Senate Democrats have mapped a political battle plan for the March congressional recess that calls on lawmakers to stage press events with active duty military personnel, veterans and emergency responders to bash President Bush on virtually every one of his national security policies.
The game plan, devised by the office of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is contained in a six-page memo distributed to Democratic senators on Thursday at a closed-door meeting at the Capitol and provided to The Washington Times by a congressional staffer.
Titled "Real Security," the political document calls for staged town hall events at military bases, weapons factories, National Guard units, fire stations and veterans posts.
"Ensure that you have the proper U.S. and state flags at the event, and consider finding someone to sing the national anthem and lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the event," the battle plan states.
However, the Defense Department prohibits political events on military bases. The rule states, "commanders will not permit the use of installation facilities by any candidate for political campaign or election events, including public assemblies or town hall meetings. ..."
Jim Manley, Mr. Reid's spokesman, said yesterday the planned events are not part of a political campaign. They would involve only incumbent Democratic senators, some of whom are up for re-election, but not Democratic Senate challengers, he said. Democrats hope to capture Senate control in November's election.
"These are events to highlight the need for increased funding for the troops," Mr. Manley said. "It's an effort to paint the White House and the Republican Congress as having a failed effort on national security issues, which is a direct result of their misplaced priorities and mismanagement."
The Senate plan urges holding town hall events to "draw attention to the security vulnerabilities caused by the Bush budget and explain how Democrats fought to restore programs that keep America safe."
The plan is the latest attempt by Democrats to criticize Mr. Bush on national security issues in the aftermath of the Dubai ports deal dust-up, which Republicans conceded was mishandled by the administration. One of the few areas where Republicans continue to poll well versus Democrats is on fighting terrorists.
In almost every issue in the Reid memo, Democratic lawmakers are called upon to criticize the president for not spending enough federal dollars.

Iraq is easy, politically.

Most Americans want (1) success and (2) get out.

Therefore, the Dems need to convey that the best path to success is to leave. Our presence is fueling the insurgency. In order to create a stable, free Iraq, the best strategy is to carefully withdraw troops and support the Iraq govt with money, weapons, econonmic aid, strategy, etc.

Note to Dems: the message is "succeed by leaving" not "we've lost." Big difference.

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Explain this to me. Justify It. Convince me that it is worth it.

Then you'll get my vote.

How much do you need George to finish the mission?

Another $300 billion?

No problem, we'll just raise the debt ceiling for government spending.

I think it's fitting that our grandchildren will be paying for this endless black hole of a war.

A) Doesn't the "rubber stamp" charge cover Iraq and national security issues as well? The Republicans have barely questioned a war strategy in Iraq that isn't really working, shirked oversight of Presidential activities like wiretapping, and barely questioned defense appropriations.

B) I think the point is framing (ye Gods, that word again) the discussion on Dem terms - this isn't just a war/national security election. It's a "do we want more of this mess" election. Let's not get too bogged down on proving that we were really right all along. That's really a needless distraction, on some level. Especially when winning - and changing things - is in our grasp.

That all sounds good, but I still think we need a stronger focus on Iraq (i.e., withdrawal from) and national security

Iraq: Murtha's plan is good. National Security: the litany of letdowns: letting bin Laden get away, letting the Taliban resurge, starting wars that were distractions from the real threat, chemical plants doing nothing, nuke plants little--some added a night-watchman or two, ports almost completely in foreign hands, squandering resources investigating Bush political opponents, ...and has anybody checked out how the INS has been doing lately?

I disagree. You don't vote for a congressman because you think that'll get us out of Iraq.

But rubber stamping every stupid thing Bush and the admin did? ... that's something you can hold an individual accountable for.

And should

curious is right. who votes for a congressman because of Iraq?

The biggest problem is the deficit. How much debt does it take to get through to the Great American Pubic??

Both sides are of course being a bit disingenuous. The Republicans will absolutely use gun control and my opponent supports higher taxes and Osama bin Laden.

The Democrats will use Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham and Gangster Jack Ambramoff. The rubber-stamp argument is particularly strong when linked to the Hammer.

The "values" horseshit mentioned by Barnes has real potency. I think the Dems should preemptively attack the South Dakota abortion law. It's much better to be AGAINST something. And god, guns, gays, etc. is what the press likes to cover.

Dubai is great issue to accuse your opponent of rubber-stamping the president on. The more he claims he didn't, the more he gives the rubber-stamp argument legs. Oh, sorry, you mean you voted against Bush once and with him 199 times? That makes you a real independent thinker.

That all sounds good, but I still think we need a stronger focus on Iraq (i.e., withdrawal from) and national security (i.e., what we'd do if we're not up for invading Iran).

Just my opinion, but I think our beltway bandits still feel trapped between Bush's cowboy foreign policy and the ghost of George McGovern. Its going to take more Dems with a backbone to work with Feingold and Murtha in coming up with a third way out while pointing out that the hot potato of our current mess has always been in the President's hands.

Wait, I must have been watching the 2004 election on some other planet, because I could have sworn the whole thing was about John Kerry's foreign policy credentials, or arguable lack thereof.

Really, does anyone here remember a single damn domestic policy proposal of Kerry's? No? Me neither.

I remember Kerry planned to roll back tax cuts for the rich and spend a big chunk of change on health care.

