Centerfield

On face value, I agree. Anyone want to show me how Brian's opinion is not true? And please, don't defend this bill by saying Republicans do it too.

I have seen little so far that has not confirmed this board's predictions about a Democrat controlled Congress. At the moment, I can only imagine what will happen with a larger Democrat majority in Congress and a new Democrat President. And I say this as someone who has never voted Republican.

The adjective from of democrat is "democratic."

Notice that George Bush is not the "Republic" president.

Of course, some people would say "of course he is." :-)

He's the Republican President of the Republic.

The adjective from of democrat is "democratic."

Yep. But if you're going to play grammar cop, shouldn't you first go amend those uncapitalized proper nouns? :-)

Didn't see your post before posting on the same thing myself at SF.

As Novelist George Higgins puts it: "Politics is the choice of enemas."

Both sides look in the mirror and see the other.

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana

This is just further proof that there are very few people of principle in Washington.

Everyone one says Democratic President from Putin to Huo and they don't mean they really advocate democracy. Democratic President Putin delared an end to NGOs in his country. Democratic President Huo advocated more individual freedom for the Chinese people. How does capitals help this?

Whig President would be easier, or Wack President, Egalitarian President or God-forbid-the-lack-of-criteria Centrist President. Centurion President President....., Islamist or Islamic President? YOU DECIDE!!!!

Okay, my personal convention [adverserial form of Democratic {Democrat} trumps adjective form of Democratic {Democratic}], -which often forces me to overlook spell-check’s red underlines.....Its better than malciverous Republocraps and difilebrious Demowacks.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe." L.C.

But wait, is this some forbidden fruit I see falling from the failed foreign policy tree of Repuglian's senseless aggression? what?

Well, this news comes as Russia declares their intension to become the world's main arms supplier. Speaking of Democracy, only the State owned company Rosob.... may participate. Ever notice that for a former communist country, Russia sells dangerous technology, withholds dangerous technology, bullies nations with energy rates and supports some nasty regimes all for the love of MONEY? How supremely capitalistic (short term) of them.

Let's see how this grabs those Democrat Party leaders. Ooppss, I meant Democratic Party leaders.

See what happens without spell check or review????

LOL

And "how DO capitals help this?"????

This is just further proof that there are very few people of principle in Washington.

Oh, they've ALL got principles. The question is, what kind?

A bad bill made worse by a broken promise. The way the thing seems to be set up is to almost extort people into voting for it. This is the sort of thing the GOP did when they were in charge. Is the Democratic standard now to be only not as bad as the Republicans? This trend needs to change quickly.

Not to mention the instrinsic wrongheadedness of the retr-I mean, redeployment bill.

And I write this as a committed Democrat, who has a vested interest in seeing my party succeed.

April 28, 1999

The House votes to limit the ability to send ground troops in Kosovo.
There was also a vote to pull the troops out within 30 days.
There was a third vote on the Goodling-Fowler legislation, that said "the president should consult Congress prior to committing ground troops."

then of course there was the 11 Billion dollar funding bill around that time for the air war where one night the GOP was against but the next day these pork projects miraculously appeared and all of the sudden everything was happiness and light.

ahhh those painful paeans to Republican hypocrisy
Trillions and trillions of deficit dollars---er...paeans....

Keep paeaning away folks....

Ok Tully, pay up! I had Marcus in our "show up to defend the indefensible" pool.

Marcus, I could care less that Republicans may have behaved in equally discraceful ways in the past. Because I'm not a Republican and am not interested in defending the disgraceful. None of what you say makes larding this Iraq policy bill with pork one iota less disgraceful. Two wrongs makes two wrongs.

Now I know you're a Dem, Brian. I didn't make any bets and you're demanding i pay anyway!

C'mon, if I was a democrat I'd say I was just closing a tax loophole, so it wasn't really a tax increase.

What Brian said. And notice neither I nor Brian have ever said "impeach Bush", though there are grounds far more serious than Newt's illogical witch hunt. If you think Bush did not cook the Intel and fail to change tactics in the face of obvious failings, then I have some great property to sell you.

I wish that those leaning Right displayed as much nonpartisanship, as those here who lean Left. Can anybody please tell me what Democrat(ic) President made so many mistakes as this one? And please don't say Clinton. If there was an election between Bush and Clinton it would be the largest blowout in American history and that's AFTER Monica and Rich. If Bush hits Iran do you think I will say, "Wag the Dog"? I mean, did you read the House Bill that authorized the invasion of Iraq? Wasn't it a hawk that said, "I'd rather be right, than be President"?

