Surely today's a good day, no?

Finally a positive story about the US that's on top of the BBC site: the Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration's plans for military tribunals at Guantánamo are illegal.

Here's what I'd call the money quote, from section VII of the Opinion of the Court (written by Justice Stevens):
We have assumed, as we must, that the allegations made in the Government’s charge against Hamdan are true. We have assumed, moreover, the truth of the message implicit in that charge—viz., that Hamdan is a dangerous individual whose beliefs, if acted upon, would cause great harm and even death to innocent civilians, and who would act upon those beliefs if given the opportunity. It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the Government’s power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities in order to prevent such harm. But in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction.

Bravo.

Full text of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld available here.

Finding Their Voice

It looks as though movers and shakers in the Democratic party have been taking heed of Truth Will Out's suggestions. As we were debating the various Iraq positions of potential '08 candidates, they were hashing it out on the senate floor. And as we were discussing what direction or issues to push, one likely candidate outside of the Senate started pushing big ideas:

John Edwards is pushing one issue that might satisfy both Peter Beinart & Michael Tomasky (and yancy & me). Poverty is on his mind and his pitch may make him a favorite of the labor movement. Watch Edwards talk about his plan here.

From the National Journal:

"Like JFK challenging America to land a man on the moon, a national goal of eradicating poverty will sharpen our focus, marshal our resources and at the end of the day, bring out our best."

“Besides, we need a goal. America will never get close to eliminating poverty until we set our sights and commit to try."



And not only does he have a big idea, he's letting it all hang out on Iraq:

Gordon Fischer, former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, who isn't aligned with any presidential campaign, says Edwards has ``great support'' in Iowa. ``He has phoned folks here and e-mailed folks here and done guest editorials in the Des Moines Register,'' Fischer said. ``He is working it. That pays off.''

Fischer said the Iraq war is very important to the Democratic activists who dominate the Iowa caucuses, and ``Edwards' apology made a big difference to Democrats here.''

Fischer was referring to a Nov. 13, 2005, opinion piece Edwards wrote for the Washington Post that began, ``I was wrong.'' He went on to say that his 2002 Senate vote authorizing President George W. Bush to use force in Iraq was a mistake, and ``I take responsibility for that mistake.''

Yesterday, Edwards called for the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. ``We need to be getting out,'' Edwards said in the interview. He said all combat troops should be withdrawn ``within 12 to 18 months.'' - Bloomberg news.

Senate Dems Speak Out

Last week the Democrats were trapped in a phony House debate on Iraq. This week, Senate Democrats took advantage of the unpopular war by uniting under the broad policy of what I'll call "Something's got to give." There were many more votes for Carl Levin's resolution which set no dates for a withdrawal/re-deployment than there were for John Kerry's amendment which stated the troops should be home within a year.

There were compelling cases made on both sides, and much of the media is playing up the divisions in the party. But I think this week has been good for Democrats. Cards are being laid on the table, positions are being tested, and the floor debates have put strong criticism of the war in the spotlight:

"The Republicans in the Senate stand alone in insisting on 'no plan and no end,' " Harry Reid said."

"“Democrats have a plan to begin to leave Iraq, but leave with our interests intact – it is not simply a phased withdrawal. The Administration has no plan. All they are offering is more of the same. Democrats have an end game, Republicans still have an open-ended commitment.

“There may be differences among Democrats, but that’s a much better place to be than where Republicans are: united behind the President in a failed policy.” - Joe Biden

"I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry Amendment. We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won't be there forever, and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counter-insurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support. . . No amount of spin or photo opportunities can change the bottom line: this war has been poorly conceived and poorly managed by the White House, and that is why it has been so poorly received by the American people. And it's troubling to already see Karl Rove in New Hampshire, treating this as a political attack opportunity instead of a major national challenge around which to rally the country." - Barack Obama

"For three years, Congress has played political games while the war in Iraq has gone on unchecked and unending. With the administration’s failure to offer a coherent or effective strategy in Iraq, it is long past time for Congress to offer a plan to redeploy our troops so we can give Iraq its best chance at stability, and refocus on al Qaeda and the terrorist networks that threaten the security of all Americans.

“We must redeploy to succeed – and we will put this national security imperative to a test in the United States Senate this week. . . Our amendment recognizes the need to keep an over-the-horizon military presence in the Middle East to fight al Qaeda and its affiliates and protect regional security interests. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces, conducting targeted counter-terrorist operations and protecting U.S. facilities and personnel should remain inside Iraq." - John Kerry

Redeploy to succeed. Sounds like a good policy to me.

