Iraq Retrospective: Read The Quotes That Sent Us to War
Thanks to Huffington Post
As the war in Iraq enters its sixth year, Christopher Cerf and Victor Navasky have published a "definitive, footnoted, hilarious but depressing compilation of experts who were in error" about the war from the beginning. You can read more about the book -- "Mission Accomplished! Or How We Won The War In Iraq" -- here.
Below, an excerpt from the chapter titled "Their Finest Hour: America Readies Itself To Free The Iraqi People."
CAKEWALK!
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02
"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for 'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02
"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03
HOW MANY TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED?
"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of 150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq" sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02
"I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."
- Gen. Eric Shinseki, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/25/03
"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/27/03
"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03
"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to image."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03
"If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."
- President George W. Bush, 6/28/05
"The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is...beside the point."
- Rich Lowry, conservative syndicated columnist, 4/19/06
WHAT ABOUT CASUALTIES?
"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, former First Lady (and the current president's mother), on Good Morning America, 3/18/03
"I think the level of casualties is secondary... [A]ll the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war... What we hate is not casualties but losing."
- Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/03
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02
"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02
"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02
"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03
"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03
"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03
"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03
HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?
"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02
"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
- Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could be six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/7/03
"It won't take weeks... Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
- Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03
"There is zero question that this military campaign...will be reasonably short. ... Like World War II for about five days."
- General Barry R. McCaffrey, national security and terrorism analyst for NBC News, 2/18/03
"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03
"Our military superiority is so great -- it's far greater than it was in the Gulf War, and the Gulf War was over in 100 hours after we bombed for 43 days... Now they can bomb for a couple of days and then just roll into Baghdad... The odds are there's going to be a war and it's going to be not for very long."
- Former President Bill Clinton, 3/6/03
"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Time to Stand Up
,
It's Time for The Superdelegates to End This Thing by Oliver Willis
The race between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama remains frozen in amber, with even an unlikely unprecedented string of lopsided victories between now and the end of the primary season unable to change the dominant dynamic: Senator Obama is the frontrunner. Both senators have motivated the base, energizing the party with unprecedented primary and caucus turnout. But now it must come to an end and a transition made to general election mode. Sen. McCain is his party's nominee and is currently consolidating the conservative base. While I feel he still has little chance of winning the general election, we are at a moment in which the Democratic party can march to a historic victory -- a repudiation of conservatism. The more the show of the primary season goes on, the less likely a major victory this fall (although even if the dang thing goes to the convention I still think the Dems will win).
The superdelegates have so far been content to sit on the sidelines and wait out the process, yet time is now of the essence. They need to vote their consciences now, reminded by Speaker Pelosi that they should take heed the will of the Democratic party's voices in 44 states.
Barack Obama most importantly leads in delegates, leads in amount of states won. Sen. Clinton has run a strong campaign, but Sen. Obama's has been stronger and that is why neither candidate can get to the nomination based solely on their primary/caucus performance. The superdelegates need to act. There are eight months until the general election. Eight months of voter mobilization, eight months of educating the voters about our nominee and the Republican nominee. Eight months of fundraising and coordination between the nominee and the national party to be done.
The Democratic Party has a chance to not only elect a Democrat but to deal a severe blow to conservatism. The way to get there is for the superdelegates to act.
Vote now. Follow the people. Choose a nominee. Win the election.
The race between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama remains frozen in amber, with even an unlikely unprecedented string of lopsided victories between now and the end of the primary season unable to change the dominant dynamic: Senator Obama is the frontrunner. Both senators have motivated the base, energizing the party with unprecedented primary and caucus turnout. But now it must come to an end and a transition made to general election mode. Sen. McCain is his party's nominee and is currently consolidating the conservative base. While I feel he still has little chance of winning the general election, we are at a moment in which the Democratic party can march to a historic victory -- a repudiation of conservatism. The more the show of the primary season goes on, the less likely a major victory this fall (although even if the dang thing goes to the convention I still think the Dems will win).
The superdelegates have so far been content to sit on the sidelines and wait out the process, yet time is now of the essence. They need to vote their consciences now, reminded by Speaker Pelosi that they should take heed the will of the Democratic party's voices in 44 states.
Barack Obama most importantly leads in delegates, leads in amount of states won. Sen. Clinton has run a strong campaign, but Sen. Obama's has been stronger and that is why neither candidate can get to the nomination based solely on their primary/caucus performance. The superdelegates need to act. There are eight months until the general election. Eight months of voter mobilization, eight months of educating the voters about our nominee and the Republican nominee. Eight months of fundraising and coordination between the nominee and the national party to be done.
The Democratic Party has a chance to not only elect a Democrat but to deal a severe blow to conservatism. The way to get there is for the superdelegates to act.
Vote now. Follow the people. Choose a nominee. Win the election.
