He's been nominated by Bush to be the new Attorney General and Chuck Schumer and all the usual (secretly?) pro-Bush Dems are loving him up right now. He's the judge who ruled it okay to hold Jose Padilla indefinitely without charges, just because King Bush had declared Padilla (incorrectly as it turned out, of course) an "enemy combatant." Exact quote from Mukasey: "There's a never-ending terror war on; screw the Constitution for the duration" or something like that.

Here's more (emphasis added throughout) . . .

International Herald Tribune:

Mukasey, 66 years old and now in private practice in Manhattan, has repeatedly spoken out to support the administration's claim to broad powers in pursuing terrorist threats, especially in conducting electronic surveillance of terrorist suspects and in imprisoning them before ['before'? howabout 'without'] trial.

World Socialist Website (some call this a suspect site, but I've always found its journalism more accurate than the mainstream stuff):

Most significantly, in December 2002, in an early case involving Jose Padilla, Mukasey ruled that US citizens captured on US soil could be held as "enemy combatants." This decision favored the Bush administration on a central question in the "war on terror" and constituted a major attack on the democratic rights of all Americans. ...

In the case of US citizen Jose Padilla, originally accused of plotting to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the US, Mukasey signed the original order authorizing the government to hold Padilla as a "material witness" -- a category used frequently in recent years to hold people against whom the government has insufficient evidence to prosecute. Padilla's original hearings were also before Mukasey.

In June 2002, shortly before Mukasey was to rule on the continued ability of the government to hold Padilla as a material witness, the Bush administration declared him an "enemy combatant" and transferred him to a military brig in South Carolina. In his December 2002 ruling on this move, Mukasey accepted the category of "enemy combatant" as applied to US citizens.

According to Mukasey, the president's commander-in-chief powers include "the power to detain unlawful combatants, and it matters not that Padilla is a United States citizen captured on United States soil." It also did not matter that the "current conflict with Al Qaeda... can have no clear end," Mukasey wrote.

NPR:

Mukasey is no stranger to the Padilla case. As district judge, he authorized Padilla's arrest in 2002. He backed the White House's view that Padilla could be held as an enemy combatant, although his decision was later overturned on appeal.

In a 2004 article, also in the Wall Street Journal, Mukasey defended the Patriot Act against charges that it eroded civil liberties. In particular, he defended "sneak-and-peek" warrants that allow agents, with court authorization, to enter premises, examine what is there and then leave.

Finally, this from CNN:

In the [Padilla] case, Mukasey overruled the Justice Department, which contended that Padilla, who had been declared an "enemy combatant" by Bush, did not have the right to see an attorney.

Notice the mainstream media subterfuge of that highlighted passive clause. Who upheld Bush's 'right' to designate Padilla an enemy combatant who could be held without charges? Mukasey.

Well, that wasn't finally, there's also this, which is also discussed in the WSWS article above. Here we see Mukasey take the reactionary approach of prioritizing the Constitution over the Bill of Rights. Again, and I'm quoting Mukasey directly, "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom? Completely wrong, should be 'eternal surveillance ' and so on." 

A bill of rights was omitted from the original Constitution over the objections of Patrick Henry and others. It may well be that those who drafted the original Constitution understood that if you give equal prominence to the provisions creating the government and the provisions guaranteeing rights against the government--God-given rights, no less, according to the Declaration of Independence--then citizens will feel that much less inclined to sacrifice in behalf of their government, and that much more inclined simply to go where their rights and their interests seem to take them.

So, as the historian Walter Berns has argued, the built-in message--the hidden message in the structure of the Constitution--is that the government it establishes is entitled, at least in the first instance, to receive from its citizens the benefit of the doubt. If we keep that in mind, then the spirit of liberty will be the spirit which, if it is not too sure that it is right, is at least sure enough to keep itself--and us--alive.

P.S. (It's related, and) if you read just one paragraph this year, read this one by Paul Craig Roberts -- from "Why Did Senator John Kerry Stand Idly By?" -- explaining why the cops and rent-a-cops are acting more and more like Hitler brown shirts nowadays:

The answer is that police, most of whom have authoritarian personalities, have seen that constitutional rights are no longer protected.  President Bush does not protect our constitutional rights. Neither does Vice President Cheney, nor the Attorney General, nor the US Congress. Just as Kerry allowed Meyer's rights to be tasered out of him, Congress has enabled Bush to strip people, including American citizens, of constitutional protection and incarcerate them without presenting evidence.

