Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

More Healing

by digby

Next thing you know, stuff like this will be happening all over the country.

Via Newshounds, h/t to Bill
.

McCain Watch

by digby

Finally, a questioner lays it all on the line: “The war’s the big issue,” he says, adding, “Some kind of disengagement—it’s going to have to happen. It’s a big issue for you, for our party, in 24 months. It’s not that long a time.” McCain replies, “I do believe this issue isn’t going to be around in 2008. I think it’s going to either tip into civil war … ” He breaks off, as if not wanting to rehearse the handful of other unattractive possibilities. “Listen,” he says, “I believe in prayer. I pray every night.” And that’s where he leaves his discussion of the war this morning: at the kneeling rail.

On the way to our next stop, McCain tells me, “It’s just so hard for me to contemplate failure that I can’t make the next step.”

There you have it. So because St John and Junior and the rest of these macho Republican heroes can’t “face” failure, with or without an escalation, more Americans will have to die in the Iraq meatgrinder for their vanity. Jesus H. Christ.

Here’s today’s dispatch from the rabbit hole:

The 2006 election has not changed Sen. John McCain’s support for victory in Iraq one iota.

While some Democrats have interpreted their party’s triumphs in last November’s balloting as a call by voters to end the U.S. deployment in Iraq, McCain, a leading contender for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, made it clear Friday he doesn’t see it that way.

McCain seems to be launching his 2008 campaign by taking the role of foremost advocate of sending significantly more troops for long-term deployment to Iraq.

“There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops: to be of value, it must substantial and it must be sustained,” he declared in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a think tank that is home to some of the most hawkish strategists on Iraq.

Just to make sure everyone in the overflow audience got the point, McCain repeated that phrase: “it must substantial and it must be sustained.”

[…]

In their comments at AEI both McCain and Lieberman seemed to be concerned that Bush might shy away from a big increase in U.S. forces in Iraq.

McCain said, “The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of US forces. We’ve tried small surges in the past and they’ve been ineffective.”

Very brave words from a man who just read in the papers that Bush was not going to send in a sustained and substantial increase because the military doesn’t have enough troops. “If he’d have done what I wanted, we could have won.” How convenient.

Meanwhile, the two maverick lovebirds gave each other big smacking kisses:

McCain “is taking a position that is not based on putting his finger in the air and gauging the direction of the political winds,” said his ally, Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent Democrat from Connecticut who just won re-election. “He is doing what he sincerely believes is best for the national security and safety of our country…. John’s taking a gutsy position”

Lieberman added, pointedly, “I just finished an election campaign. If rumors are correct, he may be starting one. And he’s not taking the easy way out here.”

Not exactly. He’s taking a risk that Bush will not be able to scrape up enough troops for a “sustained and significant” surge of 20,000 or more troops so that he can throw up his hands and say that nobody listened to him. Lieberman chose another path which was to lie baldly to the voters of Connecticut and say that he wanted to end the war and bring the troops home. Both are dishonest bloodthirsty warmongers, but in entirely different ways.

McCain cited Lieberman’s decisive victory over anti-war Democrat Ned Lamont as proof that the electorate was not clamoring for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

“Of course I disagree” with the notion that last November’s election was a mandate to end the Iraq deployment, McCain said heatedly in comments to reporters. Gesturing to Lieberman at his side, McCain said, “There’s no way this guy could have been re-elected if it was as simple as that. Americans are frustrated and angry and that frustration and anger is justified. But when you ask most Americans should we get out right away, most of them say no.”

By Republican logic that means that they favor a “sustained and significant” escalation.

We are getting into a totally crazy, hallucinogenic situation here. For example, I just heard Charles Krauthammer sound almost sane, complaining that we can’t possibly secure Iraq while it’s in the middle of a civil war. That’s how nuts it is.

Thankfully, as of today anyway, the Democrats are speaking in a unified, forceful voice against this insanity, which is very good news.

Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.

Update: Don’t miss today’s “thank you” from Kate O’Beirne to the people of Connecticut. They must be very proud.

.