Monstertron:

Offloading catastrophic healthcare insurence from his expanded coverage proposal.

Bob

At the risk of being redundant (I posted this last thread), here's an ad proposal on national security:

TOTALLY DEMAGOGIC, REVERSE-ROVIAN DNC AD:

{slo-mo shot of plane crashing into WTC}

Voicover: Four years ago, America was dealt a devastating blow by our
most implacable enemies ...

{shot of jihad types rallying and burning American flag}

George Bush, our Commander-in-Chief, rallied our country in
a shared sense of purpose ...

{shot of W at Ground Zero, in the fireman helmet with the bullhorn}

We liberated Afghanistan from the religious tyranny of the Taliban

{shot of Taliban shooting women in a soccer stadium --
crosscut to feel-good footage of post-invasion
Afghanistan -- schools, grateful citizens voting, etc.}

And then, Bush turned his attention to Iraq ...

{music turns ominous; shot of Rumsfeld on Russert "We know where the
weapons of mass destruction are; they're somewhere around Tikrit."}

George Bush assured us that Saddam Hussein had nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons -- but none were found ...

{sbot of Charles Duelfer press conference " ...
no weapons of mass destruction ... "}

And Iraq now is costing us over a billion dollars a week

{feel-bad Iraq footage of bombings and chaos, sewage in streets}

Now Bush wants to wiretap the al Qaeda
masterminds to prevent another attack

{shot of Osama video}

And all Americans support him in this goal

{shot of Congress applauding during SOTU}

But Bush doesn't want to tell Congress, or a secret
national security court, anything about the program.

{freeze frame of Bush's face on an exasperated expression}

And so did another president, when questioned on surveillance

{morph Bush's face into Nixon's, with a simlar expression}

Today, the stakes are even higher. Tell your legislators
that you support the Bill of Rights for all American citizens.

Bob

Well, I don't know about Dems retaking the house or winning anything.

I though I was a dem, that's what my voter registration card says anyway.

But I can't see myself voting for any dem...or any republican...I will probably write in a name if nothing changes...because both parties are now run by fringe lunatics.

And after 4 years of lurking on blogs from DKos to Redstate to Slate to Blog america, etc,etc.etc....ad nausum...I am begining to think they are more bad than good, as they seem to attract the fringes of both sides...and the politicans mistakenly think the netroots represent the majority of Americans.

No matter which party or person you elect..given the current choices...you will still be up the creek without a paddle.

Neither one is going to change our foreign policies or trade policies, and since they won't, the domestic policies won't matter, they will be nothing domestic left.

good luck.

Kerry also wanted to save some money (to pay for health care) by allowing us to negotiate with drug companies or reimport drugs from other countries.

Let's see: Oh yeah, "energy independence" was up there years before Bush started talking about grass and what not. Increasing minimum wage. Increasing funding for R&D as well as education. It's easy to foroget those things. I mean, he only mentioned them in pretty much every single speech.

No Democrat will win unless he takes on the media and gets it to stop repeating RNC talking points. Republicans keep hammering the media for being too "liberal". Democrats never say anything about it. This has to stop.

Carroll:

I believe they call that a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Bob

I've got a few "punchy" campaign slogans:

"Where's Osama? Don't Ask a Republican."

"'Spreading democracy in the Middle East' is revisionist history."

"Republicans - Exploiting the blood of 9-11 for corporate gain."

Or are they too "reality-based" for the Democratic Party?

Stephen Kriz:

Shi'ite happens

Bob

Carroll,

When I read the lefty blogs, I always see them complain that the Dems aren't listening to them, etc., etc. They don't seem to be having much of an impact. For instance, Howard Dean got trampled dispite raising the most money. Their project, Ciro Rodriguez, also got trampled. (Admittedly, I would have liked to have seen the latter win.)

The "netroots" is just another constituency within the Democratic Party. They don't make up the majority of the Party and I doubt many politicians believe they do--at least no successful ones. That said, why shouldn't they be allowed to have a voice?

The best way to get a feel for the Party is to join the county Democratic Party. Those are the people who are actually knocking on doors and doing the work (instead of just sending out mass faxes from the comfort of their computer chair). You get a much different feel from talking to the people who are doing the "busy" work for the Party. They are much more tolerant of other Democrats' views than the "netroots" who come across to me as bullies.

The Dems need a positive message to go with the negative one. I don't see why the Dems won't run as the party of Civic Responsibility. Congressional oversight, balanced budgets, solvent social security, reforming welfare, revitalizing involvement in education (ie Teach for America, not just testing), and yes, proper sex education to decrease the rate of abortions. That's the record, and now Dems have ideas for the new challenges (one hopes): security, economic, environment, and health care. The ads are easy: here are the challenges ahead (list). Who do you want facing them? The party who did x, y, z. Or the party that has spent to record deficits, mismanaged natural disasters, and has a laundry list of indictments for bribery. It might sound very 1950s, but it sends two messages loud and clear. Dems care about Civic life, not just personal gain, and Dems act responsibly when entrusted with the public good, rather than venally.

gg:

Good points.

That's why Howard Dean has focused the DNC strategy on building the local parties in all 50 states.

It sure looks different when you're knocking on doors.

Bob

"It's the stupidity, stupid"

LisainVan:

On a broad thematic level, I like that very much.

