As an Internet Organizer for Progressive Future, I've been busily spreading the otherwise buried reports of the atrocities and abuses committed by military contractors in Iraq. As outraged as they made me, I had to wonder why these stories failed to reach the mainstream American public. Now I know why.
Brandon Friedman explains the mathematics behind the President's announcement that on August 1st he will shorten deployments from 15 month tours to 12 months tours, and how that won't actually affect a single soldier until August 2009, 7 months into the next president's administration. (vetvoice.com)
John McCain still hasn't signed on to Jim Webb's 21st Centuty GI Bill, which would provide the first update to the bill since 1947. (huffingtonpost.com)
Veterans of America is proud to sponsor the Our Troops Newsladder, a new tool to find the top news and articles in the progressive community by, about and for our troops.
We at Veterans For America released two new reports this week: "The Consequences of Churning, about the toll that repeated deployments are taking on frontline Army units, and "Weekend Warriors to Frontline Soldiers", about the effects felt by National Guard combat teams. (veteransforamerica.org)
Lastly, New York Senator Charles Schumer and Virginia Senator Jim Webb are co-sponsoring a plan to create a bigger and better GI Bill that extends benefits and offers more money for living costs and educational programs, in an effort to update the program which has not been amended since the end of World War II. (wwnytv.net)
Veterans of America is proud to sponsor the Our Troops Newsladder, a new tool to find the top news and articles in the progressive community by, about and for our troops.
While in Florida, I complained to a reporter about Steny Hoyer and the Bush Dogs and how bad they are on Iraq. The reporter also talked to Steny Hoyer, who was at the convention.
A few minutes later Buzz asked Steny Hoyer about the influence of MoveOn and the liberal netroots on the party and he spoke of how much the party appreciates them.
1. Chris Murphy (D-CT) - $502,997.60
2. Jason Altmire (D-PA) - $447, 939.94
3. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) - $378,950.54
4. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) - $183,495.05
5. Zack Space (D-OH) - $170,158.40
6. Nick Lampson (D-TX) - $168,200.01
7. Chris Carney (D-PA) - $168,107.14
8. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX) - $163,643.00
9. Tim Mahoney (D-FL) - $159,580.97
10. Paul Hodes (D-NH) - $150,017.00
11. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) - $148,812.62
12. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) - $146,645.72
13. Joe Courtney (D-CT) - $113,157.99
14. Tim Walz (D-MN) - $103,438.05
15. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) - $91,284.24
16. Bruce Braley (D-IA) - $87,004.67
17. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) - $53,043.62
18. Steve Kagen (D-WI) - $11,846.04
19. Baron Hill (D-IN) - $11,711.72
20. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) - $10,823.76
Since they voted to condemn Moveon's ad, they have neutralized Moveon's ability to help them. And how did our candidates do from the netroots page? Not well. Hodes, Walz, Murphy, McNerney, Sestak, Webb, and Tester all voted badly. Every. Single. One.
Obviously, one vote is just one vote, and these public servants have mixed records. Webb for instance has led the fight against the Iran nonsense, and Pat Murphy has voted well on Iraq and been a leader among Freshmen.
We achieved some remarkable things in 2006, and I don't think our calculation of trying and succeeding in winning Congress back by supporting the party was wrong. But now we have to reassess our strategic objectives, and that starts with understanding where there's leverage. That's already started, with us asking the Blue Majority candidates how they would have voted on FISA and the supplemental, and engaging in more House primary fights.
But there's a HUGE amount on the table, in terms of money and energy from us that's going to people who vote against our values. We ought to think through the massive betrayal that we're experiencing, not as a loss, but as an opportunity to learn how to deal with leverage. After all, in 2009, a whole lot of Americans are probably going to wake up to a new female leader, and they are going to believe that everything is fresh and new, that the bad people are finally gone and good governance and a real America can finally return even as the new administration is packed with status quo Democrats.
