Congressional Democrats plan to hold Iraq war hearings on Capitol Hill and around the country, turning an election spotlight on an issue much as the GOP did with immigration during the summer recess.
The Democrats’ will highlight the fact that they intend to go toe-to-toe with Republicans on the issue of national security, believing that this election cycle it can play to their advantage rather than to their detriment as it has in elections past.
And Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), a leading House critic of the war, indicated yesterday that he would give the hearings a degree of bipartisan cover by attending them when he can.
“Any [hearings] up here that I can get to, I’ll attend,” said Jones, who voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq but has since pressed to bring American troops home. “I wish it was my party, the committees in the House, doing the same thing. The American people want answers.”
Jones said he would try to attend the Senate Democratic Policy Committee’s (DPC) first planned hearing on Monday, provided he can make the five-hour drive from his district in time.
Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) also said he would consider taking part in the hearings, which Democrats say will be open to Republican lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol.
“I might take them up on it,” Gutknecht said. “I would certainly consider sending them some written testimony.”
The hearing on Monday, featuring military officers who served in Iraq, will delve into “the policy decisions that led to the current situation in Iraq,” according to Barry Piatt, spokesman for DPC Chairman Byron Dorgan (N.D.).
Democrats said they will follow up that hearing with field hearings around the country at least through November. They argue that Republicans have neglected to provide proper oversight of the war in a number of areas, including postwar planning, troop readiness and care for troops and veterans.
Hopefully there will be a one stop shop that people can go to in order to find out where these field hearings are taking place. I know I’ll be attending if there’s one in my area. I’ll keep you posted on that.
This is important stuff. Iraq is a huge issue and it trumps the GOP fearmongering if we can keep the focus on it.
[I]t only takes 30 seconds or so to see that the Senators have capitualted entirely, that the U.S. will hereafter violate the Geneva Conventions by engaging in Cold Cell, Long Time Standing, etc., and that there will be very little pretense about it. In addition to the elimination of habeas rights in section 6, the bill would delegate to the President the authority to interpret “the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions” “for the United States,” except that the bill itself would define certain “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 to be war crimes.
So tell me, my fellow Americans:
How does it feel knowing that your government will pass laws permitting the violation of the Geneva Conventions against torture?
How does it feel knowing the taxes you pay from money you earned are going towards the salary of legally sanctioned torturers?
How does it feel knowing that the only political party with an organization large enough to stand in opposition to the American fascists in charge of this country’s legislature and executive were actually boasting that they were not going to get involved in one of the most important moral debates of our time?
And how does it feel to have George W. Bush, that paragon of moral probity, mental stability, and well-informed intelligence, granted the legal right to determine what is and isn’t torture?
I’ll tell you how I feel. I am outraged and ashamed.
Kudos to Digby for calling this exactly right from the start. Shame, shame, shame on the cowards in both parties that permitted this disgracefully grotesque farce to happen. This is as inexcusable a stupidity as the neglect that permittted the 9/11 attacks, the idiotic reasoning and intellectual blindness that advocated and executed the Bush/Iraq war, and the failure to prepare for Katrina. What the hell is going on, that a country that prides itself on its heritage of freedom and liberty, that fought such an awful war over the degrading enslavement of human beings – that such a country would vote to permit some of the most repulsive and evil practices human beings are capable of and place the power to do so directly in the hands of a moral midget?
Democrats have put their trust in Senators Graham, McCain and Warner to push back against the White House, and Thursday they signaled that they intended to continue cooperating. “Five years after Sept. 11, it is time to make the tough and smart decisions to give the American people the real security they deserve,” said the Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.
Still, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he would press to change a provision in the proposal that would deny detainees a right to challenge their captivity in court.
If you’d like to ask your Senator to support the Specter-Levin Amendment to preserve habeas corpus, you can go here for information and directions.
Update: Here’s some more of that old time clarity:
On the key issue of detainee treatment that had caused the impasse between the White House and the dissident Republicans, the two sides agreed on a list of specified crimes that would provoke prosecution of CIA interrogators and others. They also agreed that past violations of the Geneva Conventions, an international treaty barring degrading and humiliating treatment of detainees, would not result in criminal or civil legal action.
