Recent Appearances...

Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances...

Home Front: Politix

Surprise! $29.4B In Pentagon Pork Tucked Into GOP Relief Bill

2020-08-03

[American Conservative] Senate Republicans unveiled Monday their $1 trillion coronavirus stimulus package. Tucked inside is a $29.4 billion request for new defense spending, over $8 billion of which is for defense procurement and acquisition.

Critics point out that the bill does not delineate any new or urgent defense threat to justify the $30 billion request over and above the Pentagon’s ask.

Instead, the bill requests millions in new spending for things like missile defense money and F-35’s.

Here’s some of what Congress wants to spend money on:

$1,068,000,000 for additional Boeing P-8A Poseidon aircraft

$720,000,000 for additional Lockheed Martin C—130J aircraft

$686,000,000 for additional Lockheed Martin F—35A aircraft

$650,000,000 for wing replacements to the Boeing A—10

$375,000,000 for General Dynamics Stryker upgrades

$283,000,000 for additional Boeing AH—64 Apache Block IIIB helicopters

$243,270,000 and $76,325,000 for THAAD related items, the anti-ballistic missile defense system designed to shoot down short, medium, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles

$49,100,000 for Sonobuoys, a tactical sonar system for transmitting submarine activity

"As you know, fighter jets are well known for their pandemic fighting abilities," wrote Stephen Miles, executive director of Win Without War.

In order to claim that each item in the bill is requested in response to the coronavirus, the bill labels them:

1. “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally, and
2. "designated by the Congress as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985."

’But the fact that the Pentagon would have two years to spend these new funds undercuts the argument that this new request is urgent and coronavirus-related.

"The greed is not pretty. The Pentagon has already had $740 billion approved for defense this year, but it and its congressional advocates can’t resist asking for more and funneling more pork to their constituents," said John Isaacs, senior fellow at Council for a Livable World & Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, in an interview with The American Conservative.

"If Republicans’ sporadic concerns about deficits were real, they would view the $750 defense budget as the first place to look for cuts to partly offset the gigantic sums expended to recover from coronavirus," said Ben Friedman, policy director of Defense Priorities, to The American Conservative. "Instead, they’re using coronavirus as an excuse to shovel more money to the Pentagon, which already receives more than it did at almost point during the Cold War, for no obvious reason. They do not even bother with a security rationale for the new spending, it’s just seen as inherently good to blow money on new military hardware."

There are a few items of spending that are coronavirus related: $5,300,000,000 for Coronavirus Defense Production Act purchases, $1,450,000,000 for four expeditionary medical ships, and $705,000,000 for the Defense Health program.

But that is out of an almost $30 billion request.

Link

Iraq

Anti-war groups re-deploy on funding fight

2008-01-17

After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.

Why would this be bad? Are we pulling the troops from Korea, Japan and Europe?

The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November and bring the votes to pass more dramatic measures. But it is a long way from the early months of 2007, when Democrats were freshly in power and momentum for a dramatic shift in Iraq policy seemed overpowering.

There was a consensus that last year was not productive, John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World, said of a meeting attended by a coalition of anti-war groups last week. Our expectations were dashed.

The meeting, held at an office on K Street, was attended by around 20 representatives of influential anti-war groups, including MoveOn.org and Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, which spent $12 million last year opposing the war.

Isaacs said he thought the meeting would be a difficult one, with an adamant faction pressing for continued focus on timelines and funding. It wasnt to be. We got our heads together and decided to go a different way, Isaacs said. The consensus was not to keep beating our heads against the wall trying to block every funding bill not because we dont agree with it, but because we dont have the votes.

Moira Mack, a spokeswoman for AAEI, was also at the meeting. There was a lot of agreement that this is really the way that we can best get our message across about endless war versus end-the-war and draw clear distinctions between anti-war Democrats and pro-war Republicans. They really dont want to end the war. This is the perfect legislative opportunity.

An additional factor: The failure of last years end-of-the-session efforts to oppose the war convinced some in the movement that the numbers just werent there. At the end of the year, Congress went out with a whole bunch more votes on Iraq with the same result. Some of the [news] stories were saying that members of Congress were getting tired of it, Isaacs said.

The new strategy doesnt mean that the groups wont be active during budget battles. The budget debates provide an enormously rich opportunity to engage the public, said former Maine Rep. Tom Andrews of the group Win Without War. Were spending $8 [billion] to $10 billion a month.