And for the record, at least Obama and Hillary can talk in complete sentences using words found in the English dictionary. I guess English wasn't high on Yale's graduation requirements.

Don't mind me, I'm just blowing off some steam.....More disgraceful was losing to this guy twice, er...a..once.

If you think Bush did not cook the Intel and fail to change tactics in the face of obvious failings, then I have some great property to sell you.
Where and how much Max?
---------

I'm speaking to what is going on in Congress--
Color me perplexed. I've never once doubted any American's patriotism no matter how vile the rhetoric. My assumption is always that they aren't thinking clearly, truly believe the Iraq was/is a blunder, suffer from some sort of social derangment, etc. I accept that others could say the same thing about me. But not that they don't wish the best in their own way for all of us. Even if the 'all of us' means the entire world population rather than just US proper.
I just can't believe that what is going on is that people in power are willing to sell our future down the river to get or keep political power. Even baby rapers aren't that morally bankrupt. There has to be something else to the democrats demands and tactics, but for the life of me I can't see the logic of it.
Pandering to the anti-war crowd is one thing. Booting the President is one thing. Buying the votes to force us to fail is quite another IMO.
I just don't get it. And I ain't stupid.

Dennis,
As far as Iraq, it is my opinion that Bush and his inner circle knew that Saddam was not anywhere near having a WMD capability it could deliver on missiles or aircraft. No one really thinks Saddam would lob some chemical weapons at us and face obliteration. One would have to be an idiot to think that so many experts were wrong about the chaos that would follow Saddam's fall. Iraq is not like America. Saddam had created an entire class of thugs and henchmen to terrorize the people and keep tribal leaders and sectarian groups from rising up. I agree with Ricks that the administration ignored the dire warnings to have police and security forces deployed from the start. It wasn't even administration policy to disband the army and force out so many Sunni professionals, yet it happened under his nose. Cobra ll and Fiasco document the military's objection.

So what are we to make of this? I have said several times that I believed there were other valid reasons for removing Saddam. Bush should have stated them clearly from the start and not have lied about what this was going to cost. Yes, lied. I think I understand why Bush thought he had to lie. He probably believed that America would not approve a PREVENTITIVE invasion. As Bobby once said, he felt removing Saddam was to be a signal to other leaders NOT to support a terrorist/Intel network. I also believe Bush knew Saddam wasn't trying to get yellow cake in Africa, yet he mentioned it anyway in an attempt to motivate support for the invasion. Bush was not alone. Just read the House authorization by Hyde. What a crock of confusion.

As far as ignoring the obvious, Bush is not to blame all by himself, but again, Ricks makes the case rather clearly that many decisions and tactics produced negative results that were further compounded by more stubbornness. He called it tactics without strategy. If a single America soldier died as a consequence of repeated stupidity, including the administration's desire to launch the invasion for political timing, that would be a thousand times greater a reason to impeach Bush THAN NEWT'S LOGIC TO IMPEACH CLINTON. That is all I was saying. I am/was not in favor of such impeachment.

The witch hunt against Clinton was an attempt to get political power. It was horrible and did damage this country's security and set up the polarization that followed into this decade. I wonder if Pat held the special prosecutor in the same distain as he does the recent one.

I do not support the same bullshit on the part of Democrats. You do not see me advocating the same partisan crap the Republicans tried in the nineties. And please don't tell me that domestically, Rove and company have only the best interest's of the country at heart. I believe they think having Republicans in power is best, and would bend rules to see that happen. They believe THEIR view is best for America. It is a classic case of the end justifying the means. Now the Democrats are doing it. I have a terrible sense that leadership on both sides are just fighting for power and not focused on what is best for our security and prosperity. Coming from the Left, I am disgusted by the Democratic pandering to the hate-Republican crowd. It has caused a serious erosion of liberal principle. That is why I tune my comments mostly towards the Left. They believe Republicans have become corrupt and dangerous, so they are willing to take all means necessary to kick them out and reverse ALL policy. That is dumb and partisan. Given the precarious balance of forces in the world, it is even more dangerous than ANY policies Bush is pursing at the moment. I do think he is has been trying to reform his approach and make sure America's future is less dangerous. I wish he had shown more flexibility and smarts years ago. I agree with him now that failure is not an option. And I do believe he moved against Afghanistan and Saddam in an effort to make the world safer, not MORE dangerous. If incompetence and not high crimes were grounds for impeachment, then I would advocate impeaching Bush. One cannot make the same case against Clinton, but then Clinton did not face a 9/11 and pathetic apathy on the part of the global community.