Fun with Ann
,
If Ann Coulter Had Live-Blogged the Gettysburg Address by Mark Kleiman
Old Abe is approaching the podium, looking even more like a badly-dressed and ill-proportioned scarecrow suffering from a depressive disorder than he usually does. I mean, if you're going to be an empty suit, couldn't you at least find a suit that fits?
And as usual, he's not wearing an American flag lapel pin. Too good for it, I suppose. Probably thinks it's tacky, and that "real patriotism" doesn't have to be displayed. Typical intellectual arrogance.
Unfortunately, duty has required me to get a seat up close, so I'm likely to be able to hear his annoyingly high, faint voice.
Of course, it's going to be hard to take anything he says seriously, since he's obviously just angling for votes in Pennsylvania. Notice that he didn't bother to give a speech at Antietam.
Okay, here we go. More "eloquence," no doubt.
Four score and seven years ago
"Fourscore and seven"? Puh-leeze! Couldn't you make it just a little more pompous? Only a moonbat could regard this guy as an orator.
our fathers brought forth on this continent,
Ummm ... didn't we have mothers, too? Well, maybe Lincoln didn't; he looks like he came out of a test tube marked "Failure." But somehow I doubt that the suffragette harpies who swoon over Father Abraham are going to be pleased by the omission.
Anyway, shouldn't someone as smart as Lincoln is supposed to be know that it's mothers who "bring forth"? That thing that fathers do is called "begetting." (I'd always wondered whether Mrs. Lincoln's brats were any kin to Old Ape.)
a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Ahhh...now he slips it to us! "Fourscore and seven," indeed! He's bringing us back to the Marxist rant of 1776, completely ignoring the Constitution of 1787 in rhetoric as he has in practice. I'll believe we're all equal when I'm as tall as Lincoln, or as ugly. And the slaves he's so fond of may be his equals, but I'm damned if they're mine.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.
Right. As if Mr. Lincoln's victory over his sectional enemies on behalf of his black friends were the same as the survival of the nation. It all comes back to the cult of personality.
We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
Well, no. It would be more "fitting and proper" to leave the dead in peace rather than to use them as a club with which to beat conservatives. But Lincoln, like all liberals, is completely shameless. Joshua is right: they're basically fascists.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground.
"A larger sense"? I defy anyone to find any sense whatever in this sentence, large or small. And does he think that "consecrate" and "hallow" really add anything to "dedicate"? More moonbat "eloquence," I guess.
The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.
As if Lincoln had any power to add anything to the bravery of our troops. Really, this is too much to take. And it's all about a battle fought on the Fourth of July, which Lincoln's buddy Fred Douglass says he and his fellow Africans shouldn't celebrate. If Lincoln had an ounce of real patriotism in him, he would have disowned a that rabid racist years ago. But of course doing so would have cost him black votes, and he didn't want to risk that. In Lincoln's world, courage is for other people.
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,
At last! Lincoln says something true! Stop the presses!
but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
Uh-oh! I see where this is going. Socialism. We should all be "dedicated" to whatever cause our politicians choose to assign us. Whatever happened to individualism? Or is that too American for Mr. Lincoln?
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain
... that is, that we should continue to throw good lives after bad just to make the left-wing radical abolitionists happy.
— that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Right. Amalgamation of the races. That would be a "new birth" of freedom. A monstrous birth, of course, but definitely new. And to a "progressive," anything new is good, right?
He's folding up his notes and starting to walk off the stage. Huh? Is that it? Two minutes? Three hundred words? For thousands of dead soldiers?
Seems that way. The crowd, stunned by the sheer triviality of it all, mostly sits on its hands.
What an insult. Talk about mailing it in! Why did he bother to come all the way from Washington if he didn't have anything to say?
And there you have it. Perfect Lincoln. Pretty words, as long as you don't try to find any meaning. No plan. No willingness to work hard. His inexperience continues to show through.
Unlike McClellan, a real fighter with real national-security credentials, this man simply does not pass the Commander-in-Chief threshold. If the Republicans re-nominate this skinny, funny-looking lawyer from Illinois, they're dead meat.
Old Abe is approaching the podium, looking even more like a badly-dressed and ill-proportioned scarecrow suffering from a depressive disorder than he usually does. I mean, if you're going to be an empty suit, couldn't you at least find a suit that fits?
And as usual, he's not wearing an American flag lapel pin. Too good for it, I suppose. Probably thinks it's tacky, and that "real patriotism" doesn't have to be displayed. Typical intellectual arrogance.
Unfortunately, duty has required me to get a seat up close, so I'm likely to be able to hear his annoyingly high, faint voice.
Of course, it's going to be hard to take anything he says seriously, since he's obviously just angling for votes in Pennsylvania. Notice that he didn't bother to give a speech at Antietam.
Okay, here we go. More "eloquence," no doubt.
