Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

General Shinseki For Secretary Of Defense

by tristero

Now that I have your attention…

We all know why Bush chose Robert Gates. Yes, he’s apparently a competent bureaucrat but that’s not the real reason. The real reason is he’s a longtime Bush family fluffer. And Crawford’s Own Churchill – bold, brave George – is too insecure to work with anyone else.

Those are Gates’ only two qualifications. Now, what’s the downside to this guy? Well, among other things, as we all know by now he was so close to Iran/Contra he nearly got indicted. That’s kind of a big downside, given how scandal-prone this administration is. But there’s another problem with him:

Robert Gates has no specific qualifications to run the Department of Defense.

The only job experience that comes close is that he was in the Air Force from 1967 to 1969. Now this just may be fuzzy math, but by my calculation that’s, let’s see…yup, that’s 37 years ago. But let’s not exaggerate. It’s true, back then they did have computers just like they do now! Of course, many were the size of a warehouse and were programmed as often from punch cards as they were terminals, but they were computers. I’m sure Gates can easily grasp the basics of modern weapons technology to make informed decisions in no more than, oh, about 5 or 6 years. (That, of course, leaves him no time to study anything else connected with the operation of the modern military, like tactics, deployment issues, and overall strategery. Anyone remember Tom Ridge? Gates may be smarter but still…)

So what else makes Bush think Gates can run the Pentagon? Well, Gates has been in the Baker/Hamilton Iraq study group for at least 5 or 6 hours now, or is it minutes? But I’m sure he’s been working real hard.

Meanwhile, General Eric Shinseki has spent his entire career in the military. Plus he had the guts to challenge Rumsfeld’s lowball numbers, and he did it in public.

Shinseki: Competent. Knowledgeable. Independent. Not even a whiff of scandal.

Gates: Competent. Not knowledgeable. Bush family loyalist. The best that can be said is there wasn’t enough evidence to indict him in Iran/Contra.

I see no reason why Congress shouldn’t insist on the best.

—

Ok, lemme make it plain what I’ve been saying here.

Of course, I know that Bush would never accept Shinseki. And of course, just about no one with an ounce of self-respect or talent would agree to report directly to George W. Bush unless they were a longtime family friend.

The real point of this post is two-fold. First of all, Bush hasn’t changed in the slightest and is still jerking the country around, including the troops who are laying down their lives implementing his utterly insane war.

More importantly, given how much political capital Dems have right now, there is only one reason I can think of why this country should tolerate any more of Bush’s clowning: We’re so used to it we can’t think of anything better. But let’s conduct a quick thought experiment: Imagine a presidency where top positions were filled by qualified women and and men, not goons so unconditionally loyal they had knee pads surgically attached.

In truth, I don’t have to imagine such a presidency. I can easily remember one.

So I can’t think of a single reason why Bush can’t start behaving like a real president instead of a scared rabbit. There is nothing to stop him from appointing competent AND knowledgeable people to high positions who don’t have incidents in their past that seriously call into question their integrity. Provided Democrats insist.

And I think, for a lot of reasons the Democrats should insist. Bush can start right now. Gates should never have been nominated and he should not be confirmed.

Taunt-ology

by digby

Glenn Greenwald catches the Washington Post airbrushing history from their very own paper to protect President Bush from being called a liar when he even admitted to the lie. (These internets are dangerous boys. You can’t just go around doing this anymore because people will catch you.)

Greenwald writes:

It is now conclusively clear that President Bush lied last week, several days before the election, when he vowed definitively to reporters that Donald Rumsfeld would remain as Defense Secretary for the next two years. At the time he made that statement, he was deep into the process of replacing Rumsfeld, if not already finished, and the President knew that the statement he made about Rumsfeld was false at the time he made it. That is the definition of “lying.”

There can be no reasonable dispute about this, since the President at his Press Conference not only admitted lying when he told the reporters that Rumsfeld would stay, but he even went on to explain his reasons for lying (“the reason why is I didn’t want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign. And so the only way to answer that question and to get you on to another question was to give you that answer”). The decision was clearly a fait accompli before the election, as the President himself said: “win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee.”

[…]

At some point, the Post changed what was the accurate reporting — that Bush expressly acknowledged that he “misled” reporters because he had “indicated that he had made the decision to replace Rumsfeld before the elections” — by claiming in the new version that he merely “contemplated” Rumsfeld’s exit before the election. Worse, the Post deleted entirely the accurate statement that the President “appeared to acknowledge having misled reporters.” (If one does a search of the Post for the deleted paragraphs, the article will still come up in the Post’s search engine, but the entire passage is nowhere to be found in the article).