Max;
I think (hope) you're alluding to this new phenomenom of "getting" the opposition President/Party once they are a lame duck. I'm not so concerned about who was worse (Clinton or Bush) but how we stop this phenomenom. Must "subpoena" be the most commonly spoken political word in a president's second term?

Max,
I don't have the time to spar with your lenghty posts. I agree with much you say and always find your posts informative, but quoting Ricks isn't going to get you anywhere with me. Lies and incompetence aren't the way I see it. Hard sell and misjudgement would be the words I would use in my harshest moments. Again and again, hindsight is 20/20.
It's the present actions by people in power that 'obviously' know better (IMO at least), that befuddle me. I think and thought then that Newt should be strung up by his thumbs, but unlike Marcus I find it hard to compare Kosovo to Iraq in terms of national interest.
If I was trying to put the best spin on it, which I find myself doing a lot, I would say the Dems and Repubs are playing good cop bad cop with this. That's a stretch though. Even so it may work out that way.

Did someone mention my name?

I don't hold Patrick Fitzgerald in any particular "disdain," Maxtrue. As a former prosecutor, I have a few professional judgments I make of his conduct, as I do of most prosecutors who make the news.

My disdain, and I did indeed have it back in the Clinton/Starr era, was for the process and concept of the "independent counsel." Look hard enough, and you're going to find that just about everybody in this country has violated the law at some point or other. Compare enough FBI interview summaries with enough sworn grand-jury testimony, and you're going to catch even the most pure government servant in some kind of contradiction which may look like a "lie."

The independent counsel's job is, inherently, to find some crime to prosecute, with little other consideration. Regular prosecutors are in fact tempered by publicity and political concerns, most of the time. They don't pursue purely technical cases against otherwise innocent people, because that would, in most cases, carry a political or economic cost substantially greater than the benefit to the community of the prosecution.

Once Starr was appointed, once Fitzgerald was appointed, they had little choice but to do what they did. They are, by job description, Javert. While no one should be above the law, Javert is the villain of the story for a reason...

Regular prosecutors are in fact tempered by publicity and political concerns

And by budgets, which force priorities on them.

"I mean, for goodness sake, look at the abomination which used to be the independent counsel law. It was so bad that both parties agreed to end it."

Maxuntrue misspoke Pat, I meant to say I wonder if you held Patrick Fitzgerald in the same light you see Starr. I thought you had some "distain" for the behavior regarding Clinton's investigation. Did you feel that was a "fair" application of law? I believe you already answered that question already, but I may be confused.

"Once Starr was appointed, once Fitzgerald was appointed, they had little choice but to do what they did. They are, by job description, Javert. While no one should be above the law, Javert is the villain of the story for a reason..."

I am not sure I understand this. Are you saying laws or guidelines beyond his discression drove Starr’s behavior? Could he have simply stopped and behaved in a way that Fitzgerald did? I accepted Fitzgerald’s outcome and it didn't stink the way I felt Starr's behavior did. For lesser reasons, could not have Fitzgerald blown his investigation up to a broader scale and go after Cheney? Did budget have anything to do with this?

Thank you for catching my mistake. I would never try pro se with you.

Dennis,
All I can say is that before Bobby went to Iraq, he highly recommended FIASCO, while agreeing with Tully that Cobra ll was a bit bias. Actually, Tully called Cobra ll more than that, if I remember. FIASCO certainly makes a clear and documented case for blatant mistakes. I don't know why this is an issue with you. Even Bush admits mistakes and I never said anyone intentionally created a failure in strategy or tactics. We can disagree, but at least accept that almost all experts, right and left, point to several mistakes, or blunders that were not corrected for some time. Would the Baker Report state correctives for so may obvious omissions in policy if mistakes weren’t made? Read FIASCO and look at the chapters regarding planning for security, police, counterinsurgency. Read about the efforts by the military to aquire the forces and resources to seize AND HOLD with reserves which Rummie rejected. Let's leave it at that. I know it is arm chairing, but who actually doesn’t agree to much that Ricks documents? I will spare the quotes to shorten my posts. Since I am not as logical as most, my posts tend to gig and jag and remain less concise. It often takes me a bit more shoveling to state a position or an objection.

I agree with many things you say, and I doubt Repubs and Dems are consciously trying to play good cop, bad cop. I do think it is having that effect on Iraqi perceptions and this is good to a point. If the signals Democrats send gets over the top, our adversaries might actually believe one cop might let them go free.