Governing By Tantrums

by digby

It seems to me that one of the defining characteristics of the Bush administration is a sort of stubborn, spoiled reaction to his critics. I think it comes from two things. First it is a reflection of Bush’s personality which, in a position as powerful as the presidency, is bound to color everything.

I’ll never forget this odd little anecdote from a family friend who knew the Bush family back in the day and knew the hellraising Junior quite well:

[In] December, during a visit to his parents’ home in Washington, Bush drunkenly challenged his father to go “mano a mano,” as has often been reported.

Around the same time, for the 1972 Christmas holiday, the Allisons met up with the Bushes on vacation in Hobe Sound, Fla. Tension was still evident between Bush and his parents. Linda was a passenger in a car driven by Barbara Bush as they headed to lunch at the local beach club. Bush, who was 26 years old, got on a bicycle and rode in front of the car in a slow, serpentine manner, forcing his mother to crawl along. “He rode so slowly that he kept having to put his foot down to get his balance, and he kept in a weaving pattern so we couldn’t get past,” Allison recalled. “He was obviously furious with his mother about something, and she was furious at him, too.”

From the moment he took office, he has been doing this sort of thing. He won the election in 2000 under very unusual circumstances in the closest election in American history. After running as a “compassionate conservative” in the first place and then taking office as a result of a divided Supreme Court decision, everyone at the time assumed that he would govern humbly, seeking the input of the opposition and running a very moderate administration. Instead he did exactly the opposite, insisting he had a mandate for extreme conservatism.

Similarly, he ran for re-election in 2004 and won a narrow victory predicated almost entirely on his wartime leadership. Yet, first thing out of the box he announced he would destroy social security. This election, which he outright lost on the basis of his lying and mishandling of Iraq, brings an escalation of the war.

This era has been marked by its unusual up-is-downism and the media’s inability to sort this out. (We are right now seeing them parrot republican talking points that say the Democrats ran on a platform of bipartisanship when in fact it was a platform of in-your-face opposition.) The president has embodied this with the way he does exactly the opposite of what the nation consistenly signals it wants him to do. It’s almost as if he does it simply because he can. And that, I think, is the key to understanding it.

It was a terrible stroke of luck that brought that man together with Dick Cheney, who had actually developed an entire political philosophy based upon the president have the power to do whatever he wants to do. It may be that pairing that has brought us to this point. A spoiled little boy who can easily be persuaded by a megalomaniacal grey eminence that there is virtue in defying the American people and the constitution.

Which brings us to today. Bush is going to escalate the war. And he’s probably going to escalate it in a way that is even more provocative than anyone is anticipating. he will send in the ‘surge” but he won’t just do that. He’s going to go for it.

The “new way forward” team is taking shape. Robert Gates is in as Secretary of Defense. John Negroponte will move from Director of National Intelligence to Assistant Secretary of State. Retired Vice Admiral Michael McConnell will take Negroponte’s old job as DNI. Raw Story reports that Lieutenant General David Petraeus, the former day-to-day commander in Iraq, to replace General George Casey as the overall commander of U.S. forces in that country.

The news that has everyone a bit agog is that the head of Central Command, General John Abizaid, will be relieved by Admiral William J. Fallon.

ABC reports that “Fallon, who is in the Navy, is currently head of Pacific Command; he will be overseeing two ground wars, so the appointment is highly unusual.”

I think ABC is missing the point.

It seems highly unusual for a navy admiral to take charge of CENTCOM until you consider two interrelated things. First is that Bush needs a senior four-star in the CENTCOM job who hasn’t gone on record as opposing additional troops in Iraq. Second is that Fallon’s CENTCOM area of responsibility will include Iran.

A conflict with Iran would be a naval and air operation. Fallon is a naval flight officer. He flew combat missions in Vietnam, commanded an A-6 Intruder squadron, a carrier air wing and an aircraft carrier. As a three-star, he commanded Second Fleet and Strike Force Atlantic. He presently heads U.S. Pacific Command. His resume also includes duty in numerous joint and Navy staff billets, including Deputy Director for Operations with Joint Task Force Southwest Asia in Riyahd, Saudi Arabia.