(Read the whole post for the amazing technicolor rationalizations of Howie Kurtz if nothing else.)

Clearly there was some pressure to remove from the historical record the fact that Bush knowingly lied to the public before the election. And the Washington Post clearly capitulated.

But ever since it happened I’ve been puzzled as to why Bush lied about it in the first place. It seemed to me when I heard about it that it would have been a good thing for him to at least signal obliquely that he would change course after the election rather than issue such unequivocal support. They had to know that the independent Republican leaners would have felt a little bit better about voting GOP if they thought that Bush was going to dump Rummy, right?

My guess is that Rove was worried about the reaction among kool-aid drinkers like Pamela Atlas Shrugged, which means that they have gone deep into the bunker and truly are communing with the crazies. Did Rove really come to believe that his turn-out strategy could trump a 13 point lead? What’s he smoking?

It is also probable that Bush, Cheney and Rove all believed that any sign they were listening to the opposition would be perceived as weakness by the terrorists which I think is one of their fundamental mistakes in running the war on terror. Like most immature bullies they attach much too much importance to silly schooolyard taunts:

Al Qaeda gloats over Rumsfeld

Nov 10, 2006 — BAGHDAD (Reuters) – A purported audio recording by the leader of Iraq’s al Qaeda wing gloated over the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as a top U.S. general said the military was preparing to recommend strategy changes.

Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, said in the recording posted on the Internet on Friday that the group had 12,000 armed fighters and 10,000 others waiting to be equipped to fight U.S. troops in Iraq.

“I tell the lame duck (U.S. administration) do not rush to escape as did your defense minister…stay on the battle ground,” he said.

How much do you think Junior hates that? I would guess it bothers him quite a bit, judging from his rhetoric over the past five years.

I suspect they think the world sees things through the same schoolboy lens as they do and truly believed that if their voters saw al Qaeda dissing the Prez before the election they would recoil from their weakened leader in disgust. Perhaps they are right. And I suspect they couldn’t take the idea of Democrats gloating (we are pretty much the same as al Qaeda in their minds) either.

But backing Rumsfeld so stongly before the election actually made him look cracked in the head, which is a selling point with his cult, but makes everyone else increasingly nervous. I believe it was a serious miscalculation, which is why somebody’s calling up the Washington Post and instructing them to airbrush history.

Update: AJEsquire in the comments may have this right. I hadn’t thought of it. Gates is a family retainer. They didn’t need any lead time to get him on board.

.

Winning Into Losing

by digby

Despite my clear allegiance to the netroots and my belief that they were vital in this election, I have refrained from weighing in too heavily on the internecine fighting in the hope that it would blow over as our victory sank in and people gathered their wits and properly apportioned credit. I was more than willing to say Rahm and Chuck had done their jobs and that we did ours which means that the party won big, giving us a real governing coalition instead of a bare majority That seems like a nice, lukewarm water assessment designed to let everyone have a fair share of the credit.

I was being far too generous:

Some big name Democrats want to oust DNC Chairman Howard Dean, arguing that his stubborn commitment to the 50-state strategy and his stinginess with funds for House races cost the Democrats several pickup opportunities.

The candidate being floated to replace Dean? Harold Ford.

Says James Carville, one of the anti-Deaniacs, “Suppose Harold Ford became chairman of the DNC? How much more money do you think we could raise? Just think of the difference it could make in one day. Now probably Harold Ford wants to stay in Tennessee. I just appointed myself his campaign manager.”

Apparently the beltway elite is determined to start a war. There is no reason for them to float this other than a purely malicious power play. Dean’s strategy at least arguably worked (I would say undisputably) and the party won the fucking election. Why bring out the long knives in the middle of our victory glow? For the establishment to choose this moment to slap the progressive base of this party right in the face by dissing Dean is to alienate their new younger voters (and their future), their internet-based supporters and their activist grassroots all of whom worked their hearts out in this election.

If there is anyone with the party out there reading this, please talk these short sighted retreads out of pursuing this line. The DNC leadership post is a partywide elected position and Dean has the allegiance of the states, so this is nothing more than public masturbation. There’s no point in floating this nonsense except to piss people off.