Four score and seven years ago
"Fourscore and seven"? Puh-leeze! Couldn't you make it just a little more pompous? Only a moonbat could regard this guy as an orator.
our fathers brought forth on this continent,
Ummm ... didn't we have mothers, too? Well, maybe Lincoln didn't; he looks like he came out of a test tube marked "Failure." But somehow I doubt that the suffragette harpies who swoon over Father Abraham are going to be pleased by the omission.
Anyway, shouldn't someone as smart as Lincoln is supposed to be know that it's mothers who "bring forth"? That thing that fathers do is called "begetting." (I'd always wondered whether Mrs. Lincoln's brats were any kin to Old Ape.)
a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Ahhh...now he slips it to us! "Fourscore and seven," indeed! He's bringing us back to the Marxist rant of 1776, completely ignoring the Constitution of 1787 in rhetoric as he has in practice. I'll believe we're all equal when I'm as tall as Lincoln, or as ugly. And the slaves he's so fond of may be his equals, but I'm damned if they're mine.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.
Right. As if Mr. Lincoln's victory over his sectional enemies on behalf of his black friends were the same as the survival of the nation. It all comes back to the cult of personality.
We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
Well, no. It would be more "fitting and proper" to leave the dead in peace rather than to use them as a club with which to beat conservatives. But Lincoln, like all liberals, is completely shameless. Joshua is right: they're basically fascists.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground.
"A larger sense"? I defy anyone to find any sense whatever in this sentence, large or small. And does he think that "consecrate" and "hallow" really add anything to "dedicate"? More moonbat "eloquence," I guess.
The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.
As if Lincoln had any power to add anything to the bravery of our troops. Really, this is too much to take. And it's all about a battle fought on the Fourth of July, which Lincoln's buddy Fred Douglass says he and his fellow Africans shouldn't celebrate. If Lincoln had an ounce of real patriotism in him, he would have disowned a that rabid racist years ago. But of course doing so would have cost him black votes, and he didn't want to risk that. In Lincoln's world, courage is for other people.
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,
At last! Lincoln says something true! Stop the presses!
but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
Uh-oh! I see where this is going. Socialism. We should all be "dedicated" to whatever cause our politicians choose to assign us. Whatever happened to individualism? Or is that too American for Mr. Lincoln?
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain
... that is, that we should continue to throw good lives after bad just to make the left-wing radical abolitionists happy.
— that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Right. Amalgamation of the races. That would be a "new birth" of freedom. A monstrous birth, of course, but definitely new. And to a "progressive," anything new is good, right?
He's folding up his notes and starting to walk off the stage. Huh? Is that it? Two minutes? Three hundred words? For thousands of dead soldiers?
Seems that way. The crowd, stunned by the sheer triviality of it all, mostly sits on its hands.
What an insult. Talk about mailing it in! Why did he bother to come all the way from Washington if he didn't have anything to say?
And there you have it. Perfect Lincoln. Pretty words, as long as you don't try to find any meaning. No plan. No willingness to work hard. His inexperience continues to show through.
Unlike McClellan, a real fighter with real national-security credentials, this man simply does not pass the Commander-in-Chief threshold. If the Republicans re-nominate this skinny, funny-looking lawyer from Illinois, they're dead meat.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Great Minds think Alike...end the myth!
,
The Clinton Civil War by Kos
Al Giordano, on the laughable Clinton-supporters "strike" of this blog:
There was always something incongruous about the self-proclaimed “Hillary Bloggers” trying to use Daily Kos for their purposes. DKos has been defined as a meeting ground not for every Democrat, but for the kind that wants to change the party to be more grassroots oriented, adhere to a 50-state strategy, stop the war in Iraq, and blunt the influence of lobbyists, PACs and the neoliberal Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). That’s the glue that has always held the DKos community together and made it so large and strong.
Given that candidate Clinton is a member of the DLC, voted to authorize the war, accepts federal lobbyist and PAC money, clearly thinks that a lot (if not most) states “don’t matter,” and epitomizes a 1990s style top-down form of doing politics, it’s no surprise that for all of 2007 Clinton never exceeded 11 percent support in the monthly Daily Kos users straw poll.
I would add one more item to the list above -- this site has also been hostile to the corrosive consultant class that gave us our timid and weak party until Howard Dean shook it up in 2004.
Now I'm willing to stipulate that on the consultant front, there's likely not much difference between the Obama and Clinton campaigns (I don't know if it's true, but I assume it is). But on everything else, Clinton fails the test of the guiding principles of this site, and of my first book, Crashing the Gate.
Clinton isn't just a member of the DLC, she's in their leadership. Obama, by the way, repudiated the organization three times (it's a great story, which I tell in my forthcoming book).
Clinton hasn't just rejected a 50-state strategy, she has openly attacked it. CTG has a great quote from former Virginia Governor and future senator Mark Warner on this very topic:
The Democratic Party is in the upswing in the Mountain West and the South, in places like Montana and Virginia, because Democrats there have made a serious effort to compete for votes everywhere, rather than make a nominal effort to be an "also-ran" outside the Democratic-density areas. As [former Virginia Gov. Mark] Warner asks, how many more times will the Democrats run presidential campaigns where they abandon thirty-three southern and western states and "launch a national campaign that goes after sixteen states and then hope that we can hit a triple bank shot to get to that seventeenth state?"