Civic life vs private venality. Accomplishments vs incompetence.

Well-stated.

Bob

What do you mean "they can't take back those roll call votes"? Sure they can. They will just say "no I didn't". The press will report it as "some critics allege" and never bother to look it up.

It would be nice if civic responsibility resonated with the voting public as much as moralism.

The comments all sound tactical. "Framing" the message.

On security the Dems are losers and will be while they keep to the refrain that sounds like Vietnam. McGovern indeed. The one good effect it might have is on Iraqi politicians. I can imagine Bush telling them that if the Democrats win the Congress, they will be SOL. That may stimulate more compromise.

Complaining about Republican spending reminds people about who would spend even more.

A major policy effort could be a well thought out single payer health plan. RAND and Brookings are left-leaning think tanks. They should be able to come up with a better plan than Clinton's which was killed by Hillary's political mistakes.

You have to realize that Bush's poll numbers are the result of a determined negative campaign by the MSM for the past 6 years. The voters don't follow the polls.

They should hire the guy who made the Read My Lips ad for the first Clinton campaign.

Stephen Kriz--

I think the Freeway Blogger had the best slogan--
a drawing of Bin Laden with "I'M NOT IN IRAQ MORONS"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29847284807@N01/913242

Jonathan Alter provides a glimpse at Rahm Emanuel's strategy for winning back control of the House for Democrats...

Ronald McDonald provides a glimpse at Alfred E. Newmans's strategy for winning back control of the House for Democrats...

Mike K:

"The voters don't follow the polls."

Uh-hub.

Lucy:

Civic responsibility is a sort of moralism in itself. I think people tend to become as enraged at crooks in Washington as they do at sexual immorality.

THROW THE BUMS OUT is as moralistic as anything that could crawl off of Donald Wildemon's or James Dobson's fingers.

The incumbent party is corrupt. Simple as that.

Bob

The voters don't follow the polls.

Funniest goddam nonsense I've read in about a year.

You have to realize that Bush's poll numbers are the result of a determined negative campaign by the MSM for the past 6 years. The voters don't follow the polls.

Keep sleeping, keep dreaming, we will wake you when its over.

"Jonathan Alter provides a glimpse at Rahm Emanuel's strategy for winning back control of the House for Democrats..."

Kevin...

I'd like to know the opinion of Matt Yglesias in regards to Jonathan Alter glimpse at Rahm Emanuel's strategy for winning back control of the House for Democrats...

PS: not really...

Complaining about Republican spending reminds people about who would spend even more.

Frankly, at this point I'm not sure there's much difference.

The Federal Government's prime function nowadays is transferring wealth between citizens in return for political power. In a system where those who pass out the most goodies get the most votes, you tend to select for spenders, no matter which party it is.

Those few who are for fiscal discipline, either cutting spending (usually Republicans) or raising taxes (usually Democrats) are soon out on the street. Why vote for somebody who tells you you can't have it all for nothing?

I'm not sure there's a way out of it. The process is institutionalized. Every "attempt" to impose fiscal restraints over many years (debt limits, spending limits, etc.) have been easily routed around and ignored.

Maybe term limits?

... either cutting spending (usually Republicans)...

Another Republican denies that the last five years actually occurred. Smashing job!

SavageView:

Read more carefully. Those few that are trying for fiscal discipline, usually fall into those categories.

Of course it's obvious that most Republicans aren't doing a hell of a lot to cut spending, and most Democrats aren't standing up to seriously propose major tax increases, either.

tbrosz:

It is unnecessary to read "more carefully." I take your words as written.

The Republicans have been in complete charge at the federal level since January 2001, and spending has exploded even absent 9/11-related efforts. Your words, like you, are orthognal to simple fact. Perhaps you could try to read a paper.

I know as a Democrat, I'm supposed to berate my own side, but I'm actually quite excited about this. Congress deserves about 80 percent of the blame for everything Bush has done, not only by abdicating their oversight role, but by putting on the accelerator any time someone points out Bush is driving us off a cliff, and then by doing everything they can to protect him from the consequences of their actions. They have done more to weaken their own institution than any other Congress by shifting all their powers to Dear Leader. I do agree that Dems have to take a stand on security other than seconding everything Bush does. The ports, as BS as it was, was the first time the Dems showed themselves as the party to trust over the Republicans on the Security front.

The democrats biggest challenge is not coming up with a campaign strategy based on policies - it's coming up with enough reason for voters to go to the polls. There is no question that the polls today favor the democratic party, even if it is a protest opinion over the whores, liars, and thieves currently in power.

To motivate the voting public out of a sense of hopelessness and apathy is the goal. There is no problem with disgust for those W, L and T. It is a matter of convincing the voters that they will not be replaced with a differently branded set of W, L and T.

Who runs and what they have done in the past is going to be under a microscope. We can all feel it in the air: very few democrats are going to fall for superficial PR bullshit. You want my vote? Be honest. Be credible. Otherwise, I may not even show up. And that is what the Repugs are praying for.

SavageView:

I did read a newspaper, which is where I got the article I linked to. Try reading that one, and see which party members mentioned in the article were actually trying to hold back the spending.

I am not at all happy with the Republican record on spending, but if you sit a Democrat down and get his wish list for what the government ought to be doing and spending money on, and how much, the mind boggles. Their assurances that they will raise taxes to the limit to cover it don't help.