We have a very important presidential election coming up and unless the Democratic party is living under some Rovian illusion that we have just begun the new thousand year reich, it’s going to be very tough. If they think they don’t need need all the help they can get, they’re crazy. We may not be their favorite people, but we are valuable members of the party whether they like it or not — and boneheaded talk like this will make things unpleasant in a million little ways that just aren’t worth it at a time like this. Don’t be dumb.

The establishment is going to have to grow up and learn to live with the netroots and the grassroots activists who back Dean. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but we aren’t going anywhere.

By the way, has anyone seen one word from Emmanuel and Shumer thanking the grassroots,the netroots or the volunteers for all their time, hard work and money? Perhaps they have, but it sure isn’t showing up in all the laudatory profiles. How classy.

Update: Sorry, Rahm Emmanuel did post this on the DCCC site on October 27.

.

Turdwilt
by poputonian

The Honorable Karl Rove

1/20/2006 2:36:00 PM

Victory in politics is the work of many hands and hearts – hard work that has made the GOP the majority Party in America.

Think how much has been achieved by our Republican Party … that is broad and inclusive, self-assured and optimistic, forward-leaning and dominant.

… we have seen the rise of a great cause …

Republicans rebuilt our national defenses …

… and today we are winning the war against Islamic fascism.

Millions of people who lived in tyranny have been liberated – and freedom is spreading across the globe …

But there is much more to be done.

—
We are the party of ideas – and “ideas have consequences.”

Ideas – a party’s governing philosophy, should be at the heart of our political debates – because they are a deciding factor in elections.

… it will be true in 2006 … our ideas will prevail in the hearts and minds of Americans.

President Bush has established a remarkable record.

He is winning the war against terrorism, promoting liberty in regions of the world that have never known it, and protecting America against attacks.
…

This past year, we have seen three successful elections in Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces are increasing in size and capability. Iraq’s economy is growing.
…

the American economy is the strongest in the world – and it is growing faster than any other major industrialized country.

These are proud and memorable days in the history of America – and it is an extraordinary privilege to help shape the events of our time.

In 2000, George W. Bush ran against an incumbent Vice President who had loads of national experience, a reputation as a great debater, and with a very strong economy on his side – and yet the then-Governor of Texas won a very close race.

[Editor’s Note: September 11, 2001 happened between the last paragraph and the next one. Just sayin’.]

In the 2002 mid-terms, President Bush and Republicans ran against history – and prevailed. President Bush became the first President in more than a half-century – and only the second President ever – to have mid-term gains in both houses of Congress – and for the first time, the party of the President captured control of the Senate in a mid-term.

In 2004 George W. Bush, a Republican and proud conservative, won the Presidency for a second time, receiving the most votes in history. He is the first President since FDR to be re-elected while his party gained seats in the House and Senate – and the first Republican President since 1924 to get re-elected while re- electing Republican House and Senate majorities.

Republicans … hold 55 Senate seats; 231 House seats; and 28 governorships.

The President and the Vice President have played indispensable roles in our success.

The GOP’s progress … is a stunning political achievement.

… this President and today’s Republican Party are shaping history …
…
In foreign policy President Bush has earned the title as one of history’s Great Liberators …

… the basics of winning remain … depends on what you do, and the passion and energy you bring to our great cause.

Krugman

by digby

The election wasn’t just the end of the road for Mr. Bush’s reign of error. It was also the end of the 12-year Republican dominance of Congress. The Democrats will now hold a majority in the House that is about as big as the Republicans ever achieved during that era of dominance.

Moreover, the new Democratic majority may well be much more effective than the majority the party lost in 1994. Thanks to a great regional realignment, in which a solid Northeast has replaced the solid South, Democratic control no longer depends on a bloc of Dixiecrats whose ideological sympathies were often with the other side of the aisle.

Now, I don’t expect or want a permanent Democratic lock on power. But I do hope and believe that this election marks the beginning of the end for the conservative movement that has taken over the Republican Party.

In saying that, I’m not calling for or predicting the end of conservatism. There always have been and always will be conservatives on the American political scene. And that’s as it should be: a diversity of views is part of what makes democracy vital.

But we may be seeing the downfall of movement conservatism — the potent alliance of wealthy individuals, corporate interests and the religious right that took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. This alliance may once have had something to do with ideas, but it has become mainly a corrupt political machine, and America will be a better place if that machine breaks down.

Why do I want to see movement conservatism crushed? Partly because the movement is fundamentally undemocratic; its leaders don’t accept the legitimacy of opposition. Democrats will only become acceptable, declared Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, once they “are comfortable in their minority status.” He added, “Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate.”