The White House, for its part, yielded in its demand to adopt, with congressional approval, a restricted definition of its obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. That article requires humane treatment of detainees and bars “violence to life and person,” such as death and mutilation, as well as cruel treatment and “outrages upon personal dignity.”
The compromise language gives the president a dominant — but not exclusive — role in deciding which interrogation methods are permitted by that provision of the treaty. It also prohibits detainees from using the Geneva Conventions to challenge their imprisonment or seek civil damages for mistreatment, as the administration sought.
[…]
The biggest hurdle, Senate sources said, was convincing administration officials that lawmakers would never accept language that allowed Bush to appear to be reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions. Once that was settled, they said, the White House poured most of its energy into defining “cruel or inhuman treatment” that would constitute a crime under the War Crimes Act. The administration wanted the term to describe techniques resulting in “severe” physical or mental pain, but the senators insisted on the word “serious.”
Negotiations then turned to the amount of time that a detainee’s suffering must last before the treatment amounts to a war crime. Administration officials preferred designating “prolonged” mental or physical symptoms, while the senators wanted something milder. They settled on “serious and non-transitory mental harm, which need not be prolonged.”
These definitions appear in a section of the legislation that specifically lists “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions that might bring criminal penalties.
For lesser offenses barred by the Geneva Conventions — those lying between cruelty and minor abuse, putting them at the heart of the intraparty dispute — the draft legislation would give the president explicit authority to interpret “the meaning and application” of the relevant provisions in Common Article 3. It also requires that such interpretations be considered as “authoritative” as other U.S. regulations.
But the language also requires that such interpretations be published, rather than described in secret to a restricted number of lawmakers. That provision was demanded by the dissident lawmakers, who resented the administration’s past efforts to curtail the number of members who were told of its policies. The provision also affirms that Congress and the judiciary can play their customary roles in reviewing the interpretations, a statement that Senate sources say the White House vigorously resisted.
A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said in an interview that Bush essentially got what he asked for in a different formulation that allows both sides to maintain that their concerns were addressed. “We kind of take the scenic route, but we get there,” the official said.
So the good news is that these fine Republicans were all able to sit in Dick Cheney’s Senate office and hash out what “amount of time that a detainee’s suffering must last before the treatment amounts to a war crime” in the last three days. We can sleep better tonight knowing that they decided that the suffering must do “serious and non-transitory mental harm, which need not be prolonged.” Excellent. And now we know that “cruel or inhuman treatment” that would constitute a crime under the War Crimes Act is comprised of “techniques resulting in ‘serious’ physical or mental pain, rather than ‘severe.'” That’s just the kind of “clarity” they’ve been looking for. On with the interrogations.
Oh and they will leave it up to the president to decide if standing shackled naked in a cold room with ice water splashed randomly on you for 72 hours is torture. Or if being forced to walk around on a leash like a dog or have fake menstrual blood smeared all over your face is degrading. (I wonder what he’ll say?)
The best part is that they might let the prisoners see classified evidence used against them that’s been redacted or summarized, nobody who was tortured will be able to sue the government or hold anyone in it legally liable and there’s a nice fat habeas corpus loophole so these embarrassingly innocent people down in Gitmo will stay under wraps.
It’s tough and smart for St John and the Republicans, for sure. For reasonable people, not so much. This is a terrible bill and I don’t think the Democrats will get any benefit from backing it.
Update: The NY Times Editorial Board doesn’t think it’s much of a bill either.
In the event of conflict, America also accepts our responsibility to protect innocent lives in every way possible. We’ll bring food and medicine to the Iraqi people. We’ll help that nation to build a just government, after decades of brutal dictatorship. The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein.
Torture in Iraq is reportedly worse now than it was under deposed president Saddam Hussein, the United Nations’ chief anti-torture expert said Thursday.