Fortunately, those of us on the blogs and not in thrall to the Presidential race will have practice at dealing with precisely this situation.
The vote today condemning the Moveon Petraeus ad is an excellent example of the Iron Law of Institutions-ie, that people within institutions act to increase their own power rather than the power of the institution itself.
A retarded baboon could understand it was in the long run best interests of the Democratic party as an institution to stand united against the bill. Yet 22 Democrats voted for it, thus passing it 70+ to 25.
Why? I guarantee you because in many cases the Democratic Senators don't like Moveon. It may be good for the party overall, but any new constituency usually creates enormous problems for those already in power. (At the least it requires you to spend time for their care and feeding.) Why would you want to change the status quo when you're the status quo? Far more appealing to take these interlopers down a peg.
We already know that Republicans are a gang of psychotic criminals. The lesson I'm drawing from this episode is any non-progressive Democrat may and often will betray us at any time.
"I commend MoveOn for their ad and for speaking truth to power," said Stark. "Up is not down, the earth is not flat, and the surge is not working. General Petreaus betrayed his own reputation by standing with George Bush in opposition to the timely withdrawal of all of our brave men and women from Iraq. I thank MoveOn for their patriotic ad and call on Petreaus to help Bush end a war the President should have never started."
If anyone can recommend an audio hosting service, please email me at stoller at gmail.com so I can post the audio file of the interview.
I just did an interview with Wes Clark, and there's a bunch of newsworthy stuff in there, from residual troops to Clinton's vote for the war to what do about the lawbreaking in the Bush regime after the Bush administration is over. Originally I wanted to understand why he endorsed Senator Clinton but it was scheduled for today so I figured I'd drill down into his stance on the Petraeus ad, which he has dubbed a 'big mistake'. I've transcribed the whole thing, but today I'm only going to put out the questions I asked about the Petraeus ad. The other items will come out next week, as they are very significant in terms of helping us understand a Clinton Presidency and I don't want them to get lost.
I loved the Petraeus ad, because it gives us a good window into who throws progressives under the bus when someone actually challenges power. Here's Chuck Todd, political analyst with NBC.
MoveOn is sort of like this old friend of the Democratic Party. It's as if it's, you know, your, your teen - your - a friend of yours from high school, and you don't mind hanging out with them back in high school, and then they keep showing up at your parties, and they get a little drunk and obnoxious, but you'll still - you're afraid to criticize them because they know too much about you or something.
Moveon's 3 million members are children. Get it? And here's liberal columnist Frank Rich:
Americans are looking for leadership, somewhere, anywhere. At least one of the Democratic presidential contenders might have shown the guts to soundly slap the "General Betray-Us" headline on the ad placed by MoveOn.org in The Times, if only to deflate a counterproductive distraction. This left-wing brand of juvenile name-calling is as witless as the "Defeatocrats" and "cut and run" McCarthyism from the right; it at once undermined the serious charges against the data in the Petraeus progress report (including those charges in the same MoveOn ad) and allowed the war's cheerleaders to hyperventilate about a sideshow. "General Betray-Us" gave Republicans a furlough to avoid ownership of an Iraq policy that now has us supporting both sides of the Shiite-vs.-Sunni blood bath while simultaneously shutting America's doors on the millions of Iraqi refugees the blood bath has so far created.
It's also past time for the Democratic presidential candidates to stop getting bogged down in bickering about who has the faster timeline for withdrawal or the more enforceable deadline. Every one of these plans is academic anyway as long as Mr. Bush has a veto pen. The security of America is more important - dare one say it? - than trying to outpander one another in Iowa and New Hampshire.
I don't know where to start on Rich. He uses all the slurs to go after a Moveon ad while conceding that the charges in the ad are factually correct. Then he goes on to argue that any attempts to propose a responsible timeline for withdrawal from Iraq is pandering and sacrificing America's security. And finally, he finishes with a rousing allusion to McCarthyism, as if an ad taken out in the New York Times questioning the integrity of a political leader in uniform based on factual evidence is the equivalent of a Senator using his subpoena power and the power of the state to terrorize thousands with baseless accusations of treason.