And the determination of the movement to hold on to power at any cost has poisoned our political culture. Just think about the campaign that just ended, with its coded racism, deceptive robo-calls, personal smears, homeless men bused in to hand out deceptive fliers, and more. Not to mention the constant implication that anyone who questions the Bush administration or its policies is very nearly a traitor.

When movement conservatism took it over, the Republican Party ceased to be the party of Dwight Eisenhower and became the party of Karl Rove. The good news is that Karl Rove and the political tendency he represents may both have just self-destructed.

Gawd I hope so. The country, and the world, desperately need a break from that toxic brand of politics.

.

Reaching Across The Aisle

by digby

… with your feet planted firmly on your own side.

I am not going to criticize Nancy Pelosi for talking about bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle because, you know, that’s politics. It would be churlishly Republican not to say such things in victory.

But actions speak louder than words and I stand by my earlier admonition to the new Democratic majority:

The chattering classes are all abuzz with the notion that now is the time to bind up the nation’s wounds and work across the aisle. (I can’t help but wonder why they didn’t see the need for such rapproachment during the last decade of slash and burn GOP partisanship.) This pattern is well documented. The Republicans will continue to drain the treasury and play out their “movement” experiments and then have the Democrats step up and clean up the messes they make until this is stopped.

We are confronting some very serious problems right now, only one of which is terrorism. The Republicans have destroyed our international reputation at the very time when we need global cooperation. And they have driven the nation itself into the ditch dividing the country and blaming everyone but themselves for their failures.

The Democrats have to be the “grown-ups” yes. And one of the unpleasant tasks will be figuring out what went wrong, putting safeguards in place so the same things don’t happen again and making people take responsibility for their actions. That is what adults do. Letting bygones be bygones and simply blathering on about how we all need to put the unpleasantness behind us and get along will not win the respect of the American people nor will it fix the problems this nation faces. (That, after all, is the indulgent mommy model that the Republicans have been using as a club with which to beat us over the head for the last 30 years. No more.)

Now, politicians can make speeches about bipartisanship and sing kumbaaya all they want. I’m sure it is a very soothing tune and one that is necessary. But the Democratic party had best not forget that the actions a Democratic majority takes in the next two years will determine if the American people can trust them to defend the nation and fix the mess going forward. It’s very hard to see how that will happen if they capitulate to John Cornyn’s whimpering about how mean and nasty they are.

The polls show that the American people are behind them and the world is behind them. For the good of the party, the good of the country and the good of the planet, they just have to tough out the criticism they will receive from the mincing GOP courtiers in the press and the blubbering, wailing Republicans, and Do. The. Right. Thing.

None of that means that there isn’t ample room for legislation on which we can all agree. The door should always be open to those who want to negotiate and compromise. But unless the last decade of Republican mendacity, malfeasance and corruption is exposed, the lesson republicans will take from this is that they can promise everything, do anything and the only repurcussions will a couple of years out of power when they can blame the Democrats for their failures. To not require some sort of accountability for this is a very serious moral hazard.

I could be wrong, but the first female Speaker of the House doesn’t sound like an indulgent mommy who is inclined to so such things:

STAHL: (Voiceover) Christine, the second oldest of four daughters and one son, says her mother was the disciplinarian and drill sergeant in the family then, as she is in Congress now.

Ms. PELOSI: So we were always expected to make sure that our homework was done and that we were prepared for what we did. She would always say, “Proper preparation prevents poor performance.”

[…]

STAHL: (Voiceover) …and a grandmother of five.

When I asked your daughter Christine how you “rule,” she said you were motherly.

Rep. PELOSI: I guess it depends on your definition of motherly. If motherly means we’re going to have order in the house, yes.

STAHL: That’s motherly.

STAHL: (Voiceover) Well, she’s certainly brought order to the Democrats. She has insisted on no more bickering in public and just saying no to nearly everything that comes out of the Bush White House. In other words, party discipline, kind of like the Republicans do it. As a result, Democrats now vote together more often than they have since Eisenhower was president. How has someone so clearly not one of the boys managed to keep them in line? Well, one way is money.

[…]

STAHL: (Voiceover) She has personally raised more than $100 million, second only to Bill and Hillary Clinton, which she dispenses generously to her colleagues. Another way she rules is through good, old-fashioned hardball.

People say Nancy Pelosi is tough as nails.

Rep. PELOSI: I’m very strong. I don’t know tough, but…

STAHL: Every time I ask you about it, you retreat into, `Oh, no, I’m a mother, I’m a grandmother.’