Manfred Nowak described a situation where militias, insurgent groups, government forces and others disregard rules on the humane treatment of prisoners.
“What most people tell you is that the situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand,” said Nowak, the global body’s special investigator on torture.
“The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein.”
Nowak, an Austrian law professor, was in Geneva to present a report on detainee conditions at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, as well as to brief the UN Human Rights Council, the global body’s top rights watchdog, on the situation of torture in countries around the world.
He said that some allegations of torture in Iraq he received were undoubtedly credible.
Government forces were among the perpetrators, Nowak said, citing “very serious allegations of torture within the official Iraqi detention centres.
“You have terrorist groups, you have the military, you have police, you have these militias. There are so many people who are actually abducted, seriously tortured and finally killed,” Nowak told reporters at the UN’s European headquarters. “It’s not just torture by the government. There are much more brutal methods of torture you’ll find by private militias.”
Nowak has yet to make an official visit to Iraq, and said such a mission would not be feasible as long as the security situation was so dangerous. He based his comments on interviews with people during a visit to Amman, Jordan and other sources.
“You find these bodies with very heavy and very serious torture marks,” he said. “Many of these allegations, I have no doubt that they are credible.”
The “compromise” will, as I predicted, allow the “tough interrogations” by amending the war crimes act. And they will reportedly create a new JAG office to review classified information and determine if terrorist suspects can see it if it’s being used against them in a trial. We already know they have devised some habeas corpus loophole to keep innocent people imprisoned without any due process.
CIA Director Michael Hayden said…”If this language becomes law, the Congress will have given us the clarity and the support that we need to move forward with a detention and interrogation program that allows us to continue to defend the homeland, attack al-Qaida and protect American and allied lives,” he said in a written message to agency personnel.
The Republicans are now standing shoulder to shoulder having worked this whole thing out — they are strong, they are tough, they are moral, and they are willing to work together to form a compromise that they can all live with. Aren’t they great? This is why we should vote Republican.
Now watch this drive.
Ed Rogers on Hardball said Bush got to look both tough on terror and effective in bringing the senate along. Kweisi Mfume says McCain looks good to Democrats and independents and Bush looks good to Americans in general.
Can anyone in the know explain to me how letting McCain run with this torture debate benefitted the Democrats in any way?
Here’s how the optics look to me:
McCain, the Republican rebel maverick, showed that Republicans are moral and look out for their troops.
Bush, the Republican statesman and leader, showed that he is committed to protecting Americans but that he is willing to listen and compromise when people of good faith express reservations about tactics.
The Democrats showed they are ciphers who don’t have the stones to even say a word when the most important moral issue confronting the government is being debated.
Unless the Dems ready to threaten to filibuster a national security bill a month before an election — which I doubt — I expect that the Republicans are going to rush this through the conference and force through this piece of shit bill in a hurry, just like they forced the AUMF through in October 2002 and give the republicans a big honking “victory” in the GWOT.
The Dems are all going to be twisted into pretzels and look like they have no backbones as they struggle with a united GOP saying that McCain and Huckleberry Graham made sure “the program” is moral and necessary. Vote for it for for the terrorists. So they’ll end up voting for it without getting any benefit from it.
I honestly think it would have been much, much better if they’d have forced their way into the debate and taken a firm stand — if only to show they give a damn. This is a turn-out election and I have a feeling many a Democrat’s stomach will turn as they see this triumph of GOP “leadership” in action. Why bother to vote when the Democrats don’t bother to show up?
The accord between President Bush and Republican Senate leaders announced Thursday afternoon on tribunals for al Qaida detainees at Guantanamo Navy Base sets up litmus-test votes both in the House and Senate next week.
These votes fit into the Republican strategy of scheduling showdowns that will highlight differences between the two parties in the run-up to the Nov. 7 elections.
The effect may be to put Democrats in close races on the spot — Democrats such as Sen. Bob Menendez in New Jersey and Rep. Sherrod Brown, who’s running for the Senate seat now held by Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio.