Okay, better shut up or I might get tasered.

In Democratic Doublespeak on Iraq, Tom Engelhardt and Ira Chernus dig up this nugget:

A senior Pentagon officer who has briefed Clinton told NPR commentator Ted Koppel that Clinton expects U.S. troops to be in Iraq when she ends her second term in 2017.

The key portion of Koppel’s NPR commentary (and check out the title: A Duty to Mislead?!?) is the following:

A Duty to Mislead: Politics and the Iraq War

“… I ran into an old source who held a senior position at the Pentagon until his retirement. He occasionally briefs Clinton on the situation in the Gulf. She told him that if she were elected President, and then re-elected four years, she would still expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq at the end of her second term. We’re talking about a shade less than 10 years from now.

I happen to think she’s absolutely right, and what’s more I’m sure there are several other Democratic Presidential candidates who agree with that assessment, that U.S. troops will be in Iraq for another decade, at least, even if every candidate is sounding as though the pullout would be immediate and total. When, oh when is that deadly serious issue ever going to become the topic of an equally serious and candid discussion? When, in other words, will we get the brutal truth, in place of vapid and misleading campaign applause lines?”

All progressives need to read the words of big-time insider Koppel, such revelations are rare! And, I highlighted the text above to emphasize that this diary isn't about Hillary alone, it's about the entire Democratic Party establishment. 'It' doesn't want you to know, but it plans to stay in Iraq long-term, despite the fact that 87% (87%!) of Democrats want us out.

If you still don't get it, read fake befuddled Harry Reid on Iraq troop numbers, and understand what that 'befuddlement' means about the Democratic establishment. Or read “the military decides how many” Ike Skelton, and understand what that giveaway of your political power to the military means:

But some Democrats, who won control of Congress in last November's elections largely on a pledge to bring U.S. troops out of Iraq, admit they assume a sizable number would stay.

"The fact is I don't know how many troops will be there. I've heard anywhere from 20,000 -- and now I've got, this is the highest number I've heard -- to 70,000," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, when asked about troop strength if a Senate withdrawal plan was enacted.

On Wednesday, House of Representatives Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, was asked how many troops would be left behind if his legislation to bring combat troops out of Iraq by April 1 was enacted.

"I think it would be wrong for me to spell out the exact number of troops," Skelton told reporters. "I leave that as a military decision ... because I am not a general, nor am I the secretary of defense."

So, if the Democratic establishment sounds to you like it bows and scrapes to the military, if its Presidential candidates sound like they want to patrol the world rooting out ‘evil’ wherever they find it, in other words if it smells neoconservative that’s because it is.

It’s just WRONG to think the Democrats -- when and if they win the presidency -- will reject (of their own free will, without us pushing them) neo-conservatism. Nope, instead they’ll continue and advance the neo-conservative Middle East chaos crusade.

Reason: because that's where the money is, baby! Two of America's super-heavyweight and richest lobbies are all out in favor of neo-conservative Middle East crusading. Actually, I had a comment on this 'why' a couple days ago:

Obviously the people don't have power to do this:

 

As we select a new face to govern America, we must also choose a leader who is able to reevaluate America's approach to foreign affairs and establish a new doctrine of policies which can carry us forward, repairing the damage from our mistakes and building a strong foundation for our relationships with nations around the globe.

The reason: our foreign policy is under the vice-grip control of the military-industrial complex and the Israel Lobby.

So, the questions that need to be asked are:

How do we escape from that control?

How do we nominate a candidate whose foreign policy represents the interests of the American people and not the interests of those two entities?

When will political analysts speak truth about the power those two entities have over our political system and its main Presidential candidates?

Now, why have the military-industrial complex and the Israel Lobby embraced neoconservatism? Hell, I don’t know, but I’d guess a huge military, when the ‘natural’ need for its services has declined (since the Cold War), needs to go out and create the chaos and instability that appears to call for a huge military. And I would guess the Israel Lobby is similarly influenced by Israel’s own military-industrial complex. But who knows why, really, the job for the people of the United States is to cut if not destroy the influence of these two massively wealthy lobbies on our two political parties.

To sum up, as of right now the 2008 Dem-Repub face off looks like it will be a bust as far as the issues that matter most to most of us, especially our death-dealing approach to Iraq and the Middle East. As I (more or less) commented a couple days ago:

Here's the way it looks right now [should the Democrats take power in 2008]:

There is not enough support for ending the occupation in Iraq to matter.

