Month: July 2008

“Help Me”

by digby

This makes me feel so safe:

A 16-year-old captured in Afghanistan and held at Guantanamo Bay sobs during his questioning, holding up his wounded arms and begging for help in a video released Tuesday that provided the first glimpse of interrogations at the U.S. military prison.”Help me,” he cries repeatedly in despair.The 10 minutes of video — selected by Omar Khadr’s Canadian lawyers from more than seven hours of footage recorded by a camera hidden in a vent — shows Khadr weeping, his face buried in his hands, as he is questioned by Canadian intelligence agents over four days in 2003. The lawyers hope to pressure Canada into seeking Khadr’s return.The video, created by U.S. government agents at the prison in Cuba and originally marked as secret, provides insight into the effects of prolonged interrogation and detention on the Guantanamo prisoner.A Canadian Security Intelligence Services agent in the video grills Khadr about events leading up to his capture as an enemy combatant when he was 15. Khadr, a Canadian citizen, is accused of throwing a grenade that killed one U.S. Special Forces soldier and blinded another during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan. He was arrested after he was found in the rubble of a bombed-out compound — badly wounded and near death.At one point in the interrogation, Khadr pulls off his orange prisoner shirt and shows the wounds he sustained in the firefight. He complains he cannot move his arms and says he had not received proper medical attention, despite requests.”They look like they’re healing well to me,” the agent says of the injuries.”No, I’m not. You’re not here (at Guantanamo),” says Khadr, the son of an alleged al-Qaida financier.The agent later accuses Khadr of using his injuries and emotional state to avoid the interrogation.”No, you don’t care about me,” Khadr says.Khadr also tells his interrogator that he was tortured while at the U.S. military detention center at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan, where he was first detained after his arrest in 2002.Later on in the tape, a distraught Khadr is seen rocking, his face in his hands.On the final day, the agent tells Khadr that he was “very disappointed” in Khadr’s behavior, and tries to impress upon him that he should cooperate.Khadr says he wants to go back to Canada.”There’s not anything I can do about that,” the agent says.Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, Khadr’s U.S. military lawyer, said the video shows “a frightened boy” who should be permitted to return to Canada. He said Khadr is cooperative at the beginning of the four-day stretch of interviews, because “he believed that if he was cooperative and told them what he thought they wanted to hear that they would take him home.””So between Day One and Day Two he figures out that that is not going to happen and so you see a very emotional reaction on Day Two when this very scared 16-year-old boy finally figures out that the Canadians aren’t going to do anything for him and are going to leave him there. He is devastated,” Kuebler said.

Read the whole sickening tale if you can stomach it. Apparently the authorities think that this kid’s family is heavily involved in radical Islam. The prisoner himself sounds very confused and at 15, far too young to know any kind of operational plans his family might be involved in, if indeed, any existed.

We all know now just what a rag-tag, amateur operation this “interrogation” program this was. They were using techniques stolen from the Chinese in the 1950’s ferchirstsake and using it as an experimental camp and training school for Future Torturers of America. If there was ever a case where the modern professional interrogation techniques of trust and dependence would have likely worked far better than this stupid Jack Bauer crap, it would be with a frightened and wounded 15 year old. But according to the article they also put this prisoner through extreme sleep deprivation and disorientation in addition to the torture he is alleged to have suffered at Bagram (which would be par for the course.) It sounds as though he didn’t know which end was up by the time they were through with him.

By the way, it turns out the kid didn’t have any useful information.

.

David vs Goliath

by digby

Here’s a little newsflash from Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post:

Progressive Group Slams Freedom’s Watch in Robo-Calls

Blue America, a political action committee composed of some of the most prominent progressive bloggers nationwide, is launching automated phone calls into a handful of congressional districts today to defend Democrats from attacks by the conservative group Freedom’s Watch.

The calls, which will go into the districts of Reps. Chris Murphy (Conn.) and Steve Kagen (Wisc.) as well as open seat House races in New Jersey’s 3rd and 7th district and statewide in Maine where Rep. Tom Allen is challenging Republican Sen. Susan Collins, take direct aim at planned calls by Freedom’s Watch, announced last week, targeting a handful of Democratic incumbents and challengers over the rising cost of gas.

“We don’t want Karl Rove to pick off the good progressives who are already running in 2008, so we’re putting robocalls into their districts to counter the deceptive ones created by Freedom’s Watch,” explained Jane Hamsher, the founder of Firedoglake and a member of Blue America.