I think this debate puts Democrats on the side of most voters. Most of us don't know whether we should quickly withdraw, re-deploy, or otherwise alter our policy. But most want the policy to change. I don't think Democrats will be punished at the ballot box for not having a clear bumper-sticker solution. But elected Dems have to get their hands dirty and get in the debate and carve out some space on this.

The '06 election can be about change in Iraq. We can unite on more details under a specific candidate in '08. I know most of the media isn't pushing this angle, but this is the right debate for the moment and I think will ultimately do the party good.

Paul Begala agrees:

"If anyone tells you the solution to Iraq is easy or obvious, they’re a liar or a fool (a false choice in the case of our president). So why not feature the debate? At least someone is debating what to do.

The fact is the American people want a new direction in Iraq, and the Democrats offer several. The Republicans, on the other hand, offer nothing more than a four-word strategy: more of the same.

Every time the GOP says “cut and run,” Democrats should say, “rubber stamp.”"

On the heels of white house press secretary Tony Snow's unfortunate WWII comparisons, let me trot out a few FDR quotes that seem apt in the Iraq debate:

"There are many ways of going forward, but only one way of standing still."

"One thing is sure. We have to do something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment... If it doesn't turn out right, we can modify it as we go along."

I've been skeptical of Hillary Clinton as an '08 nominee, but I'll give her the last word on this as she best sums up my feelings on the Democrats this week:

"I want to start by saying that although unity is important, it is not the most important value. It is, I think, a tribute to the Democratic party at this moment in time that we are honestly and openly struggling with a lot of the difficult issues facing our country. We just finished a debate about the way forward in Iraq. It turned out not to be a debate between the parties because the other party has made a decision to blindly follow the president, to ask no questions, to raise no concerns. My friend Jane Harman here in the front row, who has been a leader in our party on national security issues, has been raising hard questions while her counterpart is basically just in the amen corner for the Bush administration.

So I think that the Democrats may have somewhat different views about how we succeed in Iraq, but we are together unified in fulfilling our constitutional responsibility to engage in a legitimate debate, to ask the difficult issues and to offer honorable, responsible positions." - Hillary Clinton

Spies, Lies, & Burning Flags

After banging the drum loudly, I must grudgingly accept that it appears Rove will walk away from the Plame mess unindicted. We have no one's word but his lawyer, Robert "Gold Bars" Luskin, but one presumes Luskin isn't pushing wishful fantasies. I will, however, reiterate that Karl Rove was knee deep in the Plame/Wilson bashing, lied about his role, and made liars out of George Bush and Scott McClellan. Well, maybe Rove didn't make Bush & Scottie liars, but you get my drift.

Dig deeper into the background of this story - further back than the leak, beyond the 16 words in the state of the union, and a truly sensational story emerges. Vanity Fair has the story, and I strongly urge you to give it a look see. I have always love the Sy Hersh theory* for the origin of the phony Niger allegation that crept into the state of the union address. But this article finds that theory lacking.

*the crudely forged documents that show Iraq's intention to procure huge amounts of yellow cake from Niger were a trap laid by the cia to get meddling administration hawks off their back. the idea being that a midlevel hack will overplay his hand with intel that is clearly bunk, and the administration hawks will lose steam and stop politicizing intelligence. only the cia forgers were shocked to hear the allegation & documents cited in a state of the union speech - thinking it would die much lower on the vine. a great tale of too-clever beauracratic angling that appears to be false.

Pay attention to the involvement of Michael Ledeen. I knew of his involvement in Iran contra, but I was completely ignorant of his international Billy Carter & Pope scandal mongering. Sounds juicy? Read the article.

Michael Kinsley has a lovely piece on Kafka and wiretapping.

The Washington Monthly tears into the cannard that Bush is hurting conservativism:
"Conservative dissidents . . . extolled the president's conservative leadership when he was riding high in the polls. But the real flaw in their argument is akin to that of Trotskyites who, when confronted with the failures of communism in Cuba, China and the Soviet Union, would claim that real communism had never been tried.
{snip}
The collapse of the Bush presidency, in other words, is not just due to Bush's incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent beyond belief). Nor is it a response to the president's principled lack of intellectual curiosity and pitbull refusal to admit mistakes (although those character flaws are certainly real enough). And the orgy of bribery and special-interest dispensation in Congress is not the result of Tom DeLay's ruthlessness, as impressive a bully as he was. This conservative presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but because of it.