There is not enough support for universal health care to matter.

There is not enough support for leashing an out of control President to matter.

There is not enough support for restoring habeas corpus to matter.

There is more than enough support for a massive military attack on Iran to matter. [for another example of Democrats' craven neoconservatism, see their recent support for Sen. Lieberman's 97-0 'acts of war' resolution on Iran]

I hope things change among [the 'Beltway Democrats' and] the Democratic Party's presidential nominees in the next half year before the primaries. But they won't change if all of us supposed progressives keep chanting, "I'll vote for whoever the Dems nominate no matter what." That's what got us pro-occupation John Kerry in 2004.

What 'no matter what' support for the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate may get us is a President who favors world super-cop neoconservative imperialism, which includes long-term Iraq occupation, cold or hot war with Iran, and the military running the U.S. treasury dry so that cut backs for the rest of us become 'necessary'.

So, for a start, how about we refuse to support any Democratic Presidential candidate who won't say the following:

We must remove ALL of our troops. There should be no residual US forces left in Iraq.

That was Bill Richardson. You could also lend your support to Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel.

1. Shareholders are not owners

First of all, let's dispose of a myth: shareholders are not owners and do not want to be owners of the corporations they invest in. Ownership would necessarily involve liability for corporate wrongs committed against society and individuals. And, since shareholders do not want that liability and have opted to invest in entities (corporations) that don't convey that liability to their investors, such investors are not 'owners'. Investors who want to be real owners have the option of buying into partnerships or other business entities where the owners are legally and financially responsible for harms those entities commit.

A corporation is a business form invented and chartered by government out of the belief that such entities will benefit society. If the benefit is not there, then government obviously should revoke the corporate charters it has issued. Or, instead of that drastic move, it should modify corporations so that they think and act in more socially beneficial ways. My point is always that government must design a corporate governance regime that works well, and then re-design it based on experience to make it work even better.

2. Go beyond the all-or-nothing simplicities

Designing how corporate boards would be constituted would be hard, trial-and-error work. But, right off the bat you wouldn't want one group of 'stakeholders' -- whether that is creditors, local or state government, employees, managers or shareholdrs -- to have all formal power within the corporation.

We at least know that all power to the shareholders (the dominant libertarian/mainstream economic rage) works badly for society as a whole, as we can see by comparing per capita US economic data from the post-war (1946 to 1973) and 'monetarist' (1979 and forward) eras. All or nearly all power to the workers also works badly for society as a whole, learning from the limited experience we've had with it in Yugoslavia. The same for economic systems in which creditors have excessive power over business entities, the economic decision-makers becomes too cautious. And as for all power to government, we can see that failed in most economic sectors (but worked well in health care) in the Soviet Union and other 'socialist' countries.

To detail one of the above examples further... Employee power pushes a corporation to distribute wealth to the employees. Great, because a strong economy is in part founded on a strong _demand_ side. But all power to employees and not enough corporate wealth is distributed to one source of capital, shareholders. Too much employee power means corporate wealth may not be managed responsibly and with reasonable caution, and debts to creditors paid off. Excessive employee power also means the corporation is less interested than the government would want it to be in creating new employment. Similar problems, of course, would arise from excessive creditor power, shareholder power, and government power within a corporation.

3. Redesign corporations' governance, their 'brains'

So, are we gonna stay stuck in the black & white simplicities forever (All Power to the Shareholders! All Power to the Workers!)? Or, will we move on to a human and complex solution for how we as a society should best handle the 'ownership' of our economy?

I think that the ideal power distribution within a corporation -- i.e., on the corporate board of directors -- will involve a balance of power among shareholders, employees (all employees, not just 'workers'), creditors and (local, regional, and national) government. Governments (this is not a libertarian project!) need to design corporate governance so it works best for society. That will necessarily be a trial-and-error effort, they won't get the form perfectly balanced the first time they try, and they likely will find that different balances of internal corporate power work better in different industries.

And governments are free to do the above without stepping on the rights of anyone, since as I've clarified shareholders are _not_ owners and therefore the guardians of corporations and how corporations should be governed. No, 'we the people' can decide such matters, from the fact that corporations are institutions that exist only with a corporate charter provided by government. Governments elected by you and me are free to modify that corporate charter. And shareholders are free to go along with the new rules, start up their own private firms, and/or take their money elsewhere and invest in other business forms such as partnerships where investors really are owners.