John Amato, founder of Crooks and Liars, added: “[Freedom’s Watch is] blaming Democrats for the outrageous gas prices we now see all across America, … which is actually the product of almost eight years of Republican control.”

Sources familiar with Blue America would not discuss exact dollar amounts being spent on the ads but insisted it was in the tens of thousands of dollars. At the end of May, the group reported having raised $343,000 so far this year with $294,000 in the bank. Blue America is also spending cash on behalf of Georgia state Sen. Regina Thomas (D) who is running a primary challenge against Rep. John Barrow (D) in the 12th district today.

The recorded voice on the calls is that of Mike Farrell aka Dr. B.J. Hunnicutt from the hit television series “M*A*S*H”.

“Freedom’s Watch is actually a group of Bush supporters desperate to keep your eye off the Iraq war and the saber-rattling in Iran,” says Farrell. He adds that the group is “fronting for Karl Rove and billionaires” trying to deceive voters.

(The link between Rove, former deputy White House chief of staff and lead political strategist for President George W. Bush, comes from a terrific story (subscribers only) written by National Journal’s Peter Stone in which he reports: “Rove has been busy pitching in by giving informal advice to McCain’s team and spending a considerable amount of time as an outside adviser to Freedom’s Watch, the conservative political group that is expected to spend tens of millions of dollars to help elect House GOP candidates.” Rove did not return an email seeking comment.)

At the ad’s conclusion, Farrell insists that “electing Democrats like [New Jersey Assemblywoman] Linda Stender is their worst nightmare” and adds: “Let’s keep them up at night for a change.”

Ed Patru, a spokesman for Freedom’s Watch, pronounced himself unconcerned with the robo-calls attacking his group. “Iraq is a success story — even Barack Obama has days when he admits that,” said Patru. “In terms of the calls, the public couldn’t care less if Madonna and A-Rod were paying for our calls — they just want Democrats in Congress to stop twiddling their thumbs while gas prices go through the roof.”

All five places where the Blue America calls are being placed are expected to be central battlegrounds this fall. In New Jersey, Stender is running for the second time in as many cycles in the north central 7th district while Democratic state Sen. John Adler is a strong favorite in the south central 3rd district. Both Murphy and Kagen won upsets in 2006 and are expected to be targeted in the fall. Allen, who has held Maine’s 1st district since 1996, is vacating the seat for an uphill challenge against the popular Collins.

It remains to be seen whether Blue America can put together the financial firepower that would allow it to compete with Freedom’s Watch in congressional districts around the country over the next four months. (Freedom’s Watch is a 501(c)(4) organization and, as such, can accept donations of unlimited amounts and is not required to disclose them publicly.)

National Democrats have long warned that it is Freedom’s Watch, not the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, that poses the greatest threat to maximizing their gains at the ballot box this fall.

Is Blue America’s robo-call campaign the start of something bigger or just a lone voice in the wilderness?

Outside groups have been actively discouraged from participation in this cycle by the powers-that-be, so there isn’t much institutional firepower available to counter Freedom’s Watch in these down ticket races, where it could be very troublesome. They are loaded with money and Karl Rove thinks he can use them to deny a President Obama a mandate and a working majority in the congress.

Obviously Blue America can’t compete with their billions. We are entirely funded by small donations from our readers. But down ticket is what we do and damned if we’re going to sit by and leave the field completely open, regardless of what the party bosses say.

If you would like to help, you know what to do.

Oh, and by the way, we won’t able to help those Democrats who voted for the FISA compromise and big oil and more war. You’d think that Karl Rove would be grateful for their ongoing support but he’s going after them too. Sadly for them, our charter doesn’t allow us to support Republicans or their enablers. As Jane Hamsher says, “maybe they can call their telecom and Big Oil donors for help.”

.

McCain Running The Zachary Taylor Campaign

by dday

I mentioned this on my site, but it’s important to ponder how John McCain either doesn’t believe in recording equipment or has so much faith in the people doing the recording, i.e. the BBQ-stained media, that he has no problem saying 100% different things to different audiences. Conservative groups hear “I don’t support the DREAM Act,” and Hispanic groups hear the opposite. That’s some straight talk.

When I was in high school, I remembering learning about Zachary Taylor, our 12th President, put up by the Whig Party almost entirely because of his military background. He would visit different areas of the country and give completely different speeches, citing his support of slavery in the South and his opposition to it in the North, among other things. It worked in 1848 because there wasn’t a lot of regional spillover in how information was disseminated. But now we have things like the television, and videotape, and the Internets, and YouTube, and archives, and there’s no way for the new “Old Rough and Ready” to be as successful with this tactic as the old one.