Chris,
That was what I was implying, although Republicans had it in for Clinton from the start. The actually election battle created the hostility towards Bush, though his campaign against McCain was nasty and Bush said so many things he later reversed through policy. I can find many conservatives AND liberals who agree with that. I don't like this political behavior and I think the cycle of crap is putting us in peril. Gees, we are all Americans. Democrats and Republicans are not supposed to be the enemy. We have enough of them in the world. Frankly, such bloodlust on both sides is unpatriotic given the dangers it presents to a stable and clear US foreign policy. I know it was always nasty, but I have this foolish idea of cultural evolution and progressive reform.

We are not alone

I threw this into because after several media reports that the IDF had "plans" for war when the expected Hizb'Allah provocation happened, one Party (the Left one) now says the opposite and that Peres would not have responded like Olmert. Yes, we are not alone when it comes to divided opinion about retaliation, prevention and pre-emption. One would expect much more unity in Israel, given their proximity to danger.

Interesting that in Lebanon, there is a widely held belief that Hizb'Allah created a disaster for the country and exposed their true intent. The invasion allowed UN troops to go in with a larger force. I wonder what "being better prepared" means?

We can disagree, but at least accept that almost all experts, right and left, point to several mistakes, or blunders that were not corrected for some time.

I guess for my part it is a matter of semantics Max. The "mistake=criminality" meme has become so commonplace it has become hard for me to accept 'mistake' in the context of the Iraq front of the GWOT for it's everyday meaning. I make them daily. They are unavoidable it seems. War's a b1tch. Taken in that context I agree.

Max,

The Starr investigation felt tawdry because the subject matter of what he was investigating was tawdry, as were many of the people caught up in the investigation. Starr's work resulted in the conviction of at least 14 criminals and revealed that the President of the United States had lied under oath in an effort to prevent being held personally accountable for his crude sexual overture to Paula Jones.

Recall that Starr was appointed under the old independent counsel law, so he was in fact operating subject to different laws than Fitzgerald was. But my fundamental point is that special counsels under either law operate with very little real discretion at all. By their nature, they must investigate the highest officials in the land, who may be actively trying to thwart him from discovering the truth, while the public is watching closely for any signs of a "political" investigation. If the special counsel were to exercise discretion not to file charges, for which he had solid evidence, just because of his own sense of justice and proportion, he would be hounded from the position and castigated by the media. As I said, the nature of the precludes the ordinary use of discretion.

Dennis,
I have never said I felt this administration's mistakes in Iraq were criminal. If they were, I am sure the Democrats would be indicting people by now. LOL I just felt that lying about sex was far less a "crime" than any mistakes (negligence, manipulation, etc.) or stubborn blunders that unfortunately cost some soldiers and civilians their lives. We were talking about the context of politics and the desire to "impeach". No matter what the opposition says about Cheney, Rumsfeld or Bush, they acted in what they believed was in America's interest. Unless, something new is revealed to me, I do not consider them to have committed a high crime, despite the political nastiness calling our “prevention” illegal. People forget how much 9/11 changed the context of "national security".

Pat,
I thought that Starr was to investigate White Water. It is true that he found some criminal activity, but not regarding the Clintons. To then knowingly investigate an apparent sexual indiscretion and force impeachment over perjury in a case that did not go to trial seems an incredible stretch of Starr's original mandate. All that tax payer’s money and Starr came up with a single Clinton lie about adultery is what makes it tawdry. And to print the sexual activities? I don't know, it seems this was a mistake that never would have happened to past presidents or without political force behind it.. Maybe I am wrong, but this seemed like a political witch-hunt "at the end" that cost many millions and side tracked more important issues for years. I do not excuse Clinton. He should have stepped up and told the truth. To impeach however, was political retribution, I believe, aimed at retaking the White House given the apparent peace and good economy Gore was going to run on. That is my opinion and again, I am sorry for misquoting you. I thought from other posts, you objected to the sexual inquiry part of Starr’s effort and the tactics employed in Monicagate, as opposed to Scootergate. I also think there is a huge difference between a seamen-stained dress and tapes revealing Bush was warned about the dangerous situation in New Orleans as Katrina approached. It is a matter of weight and lives lost. I do remember Bush saying he was not informed. I guess the Grand Jury part was important, but I ask you this. If a President is caught lying about something big to the press and something small to a Grand Jury, which is worse? There are many times Bush said something that was simply not true. I remember once Bush saying he had no part in selecting Maliki, when reports indicted otherwise. Just a point about law…..