During Tuesday nights presidential debate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) referenced the kind of legislation that the anti-war crowd will be backing when she asked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) if he would co-sponsor a bill to prevent the president from entering into any long-term agreements with the Iraqi government without consulting Congress.

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama will support all common-sense efforts to ensure that President Bush does not tie the hands of future presidents through agreements with the Iraqi government.

Link

Home Front: Politix

From today's email: "Allies Statement in Support of MoveOn.org"

2007-09-22

For Immediate Release
Date: September 21, 2007
Allies Statement in Support of MoveOn.org

The resolution condemning MoveOn.org yesterday sponsored by Senate Republicans was nothing more than a distraction from the real issue at hand: their unpopular support for a failed war in Iraq that is dragging on without end. Regardless of ones position on the ad in question, Senator Cornyns resolution and the Republican assault on MoveOn.org represented a frightening attack on free speech and an outrageous attempt to intimidate an organization, its allies and the popular movement in America they have helped lead to end the war in Iraq. Rather than intimidating MoveOn.org or the coalition which is working to bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq, we are confident that such attempts to stifle debate will only further energize the progressive movement and the effort to end the war.

USAction
Campaign for Americas Future
Americans United for Change
Progressive States Network
TrueMajority.org
American Family Voices
Win Without War
Catholics United

Link

Home Front: Politix

Anti-War Left to Turn on Democrats

2007-05-27

After a contentious, three-month battle with the White House over Iraq, congressional Democrats limped out of Washington Friday with their sights trained on July for the next round -- but antiwar activists are spoiling for a fight far sooner than that.

The Democratic rank-and-file left for the week-long Memorial Day break with a slate of talking points on Congress's accomplishments whose top bullet point boasts of "working responsibly to end the war." In the past 100 days, virtually every Democrat has voted to demand troop withdrawals, and a majority of them effectively voted Thursday night to cut off funds for the war.

But to antiwar groups, the only tally that mattered was Congress's easy approval of a $120 billion war spending bill that was stripped of timelines for troop withdrawals. A majority of House Democrats may have voted against it, but the Democratic leadership in both chambers facilitated its passage.

"Voters elected this Congress to lead the country out of the mess in Iraq," ~~and anything else I say~~, said Eli Pariser, executive director of the liberal activist group MoveOn.org Political Action. "We expect great political fallout for all of the representatives -- Republican and Democrat -- who stood in the way."

Democratic leaders argue that for the first time Congress had required the Bush administration to track military and political progress in Iraq in 18 prescribed areas and to report back to Congress as soon as July.
Horsehocky. Reports are currently being made weekly and quarterly (26 pages long)
Some nonmilitary aid could be jeopardized if the Iraqi government fails to make progress.

The funding bill's passage "was the start of a whole new direction in Iraq," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). "I think that the president's policy is going to begin to unravel now." But that message was undermined by her vote against a measure she herself had dismissed as "a fig leaf" and "a token." Pelosi praised the 140 Democrats who voted against the bill. She said the "no" votes communicated "No more funding."

But the praise struck a dissonant note, since she was flanked by House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.) and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), all of whom had voted for the funds.
{snicker}
"There are 232 Democrats in the House of Representatives," Hoyer said. "There are 232 Democrats that believed that our policies in Iraq are failing."

92 of whom covered their own hides.

Activists declared they would remain focused on Republicans but would hold Democrats accountable. Television advertisements, financed by an antiwar coalition, will target Sens. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), both up for reelection next year. And MoveOn organizers said Democrats also are likely to see skirmishes in their districts. MoveOn asked its members Friday to send Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) protest letters in the form of tea bags, reminders that he had called the Iraq bill "weak tea" before he voted for it.
Maybe Ned Lamont will run again?
"This is not partisan anymore. This is not about staying away from Democrats to make them look good or attacking all Republicans to make them look bad," ~~like it has been up until today, and will be again tomorrow~~ said Susan Shaer, co-chairman of the Win Without War coalition. "We don't care who you are or whether we usually like you. This vote was wrong."

Such sentiment is only being compounded by Democratic presidential candidates who are reveling in their opposition to the war funding bill as they appeal to core Democratic voters. Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) established a Web site to encourage voters to mobilize during Memorial Day weekend. And when Republicans hit front-running Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) for their votes against the war spending bill, the Democrats hit right back. "Governor Romney and Senator McCain are still supporting a war that has cost us thousands of lives, made us less safe in the world, and resulted in a resurgence of al-Qaeda," Obama said, after Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and the Republican National Committee all accused him of abandoning the troops. "It is time to end this war."