If anybody knows how to run a maritime and air operation against Iran, it’s “Fox” Fallon.

Let’s just say that considering the Bush administration history, this would be a predictable way for them to act. For reasons of personal temperament and political philosophy, they not only ignore all critics and dissenters they go even farther and become obnoxiously defiant. They’ve always gotten away with it. Why would they stop now?

Update: A commenter tipped me to this interesting post by Arianna discussing the possibilities of an impending Iran operation with Wes Clark:

“I’m worried about the surge,” he said. “But I’m worried about this even more.”

.

Ready For His Close-up

by digby

Can I just say that watching Arnold Schwarzenneger on crutches being sworn in to the sound of (badly played) trumpets in a huge auditorium is one of the weirdest damned things I’ve ever seen? (Jesus — after he took the oath a choir started singing “Hallelujah!” like the angels are celebrating or something.)

It’s still disconcerting to me to see this bizarre looking and sounding fellow as a serious leader. I want to giggle everytime I see him. But there he is.

That “American-born president” provision in the constitution may be an anachronism, but the country should be very glad of it. At least we Californians won’t be able to foist this Republican on the rest of the America. Hallelujah, indeed.

.

Saving Tomorrow

by digby

Back in the prehistoric era, BB (before blogs) there were very few witty, liberal political observers with a public platform. One of the few was the great strip, Tom Tomorrow, which I used to look forward to (and still do) like a five year old on Christmas. It was one of the things that kept me sane and is still the sharpest, most precise rendering of the current political scene around.

The Village Voice, which has recently been taken over by cretins, has decided not to carry Tom Tomorrow anymore in the print version, which is ridiculous.

“Tom” is collecting signatures on a petition to try to get the Voice to reinstate his strip. I urge you to sign it. If Tom Tomorrow isn’t in the Village Voice, the terrorists have won.

.

Firing Wildly

by digby

Josh Marshall wonders the same thing I did last week:

And does this perhaps get us toward an answer to our earlier question, Why the Rush? We know that Maliki is highly dependent on al Sadr and the Mahdi Army (the folks the ‘surge’ is supposed to crush). If it’s really true that Saddam was handed over to MA fighters to be executed rather than Interior Ministry officials, was that the rush? Did al Sadr and Co. make Maliki an offer he couldn’t refuse? Did they demand that Saddam be turned over to them — and now — for execution? Was that why he was pulling so many strings and cutting so many corners?

In my earlier post I quoted a passage from Juan Cole’s analysis which makes me think that Maliki wasn’t exactly coerced.

Here’s my question. If that’s the case, and The McCain Republicans and Connecticuts for Lieberman’s are going to send in 20,000 more troops to “secure” the country, doesn’t that mean Americans will be fighting the personal army of the prime minister of Iraq? The same prime minister who was duly elected with all those fabulous purple fingers?

I hate to get all literal about this and upset Tony Blankley, but shouldn’t we at least know whether this escalation is designed to kill insurgents/terrorists/extremists or make war on the current government of Iraq? And is there any difference?

.

Bitterness

by digby

The Democrats made them do it:

JUDY WOODRUFF: Congresswoman Northup, you most recently left the Congress. You were there just until, what, a few days ago, literally. Do you see it that way? I mean, as somebody who’s served in this modern Congress, if you will, and yet a Congress that was seen as so bitterly divided along partisan lines?

FORMER REP. ANNE NORTHUP (R), Kentucky: It is bitterly divided, but that doesn’t mean that there can’t be changes. It doesn’t mean that people can’t work in a more open system and more straightforward system, a system where people can work across the aisle, express their differences and their commonalities, and come to a conclusion.

I do worry that the last two years there was a lot of feeling among the Republican majority that everything the other side did was set to set a stage in order to put the Republicans on the defensive, and so there’s a lot of bitterness, underlying bitterness about the last two years that are left that could come and haunt that effort, but I’m hopeful that people who love this country will all come to the conclusion that we can work together and find better solutions.