Though their work is often good, both Rich and Todd are acting here like lapdogs to the Georgetown cocktail circuit. And it's moments like this that matter, when the political system is actually under pressure. It's really sad to see 'journalists' or liberal columnists discuss the ad as if it overshadows the issue at hand, which is a horrific occupation and a civilian and military leadership that betrays the country by justifying it. .
Taylor Marsh and Jane Hamsher write compelling posts about Elizabeth Edwards, who blasted Moveon earlier this week. She joins Democratic 'strategist' Peter Fenn who blasted Moveon on MSNBC yesterday, and Laura Schwartz, a fellow 'Democratic strategist', who did so on Fox News, and John Kerry, who argued that Petraeus ought not be criticized. And then there's 'liberal' commentator Mark Shields who went after Moveon with a vicious and dishonest smear.
MARK SHIELDS: The activist antiwar wing of the Democratic -- I won't even call it the Democratic Party, because they're not Democrats, but particularized by MoveOn.org this week, with it's just offensive and tasteless full-page ad in the New York Times, playing a pun on General Petraeus' name, "General Betray Us."
I think, in a strange way, it did two things. One, it gave the Republicans something to talk about all week, rather than trying to defend the president's policy, which many of them are uncomfortable doing. But it also may very well liberate the Democrats, that they don't -- from that antiwar base. And they say, "Look, I think there's a chance of a compromise."
There are many ways to disagree with this ad without undermining your allies. Lowell Feld, for instance, called it a 'big mistake' without raising hackles. Part of building an effective movement is knowing when an attack is an attack on surrogates, and when it's an attack on ideas. Moveon and its 3 million members were standing up for integrity in military leadership, public debate, and Congressional oversight.
There's a reflexive instinct to shy away from heated arguments among Democrats, so I'm sympathetic to those who threw Moveon under the bus, as I have been thrown under the bus by good people at certain points. It happens. It's politics. Still, it's important to recognize this as an error, and not do it again.
On Monday, the New York Times ran an ad, paid by MoveOn, in which they took the commander of Multinational Force-Iraq, GEN David Petraeus. The ad essentially accused the General of betraying his duty by supporting the escalation of troops in Iraq, and it was meant to blunt any force his testimony might have had.
I didn't serve with the General. I'm given to understand that he's a very intelligent and forceful man, though that's frankly the par with most men and women who rise to general officer rank in the Army; I'm really neutral about the man, though.
I think the agitation over the ad is frankly ridiculous. Over 3700 women and men have died in the course of service; over 27,000 others, including myself, bear the scars resulting from the whips and fardels of war.
A new poll from Time makes one wonder if the PR strategies employed both by the White House makes and certain segments of the anti-war movement makes any sense. Americans are more likely to want to maintain or increase troops levels in Iraq more if the situation looks worse, not better (9/4-9/8, PDF, page 22):
83. As you may know, a report about the situation in Iraq by General David Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. forces, and others is scheduled to be released next week. If the report says that the situation in Iraq is IMPROVING, what should the U.S. do next: should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq? QUESTIONS 83-84 WERE ROTATED.
Increase: 6%
Keep the same: 32%
Decrease: 39%
Remove All Troops: 17%
DK / NA: 6%
84. If the report says that the situation in Iraq is GETTING WORSE, what should the U.S. do next: should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq? QUESTIONS 83-84 WERE ROTATED.
Increase: 16%
Keep the same: 27%
Decrease: 25%
Remove All Troops: 22%
DK / NA: 9%
Under the scenario that Iraq is growing worse, support for increasing troops in Iraq is higher, in a statistically significant way, while support for decreasing troops declines in a statistically significant way. However, it has actually been pro-war groups, including the White House, that are arguing that Iraq is showing signs of improvement, while it has been those who oppose the war that have argued Iraq is growing worse. Americans are more likely to want out of Iraq if things are going better in Iraq. Go figure.