It should be obvious but I am not a socialist but a social democrat. If we had a democratic system that was truly representative of the people then I trust its leaders would move forward to a complex solution to the benefits and costs the corporation imposes on society. The education systems might be 'socialist' or government-operated, and the health care system might be operated as a public utility with strong government oversight, but I think most of the economy would end up being operated by society-friendly corporations with newly installed 'brains' (a useful way of thinking about corporate boards).

by: fairleft - 2007-07-05 16:35 ………… parent • edit • reply

With the way they f&%#cked up and funded the Iraq occupation a couple weeks ago, it's hard to have anything to do with the Democrats these days. But an e-mail from Progressive Democrats of America this morning tells me that (inmyhumbleopinion) there are at least a few real progressive Democrats out there.

The e-mail -- from Olive Tree Democrats, "A project of Progressive Democrats of America" -- is mainly about the June 11 Lobby Day for Israeli/Palestinian Peace and End to Occupation. But it also reminds us of the June 10 march and of a terrible anniversary (emphasis added throughout):

On June 10 and 11, people around the world are joining together in a Day of Action to mark the 40th year of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. ...

Tens of thousands will march in Washington D.C. on June 10, and hundreds of activists will be lobbying Congress on June 11. Add your voice to theirs! Call your representative in support of H. Res 143, in support of a special US envoy for Middle East Peace. To reach the Capitol switchboard dial 1-202-224-3121 or call toll free: 1-888-597-0909. (Find your representative here) This is the best way to show support for the Arab League’s recent peace proposal, which the US and Israel have been slow to endorse.

As you can see, the PDA's Olive Tree Democrats (see ++ below for more on where they're coming from) specifically asks us to support H Res 143 (Appoint a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace), sponsored by Susan Davis of San Diego. They suggest writing your Representative something like this:

I'm writing to you in support of efforts to promote peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people. There are many things we can do at this time to support the Arab League's recent reintroduction of their 2002 peace proposal.

One of the most important is the appointment of a special envoy for Middle East peace (H Res 143).

I care about the future of both Israelis and Palestinians. Steps to end the occupation of the Palestinian people will improve the lives of everyone in the Middle East.

If you still can't stand having anything to do with the damn Democrats, then follow the lead of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, which says you should write something like the following to your Congressperson about H Res 143:

I am contacting you to express my support for H.Res. 143, Congresswoman Davis’ (D-CA) resolution urging President Bush to appoint a special envoy for Middle East peace. I urge you to cosponsor and support this resolution.

Davis’ resolution rightly points out that it is in our nation’s best interest to promote peace and dialogue in the Middle East. For the past several years, the United States has neglected its diplomatic efforts toward ending the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. It is imperative that we act as an honest broker and uphold international law while working toward a lasting peace. A just resolution to the conflict will be in the best interest of Israelis and Palestinians and serve to ameliorate long standing grievances between the Arab world and Israel.

The last few years have seen the US pursue foreign policy objectives which have severely tarnished the image of the US around the globe. Our policies in the Middle East should be implemented through dialogue and diplomacy as opposed to invasions and sanctions. Appointing a special envoy to the Middle East to work on peace between the Israelis and Palestinians would go a long way toward helping repair American’s image in the international community and particularly in the Arab and Muslim world.

A just and lasting peace in the Middle East is needed now more than ever. Reengagement of American diplomatic efforts that are even handed and uphold international law are in the best interest of the Palestinians, Israelis as well as Americans. Congress should pass H.Res 143 and President Bush should appoint a special envoy to the conflict.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

++ From the Olive Tree Democrats' (draft?) Mission Statement:

The vast majority of Democrats - and Americans - support a negotiated, just, and peaceful solution between the Israel and the Palestinian people, as represented by their lawfully elected governments. OTD believes that any just solution will require the establishment of two states as a precondition for achieving a lasting peace, and that the 1949 Green Line armistice line must serve as the basis for any future border or territory swaps. Palestinian claims regarding refugees, restitution, equal rights and freedom of movement must be seen as the equal of Israeli security needs. OTD’s approach is consistent with that of most Israeli and Palestinian peace organizations, the current Arab League peace initiative, international law and UN resolutions.

I’m sorry, Senator Reid, Congressmen Obey and Murtha, and Big Tent Democrat, but September will be just like May, unless . . . you change this:

“I cannot vote ... to stop funding for our troops who are in harm's way."