Rep. PELOSI: No.

STAHL: You are tough. You have to–I mean, it goes without saying.

Rep. PELOSI: I’m tough.

STAHL: You got there. You did it.

Yes she did.

I’m a little bit surprised that there hasn’t been more hoopla about Pelosi breaking the big glass ceiling. (Maybe it will happen when she actually takes her place.) She’s going to be third in line to the presidency, the most powerful elected woman in American history. It’s a big deal — another barrier down.

I don’t think this person is going to be hampered in the exercize of leadership by the lack of a proper Republican male organ. She has metaphorical “balls” (or ovaries) the size of cantaloupes. I wouldn’t underestimate her.

They are going to continue to demonize her as some sort of deranged succubus, but they’d better be careful. Lot’s of women are watching and they aren’t going to like her character being assassinated with thinly veiled attacks on female inadequacy or gay insinuations or any of the other usual rightwing tricks. Criticism is fine but this woman has achieved something substantial and I doubt women are going to be happy to see her demeaned by some lowlife fratboy punk with nasty, cheap shots.

Don’t play the sexism card, fellas (and Ann Coulter.) At least half of the electorate sees these tired put-downs as an unpleasant reminder of the ex-boyfriend, boss or husband they’d still like to slap upside the head and there are plenty of men who cringe with embarrassment when they hear them. Remember, “proper preparation prevents poor performance.”

.

[sic]Tandrums

by digby

You knew Atlas had to be on the verge of a meltdown, didn’t you? Today didn’t help. Her lovah-man is being sent up to the hill again and it may be that he won’t actually be confirmed.

Via Alex at Martini Republic:

Is this to be the latest blood sacrifice coming out of a bowed Bush White House? And I say here, now, STOP THE INSANITY. Throwing our best, our brightest to the insatiable leftist beast makes them hungrier. Rumsfeld, now Bolton? WTF? and Why?

Someone call that asshat Charlie Chafee McCarthy – who btw – got what was coming to him, and tell that dickless wonder to let the Bolton nomination out of committee.

~~~

Rumsfeld was a mistake ……….. yes folks, my thoughts on that are here — the left wanted a clean, tidy war with the jihadis and blamed Rumsfeld for their lack of decorum? Or not. More likely, it was just the constant, inane drone of the 6 year Democrat temper tandrum [sic] – if it wasn’t Rumsfeld, then Cheney ……..

But Bolton? Why Bolton? Talk about taming the lions. He accomplished everything, he accomplished the impossible

You can see why the UN Ambassador gives her a long interview in the middle of and international crisis, seeks her wise counsel and values her hard work as his internet confirmation advocate. The two of them share a similarly restrained temperament — just the thing for the nation’s top diplomat.

.

Velvet Mafia

by digby

This is odd. Americablog posted the Youtube of Bill Maher saying Ken Mehlman is gay on Larry King last night and CNN has demanded that it be pulled and they’ve altered their transcript. Hmm.

Now, WorldNet Daily, rather breathlessly promoting the new religious rightwing meme that teh gays have invaded the GOP body politic, writes this:

Some in Washington have charged the White House and Congress are run by a “Gay Republican Mafia.”

Deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove’s adopted father, who died in 2004, was a closet “gay” who left his mother when Rove was a senior in high school. But Rove still supports a ban on “gay” marriage. “The ideal is that marriage ought to be and should be a union of a man and a woman,” he has said.

He and his wife, Darby, have one child.

Hey, Ted Haggard has five…

Why would they mention Karl in this context unless somebody has said he’s part of this secret gay cabal? (Not that it surprises me. My rule of thumb from now on is that all these conservatives are closet cases until proven otherwise.) Still, I have to wonder. Is this going to be their way of throwing the losers under the bus?

.

Dear Jim Wallis

by tristero

Dear Jim,

Recently, you wrote:

In this election, both the Religious Right and the secular Left were defeated, and the voice of the moral center was heard.

With all due respect, sir, “secular left?” “Moral center?” That’s the way Ted Haggard used to talk. You know that’s the vacuous language of christianism. They’re hypocrites. And losers.

So knock it off, Jim. I really thought you were better than that.

Love,

tristero

It Ain’t Over

by digby

Most of you probably already know this, but there are ten House races still outstanding with razor thin margins. Here’s the run-down from TPM

A bunch of good Dem candidates in very tough districts did amazingly well. It would be great to see a few of them pull it out.

.