Or maybe there is. There’s been such a balkanization of the media landscape, with so many news consumers only referring to friendly sources, and there’s been such a devaluation of facts in the age of Bush and his spinners who create their own reality, that McCain’s campaign might figure they can lie with impunity, deny it when challenged, and never give it a second thought.

That’s kind of chilling to think about.

.

McCain Doesn’t Get Out Very Much

by tristero

This is sheer nonsense:

Q: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?

Mr. McCain: I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.

In other words, McCain would prefer that kids grow up in orphanages than be raised by a loving family if that family differs from his own.

He doesn’t know a thing about adoptions by gay couples. Yet he has an opinion. A hurtful, divisive, ignorant, and obnoxious opinion. And he’s entitled to it, no matter how bigoted and clueless it is.

But he is not entitled to be president. And this ridiculous, indefensible-on-the-facts opinion is just one more example of how deeply unqualified McCain is to be the political leader of a large, culturally diverse nation. He has no idea what America is. And no interest.

Empathy

by digby

Our own dday has a lovely post up over at Kos that you should all read. Here’s an excerpt:

When you face a conservative movement that is wholly dedicated to putting up roadblocks and turning off the spigot of empathy, making this a cruel and angry and paranoid and fearful nation, it can be hard not to fight back in the same manner. But I think, while engaging in the fight is fundamental to the survival of this democracy, occasionally we have to step back and recognize the human truths. Elizabeth Edwards is heroically battling on the front lines for reforming our broken health care system. But she hasn’t forgotten that the issue goes beyond spreadsheets and mandates – it’s about fathers dying young, sons without treatment for their ills, mothers who can’t afford their pills. It’s about healing. And you can only be on one side of that debate.

read on…

.

Patriots In The Tank

by digby

Not that it’s any surprise:

Buried in the 50-page report on Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch released today by the House Oversight Committee, is a priceless quote from none other than the new head of the AP’s Washington Bureau, Ron Fournier. Straight from page 21 of the report:

Karl Rove exchanged e-mails about Pat Tillman with Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier, under the subject line “H-E-R-O.” In response to Mr. Fournier’s e-mail, Mr. Rove asked, “How does our country continue to produce men and women like this,” to which Mr. Fournier replied, “The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight.”

Gak.

.

Whither Afghanistan?

by dday

In Barack Obama’s op-ed on Iraq today he pledged to commit additional manpower and resources to Afghanistan.

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

The Bush Administration is making googly eyes at this prospect as well, though in their case it’s almost certainly meaningless talk designed to raise hopes for an eventual withdrawal, a naked play for electoral glory for the GOP.

Certainly there are pretty dire portents in Afghanistan, but the question is what the “mission” of which Sen. Obama speaks should be. There is a militant faction which is indeed resurgent and able to pull off large-scale attacks. They’ve taken over increasing amounts of territory and large-scale production facilities on that land, like Pakistani marble quarries, to fund the insurgency and strengthen their positions. As they fortify more territory in the region, additional foreign fighters are flocking to them. And as a possibly related outgrowth, there are growing signs of additional terror attacks globally, which would certainly point to an expanded Al Qaeda network newly able to direct operations.

That would seem to point to a need to dismantle these networks, but there are plenty of roadblocks to this strategy. The new Pakistani government is publicly stating their opposition to any foreign entity hunting for Al Qaeda or Taliban remnants on their soil, and so this safe haven in the FATA region is thriving and feeling no pressure from local governments. This gives US forces little recourse beyond targeted airstrikes, which anger local populations. We continue to hit wedding parties in areas where the clans are the de facto ruling governments, and this is the very opposite of any counter-insurgency strategy. While in the past Afghanis have wanted a Western military presence in their country for protection, I’m not sure that is the case anymore. Furthermore, putting two brigades, not an overwhelming number of troops, into Afghanistan in remote bases increases the possibility for more tragedies like the one over the weekend which killed 9 US soldiers, the most in a single attack in Afghanistan in years.

The Taliban of the late 1990s was a particularly gruesome bunch of fundamentalists on their own, and their willingness to harbor Al Qaeda as they plot terror attacks makes their return to power in Afghanistan threatening. But it’s even an open question whether or not the large-scale insurgency that’s come to Afghanistan is Taliban, in the strictest sense. And what’s truly puzzling is whether we have anything left to fight in that country, and how productive – or counter-productive – we would be while doing it. Juan Cole has some very good thoughts about this.