At this point, even speaking on domestic issues only and not national security, I'd still rather have Republicans running the show than Democrats. Both parties are driving for the fiscal cliff edge, but while the Republicans aren't stepping on the brakes, at least they aren't jamming their foot down on the accelerator either, which I believe Democrats would eagerly do.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see France as the ideal role model for our nation. Too many Democrats and liberals do.

I'm not seeing Britain as much of a role model either.

Democratic talking points for 2006:

1. Talking about incompetence makes a lot of sense for the 2006 elections. "Vote for competence --- vote Democrat."

2. Making the 2006 election a referendum on Bush should also be part of the plan. We too often let Republicans frame things --- for instance, we describe the Republicans in Congress as loyal, a positive strong term, instead of as wimps who won't stand up to this Administration. "The weak Republican yes-men in Congress won't stand up to President Bush. I will. Vote Democrat."

3. I also like what Wesley Clark has said about ending one-party rule. "Checks and balances don't work when we have one-party rule. The Republican-controlled Congress are the ones who let Bush appoint his incompetent cronies to high positions. They won't tell Bush "No." But I will. We've got to put checks on this out-of-control Congress. Vote Democrat. Just say No."

There's one thing I'm always wondering about when reading that Emanuel is pulling the strings again: Who tf elected this former ballet dancer into this important position? And why tf is he still in it? Because of his great sucesses? Ha!

What selective amnesia you have tbrosz.

Bush inherited a surplus from Bill Clinton before proceeding to sack the treasury.

Jesus H. Christ.

tbrosz, the difference you ignore is the difference between investing money and throwing money away.
Investing $87 billion three years ago would have established a nationalized healthcare system where everyone pays their own way (at 7% of earnings). The payoffs from heathcare would be tangible and enduring
Throwing away $87 billion in the first year in Iraq has paid no dividends. The mounting costs in money, security, and morale are enduring.
Investing a trillion dollars over several years in sustainable energy development, wind, solar, biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen: this would spin off major new industries, bring new fungible products (e.g. glycerine) to the marketplace, free up petroleum for the needs of future generations' medicines and materials (90 percent of each come from petroleum), and pay dividends in money/jobs, increased security, decreased environmental degredation, and more.
Throwing away a trillion dollars on tax cuts for the wealthiest, and throwing a way another trillion dollars on the extended war bring: no payoffs, many detriments, and--frankly Mr, Brosz, I do not understand what values guide you any more in your thinking.

The old left-right meme is dead. We need to realize what right vs. wrong means.

If you want to be greedy and put the little guy down, that's one thing.

But supporting this unjust, immoral, ungodly, illegal war, the trampling of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, standing blithely by while our vote is made meaningless, our debt ($30k/person) mounts as far as the eye can see, the environment degrades to the point of planetary suicide, and on goes the list, to carry on in this fashion really makes no sense.

Jeremiah, are you out there?

God, are we screwed for good?

tbrosz is still stuck in the '80s meme of "all taxes bad."

Adult pay for what they want. Children expect something for nothing.

As long as the Democratic vision is linked to a mechanism to pay for it, they are behaving as adults.

As long as the Republican vision is linked to a mechansim that shifts the costs to someone else, they are behaving as children.

tbrosz votes with the children.

cassandro, quite the little liberal tantrum. Far be of me too rain on your pity parade but allow me to challenge you a bit. $87 billion invested three years ago in UHC would have today resulted in nothing. $87 billion is a small drop in the bucket to what a comprehensive UHC program would cost. Investing a trillion dollars in sustainable and newer energies is what is being done and has been since the Clinton administration which was ratcheted up at GW's SOTU. Many hybrid cars are currently available and as the technology becomes more sophisticated and less expensive, the availability will be greater.

Currently the US economy is in good shape. Historically low unemployment, a GDP growing every quarter for the last ten at an avg. of 3-4% and the nasdaq and dow currently perfroming well. That's what tax-breaks for the rich do, stimulates growth and expansion resulting in more tax revenues in 2005 than projected. The Iraq conflict is now really just that and no longer a war. Our troops have accomplished deposing a dictator and helped to establish a freely elected government and a trained military/security force in three years and now will begin coming home this year.
Iraq war = trillion dollars
A peaceful Iraq = priceless

Honestly cassandro I don't know what values drive you, except the selfish ones where you do not care to help others free themselves from oppression and then expect everyone here to help pay for your healthcare needs. Seems a little self centered.

Iraq war = trillion dollars
A peaceful Iraq = priceless

Hey... we get all those schools painted yet?

"A peaceful Iraq = priceless"

Great! When does that happen?

"Current US occupation of Iraq = Vietnam"

Let's see, an nationally elected representative government supported by a 200,000+ and growing military/security force that now controls over 50% of the country doesn't exactly equal occupation. But hey thanks for playing.

"Let's see, an nationally elected representative government supported by a 200,000+ and growing military/security force that now controls over 50% of the country doesn't exactly equal occupation. But hey thanks for playing."

Sorry, I was talking about Iraq. You know, with a puppet government approved by the occupiers, a pathetic military that does nothing with US support, a corrupt police force that exacts political revenge, and hundreds of Iraqis murdered monthly.