You see, the Republicans had no choice but to treat the Democrats like garbage. The Democratic minority kept putting them on the defensive. And the Republicans are understandably still upset about it.

I have been watching this theme emerge for days now and it’s starting to crystalize: apparently the Democrats have been keeping the Republicans down for years (since at least the 50’s!)and the Republicans are very bitter about it. The overwhelming issue in the November election was the deep desire out in the country for the congress to work tegether. That’s why they voted for divided government.

Who put the acid in the DC water supply?

Update: Jonathan at A Tiny Revolution points out that Anne Northrup has some serious issues.

.

Why I Am A Liberal And A Progressive And A Democrat

by digby

I am a liberal because it is the political philosophy of freedom and equality. And I am a progressive because it is the political path to a better future. And I am a Democrat because it is the political party that believes in freedom, equality and progress.

This is what freedom, equality and progress look like:

Congratulations America.

It may have taken 230 years, but you finally got here. By hook or by crook, and the prodding and pushing of liberals and progressives, you always do.

By the way — Nancy Pelosi wore purple today for a specific reason. It’s the color of the suffragettes movement:

“This is an historic moment – for the Congress, and for the women of this country. It is a moment for which we have waited more than 200 years. Never losing faith, we waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. But women weren’t just waiting; women were working. Never losing faith, we worked to redeem the promise of America, that all men and women are created equal. For our daughters and granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling. Nancy Pelosi

All those purple wearing women who came before would be proud today.

.

Missed Manners

by digby

I hate to step on all the good feelings of brotherly and sisterly love we all feel today, but when I hear the new Minority Leader John Boehner call us the “Democrat party” in the same speech in which he is calling for civility, I can’t help but wonder whether he knows what that means.

You see, it actually isn’t very civil at all to change the name of someone’s else’s political party against their will. In fact, it’s universally considered rude and cretinous not to call people by the names and designations by which they wish to be called.

Just a thought, in case anyone on the Republican side wonders why so many people think they are unctuous hypocrites. (Yeah, I know.)

Update: Oh, and perhaps this is normal, but I just heard that Mitt Romney stayed home rather than attend the swearing in of the new Governor of Massachusetts. Seems a bit uncivil, if you ask me.

And Ana Marie Wonkette just explained that Pelosi is running as fast as she can from the fact that she’s from San Francisco because she can’t have anyone thinking she isn’t a moderate. I’m just curious. How come nobody ever said such things about Trent Lott or Mitch McConnell?

I had originally rejected Tom Schaller’s idea that Democrats should demonize South Carolina or Alabama the way the Republicans (with the help of alleged liberals like Ana Marie) have demonized San Francisco and Massachusetts. But I’m beginning to see that it may actually be a necessary thing. Plus, I’m getting mighty sick of this shit — particularly with the endless lectures about civility and all.

.

Being Literal

by digby

MATTHEWS: Why does he still suggest—as our country western music did for all those years—that the people who attacked us on 9/11 — you know, bin Laden‘s crowd, al Qaeda, which we know exactly who the people were who attacked us, none of them were Iraqi—why the president continue to insists, again in the “Wall Street Journal” today we‘re fighting the same terrorists we fought on 9/11, who killed us on 9/11? Why does he keep doing that?

BLANKLEY: Look, I mean, what he said in the “Wall Street Journal” today, I think the language was careful. He is not saying the same individuals.

MATTHEWS: He is implying it‘s the same enemy.

BLANKLEY: The same radical Islam, but there were different radical Islamists who attacked us then and who were fighting there. But it‘s all part—as he‘s describing it. And I generally agree…

MATTHEWS: We got the radical Islamists on our side. We got Muqtada al Sadr as part of our hanging party. Why do you say we are fighting the guy? He‘s in the room, practically, with the hanging.

BLANKLEY: Look. You understand what the—you‘re being literal about it. The president is talking about the general threat from radical Islam around the world. And, as a lot of experts have pointed out, including critics of the war, if we skedaddle out of Iraq, that will encourage other radical Islamists to attack us.

I hate it when people get too literal about who the enemy really is, don’t you?

.