When was the last time that an al-Qaeda operative was captured in Afghanistan by US forces? Is that really what US troops are doing there, looking for al-Qaeda? Wouldn’t we hear more about it if they were having successes in that regard? I mean, what is reported in the press is that they are fighting with “Taliban”. But I’m not so sure these Pushtun rural guerrillas are even properly speaking Taliban (which means ‘seminary student.’) The original Taliban had mostly been displaced as refugees into Pakistan. These ‘neo-Taliban’ don’t seem mostly to have that background. A lot of them seem to be just disgruntled Pushtun villagers in places like Uruzgan.

There has now been a rise of suicide bombings in Afghanistan, on a scale never before seen. One killed 24 people in a bazaar at Deh Rawood on Sunday. Robert Pape has demonstrated that suicide bombings typically are carried out by people who think their country is under foreign military occupation. If the US keeps sending more troops, will that really calm things down? […]

If the Afghanistan gambit is sincere, I don’t think it is good geostrategy. Afghanistan is far more unwinnable even than Iraq. If playing it up is politics, then it is dangerous politics. Presidents can become captive of their own record and end up having to commit to things because they made strong representations about them to the public […]

Afghan tribes are fractious. They feud. Their territory is vast and rugged, and they know it like the back of their hands. Afghans are Jeffersonians in the sense that they want a light touch from the central government, and heavy handedness drives them into rebellion. Stand up Karzai’s army and air force and give him some billions to bribe the tribal chiefs, and let him apply carrot and stick himself. We need to get out of there. “Al-Qaeda” was always Bin Laden’s hype. He wanted to get us on the ground there so that the Mujahideen could bleed us the way they did the Soviets. It is a trap.

The problem, as Cole very expertly notes, is that there’s no government in any meaningful sense over there, just a loose confederation of tribes and clans. There is probably a more pernicious force willing to subjugate them, but if the clans are willing to resist it will be unsuccessful. As it is the clans appear only willing to resist Western forces.

I don’t know if it’s as easy as building a bunch of schools, because it may now be easier for a lone Westerner to operate in the region than a tainted US Government. But clearly, there are public diplomacy options, economic options, options for NGOs, etc., that go far beyond sticking two more brigades in and hoping. We’ve let Afghanistan slip away for 5 years and we’re not going to just come back with guns blazing and earn the support of the local population. An imperial mindset breeds an ever-expanding set of imperial strategies. There is a role to play there, and I don’t believe the country should be abandoned to fundamentalist control, but that role should not be a bigger, more competent version of what the Bush Administration has revealed to be a failure.

.

Muslims And Militants

by digby

There is a lot of chatter today about the New Yorker cover, which is pleasing, I’m sure, to both the magazine and the right wingers. My feeling is that it isn’t particularly creative satire and doesn’t really ring true or make anyone think, which is the hallmark of great satire. It’s especially disappointing since the New Yorker has the best cartoons in the world and could have done something so much better.

Having said that, I think it does bring up one of the subtexts of this campaign that nobody’s talked much about yet, even in this brouhaha. In the cartoon you see the “muslim” Obama and the “black militant” Michelle fist bumping. What’s the relationship there? Why would they be married to one another?

I’ve been wondering since 9/11 when the right would get around to conflating the Muslim terrorists with “black Muslims” and I think it may have finally happened in the couple of Barack and Michelle Obama. It would seem odd that the right wingers would smear him as being muslim. He’s black, not arab, and it doesn’t fit the stereotype. But it does fit the stereotype of the Farrakhan type of militant black muslims and that’s what they’re getting at with this. The image of the dangerous black radical is the purpose of the muslim smear, not the terrorist association. It’s good old, All American racism.

Here’s a transcript from a show this weekend on CNN in which one of their producers is traveling across the country asking people about the election:

HADAD: Next stop, Nashville, to talk American politics with fans of America’s pastime.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Cold beer on the house.

HADAD: The crowd is fun, politically engaged and about split between Obama, McCain and undecided. But I meet two people that rattle me a bit.

You’ve been a Democrat your entire voting life. And now, you’re going to vote Republican. What is it that’s making this huge switch for you after how many years of voting?

JANICE WOLFF, BASEBALL FAN: Well, I don’t like the candidate. I think he’s a Muslim.

HADAD: For the record, Obama is a Christian. She told me to talk to her friend, Tony, who was very into politics.

TONY SLAYDEN, BASEBALL FAN: Honestly I’m an old southern boy. And I just don’t know if I can see a black man making a change. The only black man I’ve ever seen with change is with a cup in his hand.*

HADAD: Whoa! Did he just say that?

