While Petraeus testifies about the success of the surge, and the need to continue the surge, Colin Powell has this to say:


You can surge all of the American troops you want, but they can’t stop this. Suppose I’m a battalion commander. My troops ask, “What do I do today, boss?” “Let’s go fight the Shia militias!” “What do I do tomorrow?” “Let’s go fight the Sunni insurgents!” “What do I do the day after tomorrow?” “Let’s go chase Al Qaeda!” “What do we do the day after that?” “We’re going to guard streets!” Our kids are fantastic. But this is not sustainable.

110th Congress, day 218

Well, now seems like as good a time as any to revive this little blog, no?

I left off resolved to elation after the election of the 110th Congress ended up a sweep for the Democratic Party, which took both houses.

How, then, is the mood today?

Well, this congress has had some notable accomplishments to date, there's no denying. In no particular order:
They exposed Alberto Gonzales for the dissembling, bumbling, torture-defending evildoer he seems to be.

And they also cited Harriet Miers and Joshua B. Bolten for contempt of Congress for refusing to testify regarding the US Attorney firing scandal. (Though of course it's Gonzales who must enforce the citation, so that may go nowhere. . . .)

A particularly serious summary, from the Daily Show:



One more positive before I move on: the Congress also passed an excellent extension of health care coverage for children, and the Senate even did so with a veto-proof margin. Bravo.


On the other hand
The farm bill passed by the House is actually worse than what President Bush suggested, which seems impossibly frustrating and horrible to me. Subsidies for wealthy farmers? Protectionist policies? What the h**l is the point of electing these people if they're just going to repeat their forerunners' idiotic policies?

Support seems strong, also, for this new 'relationship' with India, wherein they are granted access to U.S. nuclear fuel and equipment. A serious, and seriously harmful strike against non-proliferation. Nice opinion piece in this week's Economist, which explains the foolishness of this plan.

And now just the other day, this newer, better Congress made what should clearly be illegal wiretaps legal. Sheesh.

Good Afternoon!

I just heard that Rumsfeld was fired.

So I'll spend a little time elated.

Well played, all.

Good Morning?

Here's a screen-capture from cnn.com taken at about 1:00am (CST):

does this result hold?
Do the Dems take Montana and Missouri?
Will Webb survive a seemingly inevitable recount?

And if so, what direction for this new Democratic Congress?
Both houses--seems quite possible right now, though much precinct reporting (and probably much legislating) remains outstanding. . . .

How did it happen?
Was it Iraq?
Perhaps "frustration and unease"?

Or, on a less jubilant note, was it that the Dems ran candidates opposed to abortion rights, in favor of the war in Iraq, and not really all that different in the end than those whom they replace?

(Someone's got to be disappointed by this (apparent) sweep; might as well be me.)

'06 '08

Barack Obama admitted last week that he was considering making a run for the white house in 2008. It's ordinary for Obama to consider this, it's extraordinary for him to admit this. I know, I know, the booksales. But I have to think he's written the book as much to position himself for a run as he has for the money.



While there are plenty of other credible Dems sniffing around the '08 trough, Obama does make for an intriguing candidate. He's a genuine star without all the negatives of Hillary. He was consistently opposed to the Iraq war. And, as he has argued, he offers a break from the baby boomer grudge matches that have held politics captive for two decades. Re-litigating the sixties - I believe that's how he puts it.

While I am bullish on Edwards, and think that Biden and Clark are tops when it comes to national security/foreign policy, Obama appears the most promising at this very early stage (almost a pre-stage) of sussing out the talent for '08.

While Obama's experience is an issue, I am not being cute when I say that Senate experience is less than crucial to both a candidate and a chief executive. If Obama runs in '08, he will have almost the exact same amount of experience as FDR had in 1932. FDR had been govenor for 4 years, secretary of the navy for 4 years, and state senator for 2 years. Obama will have been senator for 4 years, and a state senator for 7 years.