But, hey, thanks for playing. Moron.

Jay:

Ayad Allawi said this weekend that Iraq was already in a civil war.

Allawi represents the secular parties that we'd like to see running Iraq.

So, uhh ... what's his deal? He talking to Howard Dean and John Murtha or something? :)

Or are *you* just a partisan shill, immune to inconvenient facts.

Bob

"military that does nothing with US support"

. . . does nothing *without* US support . . .

Is this the Rahm Emanuel, congressman and former Clinton staffer, that collected $17 million dollars from Citicorp for three months worth of work in 2001?

Who's the pimp?

Jay:

Have you read Riverbend's recent meditation on the three-year anniversary of the invasion?

Oh right -- she's *also* talking to Dean and Murtha. Juan Cole, too.

Bob

It's the same one Mark, ironic isn't it?

This then is the quietest, most bloodless civil war in history. Why even MSNBC is having trouble finding concrete evidence of the "civil war". Gen. Casey, you remember him don't you Bob, the leader of the our ground forces in Iraq, has stated that the up-rising that many feared would lead to a civil war, never fully materialized and was successfull thwarted by the Iraqi forces and the calls for peace from the clerics.

Now I remember you calling Awalli and Bush puppet not too long ago but now his words are golden and you believe him over Gen Casey?
Interesting.

Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans.

Repeat over and over again.

This is a winning meme, both because it's short and alliterative, and because it's true.

Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans.

Make the Republican lemmings pay the price for their blind loyalty to Dear Leader.

Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans. Rubber Stamp Republicans.

Hey, Red Stater, your congressman isn't representing you. He's there to do the bidding of Dear Leader. He's nothing but a RSR.

Rubber Stamp Republican. Rubber Stamp Republican. RSR RSR RSR . . .

Yes!

You gotta love it.

aa

No I haven't read riverbends meditatins Bob, but I did burn incense last night. Does that count?

Jay:

Most of the troops we're training have a much deeper loyalty to their sect than they do to the notion of Iraq. In fact, many ISF -- especially police -- were recruited directly from sectarian militias. Why do you think it's been so easy for sectarian militias to get ISF uniforms and patrol vehicles, eh? And who kidnapped those 35 civilian contractors last week while dressed in the uniform of the Interior Ministry, eh?

Bob

tbrosz is estranged from reality.

Jay:

Ayad Allawi is an *Iraqi*, dimbulb.

General Casey is not. General Casey will go home to a nice homecooked by his wife in the US of A in a few short years.

Allawi won't.

Bob

Bob, with optimism like yours, no wonder the left has done so well. Operation Swarmer was the first major mission planned entirely by Iraqi Generals and executed almost entirely with Iraqi forces, with US support. They confiscated many of the fake uniforms worn by the insurgents and despite your lack of confidence, the military has held together through the mosque attacks, which is a huge tribute to them.

And of course they came from the sectarian militias, it is a fairly small country where else do you think they would have come from?

"Now I remember you calling Awalli and Bush puppet not too long ago but now his words are golden and you believe him over Gen Casey?"

I remember you calling Alawi (not "Awalli," bozo) a trustworthy interim prime minister not too long ago, but now he's not reliable?

Interesting.

Moron.

Jay:

Riverbend is *also* an Iraqi, asshole.

You know -- the people you like to pontificate about liberating?

Bob

Never said he was unreliable did I? Liar (I know that's a word you like). I said I trust Casey more.

"Operation Swarmer was the first major mission planned entirely by Iraqi Generals and executed almost entirely with Iraqi forces, with US support."

LOL! You fell for "Operation Potemtin"?

Wow, Jay, you really are a dupe!

Jay:

Look, I have no problem with Operation Swarmer being a training mission.

I have a huge problem with the propaganda spin attemping to make it into something more than that.

When the ISF faces an enemy, we'll know how cohesive it is as a fighting force.

When the ISF ceases to pass on intelligence to the insurgents and militias, we'll know how worthwhile it is as an instrument to build the Iraqi nation.

Both are still at this point far off goals.

Bob

"Operation Potemkin"

They arrested some suspects, many of whom were let go the next day. They captured a few empty uniforms and a few weapons, easily replaced.

I guess the plan is to wait until the insurgents retire and declare victory. Only 50 years to go!!

democrats need to plaster repukelicans with the bushliar-criminal, tying him as a massive boat anchor around their greedy, sinister necks so bush can drown them all in the massive republican cesspool.

Bob, where's the love? All that internationalism and meditating?

It's all in who you believe and my money is on Casey considering the lack of any concrete evidence of huge conflicts and the fact that he has been front and center in the middle of that country for three years. He also maybe one of the only truly objective people in the theatre.

" . . . one of the only truly objective people in the theatre."

BWAHAHAHA! Jay, babe, this has to be the stupidest comment on the thread!

Thanks for the laugh!

What is eventually going to lead to victory in Iraq is the people's confidence in the military and security forces. That's why Operation Swarmer was so important; not so much the execution but the planning of such a large mission. And successfully pulled off by the Iraqi's. They deserve our praise, not our mockery. The ability of the Iraqi forces to secure their country is growing rapidly and the confidence is growing in direct proportion. Soon it will turn and turn quickly towards peace.

So General casey, a life long military man has been reduced to nothing more than a Bush shill, is that it Joel?

