Ahem, back to LJ's original post, the State Dept.'s annual report on terrorism has been a thorn in the Bush administration's side precisely because it shows a pattern of increased terrorism since the invasion of Iraq.

The goal of fighting terrorists or terrorism should be to eliminate or at least drastically reduce terrorism/terrorist attacks. Thus, whether or not the NIE makes a definitive tie between Iraq and an increase in terrorist attacks, one thing is clear: The increase in terrorism under the Bush administration shows that our current policies are a dismal failure in accomplishing the only goal that matters: Keeping America and the world safer by eliminating or reducing terrorist attacks.

Posted at September 27, 2006 4:55 AM in response to The Facts Behind the NIE

Congresswoman McCarthy is gone now. Her replacement, Congressman Cleaver, did vote for the bankruptcy bill, and he got an earful from me. He's nothing but a self-serving hack.

But the point I wanted to make to the congressman here was there are (or were, in McCarthy's case) Democrats in Congress who, unlike Crowley, were NOT taken or cowed.

Posted at September 15, 2005 1:52 PM in response to Downing Street Secrecy

Thanks for persisting on TPM Cafe in the face of some harsh criticism. That said, here's one more criticism re your quote, ...we are fighting a War based on faulty intelligence...

<b>The intelligence was not faulty, it was manipulated. But because the investigation whitewash by the Senate Intelligence Committee explicitly failed to look at how the administration used intelligence, the public is left with the false impression put forth by Republicans and you continue to promote - that Bush himself was acting on faulty intelligence.

This was a pre-meditated neocon war of choice, a war pushed by Rumsfeld et. al. since the Clinton administration. These folks would do anything to get their mitts on Iraq, and 9/11 gave them the excuse they needed.

Please stop repeating the Republican talking point about faulty intelligence, and start using the opposition talking point about manipulated intelligence. (You are in the opposition party after all...). Respectfully,

Posted at September 15, 2005 12:49 PM in response to Downing Street Secrecy

at the time, Karen McCarthy (Missouri 5th CD) also voted against the resolution. She told me it was a hard vote to cast, but her conscience dictated it.

But we HAVE to forgive those who voted for the resloution so we can come together in calling out the Bush administration for the WMD and dozens of other blatant lies (a.k.a. "spin") that have put the U.S. in the miserable position we're in economically, militarily, and socially. 

Posted at September 15, 2005 9:28 AM in response to Downing Street Secrecy

you actually want Democrats to stand for something, instead of being scared of their own shadows? I'm with you on the sentiment. But even at this stage of the game - with the public expressing dissatisfaction with virtually everything that is Bushco - most Dems still follow the Republican-Lite version of governing and are loathe to present a progressive platform re healthcare, wages, jobs, bankruptcy, tort, Iraq, et. al.

I'm not optimistic... 

Posted at September 15, 2005 9:20 AM in response to Downing Street Secrecy

I either didn't see the memo, I don't remember seeing the memo...--Condi Rice regarding memo to White House from CIA explaining the Niger-Iraq-uranium was bogus.

Posted at July 29, 2005 3:58 PM in response to Letter on Bolton from Senate Dems

Over under on number of mentions of September 11: 6

Posted at June 28, 2005 10:02 AM in response to What to Call it ...

I couldn't agree more. I also think, however, we don't have to confine our energies only to pushing for a progressive candidate. We can also attack the liars' lies about Hillary. The more we can damage the credibility of the Hillary attackers, the better positioned we are to attack the credibility of inevitable attacks from the right against any candidate we support.

Posted at June 13, 2005 10:34 AM in response to The VRWC is at it again

Coming this summer, justification for the Iraq War and other things that don't (or shouldn't) affect our lives, in order to slip in under the radar the things that do matter. The many policy initiatives mentioned above will be brought forward, but since they are all losing issues, Bushco will have to distract us with, for example, Saddam's trial and exposure of his atrocities, such as today's NY Times story w/accompanying photo of mass grave.

 And no doubt Bushco is banking on gay-marrying mayors (i.e. Anonymous Hero post, above), runaway brides, wacko-jacko trials, etc. not only as distractions, but to spin into some moralist story that supports their narrative. Meanwhile, the left will whine about how distracted the media is by such nonsense, further missing the opportunity to connect with the people who pay attention to that stuff. Instead, perhaps we should be turning those all-too-human tales into progressive moral stories and maybe winning some supporters from places seemingly out of reach today.

Posted at June 7, 2005 10:20 AM in response to Attack, Attack, Attack ...

I'm not sure which "stolen election" posts you're referring to, so forgive if this is off base. But frankly, it's not whining to point out that America is in drastic need of election reform, including three specific reforms that could have led to a different outcome in Ohio 2004: verifiable paper trails in all electronic voting machines; putting the same number of voting machines per voter in every district; and replacing partisan election officials with nonpartisans.

This should not be a GOP vs. Democrats issue, but a free-and-fair-elections issue. We should not be debasing this conversation, if it leads to the aforementioned and other critical election reforms.

Second, Kerry ran a poor campaign (too true) but your (understandable) postulation that Kerry's military records contained something shameful is poorly timed. He finally released those records to the Boston Globe, which wrote today,

...it turned out that the records included commendations from some of the same (Swift Boat) veterans who were criticizing him.

 The only question is why didn't Kerry release his records when doing so could have helped? His reponse, according to the Globe:

"The call for me to sign a 180 form came from the same partisan operatives who were lying about my record on a daily basis on the Web and in the right-wing media. Even though the media was discrediting them, they continued to lie. I felt strongly that we shouldn't kowtow to them and their attempts to drag their lies out."

  The Dems' next candidate must be able to speak without a forked tongue and be an expert campaign strategist.

Posted at June 7, 2005 8:04 AM in response to The Broken Heart of Progressive America