Well, given Obama's map-changing 50-state mindset, it's clear that the answer to Warner's question is "one more time" if Clinton is the nominee, and "never again" if Obama is the nominee.
Clinton didn't just vote for the Iraq war and refuse to apologize for it, she voted to give Bush the same authority on Iran.
And if we want to talk about which party is the most grassroots-oriented, it's no contest. We've seen it in the caucuses, we've seen it in the netroots, and we saw it in the Iowa county convention this Saturday. The party's activists are busting their butts for Obama, while Clinton's campaign is counting on low-information Democratic voters selecting Clinton based on little more than name ID.
But I could deal with all of that, really, if Clinton was headed toward victory. I see this as a long-term movement, and I've always expected setbacks along the way. Clinton isn't the most horrible person in the world. She's actually quite nice, despite all her flaws, and would make a fine enough president.
If she was winning.
But she's not, and that's the rub.
First of all, the only path to victory for Clinton is via coup by super delegate.
She knows this. That's why there's all the talk about poaching pledged delegates and spinning uncertainty around Michigan and Florida, and laying the case for super delegates to discard the popular will and stage a coup.
Yet a coup by super delegate would sunder the party in civil war.
Clinton knows this, it's her only path to victory, and she doesn't care. She is willing -- nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power.
If the situations were reversed, and Obama was lagging in the delegates, popular vote, states won, money raised, and every other reasonable measure, then I'd feel the same way about Obama. (I pulled the plug early on Dean in 2004.) But that's not the case.
It is Clinton, with no reasonable chance of victory, who is fomenting civil war in order to overturn the will of the Democratic electorate. As such, as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't deserve "fairness" on this site. All sexist attacks will be dealt with -- those will never be acceptable. But otherwise, Clinton has set an inevitably divisive course and must be dealt with appropriately.
To reiterate, she cannot win without overturning the will of the national Democratic electorate and fomenting civil war, and she doesn't care.
That's why she has earned my enmity and that of so many others. That's why she is bleeding super delegates. That's why she's even bleeding her own caucus delegates (remember, she lost a delegate in Iowa on Saturday). That's why Keith Olbermann finally broke his neutrality. That's why Nancy Pelosi essentially cast her lot with Obama. That's why Democrats outside of the Beltway are hoping for the unifying Obama at the top of the ticket, and not a Clinton so divisive, she is actually working to split her own party.
Meanwhile, Clinton and her shrinking band of paranoid holdouts wail and scream about all those evil people who have "turned" on Clinton and are no longer "honest power brokers" or "respectable voices" or whatnot, wearing blinders to reality, talking about silly little "strikes" when in reality, Clinton is planning a far more drastic, destructive and dehabilitating civil war.
People like me have two choices -- look the other way while Clinton attempts to ignite her civil war, or fight back now, before we cross that dangerous line. Honestly, it wasn't a difficult choice. And it's clear, looking at where the super delegates, most bloggers, and people like Olbermann are lining up, that the mainstream of the progressive movement is making the same choice.
And the more super delegates see what is happening, and what Clinton has in store, the more imperative it is that they line up behind Obama and put an end to it before it's too late.
Al Giordano, on the laughable Clinton-supporters "strike" of this blog:
There was always something incongruous about the self-proclaimed “Hillary Bloggers” trying to use Daily Kos for their purposes. DKos has been defined as a meeting ground not for every Democrat, but for the kind that wants to change the party to be more grassroots oriented, adhere to a 50-state strategy, stop the war in Iraq, and blunt the influence of lobbyists, PACs and the neoliberal Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). That’s the glue that has always held the DKos community together and made it so large and strong.
Given that candidate Clinton is a member of the DLC, voted to authorize the war, accepts federal lobbyist and PAC money, clearly thinks that a lot (if not most) states “don’t matter,” and epitomizes a 1990s style top-down form of doing politics, it’s no surprise that for all of 2007 Clinton never exceeded 11 percent support in the monthly Daily Kos users straw poll.
I would add one more item to the list above -- this site has also been hostile to the corrosive consultant class that gave us our timid and weak party until Howard Dean shook it up in 2004.
Now I'm willing to stipulate that on the consultant front, there's likely not much difference between the Obama and Clinton campaigns (I don't know if it's true, but I assume it is). But on everything else, Clinton fails the test of the guiding principles of this site, and of my first book, Crashing the Gate.
Clinton isn't just a member of the DLC, she's in their leadership. Obama, by the way, repudiated the organization three times (it's a great story, which I tell in my forthcoming book).