Because if that is what you're implying, you really do have shit for brains.

Jay:

"Objective" -- by what standards? Seems to me that he's got a mission to do, and everything he says about Iraq is going to be colored by that obligation. Hardly makes for a motive to offer objective observation.

Allawi, OTOH, lives there. He's a representative of precisely the sort of western-leaning ideology we'd like to see take root in Iraq. Unlike the Sunni, Kurds and Shia in government, he has no vested interest in pushing his group's position at the expense of seeing a realistic picture of the country's prospects as a whole.

In short, Jay -- no contest. An Iraqi would be a better judge of Iraq just as an American would be a better judge of America.

Bob

"Soon it will turn and turn quickly towards peace."

heh.

You mean like this?

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18512

Jay, baby, unlike you, I wan't haploid during the Vietnam War. You sound just like one of those Johnson-Nixon military parrots I remember seeing on the television back then. Wrong then. Wrong now.

Jay:

"lack of concrete evidence."

Jay, there's no lack of concrete evidence.

Only evidence you'd rather not see.

Bob

"a life long military man"

I'll take Jack Murtha over Casey.

Moron.

Jay, you do realize what happens to military men who contradict Bush talking points, right?

Hank Scorpio:

That, too.

I'm sure Casey has his doubts.

I'm also sure that Casey, as supreme commander in Iraq, keeps those doubts to himself and his most trusted aides.

Bob

Just a matter of perspective Bob. I see it that Allawi has alliances and must favor their positions, as does every politician. Who knows why he said it, or believes it when there truly isn't any real evidence to support it. OTOH, Casey is their to do a job and has on several occasions stated when things were not good, however now he says that he is optimistic that the civil war has been suppressed.

Hank, you must be referring to Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, a life long military man who failed to be a Bush shill.

Jay thinks Shinseki had shit for brains.

Not Brokeback Military Camp I hope.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

catherineD is exactly right. Dems may have the same plan as the Reps, but the diff is Dems are competent.

Picking Murtha over Casey in the Military realm is akin to picking Waukegon High School Baseball team to beat the Yankees.

Jay:

It is the height of absurdity to say that an Iraqi politician has a less clear picture of what's happening in his country than an American general who's responsible for occupying it.

Allawi is not aligned with any of the apocalyptic religious parties. He's *secular*, pro-free market, a former friggin' CIA operative. If anyone would have a motive to shill for a strictly pro-American vision of Iraq, it would be him.

But funnily enough, he offered his assessment -- as a politician *without* much of a constituency. His jockeying for power days have pretty much ended when his party captured like two seats, if that.

Bob

Some links and commentary on the "civil war" issue from Belmont Club.

Don't see why Talabani's opinion on this isn't at least as relevant as Allawi's, based on the same rationales given in a number of comments here.

Picking Murtha over Casey in the integrity realm is like picking integrity over blind obedience. Sorry you can't tell the difference, Jay.

Moron.

tbrosz:

Are you kidding?

Talibani's a Kurd.

Bob

look for gut-punch ads that highlight the incumbents' 90-plus percent backing for Bush on issues like cuts in college loans

Most Democratic politicians support taking discounted college educations away from U.S. citizens and giving them to illegal aliens.

That kinda makes complaints about Bush cutting student loans a bit moot, doesn't it?

If the Dems want to get support from America, perhaps they should start acting like Americans.

"Some links and commentary on the "civil war" issue from Belmont Club."

heh.

Pajamas media.

You'll have to clap a little louder than that, tbrosz.

Bob, doesn't the fact that since he lost big in the election that there might be a little bit in him to want things to disintegrate?

TLB:

That's a fight that Republicans are having with Bush, atm. Lovely how all you patriots are all strongly behind his guest worker program :)

One of the biggest fault lines in the GOP, actually. All the Dems have to do is stand back and watch the fratricide :)

Bob

"Senator Harry Reid, reporting for duty!"
Is Reid really so NOT BRIGHT that he takes a page from John Kerry's losing Presidential campaign?

The game plan, devised by the office of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is contained in a six-page memo distributed to Democratic senators on Thursday at a closed-door meeting at the Capitol and provided to The Washington Times by a congressional staffer.
Titled "Real Security," the political document calls for staged town hall events at military bases, weapons factories, National Guard units, fire stations and veterans posts.

Jay:

No particularly, no.

In fact, the last thing a guy like Allawi would want, seems to me, would be for his country to disintegrate.

What he's seeing, perhaps a little ahead of the curve, is the disintegration of the idea of Iraq as a unified nation.

You'd expect a secular like Allawi, willing to share power with all factions, to be the most concerned about that than, say, the health of Kurdistan as a region (like Talibani).

Bob

"Most Democratic politicians" = one columnist from the Salt Lake Tribune?

WTF?

Rahm can Rahm his strategy up his fucking ass.

He is part of the problem.

Blunt force is not really a wise approach to foreign policy. But Bush is too fucking stupid to exercise anything else.

It's obedient to have integrity.

Bob, doesn't the fact that since he lost big in the election that there might be a little bit in him to want things to disintegrate?

You're thinking like a Republican. Last I checked, Allawi wasn't one.

It's obedient to have integrity.

What a load of crap. That's the Adolf Eichmann view of integrity - 'following orders'.