Eager to address other issues, such as soaring energy prices, and to complete unfinished business on homeland security and ethics bills, House leaders hope to give Iraq a rest. Chairman John P. Murtha (Pa.) of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense plans to strip Iraq issues from the 2008 defense spending bill when it comes up in July and prepare a separate war funding measure for consideration in September, when Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, is to report to Congress on the war's progress.
The Dems won't believe his report, just like in his first briefing, which they almost didn't bother to attend.
But the Senate will return to the war in late June, when it is scheduled to take up a defense policy bill. The Armed Services Committee released the legislation Friday, and although it includes no Iraq withdrawal language, Chairman Carl M. Levin (Mich.) said Democrats would seek to require troops to begin leaving within 120 days of the bill's passage. "The Iraqi leaders will realize that their future is in their hands only when they are forced into that recognition," Levin said.
There are some signs Carl is right - the Iraqis do seem more motivated of late. Maybe Karl is behind the whole thing?
Another Senate war bill, expected to be introduced early next month, would adopt the Iraq Study Group recommendations as official policy. The group was headed by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). The legislation, which has gained bipartisan backing, ...

Really? Who? The ISG report was a crock and a sham, and I'd like to see the Republicans who are now standing behind it.

... would establish conditions for a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq and require specific steps to be taken by the Iraqi government. The list is similar to the benchmarks in the funding bill, but more detailed in its requirements.

Link

Fifth Column

Soros Paying Agitators To Protest

2007-05-16

An anti-war group is hiring activists to travel to at least a dozen states this summer to galvanize opposition to what it calls the "Bush-McCain plan to escalate" the U.S. mission in Iraq.

President Bush early this year announced a "surge" of additional troops into Iraq, while Arizona Sen. John McCain -- a leading Republican 2008 presidential hopeful -- has long advocated increasing the number of troops in the conflict, criticizing the administration for not doing so earlier. Anti-war activists want U.S. troops out of Iraq altogether.

The organization Americans Against Escalation in Iraq doesn't hide its partisanship, saying it wants to "force a victorious showdown in the fall" and that the summer campaign will make participants "primed, ready and qualified to serve on '08 electoral campaigns."

A coalition of liberal and anti-war groups, the organization is advertising online for activists, offering a "generous stipend" of $400 a week. More than 100 organizers will likely be hired. The ads say they "could be assigned to targeted legislative districts anywhere in the country -- you will receive your assignment after you have been accepted."

The group won't release details on the summer campaign until a later date, said spokeswoman Moira Mack.

"We are definitely building up the capacity for the summer," Mack said. "A couple of our allies have started Iraq action summer training camps on campuses across the country."

The coalition comprises MoveOn.org and the Center for American Progress -- both heavily financed by billionaire liberal activist George Soros in 2004 -- as well as the Service Employees International Union, anti-war groups Vote Vets and Win Without War, and others.

Some of these anti-war groups have regular morning conference calls with Democratic leaders in the House and Senate to discuss talking points, polling and strategy, according to press reports.

The summer campaign is a clear example of how the well-financed anti-war left is using the "Vietnam playbook to deny the troops the military victories earned on the battlefield," said Kristinn Taylor, spokesman for the group Gathering of Eagles, which says it supports American victory in the Iraq war.

"The anti-war left is much better funded. They're the squeaky wheel," Taylor said. "Most Americans don't want to lose in Iraq, they're just frustrated because they don't see results. If our side was better organized, we could get more people involved and educate more people."

When anti-war protesters marched to the Pentagon in March, the Gathering of Eagles sponsored a well-attended counter rally. The group will be holding a Memorial Day rally near the Lincoln Memorial.

On May 17, the group Move America Forward will be holding "Surrender Is Not an Option" rallies outside the San Francisco office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and outside the Carson City, Nev., office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Americans Against Escalation In Iraq will take aim at any elected officials who seem to be wavering on their backing for the mission in Iraq.

"We are targeting states that have folks we can win over to our side," Mack said. "Some have spoken out against President Bush, but then, they vote with him."

She said McCain would be an especially key target. "He said we are on the right track in Iraq ... citizens have to let him know he does not speak for them."