Clinton hasn't just rejected a 50-state strategy, she has openly attacked it. CTG has a great quote from former Virginia Governor and future senator Mark Warner on this very topic:
The Democratic Party is in the upswing in the Mountain West and the South, in places like Montana and Virginia, because Democrats there have made a serious effort to compete for votes everywhere, rather than make a nominal effort to be an "also-ran" outside the Democratic-density areas. As [former Virginia Gov. Mark] Warner asks, how many more times will the Democrats run presidential campaigns where they abandon thirty-three southern and western states and "launch a national campaign that goes after sixteen states and then hope that we can hit a triple bank shot to get to that seventeenth state?"
Well, given Obama's map-changing 50-state mindset, it's clear that the answer to Warner's question is "one more time" if Clinton is the nominee, and "never again" if Obama is the nominee.
Clinton didn't just vote for the Iraq war and refuse to apologize for it, she voted to give Bush the same authority on Iran.
And if we want to talk about which party is the most grassroots-oriented, it's no contest. We've seen it in the caucuses, we've seen it in the netroots, and we saw it in the Iowa county convention this Saturday. The party's activists are busting their butts for Obama, while Clinton's campaign is counting on low-information Democratic voters selecting Clinton based on little more than name ID.
But I could deal with all of that, really, if Clinton was headed toward victory. I see this as a long-term movement, and I've always expected setbacks along the way. Clinton isn't the most horrible person in the world. She's actually quite nice, despite all her flaws, and would make a fine enough president.
If she was winning.
But she's not, and that's the rub.
First of all, the only path to victory for Clinton is via coup by super delegate.
She knows this. That's why there's all the talk about poaching pledged delegates and spinning uncertainty around Michigan and Florida, and laying the case for super delegates to discard the popular will and stage a coup.
Yet a coup by super delegate would sunder the party in civil war.
Clinton knows this, it's her only path to victory, and she doesn't care. She is willing -- nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power.
If the situations were reversed, and Obama was lagging in the delegates, popular vote, states won, money raised, and every other reasonable measure, then I'd feel the same way about Obama. (I pulled the plug early on Dean in 2004.) But that's not the case.
It is Clinton, with no reasonable chance of victory, who is fomenting civil war in order to overturn the will of the Democratic electorate. As such, as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't deserve "fairness" on this site. All sexist attacks will be dealt with -- those will never be acceptable. But otherwise, Clinton has set an inevitably divisive course and must be dealt with appropriately.
To reiterate, she cannot win without overturning the will of the national Democratic electorate and fomenting civil war, and she doesn't care.
That's why she has earned my enmity and that of so many others. That's why she is bleeding super delegates. That's why she's even bleeding her own caucus delegates (remember, she lost a delegate in Iowa on Saturday). That's why Keith Olbermann finally broke his neutrality. That's why Nancy Pelosi essentially cast her lot with Obama. That's why Democrats outside of the Beltway are hoping for the unifying Obama at the top of the ticket, and not a Clinton so divisive, she is actually working to split her own party.
Meanwhile, Clinton and her shrinking band of paranoid holdouts wail and scream about all those evil people who have "turned" on Clinton and are no longer "honest power brokers" or "respectable voices" or whatnot, wearing blinders to reality, talking about silly little "strikes" when in reality, Clinton is planning a far more drastic, destructive and dehabilitating civil war.
People like me have two choices -- look the other way while Clinton attempts to ignite her civil war, or fight back now, before we cross that dangerous line. Honestly, it wasn't a difficult choice. And it's clear, looking at where the super delegates, most bloggers, and people like Olbermann are lining up, that the mainstream of the progressive movement is making the same choice.
And the more super delegates see what is happening, and what Clinton has in store, the more imperative it is that they line up behind Obama and put an end to it before it's too late.
,
Democrats risk losing a generation by RON DZWONKOWSKI
If -- and it's still an if -- the numbers just don't add up for U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic presidential nominee, but the party, through its arcane rules and superdelegates process, gives it to her anyway, Democrats will pay dearly, for a generation or more.
Advertisement
Instead of re-establishing themselves as the party in power for perhaps the next 20 years, Democrats could be effectively handing the White House to Republican John McCain and alienating up to 30 million young voters who have gotten engaged in politics this year for the first time because of Barack Obama. If these voters feel that Obama has been cheated out of a chance to run for president, they and the hordes more of them becoming eligible to vote in the years ahead, will not easily return to the Democratic fold. Even if they like the party's principles, they will distrust its processes.
In this scenario, Clinton mitigates the damage only somewhat by choosing Obama as her vice presidential candidate -- a role he has said he doesn't want anyway.
More likely, young voters sit out the election (as they have in the past) and McCain wins and Democrats dissolve again into their bickering, finger-pointing ways while an emerging generation that desperately wants to see a stronger, safer and better America backs out of the political system.