I think it's Obama's moment, and he'd better strike. I don't understand the downside. If he falls, he can try again - John McCain, anyone? I think the bigger risk is in letting the moment pass, as Mario Cuomo and Bill Bradley managed to do in 1992. Bradley felt ready in 2000, but people had moved on.

And he's speaking my language on Iraq:

"I thought this whole venture was, was poorly conceived. Not just poorly executed, but poorly conceived. I think it was a mistake for us to go in. I felt that once we had gone in, it made sense for us to try to make the best of the situation.

What we’ve seen is such a rapid deterioration of the situation. There was an article in The New York Times on Saturday where the government isn’t even venturing into some neighborhoods in Baghdad to pick up bodies. And the—a Iraqi was quoted as saying, “If a government can’t come to pick up the bodies because it’s too afraid, is it really a government?” And I think that’s the question that we have to ask ourselves right now.

There are no good options in Iraq. There are bad options and worse options." -Meet the Press

He went on to say flatly - no equivocations, that we should begin a phased withdrawal by the end of 2006, maybe sooner.

This - plus his personal candor - bodes well for a pol who has appeared almost too cautious in his first 2yrs in the senate. On his personal candor, we turn to a sit down he had with New Yorker editor David Remnick:

"Oh, look, you know, when I was a kid, I inhaled. Frequently. That was the point."

In the same sit down, he could be off the cuff eloquent:

"You go to a little farm community, and somebody’s concerned about Darfur, or you go to—I write about going to a South Side church with a whole black inner-city congregation and somebody asks you about farm policy, and what you realize is that, in fits and starts, and very imperfectly, when the country is engaged we really do have the best form of government yet conceived."

Enough on Obama and '08. What's going to happen next Tuesday?

My prediction: Dems take House, fall just short in Senate. The only surprise for me would be if 1) Republicans win the House 2) Dems win the Senate 3) Dems win the House by extremely large margins.

Of the big three Senate races - Missouri, Virginia, Tennesee - which will swing Democrat? Any?

Will the Dems hold on to New Jersey and Maryland? The most recent polls suggest they will, but the Republicans probably have the better candidates in these races, so it's hard to say.

Beyond Iraq, Foley, the debt, etc, the Dems have done a few basic things well. The first that comes to mind is fighting back. Dems haven't been this feisty since '92. They attack, and respond to attacks quickly. They actually have swagger, and on national security to boot.

The second factor is the strong recruiting jobs done by Emmanuel and Schumer. Menendez and Cardin notwithstanding, most of the candidates in the competitive races really fit the profile of their districts/states. I'm glad that Schumer and Emmanuel have dropped the checkbox/litmus style of recruiting candidates. They have moderate and even conservative Dems running in the South and West. These candidates may be more right wing than me, but it's important to get as big a tent as possible - guys like me are already voting Dem.

Oh, and those stories running everywhere in the last 48 hours about Rove single handedly pulling this election off through optimism, genius, and GOTV? (You have your math, I have the math) Well, I think Josh Marshall has his number:

"The answer is really, really simple: nothing. There's not anything he knows. In fact, he's not even confident. It's a bluff.

It's the bandwagon effect. Psyche out the other side. Act like you're winning and you'll charge up your activists/voters and demoralize the folks on the other side. Mainly, get the press to believe your hype and they'll do the charging up and demoralizing for you.

So my point is not to make anyone think this is all in the bag. It's not. It is only to get people to finally drop out of the Rove (anti-)cult and realize he's seeing the same thing everyone else is seeing. He's just putting on a game face because that's what he needs to do to do his job."

On the Ropes

This week North Korea tested a nuclear weapon. Johns Hopkins University says that 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the 2003 invasion. You know it's a bad week for Bush when these headlines are a welcome change from the neverending Foley media circus.