The group's summer campaign will run from mid-June through Labor Day. "This is the most important issue campaign facing our nation, and the results of this challenge will heavily weigh on electoral races in '08," the employment ad says.

"Americans Against Escalation in Iraq is in the process of deciding what states to target," said Eve Weismann, spokeswoman for New Jersey Citizen Action, a member group in the coalition. "It will be a dozen states or two dozen states. We will pressure and influence decision makers."

Link

Home Front: Politix

Libs Give Up Principles; Vote for Slow End to War

2007-03-23

Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, which sets timelines for bringing U.S. troops home. The acquiescence of the liberals probably means that the House will pass a binding measure today that, for the first time, would establish tough readiness standards for the deployment of combat forces and an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq.

A Senate committee also passed a spending bill yesterday setting a goal of bringing troops home within a year. The developments mark congressional Democrats' first real progress in putting legislative pressure on President Bush to withdraw U.S. forces.

Even more than the conservative Democrats leery of appearing to micromanage the war, House liberals have been the main obstacle to leadership efforts to put a timeline on the withdrawal of U.S. forces. They have complained that the proposal would not bring troops home fast enough. Their opposition has riven the antiwar movement, split the Democratic base and been the main stumbling block to the legislation, which had originally been scheduled for a vote yesterday.

As debate began on the bill yesterday, members of the antiwar caucus and party leaders held a backroom meeting in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a final plea to the group, asking it to deliver at least four votes when the roll is called. The members promised 10.

"I find myself in the excruciating position of being asked to choose between voting for funding for the war or establishing timelines to end it," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). "I have struggled with this decision, but I finally decided that, while I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war."

That was the message of Democratic leaders: This is the best deal they could make, and it is better than no deal at all.

To many in the movement against the Iraq war, the liberal opposition to the bill was as maddening as it was mystifying.

"You really have two options here: One is that you can vote for a change of course here and say we're going to find a way out of Iraq, or, two, you can vote against it and hand George Bush a victory," said Jon Soltz, a veteran of the Iraq war and co-founder of VoteVets.org, a group that opposes the war. "It doesn't make sense to me. George Bush got us into the war. They have challenged him on everything. Why would they give him this victory now?" he asked, referring to the liberals.

When Democratic leaders first spoke of attaching strings to Bush's $100 billion war request, their biggest fear was that they would lose their conservatives. Since then, the bill has actually grown more assertive in its efforts to bring the troops home. Initial efforts to tie the deployment of combat forces to tough standards for resting, equipping and training the troops have been bolstered by binding benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. If the Iraqis fall short, troop withdrawals could begin as early as July 1. In any case, the withdrawals would have to begin in March 2008, with most combat forces out by Aug. 31, 2008.

Even the more cautious Senate Democrats have moved toward setting a troop-withdrawal date. The Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday approved a $122 billion version of a spending bill that would require troops to begin leaving Iraq within four months of passage and would set a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the removal of combat troops.

To the surprise of many antiwar activists, House Democratic leaders have been able to keep their conservative Blue Dog members largely onboard as they ratcheted up the bill's language. But with Republicans virtually united in opposition, Democrats can afford only 15 defections. Bush and ~~his evil cronies~~ congressional Republicans have done their best to exploit the divisions, repeatedly mentioning that the Democrats are not united.

"Congress needs to get their business done quickly, get the moneys we've requested funded and let our folks on the ground do the job," the president said yesterday in demanding the funds with no strings attached.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned yesterday that if Congress does not pass the supplemental war funding bill by April 15, the Army may have to slow the training of units slated to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan, or halt the repair of equipment. If the funding is delayed until May, he said, the tours of Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan might have to be extended "because other units are not ready to take their place."

The administration's stand has only increased the anguish in the antiwar movement. The liberal activists of MoveOn.org opted this week to back the funding bill, but the decision split the group's members and prompted accusations that the MoveOn leadership had stacked the endorsement vote. Win Without War, an umbrella group against the Iraq war, met Tuesday to decide whether to endorse the bill, but the divisions were too deep to bridge.

David Sirota, a former House Appropriations Committee aide who is now an uncompromising blogger, dashed off a memo to progressive lawmakers Wednesday night, imploring them to "accept the congressional world as it is right now," not to insist on the world as they wish it to be, and vote for the bill.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Devious Democratic Ways

2007-02-23

By Charles Krauthammer

The United States has fought many wars since 1941, but never again declared one. Abroad, no one declares war anymore either, perhaps because it has the anachronistic feel of an aristocratic challenge. Whatever the reason, today Congress doesn't declare war; it authorizes the use of force.