Just a few hours before the deal was announced, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid had held a press conference in which he mocked GOP leaders for being unable to come up with an agreement on detainee interrogation and tribunals.
He scoffed at the Republican “do nothing Congress.”
I don’t know for sure, but it sure looks to me as if Reid got rolled by McCain.
But now it seems likely that Republican leaders will have at least two significant bills to vote on next week, a Mexican border fence bill and the detainee tribunal bill.
Who won? Who lost?
[…]
Political winners, assuming the detainee deal is drafted and goes to a floor vote in the the House and Senate:
* Bush: In return for making some concessions, he gets clear guidance for CIA interrogators on what they can and can’t do to detainees and he ends an intra-party impasse. * McCain: Conservative commentators had attacked him for blocking Bush on the detainee tribunals but now he can resume his courtship of the GOP rank and file as he looks to the 2008 presidential nomination.
Probable losers: Civil libertarians who may still object to the tribunals and Democrats who have been laying low on the issue, apparently assuming that McCain-Bush impasse would prevent any deal. “They painted themselves into a corner,” said GOP Senate aide Don Stewart. “They said, ‘I’m with McCain,’ and now McCain has reached an agreement.”
Goddamit, I told you so. I couldn’t be more unhappy that I was right.
Clarification: When I wrote “why bother to vote” I meant it in a purely rhetorical sense. Of course you must vote and you must vote for Democrats. I don’t believe they are playing this well in a turnout mid-term election but we simply have no choice but to try to stop the people who are actually ordering this torture and degradation.
Send your representatives letters and let them know what you think. But vote! Unless you’re leaving the country the only choice you have is to fight.
I’m waiting on the edge of my seat to hear what the “bipartisan compromise” on the torture and detainee legislation between Rebel McCain and the white house is. The one thing I noticed in the tiny bit of the press conference I just saw on CNN in passing was that this great “deal” didn’t include even one Democrat.
Can we all see how horrible the optics of that are?
So far, when it comes to the nation’s policy on torture and terrorist detainees, the Democrats are not just soft, they are completely irrelevant. I’m not sure that’s a great idea — but waddo I know?
My internet service has been disrupted since last night and my laptop is on the fritz so I’ve been offline until this moment — where I am blogging from the beautiful new Santa Monica public library.
The place is crammed full of people, in the stacks, online at the 50 or more modern computers that are available to the public or sitting comfortably in easy chairs in this free wifi environment with their laptops — some of them ancient but still servicable. There are a whole bunch of kids in the great children’s sections being taught how to read and love books. And there are a ton of elderly who are hanging out in a nice peaceful, comfortable environment in the presence of other people instead of sitting all alone.
Can I just say how valuable these kinds of public services are to a community and how much those who are usually lucky enough to be able to afford all these luxuries like broadband or wi-fi or new computers take such things for granted? This is the type of thing our tax dollars pay for and when we “starve the beast” it’s the first thing that goes. Yet without it we will further stratify out society and make it impossible for a vast number of people to be productive, informed, connected citizens.
This is one of those great examples of important government functions that Bill Sher suggests we talk about in his book “Wait! Don’t Move To Canada.” So I’m talking about it.
Today, I’m one of those people who needs this public service. I’m damned glad to have it and proud to pay my taxes to support it.
(Of course, this is Santa Monica, so I can buy a delicious soy latte right here too. Is this a great blue state or what?)
When President Bush and his advisers decided to allow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran into the country to address the United Nations, their strategy was simple: containment.
There would be no visits to other cities where he could denounce Washington or question Israel’s legitimacy. There would be no opportunities, beyond his speech to the General Assembly, to turn questions about his nuclear intentions into repeated diatribes about America’s nuclear arsenal.
It turned out that Mr. Ahmadinejad had a Plan B.
The scope of his determination to dominate not only the airwaves but the debate became evident yesterday evening, when he entered a hotel conference room on the East Side with a jaunty smile, a wave and an air of supreme confidence.
Sounds to me like the only person trying “to dominate not only the airwaves but the debate” was George W. Bush who did everything he could to, in the Times’s own words practice “containment” of Ahmadinejad.