This is truly a nightmare scenario for the Democratic Party, which has on its hands a much closer battle for the presidential nomination than anyone, especially Clinton, expected when the race took shape last fall. It seems as if it can be avoided only if in the weeks ahead either Clinton or Obama emerges with an indisputable command of the contest and the loser delivers a strong, convincing endorsement of the victor. Given the way they've been going at each other for weeks, the convincing part may be difficult.
This Democratic dilemma came up this week in a conversation with two old-line party members who have written a new book on young voters. "Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics." The book is all about the political potential of the so-called Millennial Generation, born from 1983-2003, and at 80 million strong, the largest generation in American history. It also is the most diverse and most technologically savvy and has been forecast to be America's next great generation, reshaping the nation to the same extent that the "GI Generation" did after World War II.
With its defining moment so far the 9/11 attacks, the Millennial Generation is concerned about security and is in constant communication via cell phones and the Internet. Thanks in part to Title IX and growing up with TV shows that melted down stereotypes, the generation has little sense of traditional roles for men and women, doesn't make much of racial or ethnic differences, and relies for advice largely on friends and peers. Millennials prefer "win-win" solutions to outright victories for one side, which means they have little use for politics as practiced in this country for the past 20 years or so.
Although, at 46, not part of the generation, Obama obviously is in tune with it. His campaign is the first to tap nationally into the online "social networking" that is an essential part of life for just about every Millennial.
"They don't see a black candidate; they see hope," said Morley Winograd, the former Michigan Democratic chairman and adviser to Vice President Al Gore who wrote the book with Michael Hais, a researcher and analyst who worked on campaigns for Michigan U.S. Sen. Carl Levin and former governor James Blanchard.
"They are not out to resist government authority, but for them that authority has not worked very well," Hais said of the coming generation of voters, who have only known presidents named Clinton or Bush. "They want to make it work better and don't see the current leadership doing that."
For them, Obama means change. And if he can claim the most votes or the most states going into the Democratic convention, that makes it pretty simple for Millennials to decide who should be the nominee.
Although McCain, at 71, is almost three generations removed from the voting-age Millennials, he still could appeal to them with his personal example of "serving a cause greater than yourself" -- a theme from his 2000 presidential run.
"The Republicans can take advantage of this," Hais said of the Democrats' dispute. "The partisanship among Millennials is not so firmly set that they couldn't lean Republican."
And the Democrats are not so forward-thinking that they couldn't screw up the chance to capture a generation.
If -- and it's still an if -- the numbers just don't add up for U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic presidential nominee, but the party, through its arcane rules and superdelegates process, gives it to her anyway, Democrats will pay dearly, for a generation or more.
Advertisement
Instead of re-establishing themselves as the party in power for perhaps the next 20 years, Democrats could be effectively handing the White House to Republican John McCain and alienating up to 30 million young voters who have gotten engaged in politics this year for the first time because of Barack Obama. If these voters feel that Obama has been cheated out of a chance to run for president, they and the hordes more of them becoming eligible to vote in the years ahead, will not easily return to the Democratic fold. Even if they like the party's principles, they will distrust its processes.
In this scenario, Clinton mitigates the damage only somewhat by choosing Obama as her vice presidential candidate -- a role he has said he doesn't want anyway.
More likely, young voters sit out the election (as they have in the past) and McCain wins and Democrats dissolve again into their bickering, finger-pointing ways while an emerging generation that desperately wants to see a stronger, safer and better America backs out of the political system.
This is truly a nightmare scenario for the Democratic Party, which has on its hands a much closer battle for the presidential nomination than anyone, especially Clinton, expected when the race took shape last fall. It seems as if it can be avoided only if in the weeks ahead either Clinton or Obama emerges with an indisputable command of the contest and the loser delivers a strong, convincing endorsement of the victor. Given the way they've been going at each other for weeks, the convincing part may be difficult.
This Democratic dilemma came up this week in a conversation with two old-line party members who have written a new book on young voters. "Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics." The book is all about the political potential of the so-called Millennial Generation, born from 1983-2003, and at 80 million strong, the largest generation in American history. It also is the most diverse and most technologically savvy and has been forecast to be America's next great generation, reshaping the nation to the same extent that the "GI Generation" did after World War II.
With its defining moment so far the 9/11 attacks, the Millennial Generation is concerned about security and is in constant communication via cell phones and the Internet. Thanks in part to Title IX and growing up with TV shows that melted down stereotypes, the generation has little sense of traditional roles for men and women, doesn't make much of racial or ethnic differences, and relies for advice largely on friends and peers. Millennials prefer "win-win" solutions to outright victories for one side, which means they have little use for politics as practiced in this country for the past 20 years or so.
Although, at 46, not part of the generation, Obama obviously is in tune with it. His campaign is the first to tap nationally into the online "social networking" that is an essential part of life for just about every Millennial.
"They don't see a black candidate; they see hope," said Morley Winograd, the former Michigan Democratic chairman and adviser to Vice President Al Gore who wrote the book with Michael Hais, a researcher and analyst who worked on campaigns for Michigan U.S. Sen. Carl Levin and former governor James Blanchard.