From Newsweek:

"And so, here we are. North Korea has exploded a small nuclear device. Iran is well on its way to developing the technology to build one if it wants (while saying it doesn’t). And, yes, the regime in Iraq has changed, but the failed state that replaced it has become an infinitely more dangerous terrorist training ground, a clearing house for corruption and a cloaca breeding international radicalism." - Christopher Dickey




I honestly had no intention of taking on John McCain again anytime soon, but he went and misbehaved this week.

McCain is courageously blaming Clinton for North Korea's nuclear capabilities. It's one thing to debate the different levels of responsibility between the administrations over 9/11, an event a mere 8 months in to Bush's presidency. How long does Bush get a pass for national security blunders? Six years?

Fred Kaplan takes the bait:

"Sen. John McCain has skidded his Straight Talk Express off the highway into a gopher's ditch of slime. The moment came Tuesday, when he responded to charges by Sen. Hillary Clinton, his potential rival in the 2008 presidential election, that George W. Bush bears some responsibility for North Korea's newborn status as a nuclear-armed power.

McCain's version of history goes beyond "revisionism" to outright falsification. It is the exact opposite of what really happened.
Did Clinton "reward" them for doing these things, as McCain claims? Far from it. Not only did he push the U.N. Security Council to consider sanctions, he also ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draw up plans to send 50,000 additional troops to South Korea—bolstering the 37,000 already there—along with more than 400 combat jets, 50 ships, and several battalions of Apache helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, multiple-launch rockets, and Patriot air-defense missiles. He also sent in an advance team of 250 soldiers to set up logistical headquarters for the influx of troops and gear.

He sent an explicit signal that removing the fuel rods would cross a "red line." Several of his former aides insist that if North Korea had crossed that line, he would have launched an airstrike on the Yongbyon reactor, even knowing that it might lead to war.

This combination of sticks and carrots led Kim Il-Sung to call off his threats—the fuel rods weren't removed, the inspectors weren't kicked out—and, a few months later, to the signing of the Agreed Framework.

McCain called the accord a "failure." This appraisal isn't quite as dead wrong as his claim that Clinton did nothing but toss Kim flowers. But it's highly misleading, to say the least.

The accord fell apart, but not for the reasons that McCain and others have suggested. First, the U.S.-led consortium never provided the light-water reactors. (So much for the wild claims I've heard lately that North Korea got the bomb through Clinton-supplied technology.) Congress never authorized the money; the South Koreans, who were led by a harder-line government than the one in power now, scuttled the deal after a North Korean spy submarine washed up on their shores.

Second, when President George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, he made it clear, right off, that the Agreed Framework was dead and that he had no interest in further talks with the North Korean regime; his view was that you don't negotiate with evil, you defeat it or wait for it to crumble.

Third, a few months into Bush's term, evidence mounted that the North Koreans had been … not quite violating the Agreed Framework but certainly maneuvering around it. Confronted by U.S. intelligence data in October 2002, Pyongyang officials admitted that they'd been enriching uranium—an alternative route (though much slower than plutonium) to getting a bomb.

It should be noted that the bomb that the North Koreans set off on Sunday was apparently a plutonium bomb, not a uranium bomb. In other words, it was a bomb made entirely in Bush's time, not at all in Clinton's.
The rest is history. John McCain would do well to read up on it sometime."



John Kerry sets McCain straight:

"He must be trying to burnish his credentials for the nomination process," said Kerry, who labeled McCain's comments "flat politics and incorrect."

"The truth is the Clinton administration knew full well they didn't have a perfect agreement. But at least they were talking. At least we had inspectors going in and we knew where the (nuclear fuel) rods were. This way, we don't know where the rods are, the rods are gone. There are no inspectors. Ask any American which way is better," Kerry said."

Josh Marshall makes the case in the simplest of terms:

"Failure" =1994-2002 -- Era of Clinton 'Agreed Framework': No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.

"Success" = 2002-2006 -- Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated.

Face it. They ditched an imperfect but working policy. They replaced it with nothing. Now North Korea is a nuclear state.