The issue of whether it was a good or bad thing to provide Ahmadinejad an opportunity to yak it up in public is a separate one from the issue of whether the Times is once again kowtowing to Bush propaganda directives. It is perfectly consistent to be revolted by Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial and be horrified by the notion that the American media has once again capitulated to pressure from the Bush administration. I may address the former in a day or so [I do so below in the second update], but the notion that the newspaper of record would report, with a straight face, that Bush tried and succeeded in totally suppressing Ahmadinejad’s access to American media, but characterize the Iranian president, and not Bush, as the one trying to dominate the debate, is simply bizarre. And freaky. And very scary.
The prospect of living through a repeat of 2002/2003, when it was simply impossible to determine the truth from any American media source of influence – my God, please, not again.
[Update: I want to add that I know the people at the Times are not stupid and probably did see the contradiction, yet chose to print Bush propaganda spin anyway. Why? I suspect word has come down from above that discussion is over (not that there ever was any in the way Americans understand it), the die is cast, it’s happening. Bush is not planning to go to war, but is going to war with Iran, and with that in mind the Times doesn’t wish to appear to be coddling this season’s black hat.
Don’t bother praying that the Bush/Iran war will be short. It won’t be. As to what to do, I haven’t the foggiest idea. But I think I can detect the outline of what Bush is up to. Unlike 2002, there won’t be some 7 months of what Rice laughingly called “diplomacy.” It was, from Bush’s standpoint, a pointless, useless, exercise and a waste of time. Who says Bush doesn’t learn from his mistakes? This time the official New New Product launch seems, in a word, imminent.
And man, there is nothing that would please me more than, two months from now, for all of you to write me and accuse me of being entirely wrong, irresponsible, and alarmist.]
[Update: After some serious thought on the issue, informed as always by the commenters here, I think I’ve sorted out what I think about providing Ahmanidejad with a platform in the American press. It is a difficult call and I may change my mind as I think about it some more and learn more.
Ahmanidejad’s Holocaust denial is odious and inflammatory, but that is all it is. It is not fact-based, of course, and therefore, it is not news and not interesting and should be noted, en passant, unless directly relevant to other issues. Please note the “directly.” I am not saying to “hide” his views; I’m saying that there is no newsworthy reason to harp on them (by the way, several commenters urged me to consider that Ahmanidejad’s been poorly translated. I’m sure he has, and I’ve read some of Juan Cole’s posts on the subject and while it’s important to understand exactly what he’s saying, the gist is perfectly clear. Whether Ahmanidejad’s a properly understood anti-Semite or a misunderstood one really is not the point: it is difficult either way to make a case that he likes Jews (let alone Israel) or even that he’s merely indifferent to Jews (and yes, I suspect you will let me have it in comments, but you will have to show me stronger evidence than a misconstrued remark to convince me Ahmanidejad is not anti-semitic as well as anti-Zionist). What is germane is whether his anti-semitism directly informs his remarks and actions on issues critical to Iran’s self-interest, and the world’s, including Israel.)
While his Holocaust denial has neither truth nor value as news, Ahmanidejad’s view of the present world situation, and Iran’s place in it, is an extremely important view for Americans to have unexpurgated access to. Therefore, Americans need to hear quite a bit from Ahmanidejad and other Iranians. Journalists, however, would be derelict if they reported only his most inflammatorily stupid remarks, and neglected to report also what he says about crucial issues to US/Iranian/Middle East relations.
While this clearly makes sense to me, there are others who feel quite strongly that permitting Ahmanidejad a platform to say anything to the American people tacitly condones his anti-semitism. It’s not an entirely bogus argument – it’s quite true that providing proponents of “intelligent design” creationism a microphone imbues them with a false credibility they don’t deserve. A similar argument could be made with Ahmanidejad.