You think integrity just means following orders? That explains a lot.

"It's obedient to have integrity."

Uh, no. To have integrity means *not* obeying when the orders conflict with integrity.

But I don't expect you to understand integrity, Jay. Bush worshippers like you can't. You only understand obedience.

Um, tbrosz, did you actually read what Talabani said? "One can completely rule out the threat of a civil war."

I'm supposed to believe that ... why, exactly? When it's patently untrue on its face? Care to actually turn on your brain and think for a change?

Oh, and for the record, the Belmont Club's definition of civil war is laughably broad, not to mention self-serving. Come back when you've got something real, won't you?

Wow, listen to this guy Jay crow about the splendid state of Iraq.

Plan A had US soldiers out of Iraq in a matter of months. It's been THREE YEARS.

And in the event that a functioning state arises out of the chaos, Iraqi women--half the country-- will almost certainly be relegated to second-class citizenship under the new theocracy.

Priceless.

Lucy:

See, it's good that we're talking about "civil war" now, because that means that we're no longer talking about the "insurgency." It must mean that the insurgency is MOL neutralized, but the negative nelly MSM can't have that, so they start trumpeting "civil war."

I kid you not. Click tbrosz's Belmont Club link; that's how they're spinning it.

Hey, all other things being equal ... I think I'd rather live through an insurgency than a civil war, thanks -- even if it's big insurgency vs a minor civil war.

Bob

I knew that would elicit a good tolerant liberal response. I was just fucking around, good play on words though huh?

"You have to realize that Bush's poll numbers are the result of a determined negative campaign by the MSM for the past 6 years. The voters don't follow the polls.
Keep sleeping, keep dreaming, we will wake you when its over.

Posted by: molly bloom"

You woke me on November 3. It was over. Thanks.

Pretty lame.

Lucy, please explain exactly where Plan A was announced. I only remember GW saying that this would be a difficult and arduous task, a different kind of war fighting an enemy who hides in the shadows. Does that ring a bell?

I knew that would elicit a good tolerant liberal response. I was just fucking around, good play on words though huh?

Nup. Pretty lame, actually.

You want play on words, how about:

"Conservatism is King in the US.
...and Liberalism is the tide.

Have fun building sand castles, Kaynute.

One of the biggest fault lines in the GOP, actually. All the Dems have to do is stand back and watch the fratricide :)

IOW, the Dems are willing to put political interests ahead of what's right for the U.S.

Of course, if they came out against illegal immigration they would also gain a tremendous amount of support from those they have (supposedly) pledged to represent and they'd also do a great service to this country.

That is obviously too much to ask of them.

"Most Democratic politicians" = one columnist from the Salt Lake Tribune?

My mistake. I should have provided other links. Most Democratic politicians support taking discounted college tuitions away from U.S. citizens and giving them to illegal aliens.

There are two ways they do this: by supporting the national DREAM Act, and by supporting state bills like those in California.

For specific examples, Tim Kaine of Virginia wants illegal aliens to take discounted college educations from U.S. citizens.

From MA come Rep. Tim Toomey and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, a candidate for governor who's being supported by the Boston Globe.

And, here's a list of those "U.S." Senators who support the DREAM Act.

Which Churchillian masterpiece was that again?

Bob,

I did go walk through the looking glass to the Belmont Club. Whew! Nice catch.

Lucy:

Lookout, it's the .... pajamahadeen !

Anything to avoid admitting the obvious.

Bob

Lucy:

I mean for me ... Riverbend has always had the most poignant commentaries on what's actually going on in Baghdad.

And she represents precisely the sort of secularized, tolerant, Western-looking Iraqis who should be the most in favor of Iraqi democratization ...

Sad ... sometimes I wish she'd just emigrate before she gets herself killed.

Bob

Lame? Is that the best you can do? After claiming Bush's drop in the polls is the result of some MSM conspiracy rather than a natural response by voters to Bush's rank incompetance, you call me lame? that's the best you can do? What a riot!

Her anniversary post is just heartbreaking.

What have we done!

Operation Swarmer was the first major mission planned entirely by Iraqi Generals and executed almost entirely with Iraqi forces, with US support.

In that case, shouldn't it have been called Operation Shwarma?

In that case, shouldn't it have been called Operation Shwarma?

Or since Iraq is pretty hot, how about Operation It's Warmer?

Lucy:

Gods, I just now read the one where her friend who owned the music store, Alan, got killed as the translator for Jill Carroll.

All her reminicences about the hours spent in his shop going through CDs ... how much he loved music ... how that place was one of the few connections to the outside world during the sanctions ... what a good guy he was, how he helped out everybody.

I'm fucking choked up. It's so unbearably heartbreaking what we've done to that country.

Bob

The least Americans could have done was to repudiate the Bush administration in 2004.

But no.

It's obedient to have integrity.

That reads better in the original German.

Lucy:

It wasn't for lack of trying, at least on the part of every *fucking* person I know ...

Bob

Stefan:

Droll :)

Bob

Hey, I love shwarmas, or Jewish tacos.

Mmmm....shwarmas.

Stefan:

The truly funny thing about that statement is that TrollBoy has it ass-backwards.

Obedience is an outward result. Having integrity is a cause.

It's more accurate to say that having integrity causes one to conform in obedience to one's principles.