SLAYDEN: The only black man I’ve ever seen with change is with a cup in his hand.

HADAD: Well, it’s a big country.

See how seamless all that is? They’re good friends. The women is more “genteel” and uses the more accepted “m” word. Her pal there doesn’t try to hide behind the terrorist threat and just admits outright that he’s an old fashioned racist. Muslim, militant, black man, cup in his hand, etc. “Muslim” is just a polite word for you know what.

Michele the militant is even more freighted with meaning. A lot of these people seem to think it’s perfectly obvious to anyone that all black women are angry and violent:

From John Amato, here’s Cal Thomas:

Hall: If they can’t prove he’s a Muslim, then let’s prove his wife is an angry black woman. I think it’s going to get ugly.

Thomas: And who are the black women you see on the local news at night in cities all over the country. They’re usually angry about something. They’ve had a son who has been shot in a drive-by shooting. They are angry at Bush. So you don’t really have a profile of non-angry black women.

This whisper campaign is just a message to racists that they can safely use the muslim/militant tag to explain why they can’t vote for a black man. The New Yorker cover snidely laughs at these silly rubes who believe such silly things, but it misses the point entirely. Those rubes know exactly what they are doing. I’m afraid the joke’s on us.

For a professional, point by point analysis of the cartoon, click on the ad to the left for BagNews notes. (Or here.)

*The CNN transcriber mangled it. I have it Tivo’d and it’s definitely “cup in his hand.”

Update: As predicted, I’m watching Matthews and the right winger Michele Bernard is calling this an example of “liberal racism” while liberal “elitist” John Heilman is defending it on television and saying that “thinking people” get the joke.

The other panelist is saying this speaks to Obama’s need to explain to average Americans who don’t have his”exotic” background, who he really is. Oy.

Update II: From CNN this afternoon:

COSTELLO (voice-over): Offensive or clever? Take a look at “The New Yorker” cover. There are the Obamas in the Oval Office. He’s in a turban. She’s in full black militant mode, AK-47, ammo, afro. An American flag is burning behind them right below Osama bin Laden’s portrait. Oh, the Obamas are doing the dap.

“The New Yorker” says it is a satire not about the Obamas, but about all the outrageous rumors swirling around them, the politics of fear.

But Obama and even his opponent are not amused.

MCCAIN: Frankly, I understand if Senator Obama and his supporters would find it offensive.

COSTELLO: Some of Obama’s supporters are even calling for a boycott of “The New Yorker.”

BERNARD PARKS SR., LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL MEMBER: Millions of people will see this in an atmosphere of the airport, on newsstands. They will never read the article. And this is what is what is so harmful about having this in this depiction.

COSTELLO: And maybe he’s right. When we showed people “The New Yorker” cover, they just didn’t get it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He reminds me of Islam, and she reminds me of a terrorist killer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean, it’s not a scary issue. But, you know, backgrounds are what they are.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But it isn’t funny, because I see a flag burning in the fireplace and a picture of — on the wall. I’m not sure who that is.

.

SOFA Taken To The Trash Heap

by dday

Over the weekend, US negotiators in Iraq signaled that they would not be able to reach a long-term status of forces agreement for what amounts to a permanent occupation of the country, because the entire Iraqi political establishment has been demanding a timetable for withdrawal. While the Iraqis are most likely wanting political cover for signing the agreement by offering their constituents the possibility of a life without US troops, and the need for withdrawal appeared more rhetorical than actual, regardless of the reasoning they held to that commitment and stared down Bush. It’d be nice if the loyal opposition here at home could learn the lesson.

But let’s be clear. These aren’t exactly fixed dates for the return of US forces:

Unlike the status-of-forces agreements between the United States and countries such as South Korea and Japan, where large numbers of U.S. troops have been based for decades, the document now under discussion with Iraq is likely to cover only 2009. Negotiators expect it to include a “time horizon,” with specific goals for U.S. troop withdrawal from Baghdad and other cities and installations such as the former Saddam Hussein palace that now houses the U.S. Embassy.

The fixed dates will likely include caveats referring to the ability of Iraqi security forces to take over from U.S. units, but without them, U.S. negotiators concluded that Iraqi acquiescence was doubtful. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his political allies have come under intense domestic pressure to reject any perceived infringement on Iraqi sovereignty. Maliki, who last week publicly insisted on a withdrawal timeline, wants to frame the agreement as outlining the terms for “Americans leaving Iraq” rather than the conditions under which they will stay, said the U.S. official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because U.S.-Iraqi negotiations are ongoing.