However, it’s not Ahmanidejad we must hear from. It is the president of Iran who happens, right now, to be Ahmanidejad. The benefits of hearing from the president of Iran trumps any concerns about elevating his presumed status through exposure on CNN and the networks. When and if Ahmanidejad is again an anonymous nobody with no power or influence, then it is no longer necessary to listen to anything he has to say. Before then, we simply have an obligation to listen.
“Would you say the same if this was 1934 and his name was Hitler?” Of course I would. Listening to Hitler wasn’t the problem. It was refusing to understand that Hitler was Hitler that led to catastrophe. Hitler both lied and was simultaneously quite candid about his intentions, but the only way to separate one from the other was to study Hitler and that took, among other things, listening to and reading him. If Ahmanidejad has even the slightest chance of harming the world as badly as Hitler did, it behooves us to learn as much as we can about him. And by us, I don’t mean “the Government,” I mean you and me. It is our duty to be informed and vote for informed representatives who will take our informed opinions into account. The fact that this is true only in principle -and non-existent under Bush – doesn’t relieve us of our duties as citizens, however.
Here’s another argument that could be made in support of keeping Ahmanidejad from conducting interviews with the press and others. While many folks seem to have forgotten this, many former hostages believe Ahmanidejad was directly involved with the Iranian hostage crisis. When the story broke, I took one look at the pictures and felt that it was a virtual certainty he was one of the captors.
While I fully understand, and partially share, the revulsion of those who were held hostage in Iran by Ahmanidejad and his buddies, I’m afraid that, like it or not, his position as a powerful Iranian makes it imperative to hear from him.
But again, not everything he says is interesting. His opinions on the Holocaust are as batty as Crazy Mel’s and don’t deserve news-space. His call to debate Bush is hilarious. But there are hundreds of questions that could be asked, hundreds of things he could be told about the situation in the US, all of which might be helpful in lessening tensions.
So Blitzer interviews the codpiece today and actually makes some news.
But before that, here’s what we heard:
Blitzer: Osama bin laden is still at large. Ayman al Zawahiri is still at large. What went wrong?
Bush: (agitated) A lot went right. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, if we can get a good bill out of the senate and the house is gonna go on trial. Ramzi bin al-Sibh. Abu Zubaydah
Blitzer: The main guys are still at large
Bush: (more agitated) Well, no question Osama bin Laden is at large, but the men who ordered the attack ann about 75-85% of the Al Qaeda that was involved in the planning and operating the attacks are in jus…
Blitzer: But the United States is the most powerful country in the world
Bush: (pissed) … can I just finish?
Blitzer: Why can’t we find these guys?
Bush: (red-faced) Wolf, Wolf. Thank you. Give me a chance to finish… Uuuh…
Osama bin Laden is in hiding.
And we’re still spending a lot of time trying to find him. But the key thing the American people have gotta know is that security comes not only with getting him which I’m convinced we will, but also doing other things to protect ’em. One is to dismantle Al Waeda. Two is to listen to phone calls of Al Qaeda calling the United States and responding to that. Three is to get information so we can prevent attack.
Getting bin Laden is important but doing, putting thins in place, putting procedures in place that protect you is equally important and we’re doin’ both.
Did everyone get that? Bin laden is in hiding which is why we can’t find him. And we’ll put “KSM” on trial if Bush can get a “good bill” out of the senate. Otherwise … he’ll have to keep him at Gitmo forever without a trial
It’s becoming more and more evident that Bush’s war on terrorism consists of getting the country sucked into middle east quagmires and institutionalizing random torture, endless detention and warrentless wiretapping of Americans. I feel so safe.
Meanwhile, Bush went on to say that he think Musharref is a good guy who wants to bring Al Qaeda to justice because they tried to kill him. Several times. (This is how the decider thinks of all global politics — it’s all about the leaders’ personal feelings.) Blitzer asked if there were others in Pakistan who might not have the same committment. Bush answered:
Eeeeee…maybe. Maybe. There no queastion there’s a kind of hostile territory, the remote regions of Pakistan that makes it, uh, easier for somebody to hide. But we’re on the hunt. We’ll get him.