The befuddlement over troops levels in Iraq among the public does not end there. The same Time poll asks about residual forces, although the poll really slights the "remove all troops" option (same page in link above):
81. Looking ahead in Iraq, if you had to choose, which of these comes closest to your position: 1. The United States should withdraw all of its troops within the next year regardless of what happens in Iraq after the troops leave. OR 2. The United States should withdraw some troops but leave some troops to train Iraqi forces, conduct raids against terrorist groups and protect American diplomats. OR 3. The United States should keep the same number of troops in Iraq as are there now and continue to fight until there is a stable democracy in Iraq?
Withdraw all troops: 22%
Withdraw some troops: 56%
Keep same: 20%
DK / NA: 2%
I think throwing the ominous "regardless of what happens in Iraq after the troops leave" clause is a clear negative description of the position, especially since the options were not rotated in this poll and it was followed with an apparent compromise solution. This is one reason why the Time poll shows very different numbers from other polls asking essentially the same question, but in a more neutral fashion:
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 4-8, 2007. N=1,035 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
"From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"
9/4-9/8: Increase 11%, Same 19%, Decrease 35%, Remove all 30%
8/8-8/12: Increase 13%, Same 17%, Decrease 31%, Remove all 30%
7/20-7/22: Increase 12%, Same 15%, Decrease 30%, Remove all 36%
7/9-7/17: Increase12%, Same 18%, Decrease 29%, Remove all 34%
The wording of the Time poll seems to have lopped at least 10% support off the "remove all" option. At the same time, there does appear to be a noticeable trend where support for "remove all" is slowly shifting to support for "decrease the number of troops in Iraq." It would seem that removing all troops no longer holds a plurality of public opinion on Iraq. The cause for this seems to be connected to the findings in the Time poll. Reports of improved conditions in Iraq shift people toward the "remove some" and "keep the same" options, while reports of worsening conditions in Iraq push people toward the "increase troops" and "remove all" options. When Iraq seems to be improving to the public, war opponents seem to move toward simply a reduced force, while war opponents see no need to increase the size of the American force in Iraq. When Iraq seems to be worsening, war opponents move toward removing all troops, and war proponents move toward increasing the number of troops in Iraq.
This results in the most counter-intuitive conclusion of all. The frequent Democratic facilitation of the "Iraq is improving" narrative actually helps those Democratic candidates who want to maintain significant residual forces in Iraq more than it helps anyone else, including the White House. When Iraq is improving, support for withdrawal actually increases, and the plurality position in this country becomes the most commonly held policy among Democratic elites: "the United States should withdraw some troops but leave some troops to train Iraqi forces, conduct raids against terrorist groups and protect American diplomats." When Iraq is seen as worsening, the plurality position in this country is to remove all troops from Iraq, which is the position held by Bill Richardson, the Center for American Progress, numerous bloggers, and others. The "Iraq is improving" narrative does not help the Republican position on the war. Instead, it helps the residual force Democratic position on Iraq, while hurting both the Republican position and the progressive Democratic position. As such, some Democrats have a vested interest in making comments like:
We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working.
We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war.
And this new war requires different tactics and strategies. We've got to be prepared to maintain the best fighting force in the world.
An improved situation in Iraq increases support for troops withdrawal, while also decreasing support for removing all troops. Given that virtually every Democratic plan among 2008 candidates and those proposed in Congress favors the "withdraw some, but leave residual troops" option, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that Democrats are not doing a particularly good job of fighting back against the "situation is improving in Iraq" line coming from Republicans. Dong so strengthens their hand, by making their position on Iraq both a plurality nationwide, and a nice compromise between removing all troops and maintaining the status quo.