In October 2002, both houses of Congress did exactly that with open eyes and large majorities. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who had access to all the relevant information at the time, said, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks and we should not minimize the risks we must authorize the president to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat.

Now, more than four years later, the Democrats want out of the resulting war. Most, such as Rep. John Murtha, want to do so for a simple reason: They think the war is lost. If you believe that, then getting out is the most reasonable and honorable and patriotic policy.

Congress has the power to do that by cutting off the funds. But Democrats will not, because it is politically dangerous. Instead, they are seeking other ways, clever ways. The House is pursuing a method, developed by Murtha and deemed ingenious by antiwar activist Tom Andrews of Win Without War, to impose a conditional cutoff of funds, ostensibly in the name of protecting the troops. Unless the troops are given the precise equipment, training and amount of rest Murtha stipulates no funds.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, Murtha is not disingenuous enough to have concealed the real motives for these ostensibly pro-readiness, pro-troops conditions. He has chosen conditions he knows are impossible to meet We have analyzed this and we have come to the conclusion that it cant be done'' in order to make the continued prosecution of the war very difficult, if not impossible, for the commanders in the field.

But think of what that entails. It leaves the existing 130,000 troops out there without the reinforcements and tactical flexibility that the commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, says he needs to win.

Of course, the Democrats believe that the war cannot be won. But if thats the case, they should order a withdrawal by cutting off the funds. They shouldnt micromanage the war in a way that will make winning impossible. That not only endangers the troops remaining in the field, it makes the Democrats the-war-is-lost mantra a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Murthas ruse is so transparent that even Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, who opposes the war, will not countenance it: I think that sends the wrong message to our troops.

Levin has a different idea change the original October 2002 authorization. Well be looking at modification of that authorization in order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead of a combat mission, says Levin. That is very different from cutting off funds.

While this idea is not as perverse as Murthas, it is totally illogical. There is something exceedingly strange about authorizing the use of force except for combat. That is an oxymoron. Changing the language of authorization means if it means anything that Petraeus will have to surround himself with lawyers who will tell him, every time he wants to deploy a unit, whether he is ordering a legal support mission or an illegal combat mission.

If Levin wants to withdraw our forces from the civil war in the cities to more secure bases from which we can continue training and launching operations against al Qaeda, he should present that to the country as an alternative to (or fallback after) the administration's troop surge. But to force it on our commanders through legalisms is simply to undermine their ability to fight the war occurring on the ground today.

Slowly bleeding our forces by defunding what our commanders think they need to win (the House approach) or rewording the authorization of the use of force so that lawyers decide what operations are to be launched (the Senate approach) is no way to fight a war. It is no way to end a war. It is a way to complicate the war and make it inherently unwinnable and to shirk the political responsibility for doing so.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Bill Kristol: The Democrats' 'Slow-Bleed' Strategy

2007-02-18

--William Kristol
Politicians often say foolish things. Members of both parties criticize cavalierly and thunder thoughtlessly. They advance irresponsible suggestions and embrace mistaken policies. But most of our politicians, most of the time, stop short of knowingly hurting the country. Watching developments in Congress this past week, though, one has to ask: Can that be said any longer about the leadership of the Democratic party?

President Bush is sending reinforcements to join our soldiers fighting in Iraq. Democrats are entitled to doubt this will work. They are entitled to conclude the whole cause is hopeless or unjust--and that we should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible or on some other more responsible timetable. They are entitled to move legislation in Congress to compel such a withdrawal, on a schedule and with provisions that seem to them appropriate.

But surely they should not fecklessly try to weaken the U.S. position in Iraq, and America's standing in the world, by raising doubts as to our commitment in Iraq without advancing an alternative. That is precisely what they are doing with the nonbinding resolution condemning the dispatch of additional troops to Iraq. The fact that some Republicans have embraced this resolution does not excuse the Democratic party for its virtually monolithic support of it. The GOP has its share of fools and weaklings. But it is the Democratic party that now seems willing to commit itself, en masse, to a foreign policy of foolishness and weakness.

For the nonbinding resolution passed by the House Friday is merely the first round. What comes next are legislative restrictions and budgetary limitations designed to cripple our effort in Iraq. As Politico.com reported Thursday:

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options. . . . The House strategy is being crafted quietly. . . . [Rep. Jack] Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels of adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet. . . . Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha.

