we won't need to wait until nov 2008 to see the effects of rope-a-dope, jim ... muhammed ali has very little time left ... many who've paid attention believe his current health problem (terminal in very near future) have much to do with his absorbing blows to the head while employing his hit-me-til-yer-too-weary-to-punch defense ...

Posted at November 18, 2005 10:46 AM in response to Murtha's Bombshell

Your rule fails the real-world applicability test.

... America's reponsibility to make sure that we don't leave things in Iraq even worse than they were when we got there.

America lacks the ability to ensure your requirement. This isn't a boy scout camping trip, with a campsite that can be policed for litter.

The mission is FUBAR. Rep. Murtha understands that. So do most Americans. It's well past time to think that loud clapping can bring Tinkerbell back.

REAL RULE #1

No more American fantasies.

Posted at November 17, 2005 1:40 PM in response to Murtha's Bombshell

Thanks for stating so eloquently that which I would have attempted.

At issue here seems to be the word "now", doesn't it? One doesn't think that Murtha's statement was a panicky plea for bugging-out, complete with an immediate massive airlift provided by more C130s than the military could possibly hope to get into the air.

If not, what would be the circumstances under which the author, Ivo Daalder, would choose to continue an unending commitment following next month's election?

Posted at November 17, 2005 1:33 PM in response to Murtha's Bombshell

So the question, then, is the insurgency primarily al-Qaeda or nationalists?

It's about time some comment identified this piece of balderdash that the author has injected into her logic.

This is absolutely a home-grown insurgency. The emphasis on foreign fighters is a Bu$hCo spin-point that serves to (mis)identify Iraq as a vital part of the very (un)necessary War on Terror.

It's well past time for folks here to stop doing the Bush administration's heavy lifting. We are not fighting alQaeda in Iraq. (Ergo, it's not so we don't have to fight them here.)

Posted at November 16, 2005 10:33 AM in response to Remember when Saddam was our friend?

The superficial question - one that the Bush Administration seems to have chosen a different answer for - would be whether to act as an agent for the status quo, or to act as an agent for change.

Is there not a third option? It may seem ultimately removed from all but the most traditional conservative minds, but an option - to choose not to inject ourselves as an agent - might offer the best position in the natural evolution of advancing civilization in the Arab world.

The US has exacerbated the problem created through a long history of conquest and colonialism. US aid has helped to create al Qaeda, has empowered the Iraqi Ba'athist regime of SH, and, years before, overthrew a popular government in Iran to hand the Peacock Throne to the Pahlavis, leading ultimately to the ultra-fundi-conservative theocrats who now reign in Tehran.

Having handed Iraq to the Shia, is there much doubt that the US will now face decades of increased enmity in among Sunni Arab nations?

Posted at November 16, 2005 10:20 AM in response to Défaire un empereur que pour en faire un autre ?

The question seems to be whether there will be a unique confluence of events in 2006 that will influence the result, no? The potential certainly is there.

1. Jack Abramoff legal troubles, both civil and criminal.
   
2. Tom Delay legal troubles.
   
3. Whitehouse legal troubles.
   
4. Foreign policy trouble in Iraq.
   
5. Continued dysfunctional Bu$hCo federal bureaucrat cronies.
   
6. Threat of overturn of Roe.

Posted at November 14, 2005 12:54 PM in response to Will 2006 be a re-run of 1994?

Anyone who's watched 15 minutes of Hardball knows the Dems have no ideas or policy suggestions.

Friend, you really need to understand the rules before you get involved in a high-stakes game.

Rules? Yeah. The rules that determine how legislation is introduced, and how it moves (or dies). The minority party is at the mercy of the majority when it comes to getting legislation addressed. GOP discipline has imposed a severe limit to any action that the Democrats can take.

Any policy proposals made by the Democrats at this time can become co-opted, either by adoption by the GOP (in a form unrecognizable at the detail level to any progressive) or through agressive attack. Thus, Democrats' legislative victories have involved taking a stand against (e.g., social security deform) or in a procedural moment like last week's that helps the media focus on the GOP's incompetence or corrupt influence.

Policy statements will trickle out, but don't look for anything as tightly organized as Gingrich's CWA to be brought out a whole year before election day. There's far too much at risk, given that enactment of any progressive legislation is impossible until the make-up of Congress is changed.

Posted at November 7, 2005 11:16 AM in response to Post Poll Post

If your scenario two is correct, a nice side benefit for Republicans and neocons would be to drive a new human rights wedge between the CIA and progressives.

Progressives aren't on the side of the "CIA", they are on the side of the truth.  The support for the CIA is not across-the-board; its for the elements within the CIA that tired to get the truth out about Bush's WMD claims.  (its not like we don't know that Bolton's Chief of Staff, Fred Fleitz, was CIA....and trust me, we don't "support" Fleitz).

First of all, it's not a new wedge. Progressives have been up in arms for decades, all the way back to the installation of the Pahlavis in Iran and secret war in Indochina. The general point you make is indeed valid. The CIA has a mission that progressives can back: intelligence gathering is a vital interest in a world of multiple threats and international political intrigue.

Spying is a most important, if not literally legitimate, function of government. Abusing human rights, whether through incarceration, torture, incapacitation, or assassination, to further our nominal national interests, however, is an altogether different matter. It would seem that progressives realize the damage done to diplomacy through such behavior cannot be supported under any circumstance. If we want to support a message of democracy, freedom, and human rights, then it naturally follows that the creation of CIA gulags is a wholy unacceptable practice. (But, we all do know that, no?)

Posted at November 4, 2005 2:33 PM in response to Secret CIA Prisons: Preemptive Strike or Surprise Attack?

Perhaps, Prairie Sage, you feel your initial response was flippant. I believe, though, that you're spot on.

Here's a slice from the article that, at least to me, lends some credence:

The contours of the CIA's detention program have emerged in bits and pieces over the past two years. Parliaments in Canada, Italy, France, Sweden and the Netherlands have opened inquiries into alleged CIA operations that secretly captured their citizens or legal residents and transferred them to the agency's prisons.

Perhaps it's not entirely clear ...

The point: Why now?

This Dana Priest "exclusive" isn't new news. It has been reported in mainstream American media (without much traction), and the stories have been out there in the international press and on the web (also see this).

Who's been whispering in Dana Priest's ear recently? Why, suddenly, is there one (or more) official(s) willing to anonymously promote this story? How hard was it peddled?

This M.O. is definitely Rovian.

Posted at November 4, 2005 10:19 AM in response to Secret CIA Prisons: Preemptive Strike or Surprise Attack?

Chalk one up for Dems (and some sensible local republicans who reject GN's starve-the-beast approach to all government).

Focus shifts to Virginia ...

Posted at November 2, 2005 4:41 PM in response to Big Loss For Norquist and the GOP Coalition