It's obedient to have integrity doesn't parse at all ...

Bob

gq and Bob

Perhaps you are both right.

As a Southern moderate democract, I see Southern dems vilified by the "left", called rednecks, ignorant hicks, (both my brothers are Harvard MBA's..so go figure)....not too smart of them if they are trying to win the southern vote. And I agree the netroots lefties are bullies very much like the right wing loonies at places like freerepublic...they have different platforms but the same kindergarden gang mentality.

I can say that neither the dems nor the repubs that I talk to in my area are happy with either party, in fact they seem pretty much disgusted with both.

I am just looking for an ethical person with some common sense and someone other than a profe$$ional politican for a change who won't "pander" to anyone's special interest, my own included.
Someone concenrating on restoring America to something resembling it's former self, with a few improvements, would get my vote.

Anyone out there like that?...anywhere?...hello?...we are waiting for you....come quick please.

Carroll:

The villification is directed by seculars at the increasingly muscular Christian right, and I don't think for entirely bad or unfair reasons. Cf. Kevin Philips' new book American Theocracy. I know of no secular northern liberals who gratuitously bash Southern people qua Southern people -- though Southern Baptist-bashing is indeed fairly common.

As far as looking for that nonpartisan knight in shining armor -- well, we're all waiting for deliverance in one way or another. I felt I found it last primary season in Howard Dean -- a man who is truly an accidental politician. I still hold him in very high esteem.

But understand that people are people and any politician is going to be flawed in some way; there is no escaping this.

I'm going to leave you with two horrific (but true) cliches: 1) Politics is the art of the possible and 2) Don't make the Perfect the enemy of the Good.

Stay involved and hold whichever candidate you choose to back accountable. In a democracy we get the government we deserve -- and it is only as good as the quality and vigor of citizen involvement.

[soapox mode *off*]

Bob

>That reads better in the original German.

Thanks for that hilarious break from the downward spiral.

As a Southern moderate democract, I see Southern dems vilified by the "left", called rednecks, ignorant hicks,

Aw shit Caroll, no time for any thin-skinned southern paranoia.

Twenty years ago, I moved to the South. As young very liberal, union loving ativist yankee, I caught no end of crap from your supposedly genteel compatriots.

Stop the whining!

A Family in Baghdad was interesting lately in that Iraqis came to the U.S to try to discuss what a botched up mess so many U.S. initiatives were. But hey, what do the natives know ?
...offside comment. Found in a fortune cookie today : "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power".

I posted this in the cooking thread, but oh wot thee 'ell, I'm bored ...

From The Nihilist Cookbook: BOB'S SARCOPHAGILICIOUS BBQ TREATS

Ingredients:

2 moderate-sized Republicans, pre-shaven
12 quarts of Miracle Whip
2 large apples
A case of Velveeta
5 lbs of flour, freshly ground

Take pre-shaven Republicans and liposuction out all available body
fat. Place fat in large baking bowl
Empty flour sacks into bathtub. Place dessicated Republicans into
flour. Roll gently, pouring fat evenly across body surface until the
flour sticks. Get your children to help.

Take Velveeta blocks and place them in your yard. Run over them with
your lawnmower. Place Velveeta and grass clippings onto four large
baking pans, taking time to smooth them out evenly. Bake each tray of
Velveeta lightly in oven until cheese turns the color of a sebaceous
(smegma) secretion.

Dig hole in your back yard with backhoe. Fill with 12 quarts of
Miracle Whip. Take third car that doesn't start anymore and smash
gasoline tank with hatchets. Stand 5 feet away, toss match and jump
back immediately. Cut down telephone pole in your front yard, remove
cables and save them. Take Republicans and tie them across pole with
cables. Place large apple in each Republican's mouth. Enlist your
family to carry pole with Republicans to burning car and hoist it over
the hood. Cooking should take 20 minutes, until flesh starts to
release acrid smoke.

Remove blackened Republicans from poles. For the sake of the
neighbors, be careful to avoid the temptation to sing Al Jolson songs
too loudly. Section Republicans with chainsaw, laying slices across
the Velveeta bed. Carry to your back yard, say Grace, and dip
sectioned Republican in Miracle whip. Throw bones into this pit.

Start backhoe and run soil back into pit and over the evidence when
meal is finished.

Bob

Are you kidding? Talibani's a Kurd.

Bob

The point I was making is that there were a number of posts here touting Allawi's statement, with rationalizations along the lines of "well, he's over there, he's Iraqi, he should know." Based on that, another Iraqi's opinion, however accurate or inaccurate it eventually turns out to be, should be just as valid.

My own definition of a civil war doesn't have the whole army on one side, scattered gangs of thugs on the other, and generally doesn't have the leaders of various factions negotiating in a government environment instead of hunkered down in their various headquarters egging their people on. "Civil war" is being used as a buzzword now, much like "quagmire." If terrorism and gang violence was all it took to define "civil war," a lot of countries would fall under that category.

As for Riverbend, she is a skilled and sensitive writer, but it should be pointed out thst prior to the war she was part of the elite of that country, and it's not surprising that her views of the changes might be different from those of a Shiite, Kurd, Marsh Arab, or some others.

You wouldn't know it to come here, but there are other bloggers in Iraq.

tbrosz:

> "Are you