The idea, he said, is to “take the heat off [Maliki] a little bit, to rebrand the thing and counter the narrative that he’s negotiating for a permanent military presence in Iraq.”

Goals, hopes, targets, with domestic Iraqi politics firmly in mind.

Still, this is significant. Bush tried to steamroll the Iraqis and failed, and now the next President will determine the course of action. As Dr. Irack notes, this is because the Bushies used the same unilateral approach that’s allowed them to plow through domestic opponents, but it didn’t work in Iraq:

Because talks were not occurring against the backdrop of negotiating a U.S. withdrawal and a clear signal that we did not want to have the rights and prerogatives to stay in Iraq indefinitely, two things happened:

1. Iraqi sovereignty and nationalist anxieties were exacerbated by the perception that we were negotiating a permanent occupation (regardless of how many times the administration asserted it wasn’t seeking permanent bases). This made it difficult for Iraqi officials–including those that wanted a long-term agreement negotiated under Bush–to sign on to anything.

2. U.S. negotiators framed the whole thing to the Iraqis as us wanting to negotiate a way to stay in Iraq. This reversed the leverage in negotiations, making us appear increasingly desperate to give the Iraqis concessions so we could stick around indefinitely. This made it look like we needed them more than they needed us, which is completely back-ass-ward.

They couldn’t hide their desire to stay in Iraq forever enough to make it politically possible for the Iraqis to sign on. This is the usual hubris. But it also has implications for the next President. Because, since a long-term agreement will be negotiated in the future, whoever implements the policy can take it in one of two radically different directions. John McCain has made no secret of his long-term desires to keep a significant American presence in Iraq. Barack Obama wrote an op-ed today outlining his different goals.

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States […]

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war […]

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

In response, the McCain campaign has … accused Obama of surrender. So it goes.

.

One Of The Good Ones

by digby

Supreme court analyst, Linda Greenhouse, is retiring from the NY Times and I think it’s going to be very, very difficult to get along without her. She is the best writer about the court out there, giving laypeople insight into both the history of the law, the justices participating in the decisions and the effect on our system and society. She’s a rare reporter.

Read her final essay in today’s Times. I particularly appreciate this:

In five days on the witness stand, Judge Bork had a chance to explain himself fully, to describe and defend his view that the Constitution’s text and the intent of its 18th-century framers provided the only legitimate tools for constitutional interpretation. Through televised hearings that engaged the public to a rare degree, the debate became a national referendum on the modern course of constitutional law. Judge Bork’s constitutional vision, anchored in the past, was tested and found wanting, in contrast to the later declaration by Judge Anthony M. Kennedy, the successful nominee, that the Constitution’s framers had “made a covenant with the future.”It has made a substantial difference during these last 21 years that Anthony Kennedy got the seat intended for Robert Bork. The invective aimed at Justice Kennedy from the right this year alone, for his majority opinions upholding the rights of the Guantánamo detainees and overturning the death penalty for child rapists — 5-to-4 decisions that would surely have found Judge Bork on the opposite side — is a measure of the lasting significance of what happened during that long-ago summer and fall.It is also a reminder of something I learned observing the court and the country, and listening in on the vital dialogue between them. The court is in Americans’ collective hands. We shape it; it reflects us. At any given time, we may not have the Supreme Court we want. We may not have the court we need. But we have, most likely, the Supreme Court we deserve.

The Senate has shown they will confirm a doorstop if the president wants them to. There are no Teddy Kennedy’s who will lead the charge against another Bork. This is one reason why I’ll vote for Obama enthusiastically. A President McCain will throw the wingnut zealots the most reactionary, federalist society hack he can find, like bloody bloody meat to a piranha tank. He doesn’t care about anything but paying off his rich friends and making war. Whatever our problems might be with Obama we know that he won’t do that.

We always say that the Supreme Court hangs in the balance when we come to election time and people see it as crying wolf nowadays. But this time it’s for real. John Paul Stevens is very, very old and Ruth Bader Ginsberg is in ill health. They valiantly hung on through these last eight years of hell but we can’t expect them to do it forever. A court majority under John Roberts is not what the nation deserves, certainly not the kids, the elderly,the poor, the disenfranchised and the average worker who will be hurt. The Democratic elites, yes, but there is no joy in that.

Meanwhile, Greenhouse is going to teach a Yale and her students are very lucky. I’ll be looking forward to her books.

.