Bush administration is over. Originally I wanted to understand why he endorsed Senator Clinton but it was scheduled for today so I figured I'd drill down into his stance on the Petraeus ad, which he has dubbed a 'big mistake'. I've transcribed the whole thing, but today I'm only going to put out the questions I asked about the Petraeus ad. The other items will come out next week, as they are very significant in terms of helping us understand a Clinton Presidency and I don't want them to get lost.
I loved the Petraeus ad, because it gives us a good window into who throws progressives under the bus when someone actually challenges power. Here's Chuck Todd, political analyst with NBC.
MoveOn is sort of like this old friend of the Democratic Party. It's as if it's, you know, your, your teen - your - a friend of yours from high school, and you don't mind hanging out with them back in high school, and then they keep showing up at your parties, and they get a little drunk and obnoxious, but you'll still - you're afraid to criticize them because they know too much about you or something.
Moveon's 3 million members are children. Get it? And here's liberal columnist Frank Rich:
Americans are looking for leadership, somewhere, anywhere. At least one of the Democratic presidential contenders might have shown the guts to soundly slap the "General Betray-Us" headline on the ad placed by MoveOn.org in The Times, if only to deflate a counterproductive distraction. This left-wing brand of juvenile name-calling is as witless as the "Defeatocrats" and "cut and run" McCarthyism from the right; it at once undermined the serious charges against the data in the Petraeus progress report (including those charges in the same MoveOn ad) and allowed the war's cheerleaders to hyperventilate about a sideshow. "General Betray-Us" gave Republicans a furlough to avoid ownership of an Iraq policy that now has us supporting both sides of the Shiite-vs.-Sunni blood bath while simultaneously shutting America's doors on the millions of Iraqi refugees the blood bath has so far created.
It's also past time for the Democratic presidential candidates to stop getting bogged down in bickering about who has the faster timeline for withdrawal or the more enforceable deadline. Every one of these plans is academic anyway as long as Mr. Bush has a veto pen. The security of America is more important - dare one say it? - than trying to outpander one another in Iowa and New Hampshire.
I don't know where to start on Rich. He uses all the slurs to go after a Moveon ad while conceding that the charges in the ad are factually correct. Then he goes on to argue that any attempts to propose a responsible timeline for withdrawal from Iraq is pandering and sacrificing America's security. And finally, he finishes with a rousing allusion to McCarthyism, as if an ad taken out in the New York Times questioning the integrity of a political leader in uniform based on factual evidence is the equivalent of a Senator using his subpoena power and the power of the state to terrorize thousands with baseless accusations of treason.
Though their work is often good, both Rich and Todd are acting here like lapdogs to the Georgetown cocktail circuit. And it's moments like this that matter, when the political system is actually under pressure. It's really sad to see 'journalists' or liberal columnists discuss the ad as if it overshadows the issue at hand, which is a horrific occupation and a civilian and military leadership that betrays the country by justifying it. .
Taylor Marsh and Jane Hamsher write compelling posts about Elizabeth Edwards, who blasted Moveon earlier this week. She joins Democratic 'strategist' Peter Fenn who blasted Moveon on MSNBC yesterday, and Laura Schwartz, a fellow 'Democratic strategist', who did so on Fox News, and John Kerry, who argued that Petraeus ought not be criticized. And then there's 'liberal' commentator Mark Shields who went after Moveon with a vicious and dishonest smear.
MARK SHIELDS: The activist antiwar wing of the Democratic -- I won't even call it the Democratic Party, because they're not Democrats, but particularized by MoveOn.org this week, with it's just offensive and tasteless full-page ad in the New York Times, playing a pun on General Petraeus' name, "General Betray Us."
I think, in a strange way, it did two things. One, it gave the Republicans something to talk about all week, rather than trying to defend the president's policy, which many of them are uncomfortable doing. But it also may very well liberate the Democrats, that they don't -- from that antiwar base. And they say, "Look, I think there's a chance of a compromise."
There are many ways to disagree with this ad without undermining your allies. Lowell Feld, for instance, called it a 'big mistake' without raising hackles. Part of building an effective movement is knowing when an attack is an attack on surrogates, and when it's an attack on ideas. Moveon and its 3 million members were standing up for integrity in military leadership, public debate, and Congressional oversight.
There's a reflexive instinct to shy away from heated arguments among Democrats, so I'm sympathetic to those who threw Moveon under the bus, as I have been thrown under the bus by good people at certain points. It happens. It's politics. Still, it's important to recognize this as an error, and not do it again.
On Monday, the New York Times ran an ad, paid by MoveOn, in which they took the commander of Multinational Force-Iraq, GEN David Petraeus. The ad essentially accused the General of betraying his duty by supporting the escalation of troops in Iraq, and it was meant to blunt any force his testimony might have had.
I didn't serve with the General. I'm given to understand that he's a very intelligent and forceful man, though that's frankly the par with most men and women who rise to general officer rank in the Army; I'm really neutral about the man, though.
I think the agitation over the ad is frankly ridiculous. Over 3700 women and men have died in the course of service; over 27,000 others, including myself, bear the scars resulting from the whips and fardels of war.
STATE BLOGS