Contemporary conservatism is first and foremost about shrinking the size and reach of the federal government. This mission, let us be clear, is an ideological one. It does not emerge out of an attempt to solve real-world problems, such as managing increasing deficits or finding revenue to pay for entitlements built into the structure of federal legislation. It stems, rather, from the libertarian conviction, repeated endlessly by George W. Bush, that the money government collects in order to carry out its business properly belongs to the people themselves.
{snip}
Americans have learned something about the consequences of conservative ideas during the Bush years that they never had to confront in the more amiable Reagan period. As a way of governing, conservatism is another name for disaster. And the disasters will continue, year after year, as long as conservatives, whose political tactics are frequently as brilliant as their policy-making is inept, find ways to perpetuate their power."

As a "common good" democrat, I appreciate the jab at liberterians.

I'll close out with a flag burning piece by Vietnam Vet., former governor & senator, & current New School president Bob Kerrey.

"Real patriotism cannot be coerced. Our freedom to speak was attacked -- not our flag. The former, not the latter, needs the protection of our Constitution and our laws."

a la carte

Much has transpired since our last posts, so let me begin with the most recent developments.

Bush V. Bush
Sidney Blumenthal has an interesting scoop on Salon about Bush 1 trying to convince Bush 2 to drop Rummy. It turns out, most of the piece is on Haditha, so I'll post the scoop here:

"Former President George H.W. Bush waged a secret campaign over several months early this year to remove Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The elder Bush went so far as to recruit Rumsfeld's potential replacement, personally asking a retired four-star general if he would accept the position, a reliable source close to the general told me. But the former president's effort failed, apparently rebuffed by the current president. When seven retired generals who had been commanders in Iraq demanded Rumsfeld's resignation in April, the younger Bush leapt to his defense. "I'm the decider and I decide what's best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain," he said. His endorsement of Rumsfeld was a rebuke not only to the generals but also to his father.

The elder Bush's intervention was an extraordinary attempt to rescue simultaneously his son, the family legacy and the country. The current president had previously rejected entreaties from party establishment figures to revamp his administration with new appointments. There was no one left to approach him except his father. This effort to pluck George W. from his troubles is the latest episode in a recurrent drama -- from the drunken young man challenging his father to go "mano a mano" on the front lawn of the family home in Kennebunkport, Maine, to the father pulling strings to get the son into the Texas Air National Guard and helping salvage his finances from George W.'s mismanagement of Harken Energy. For the father, parental responsibility never ends. But for the son, rebellion continues. When journalist Bob Woodward asked George W. Bush if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq, he replied, "He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to."

Lauer V. Coulter
Check out the video
here.

Warner V. Feingold
Last weekend two likely presidential candidates made their case in New Hampshire.

I think Warner and Feingold are pretty good representatives of the two sides of today's Democratic party. I don't mind Warner's centrism, as long as it isn't just watered down bad ideas - Liebermanesque social security reform compromises, etc. And I don't mind Feingold's bolder approach so long as it isn't just about civil liberties. Don't get me wrong, protecting civil liberties is not a mistake for Dems, or anyone, but framing the debate as protecting American lives or civil liberties, and Dems lose. Democrats like Feingold need to make sure they appear to want to protect America as much as they want to punish Bush. That doesn't mean he has to change any of his positions. Feingold, and his ilk, have to find the right balance on what they emphasize. And Warner, and his ilk, have to not compromise their way to oblivion on Iraq, SSC reform, immigration, etc. Here's a Washington Post interview with Feingold.

Warner V. Hillary
The nytimes reports that Warner has criticized Hillary, making him the first potential candidate to do so. Sure, it's a process critique, not one of policy, but this will likely be a huge trend in the primaries: to what extent do you attack or ignore Hillary?

Hillary V. Gore

These two pieces from New York Magazine focus on a Gore run and what that might mean to Hillary.

Hillary V. Everybody
MSNBC on more Clinton concerns.

And, of course, there's much more Gore. I haven't seen AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH yet, but I hope that Gore and his film have an impact on the primaries. Or, at least, he can keep doing bits for SNL.

With all this in mind, who looks like the best prospect for '08? It's obviously way early, but going by the current climate at home and abroad, the policies and personalities, who looks good? Right now, I'll go with Obama, even though it is far from clear that he is running. (currently the likely field is Hillary, Warner, Feingold, Biden, Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, Vilsack, Bayh, whew!) I'm going with Obama because I think he's a mix of the qualities you can find in Feingold and John Edwards, with the name recognition of Hillary. He ought to run, not because he's ready, (he can do some crash courses before the inauguration) but because it's unlikely that his star power will grow. He faces diminishing returns, so strike while the iron is hot.

And does the Democratic Party need a plan on Iraq for '06 and/or '08? Or is it more important that each candidate have a plan? What kind of a plan do you prefer? On this, I'll go with Jack Murtha.