-- Carl Levin

No, Rep. Obey, if you don’t change the Carl Levins the following is b.s.:

"We will transfer the Iraqi fight to September. Opponents of this war need to face this fact, just as the president and his allies need to face the fact that they are pursuing a dead-end policy."

No, you have to change the thinking and voting of folks like Carl Levin (and countless other Congressional Democrats) or Congress will be just as subject to Bush blackmail – look, Bush plays chicken with the troops, with a vengeance – and you will always in the end give him the money he wants. So, Congressional Democrats,  either deal with Bush's game or go home.

In September, assuming the Democratic leadership goes along with John Murtha and takes Iraq Supplemental funds out of the regular fiscal 2008 defense bill (which will be voted on in July) and keeps Iraq funding ‘supplemental’, then there will be a vote on funding the Iraq occupation/war. And, presumably, the White House will want funding for the entire fiscal year, about $145 Billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now Harry Reid, John Murtha, and David Obey (and BTD) may want to give Mr. Bush half that, and put the sociopath on a short leash. But, once again, what will they do if Bush threatens to veto anything less than the full $145 Billion? I.e., replicating, more or less, his successful stance against the short-leash bill passed recently by the House? Does Congress pass a bill anyway that it knows he will veto? And is it then ‘forced’ (see ‘support the troops’ rhetoric buy-in by Carl Levin above) the second time round to put something together that Bush will not veto, just like it did a few days ago?

I can’t see any reason not to think so. Same old same old, and clueless about what has to change so there won’t be the same old same old.

Nonetheless, last Friday Big Tent Democrat wrote about the funding Iraq debacle -- Iraq Supplemental: From the Ashes Can Rise The Not Funding Phoenix -- with an inexplicably hopeful heart:

I believe, after this hard lesson, for Democrats in Congress, for progressive activists, for the Netroots, we can now go forward with a PRAGMATIC, realistic plan to end the Iraq debacle AND play smart politics. Yes, from these ashes should rise the Reid/Feingold ... NOT funding after a date certain framework.

BTD thinks a Reid-Feingold-esque commitment by Democrats to a ‘no more Iraq funds’ date certain is the way to get us out of Iraq sometime soon. I don’t. Here’s what I think, in an exchange a couple days ago with a Reid-Feingold believer and BTD supporter:

…Reid-Feingold was a "big deal" because it supplied the best framework for ending the war, and would have sent a message to Bush that he can keep vetoing all he wants, but he was never going to get another blank check.

-- Categorically Imperative

I don't get that. There was no 'best framework' possible, so why pretend, that was obviously always a myth.

The only way to end the war before 2009 was and is to fly directly into Bush's blackmailing ("I'm gonna leave them there without bullets or food.") and just vote 'no' on Iraq funding. (Note how this has the opposite to do with creating, sponsoring, or managing any bill.) When 50% of either House does that, a funding bill cannot pass. It would be a bloody, loud, angry mess and I half-expect Bush would come very close to going through with his threats, but that's the only way we would get out.

-- fairleft

Later in the same post BTD writes (emphasis added):

The intention to NOT fund the war after March 31, 2008 must be made the Dem position now.

The short leash must be pulled to a stop on March 31, 2008.

Say it now so you can end it then. If you do not say it now, then you can't end it on March 31, 2008.

This is nonsense: If you _say_ it now, that’s meaningless and Bush knows it. What matters is what a majority of Congress will do when Bush starts to play chicken, like he did this month. Look at it this way: what will the ‘date-certain’ Reid-Feingold statement makers do if troops are still in Iraq in the middle of March, 2008, and Bush is ranting, “I dare you to deny funding to troops in the field?”

They will back down and give the President his money, unless they are prepared for that tactic.

Unless the antiwar contingent in Congress makes the argument, starting now and very noisily, that it will not back down even if the President is playing chicken with the troops. Anti-warriors must make the case from now till September, and start to prepare and spin the public for the vicious, anti-democratic game the President will play. The public must be told why so many in Congress will not back down in September.

Rep. John Murtha, who I otherwise have a lot of respect for (he gave us ‘short-leash’: great idea!), wrote at HuffingtonPost on May 24:

Some have suggested that since the president refuses to compromise, Democrats should refuse to send him anything. I disagree. There is a point when the money for our troops in Iraq will run out, and when it does, our men and women serving courageously in Iraq will be the ones who will suffer, not this president.

But Democrats have not and will not “refuse to send him anything.” An authentically antiwar Congress definitely should and would pass an Iraq supplemental that is short-term/leash or even better has a hard deadline for pulling out the troops. The money runs out with troops in harm’s way only if the President vetoes such a bill (or bills).