So the nonbinding resolution is only the first step in the slow-bleed strategy. The Murtha plan intends to block further relief and reinforcement for American troops, leaving them exposed and unable to succeed. Surely Democrats (and fellow-traveling Republicans) will turn back from this path while they still have time to save some of their honor. But the antiwar groups won't make it easy. John Bresnahan's Politico.com report continues:

Anti-war groups like [Tom] Mazzie's are prepared to spend at least $6.5 million on a TV ad campaign and at least $2 million more on a grass-roots lobbying effort. Vulnerable GOP incumbents . . . will be targeted by the anti-war organizations, according to Mazzie and former Rep. Tom Andrews, D-Maine, head of the Win Without War Coalition. . . . Mazzie also said anti-war groups would field primary and general election challengers to Democratic lawmakers who do not support proposals to end the war. . . . Andrews, who met with Murtha on Tuesday to discuss legislative strategy, acknowledged "there is a relationship" with the House Democratic leadership and the anti-war groups, but added, "It is important for our members that we not be seen as an arm of the Democratic Caucus or the Democratic Party. We're not hand in glove." . . . "I don't know how you vote against Murtha," said Andrews. "It's kind of an ingenious thing."

No, the Democrats and the antiwar groups shouldn't "be seen" as "hand in glove." But they are. The national Democratic party has become the puppet of antiwar groups. These groups do not merely accept-reluctantly--American defeat in the Middle East. They seek to hasten it. Some seem to welcome it.

The leaders of those groups believe their slow-bleed strategy is "kind of an ingenious thing." In truth, it's not really so "ingenious." But it is disgraceful. In our judgment, it will fail as a political strategem, it will fail to derail the president's policy--and we will ultimately prevail in Iraq. The slow-bleed strategy will, however, stain the reputation of its champions, and of the useful idiots in both parties who have gone along with it.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Fineman: Iraq Realigns American Politics

2007-01-14

Fineman gets out his kneepads for Teddy
Ted Kennedy speaks with the voice of ~~bourbon~~ history. White-maned and nearing 75, the brother of two assassinated heroes and a veteran of 44 Senate years, he isin defiance of the oddsagain in his prime: a chairman in good health with a doting wife and a packed legislative agenda.
Mmmmmm. Healthy bourbon.
No one tells Ted Kennedy what to do; in any case, the Senate's Democratic leaders were fine with his plan to give a big speech two days before President George W. Bush announced a troop "surge" in Iraq. They are generally glad to let Kennedy play the role he relishes: Irish-American Isaiah, calling his party to account even as legislative insiders keep their distance.
Meaning: the other dhimms are scared, but Teddy knows the Peoples Republic of MA will keep on sending him back, no matter what.
This time party brass got more than they bargained for. Summoning the authority of his years as an ~~drunken cretin~~ intimate witness to ~~Chappaquidick~~ history, Kennedy made an ~~slurring, incoherant~~ eloquent case for a Senate vote on the surge and for a court test of its legitimacy under the War Powers Resolution. "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam!" he thundered. "Echoes of that disaster are all around us today!"
And I know! My brother instigated our Vietnam adventure! Hiccup.
It was, in its own way, a defining moment. He got a standing ovation and, the next day, congratulations all around on the Hill. By the end of the weekin the aftermath of Bush's tepid speech and Condi Rice's evasive testimonyKennedy looked prescient.
Prescient? Oh, my hero, always in the lead!
A generation ago, a war ~~started and expanded by dhimmi Presidents~~ Vietnamlaunched a realignment of American politics. Now, it seems increasingly clear, Iraq is doing the same. In 1968 college students flocked to the New Hampshire primary to protest Lyndon Johnson's policies, sparking a civil war in the Democratic Party on foreign policy that lasted for a generation. By contrast, Vietnam united the GOP around an anti-communist crusade that endured for decades. "Ronald Reagan was gung-ho about Vietnam," says Craig Shirley, a GOP operative and Reagan biographer. "It solidified his world view, and the party's."
So.......Reagan was right, correct?
Now a mirror image is developing. Democrats seem to be uniting around a themethe primacy of global diplomacy and congressional review. Republicans, by contrast, have lost the unity that they had during the cold war and the early years of the war on terror.
Ya, diplomacy and congressional oversight. That will fix it.
As Republican divisions grow, Democrats, pressed by their antiwar grass roots, are drawing together. Except for "Independent Democrat" Sen. Joe Lieberman, Dems are increasingly of one mind about Iraq in particular and antiterrorism strategy in general. A vote on surge spendingwhich Democratic Senate leaders had hoped to avoid and which is technically difficult to devisenow is likely at some point. In general, the party seems less fearful of the old "soft on defense" shibboleth, and ever more tolerant of groups such as Win Without War and Move On. One of the Senate's few other hawkish Democrats, Sen. Evan Bayh, told me that he opposes the surge, and agreed that Congress might have to face the question of funding at some point. The Senate's growing ranks of Democratic presidential contendersChris Dodd jumped in last week, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are expected to do so soonare gravitating toward a bring-them-home-quickly stance. "We don't want to come off looking like wimps," said Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton supporter and former party chairman. But he added: "We're jumping all over ourselves now to see who can be the toughest on Bush and the war." It's a fateful competitionwhich Ted Kennedy already won.
Teddy, the lead lemming. Good luck with that.