While I don't agree with it, at least this allows the way Democrats have been acting on Iraq to make a lot more sense.
Another new arrival in the West Wing set up a rapid-response PR unit hard-wired into Petraeus's shop. Ed Gillespie, the new presidential counselor, organized daily conference calls at 7:45 a.m. and again late in the afternoon between the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the U.S. Embassy and military in Baghdad to map out ways of selling the surge.
From the start of the Bush plan, the White House communications office had been blitzing an e-mail list of as many as 5,000 journalists, lawmakers, lobbyists, conservative bloggers, military groups and others with talking points or rebuttals of criticism. Between Jan. 10 and last week, the office put out 94 such documents in various categories -- "Myths/Facts" or "Setting the Record Straight" to take issue with negative news articles, and "In Case You Missed It" to distribute positive articles or speeches.
This follows the revelation that Petraeus has had closed door strategy sessions with the Republican caucus,persistent rumors that Petraeus will run for President on the Republican ticket in 2012, and Petraeus's grad school buddy Michael O'Hanlon at the unaccountable Brookings Institution fomenting a PR offensive to bolster his friend's image. Now, I know that senior military leaders interweaving their military activities and messaging with partisan Republican operatives is nothing new and so we've all become somewhat desensitized to it, but technically speaking, America still is a republic.
Chris Bowers pointed out that another blank check for Iraq is probably on its way. Whatever you think about funding strategies for Iraq, this is a good illustration of just how the Bush Dogs hurt us. Here's Jason Altmire, of PA-04, at a press conference upon his recent return from Iraq, on Bush's funding requests.
The president has made the decision to continue the mission at its current level, and I am never going to vote to withhold funding to our brave men and women when they are out in the field of battle serving in harm's way.
By way of background, Jason Altmire is a freshman in a district outside of Pittsburgh, and his district's PVR is R +2.6. He's facing a reelection campaign against either former Congresswoman Melissa Hart or Lynn Swann, neither of whom are particularly good candidates. Republicans have already set up an attack site against him quoting from Fox News and punishing him for voting against the troops.
With his statements on funding, Almire is preemptively caving in to whatever Bush wants. Here's Altmire on Petraeus's report.
So -- and I do want to say one thing about General Petraeus and the meeting that we had with him. I have the utmost confidence, after speaking with him and seeing his commitment to this report, that what you hear in his testimony and what he says is going to be from his heart. I don't think there's going to be any fingerprints from the White House Political Office on General Petraeus's comments.
Just a few weeks ago, the White House claimed they would author the report by Petraeus, casting his credibility into question. Just today, the administration pushed the GAO into changing its pessimistic report on Iraq. Why would Altmire grant the White House this kind of credibilty by building up Patraeus as an unassailable spokesman? Petraeus is going to say the surge is working. We know that now.
Altmire will vote for timelines, and says he wants a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But he's going to vote for any and all money Bush wants, and he will stand up for surrogates of the surge like Patraeus.
I used Howie Klein's profile of Bush Dog Jason Almire to write this post. It was really useful to have that content handy. If you have a bit of time, pick a Bush Dog Democrat who hasn't been profiled and profile him.
Here's Washington state's Brian Baird talking about how great the surge is, how he'll no longer vote for timelines, and bashing Democrats, after spending a grand total of two days in Iraq. This is part of a campaign to split Democrats. As part of the right-wing PR campaign, here's Jerry McNerney bashing Democrats on Iraq to the Washington Post.
But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.
"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."
This is after a 'clarification' on his blog pandering to activists.
We have a lot of work to do on this Bush Dog campaign. Sign up to profile one of them. And meanwhile, we'll need criteria for figuring out how to add new ones. Baird voted correctly on the FISA bill, but I think it's hard to say that he doesn't deserve criticism. Bush won his district in 2004 by a margin of 50-49.
I transcribed Baird's full interview with Tucker in the extended entry.