The Democratic leadership, or failing them the Democratic anti-war leadership, must argue that the Commander-in-Chief commits treason by both vetoing funding and refusing to withdraw U.S. troops from danger. Congress must of course be prepared to replace Bush immediately through impeachment in those circumstances. This threat must be voiced, from now till September, or Bush will know September will be as push-over as the May one.

Actually, a much more likely scenario is that if the occupation isn't funded the troops will be withdrawn. That withdrawal may ‘harm’ the President as his bloody dreams die, but the troops will be safer than ever, back home. Rather than policing a meaningless occupation; that’s ‘support the troops’.

My ‘just say no’ strategy already has the support of 51% of U.S. Democrats (see April 20-24 CBS/NYT Poll). In sum, as I said on talkleft a few days ago (emphasis added):

It won't work today, it will work in September

in my humble opinion. But only if anti-warriors in Congress start the ball rolling and argue their case, and the real progressive netroots publicize and honor them, and attack (and 'punish') those (including Presidential candidates) not on the bandwagon.

"Yes, Mr. Bush, you've forced us into this game, so there you go." Unfortunately, it's the only effective way to deal with the bully.

[UPDATE: Just to add that I admire and appreciate BTD A LOT for his focus -- and his effort to focus blogosphere attention -- on getting the US out of Iraq.]

Let's assume the whole Iraq funding fight for Congress was just "political foreplay," as a "Democratic leadership source" told CNN on Tuesday (emphasis added throughout):

A senior Democratic senator said late last week the last-minute attempts by Democrats to get a withdrawal timeline was "political foreplay."

A Democratic leadership source told CNN some two months ago that Democratic leaders knew they would have to send the president a war funding bill without a timeline, and that would likely mean a bill with significant Democratic defections and GOP support.

The maneuvering over the past several weeks has been a Democratic attempt to show their anti-war base that party leaders were trying until the 11th hour to stand up to the president, the source said.

Okay, that's bad enough, but my question for blogland is, "Was Dailykos in on the political foreplay?" Because it's pretty damn disturbing that Dailykos was virtually mum on the cave in from May 15 to 21 while it was being put together.

Yes, in case many of you didn't know, Progressive Democrats of America found out about the deal on May 15 and shouted about it:

ACT NOW: CONTACT THE SENATE OVER IRAQ

May 15, 2007, Washington, DC

Your Senators will vote today on a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. They will vote next week on the $95 billion war funding bill. ...

Next week, the Senate will vote on a new version of the supplemental war funding bill. We don't know the details yet, but it looks like the Senate will give the President $95 billion for the war without any fixed timeline for the withdrawal of our troops. Call your Senator today, and next week to tell them to vote against the supplemental war funding bill, which amounts to a blank check for Bush/Cheney!

Me, my little pip squeak voice (since I've been banned from dailykos (no reason, or check my diaries and comments and you tell me) it's even pipsqueakier), I was shouting as loud as I could about the PDA revelations (look at my diaries here, here, and here) but I was ignored of course. Obviously such would not have been the case if front pagers at kos had blogged repeatedly about this betrayal before it came down. Why didn't they?

So yeah, we've seen the whining outpour on May 21 and after by illustrious dailykossacks Meteor Blades, mcjoan, and devilstower, but what were they doing when it mattered? What were they doing -- from the time a reliable 'deal' rumor came down and up till the betrayal was finally hammered out -- to sway the powers that be by warning and rallying antiwarriors everywhere, speaking from the big megaphone dailykos site? A grand total of one post, by mcjoan, late Friday, May 18.

Time out for reassuring words from Greg Sargent, by way of mcjoan on May 18:

... the Dem leadership insists it's committed to not giving Bush a blank check, and it has consistently hung much tougher than anyone expected and has steadily defied expectations in the process.

Meteor Blades and devilstower wrote nothing May 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 on the unconditional funding sell out. Mcjoan wrote nothing about impending Iraq capitulation on May 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20. Why not? Those three are supposed to be big time 'liberal' members of the dailykos frontpage. Don't tell me they probably weren't aware (not the 'stupid and incompetent' excuse again), or that such a deal -- in flux and still influence-able by us outsiders -- wasn't important. No, just tell me they were being good, cautious insider boys and girls. That rings most true, based on my experience there.

http://fairleft.blogspot.com/