Blitzer asked if he would give the order to kill or capture bin Laden if they had actionable intelligence that he was in Pakistan. Steely-eyed rocket man looked in the camera and said “absolutely.”
Musharref was not amused, apparently. He was asked about this at a press conference and said:
We would not like to allow that at all. We will do it ourselves. We would like to do it ourselves.
Bush knew he wasn’t supposed to say that but he couldn’t help himself. This was the correct talking point, from his press conference last week:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier this week, you told a group of journalists that you thought the idea of sending special forces to Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden was a strategy that would not work.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Now, recently you’ve also —
THE PRESIDENT: Because, first of all, Pakistan is a sovereign nation.
Let’s all get the laughter out of our system, ok? Ok.
Continue:
Q Well, recently you’ve also described bin Laden as a sort of modern day Hitler or Mussolini. And I’m wondering why, if you can explain why you think it’s a bad idea to send more resources to hunt down bin Laden, wherever he is?
THE PRESIDENT: We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question. They were asking me about somebody’s report, well, special forces here — Pakistan — if he is in Pakistan, as this person thought he might be, who is asking the question — Pakistan is a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we’ve got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.
Secondly, the best way to find somebody who is hiding is to enhance your intelligence and to spend the resources necessary to do that; then when you find him, you bring him to justice. And there is a kind of an urban myth here in Washington about how this administration hasn’t stayed focused on Osama bin Laden. Forget it. It’s convenient throw-away lines when people say that. We have been on the hunt, and we’ll stay on the hunt until we bring him to justice, and we’re doing it in a smart fashion, Richard. We are. And I look forward to talking to President Musharraf.
Look, he doesn’t like al Qaeda. They tried to kill him. And we’ve had a good record of bringing people to justice inside of Pakistan, because the Paks are in the lead. They know the stakes about dealing with a violent form of ideological extremists. And so we will continue on the hunt. And we’ve been effective about bringing to justice most of those who planned and plotted the 9/11 attacks, and we’ve still got a lot of pressure on them. The best way to protect the homeland is to stay on the offense and keep pressure on them.
See, “the Paks” are supposed to be in the lead. Bush just couldn’t force himself to say that again when Blitzer cornered him on the issue. And Blitzer cornered him on the issue because this weird stuff about Waziristan and Pakistan’s deal with al Qaeda is very hard to square with our alleged committment to fighting the next Hitlerstalinfascists.
How Bush is able to get away with playing the Codpiece card when he’s obviously completely stymied with Afghanistan, Pakistan and al Qaeda is beyond me. It takes guts to do it, you have to give him that. And in the six weeks before an election in the United States of the 21st century, guts are the only thing that matters.
Bill Sher of Liberal Oasis has a new book and it’s a great guide for those who are looking for common sense arguments to use as an activist and in your every day life.
Here’s an example:
Promote the Three R’s of Liberal Government
Don’t refer to “the government” and feed the image of a distant, oppressive entity. Always speak of “our government,” to accurately paint government as an extension of the people that we control and direct.
Don’t accept that the core debate between Democrats and Republicans is whether government should be big or small. Define liberal government as representative, responsive, and responsible and conservative government as elitist, callous and reckless.
In conversations about politics, cite examples from your community where our government makes a positivie difference in people’s lives, such as when veterans receive good medical care from a veterans Administration facility or children get access to the Internet at school or in a library thanks to federal funding. At the same time, point out instances where the lack of government involvement made a situation worse, such as when electricity deregulation increased rates and degraded service.
Don’t leave it to anti-government conservatives to criticize our government in places where it is not working well. The more we lead the charge for reforming ineffective government, the more credibnility we will have when proposing effective government solutions and the harder it will be for conservatives to exploit those examples and fan overall distrust of government.
The book is full of down-to-earth advice like this as well as a thorough analysis of our goals and prospects. And it’s written in the clear and entertaining prose you find on Liberal Oasis every day.
I’m sure you already know that Bill Sher is one of the sharpest bloggers around. His insights are always invaluable and this book very nicely distills his best stuff into one inspiring, but practical, guidebook.