Facts hurt. So do nukes."


Former Defense Secretary William Perry's devastating blow by blow of the Clinton and Bush tactics toward North Korea:

"North Korea's declared nuclear bomb test program will increase the incentives for other nations to go nuclear, will endanger security in the region and could ultimately result in nuclear terrorism. While this test is the culmination of North Korea's long-held aspiration to become a nuclear power, it also demonstrates the total failure of the Bush administration's policy toward that country. For almost six years this policy has been a strange combination of harsh rhetoric and inaction.

The Clinton administration declared in 1994 that if North Korea reprocessed, it would be crossing a "red line," and it threatened military action if that line was crossed. The North Koreans responded to that pressure and began negotiations that led to the Agreed Framework. The Agreed Framework did not end North Korea's aspirations for nuclear weapons, but it did result in a major delay. For more than eight years, under the Agreed Framework, the spent fuel was kept in a storage pond under international supervision.

Then in 2002, the Bush administration discovered the existence of a covert program in uranium, evidently an attempt to evade the Agreed Framework. This program, while potentially serious, would have led to a bomb at a very slow rate, compared with the more mature plutonium program. Nevertheless, the administration unwisely stopped compliance with the Agreed Framework. In response the North Koreans sent the inspectors home and announced their intention to reprocess. The administration deplored the action but set no "red line." North Korea made the plutonium . . .

The attractive alternatives are behind us."

He could be talking about Iraq. In fact, on a number of issues, crises, and challenges, the attractive alternatives are behind us. Six years of corruption, incompetence, and neglect will do that.

Robert Farley of Tapped:

"On the domestic front, the Republicans have settled on their narrative; Clinton did it. The point man here is John McCain, who, as Brad Plumer notes, is making noises that seem to indicate that he would attack North Korea if he were president. This is the perfect political opportunity for McCain. He gets to act hawkish without paying the cost of actually launching a disastrous war. The hearts of his right wing critics, those who believe the problem with neoconservatism isn't that it failed but that it was never tried, are no doubt aflutter. Liberal hawks who hold to the incompetence dodge will also be excited by the prospect of a hawkish president who's possibly somewhat less inept than George W. Bush. Centrist liberals have rather a history of seeing the McCain that they want rather than the one who actually exists, and in the process of swooning they may be willing to excuse his more indefensible statements as just "what he needs to do to win the Republican primary"."

Obama Watch

Jonathan Alter has a piece on why Barack may want to go ahead and jump in while the water's fine. Ezra Kline isn't so sure.

Two Warners from Virginia made news this week. Today, Mark Warner announced he won't seek the presidency in 2008. Most commentary notes that the space he staked out (to the right of Hillary) was getting smaller. The big beneficiary is not Hillary, but John Edwards - another youngish Southerner who wisely has gone left of Clinton.

Sen. John Warner gave the Dems a boost and the White House fits with this assessment from his latest trip to Iraq:

"The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee warned Thursday that the situation in Iraq was “drifting sideways” and said that the United States should consider a “change of course” if violence did not diminish soon." -New York Times

The upshot of all this is don't count on moderate Republicans to provide oversight. Hagel, Warner, McCain and others sometimes make noises about defying White House policy, but they rarely get results. Maybe it's not their fault - maybe there aren't enough senate moderates to make a difference. Regardless, the only way to achieve meaningful oversight in the House or Senate, is to vote Democratic and put Republicans in the minority status. That's what November is about, not whose plan is better for Iraq, or other calamaties - do all congressmen need a plan for Iraq?- no this November is about repudiating the last six years, bringing back Congress' traditional role of oversight by supporting Democratic candidates.

Rep. Harold Ford put it simply:

``If you want to stay the course, I'm not your guy,'' Ford said. ``If you believe America is better than what they've given us this past six years, then I ask for your vote.''