"They are not out to resist government authority, but for them that authority has not worked very well," Hais said of the coming generation of voters, who have only known presidents named Clinton or Bush. "They want to make it work better and don't see the current leadership doing that."
For them, Obama means change. And if he can claim the most votes or the most states going into the Democratic convention, that makes it pretty simple for Millennials to decide who should be the nominee.
Although McCain, at 71, is almost three generations removed from the voting-age Millennials, he still could appeal to them with his personal example of "serving a cause greater than yourself" -- a theme from his 2000 presidential run.
"The Republicans can take advantage of this," Hais said of the Democrats' dispute. "The partisanship among Millennials is not so firmly set that they couldn't lean Republican."
And the Democrats are not so forward-thinking that they couldn't screw up the chance to capture a generation.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
YouTube Roundup
,
Another user made advertisement making a swipe at a certain someone:
Keith does it again, why does he get it and no one else?:
On a serious note Senator Obama:
I admire anyone who stands up and refuses to live in fear. Hopefully Hillary will watch this.
And finally a reminder of who our wonderful leader is, thanks republicans!:
Keith does it again, why does he get it and no one else?:
On a serious note Senator Obama:
I admire anyone who stands up and refuses to live in fear. Hopefully Hillary will watch this.
And finally a reminder of who our wonderful leader is, thanks republicans!:
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Oil: The Real Problem
,
The Triumph of OPEC
By Robert Samuelson
WASHINGTON -- For much of its 47-year existence, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has been a cartel in name only. It could not control oil prices because many of its members regularly breached the production quotas that were intended to regulate the market. So OPEC followed oil prices up and down, as supply and demand shifted. But now OPEC may be the real deal: a cartel that works. If so, that's bad news for the rest of the world.
Look no further than last week's OPEC meeting in Vienna. Oil ministers declined to increase production despite a strong case for doing so. Not only were oil prices fluttering above $100 a barrel, but the United States is either in or near a recession and much of the rest of the world faces an economic slowdown.
What's wrong is that a fall of oil prices is one of the mechanisms by which a recession or economic slowdown corrects itself. Lower prices for gasoline, home heating oil and diesel fuel improve consumer purchasing power. They muffle inflation and increase confidence. In this sense, they're an important "automatic stabilizer" for a faltering economy.
Oil producers don't much care. High prices have been good to them. Since 1999, annual oil revenues for OPEC countries have more than quadrupled, to an estimated $670 billion in 2007, says energy economist Philip Verleger Jr. What's less clear is whether OPEC has merely benefited from tight oil markets or has acted as a true cartel, restricting output and raising prices. The right answer is: both.
Of tight markets, there's little doubt. Two massive oil miscalculations both aided OPEC. First was a widespread underestimate of world demand, especially from China. Since 1999, China's oil use has almost doubled, to 7.5 million barrels a day (mbd) in 2007. (In 2007, world oil use was 86 mbd, up 13 percent from 1999. American oil use was 20.8 mbd, up 7 percent.) Second was an overestimate of supply. War, civil strife and nationalization have depressed production in Iraq, Nigeria, Iran, Venezuela and elsewhere. Total global capacity might be 4.5 mbd higher without these setbacks, says the Energy Policy Research Foundation (EPRINC).
But that's only the half of it. Go back to late 2006. Crude prices were slipping from about $70 a barrel in August toward $50 a barrel. A true cartel would cut production to prop up prices. That's what OPEC did. In two steps, it reduced oil output by about 800,000 barrels a day, notes economist Larry Goldstein of EPRINC. "By July, 125 million barrels of oil inventory had been wiped out," he says. At the end of 2007, inventories (measured by days of supply) were at their lowest point in three years. Prices rose.
OPEC's present market power dates to early 1999, says economist Verleger. Oil prices then were about $10 a barrel. The 1997-98 Asian financial crisis had cut demand; supply was essentially unregulated. Saudi Arabia undertook frantic negotiations with other major producers, including Iran, Kuwait, Venezuela and non-OPEC members Russia, Norway and Mexico. The result was an agreement to cut production sharply. Compliance with output quotas was surprisingly good; countries were terrified by the collapse of their oil revenues.
We are paying for past shortsightedness. Dependence on oil imports, now almost 60 percent of U.S. supply, is inevitable. But we could limit OPEC's market power by curbing our demand and increasing our supply. As the worldwide gap between supply and demand rises, it's harder for producers to control the market. More have spare capacity; more are tempted to increase production to raise revenues. Today's surplus is concentrated in a few countries, especially Saudi Arabia, which can adjust production to influence prices.