He seems to be making an impression:

Ford's candidacy is going over well with voters such as Steve Pettyjohn, 45, a local contractor who voted for Ronald Reagan in the 1980s but says he is backing Ford because there are "no checks and balances" in Washington now that Republicans control the entire government. -The Baltimore Sun

Left or center, withdraw or redeploy, all Dems can make this simple case: Change vs. more of the same. Do you want a rubber stamp, or have you had enough?

October Surprises

I don't think much analysis is needed about the events of the last week. We are watching a full scale implosion of the majority party. Just two years ago Rove's dreams of making Republicans a permanent majority seemed all but inevitable. But the electorate is fickle; they treated Social Security "Reform" like it was the bubonic plague. Bush's base revolted over Harriet Miers. The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan deteriorated sharply. And then Katrina.

Katrina highlighted the incompentency and neglect of the Bush Administration. The drowning of a beloved American city was harder to ignore than the slow motion disaster of Iraq. Foley-gate is this year's Katrina, but for the House of Representatives (they're on the ballot this year - not Bush - another reason for this scandal to sting) It's a more sensational picture of decadence than a million Duke Cunninghams. Oh, yeah, and when Foley isn't the headline, it's Bob Woodward and his new book, State of Denial. The Republicans have tons of dough, and the electorate is always fickle, but this looks like a tipping point to me.

At the very least, this scandal has provided great quotes.

MSNBC's David Schuster on Hardball:

"Every Republican that we spoke to today said this has almost guaranteed that the Republicans are not going to keep control of Congress."

Senate candidate Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn):

"I'm not going to take a lecture on morality from a party that took hush money from a child predator."

Chris Matthews:

"This is a stink bomb of high megatonage, I think you‘d agree."

"You know, Chuck, it reminded me of Jack D. Ripper in “Dr. Strangelove.” He starts talking about precious bodily fluids as the cause for the world‘s problems. What is this talk about George Soros in the middle of a sex scandal in the House?"

Nancy Pelosi:

"Drain the swamp."

Paul Begala:

"Most normal people, even political people, react to this like moms and dads. I’m a dad. Somebody sends an email like that to my kid, they are going to deal with the law firm of Smith & Wesson, OK? It ain’t going to go to no Page Board."

Keith Olbermann was trembling as he lashed out at President Bush last night:

"While the leadership in Congress has self-destructed over the revelations of an unmatched, and unrelieved, march through a cesspool ... The president of the United States — unbowed, undeterred and unconnected to reality — has continued his extraordinary trek through our country rooting out the enemies of freedom: the Democrats.

Yesterday at a fundraiser for an Arizona congressman, Mr. Bush claimed, quote, “177 of the opposition party said, ‘You know, we don’t think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.’”

The hell they did.

One hundred seventy-seven Democrats opposed the president’s seizure of another part of the Constitution.

Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn’t be listening to the conversations of terrorists.

It defies belief that this president and his administration could continue to find new unexplored political gutters into which they could wallow . . .

Mr. Cheney lives on, in defiance, and spreads—around him and before him—darkness, like some contagion of fear.

They are never wrong, and they never regret -- admirable in a French torch singer, cataclysmic in an American leader.

Mr. President, you want to preserve a political party’s power. And obviously you’ll sell this country out, to do it . . . Please, sir, do not throw this country’s principles away because your lies have made it such that you can no longer differentiate between the terrorists and the critics."

Even former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough piled on:

"From the White House to Capitol Hill, where late-breaking news in the Foley firestorm with new developments in a sex scandal that will bring a lurid end to the Republican Party‘s 12-year monopoly on Capitol Hill.

The explosive new charges have all but eclipsed Speaker Denny Hastert‘s press conference where the embattled GOP head refused to step down. Hastert said he accepted responsibility, but only after telling “The Chicago Tribune” earlier that the GOP sex scandal was the blame of ABC News, the Democratic Party and George Soros.

Harry Truman, Mr. Hastert is not."