Americans rant at foreign producers on the silly presumption that they should subordinate their interests to ours. But we refuse to do much that would actually limit their freedom of action. It was only last year that Congress raised fuel-efficiency standards for new cars and light trucks. We have steadfastly rejected higher gasoline taxes to curb unnecessary driving and strengthen demand for fuel-efficient vehicles (better to tax ourselves than let foreigners tax us through higher prices). And we have consistently restricted oil drilling in Alaska and elsewhere.
By doing so little to check its own thirst for imports, the United States has contributed to OPEC's present triumph. The extent of that triumph will be tested this year and next. Non-OPEC oil supplies -- from Brazil, Canada and Kazakhstan, among other places -- will increase. Meanwhile, a weaker global economy may dampen demand. Even OPEC may be unable to hold prices at today's high levels. Whatever happens, the long-term threat of a global oil cartel will remain. We should be taking the hard steps to limit its power. Considering our past complacency, we probably won't.
By Robert Samuelson
WASHINGTON -- For much of its 47-year existence, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has been a cartel in name only. It could not control oil prices because many of its members regularly breached the production quotas that were intended to regulate the market. So OPEC followed oil prices up and down, as supply and demand shifted. But now OPEC may be the real deal: a cartel that works. If so, that's bad news for the rest of the world.
Look no further than last week's OPEC meeting in Vienna. Oil ministers declined to increase production despite a strong case for doing so. Not only were oil prices fluttering above $100 a barrel, but the United States is either in or near a recession and much of the rest of the world faces an economic slowdown.
What's wrong is that a fall of oil prices is one of the mechanisms by which a recession or economic slowdown corrects itself. Lower prices for gasoline, home heating oil and diesel fuel improve consumer purchasing power. They muffle inflation and increase confidence. In this sense, they're an important "automatic stabilizer" for a faltering economy.
Oil producers don't much care. High prices have been good to them. Since 1999, annual oil revenues for OPEC countries have more than quadrupled, to an estimated $670 billion in 2007, says energy economist Philip Verleger Jr. What's less clear is whether OPEC has merely benefited from tight oil markets or has acted as a true cartel, restricting output and raising prices. The right answer is: both.
Of tight markets, there's little doubt. Two massive oil miscalculations both aided OPEC. First was a widespread underestimate of world demand, especially from China. Since 1999, China's oil use has almost doubled, to 7.5 million barrels a day (mbd) in 2007. (In 2007, world oil use was 86 mbd, up 13 percent from 1999. American oil use was 20.8 mbd, up 7 percent.) Second was an overestimate of supply. War, civil strife and nationalization have depressed production in Iraq, Nigeria, Iran, Venezuela and elsewhere. Total global capacity might be 4.5 mbd higher without these setbacks, says the Energy Policy Research Foundation (EPRINC).
But that's only the half of it. Go back to late 2006. Crude prices were slipping from about $70 a barrel in August toward $50 a barrel. A true cartel would cut production to prop up prices. That's what OPEC did. In two steps, it reduced oil output by about 800,000 barrels a day, notes economist Larry Goldstein of EPRINC. "By July, 125 million barrels of oil inventory had been wiped out," he says. At the end of 2007, inventories (measured by days of supply) were at their lowest point in three years. Prices rose.
OPEC's present market power dates to early 1999, says economist Verleger. Oil prices then were about $10 a barrel. The 1997-98 Asian financial crisis had cut demand; supply was essentially unregulated. Saudi Arabia undertook frantic negotiations with other major producers, including Iran, Kuwait, Venezuela and non-OPEC members Russia, Norway and Mexico. The result was an agreement to cut production sharply. Compliance with output quotas was surprisingly good; countries were terrified by the collapse of their oil revenues.
We are paying for past shortsightedness. Dependence on oil imports, now almost 60 percent of U.S. supply, is inevitable. But we could limit OPEC's market power by curbing our demand and increasing our supply. As the worldwide gap between supply and demand rises, it's harder for producers to control the market. More have spare capacity; more are tempted to increase production to raise revenues. Today's surplus is concentrated in a few countries, especially Saudi Arabia, which can adjust production to influence prices.
Americans rant at foreign producers on the silly presumption that they should subordinate their interests to ours. But we refuse to do much that would actually limit their freedom of action. It was only last year that Congress raised fuel-efficiency standards for new cars and light trucks. We have steadfastly rejected higher gasoline taxes to curb unnecessary driving and strengthen demand for fuel-efficient vehicles (better to tax ourselves than let foreigners tax us through higher prices). And we have consistently restricted oil drilling in Alaska and elsewhere.
By doing so little to check its own thirst for imports, the United States has contributed to OPEC's present triumph. The extent of that triumph will be tested this year and next. Non-OPEC oil supplies -- from Brazil, Canada and Kazakhstan, among other places -- will increase. Meanwhile, a weaker global economy may dampen demand. Even OPEC may be unable to hold prices at today's high levels. Whatever happens, the long-term threat of a global oil cartel will remain. We should be taking the hard steps to limit its power. Considering our past complacency, we probably won't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)