Link

Home Front: Politix

The New McCarthyism

2006-04-24

"It isn't just the CIA that has problems with former politicals getting knee-deep into this Administration's policy and leaking materials," says a current Bush Administration aide. "We're talking about a situation that we haven't been able to deal with in a manner in which we'd want. But this Mary McCarthy case may help us."

The aide is referring to the firing last week of a CIA employee working in the agency's Office of Inspector General. One of McCarthy's jobs was investigating allegations of torture by CIA employees or contractors at Iraqi prisons. The CIA fired McCarthy on evidence that she was one of the sources for Washington Post reporter Dana Priest's report on so-called "Black Site" prisons in Europe and elsewhere that housed captured al Qaeda, Taliban, and some senior Iraqi military and intelligence individuals.

Unresolved is whether McCarthy also leaked material to the left-wing organization, Human Rights Watch, which clearly was also a key source to Priest. (Note this quote in Priest's now-Pulitzer Prize winning story: "'I remember asking: What are we going to do with these people?' said a senior CIA officer. 'I kept saying, where's the help? We've got to bring in some help. We can't be jailers -- our job is to find Osama.'" Was this McCarthy?)

McCarthy's background is just becoming increasingly fleshed out, including her ties to former National Security Advisor Sandy "Sox" Berger and the Clinton White House. McCarthy was appointed Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs by Berger in 1998. She replaced Rand Beers. According to former Kerry campaign staffers, Beers, who served as a senior adviser to Kerry's campaign, spoke of having continued access to CIA and national security data from former colleagues still in government.

"He said he still had friends willing to help the Kerry campaign from inside," says a former staffer. "We always assumed that guys like Beers and Berger were in touch with these people. I'm not talking about having secure material leaked to us, but our national security folks always seemed to be in the know." The former staffer said he never recalled mention of any names.

But all of this is now past tense, and the White House, as well as senior staff at the Departments of Justice, State, and Defense, are attempting to identify possible leakers among their own career staffs with access to information that might be helpful to Democrats or the press.

Of greatest concern is the Department of Justice, the nexus of many terrorism and national security cases that would involve the White House, Defense and State Departments, as well as briefings on Capitol Hill to congressional leadership. "We know we have people leaking materials. It's been an ongoing problem, but until someone has taken the first step, and the McCarthy case would appear to be the first step, it's hard to move against career staff," says a current Defense Department staffer. "We have an IG looking at all kinds of things right now. Perhaps we'll get some movement."

There are other interesting links as well :

Pulitzer Prize winning Dana Priest is married to William Goodfellow. William Goodfellow is the Executive Director of the the Center for International Policy (CIP). Here is what Discover The Networks has to say about the Center For International Policy:

Americas Red Army

One of the most sophisticated of Fentons anti-war projects is the co-mingling of Win Without War and the Center for International Policy (CIP). Before 9/11, CIP, a Fenton Communications client, mainly acted as Fidel Castros greatest think tank ally. Much of its million-dollar budget was spent lobbying to end economic sanctions and travel restrictions against Cuba.

Now, it has another mission. Fenton has established a war room with CIP called The Iraq Policy Information Program (IPIP). Its main job is getting the anti-Bush foreign policy message out to the media and providing guests for talk shows. A featured speaker of the IPIP is former ambassador Joe Wilson, one of the Bush administrations most vocal enemies.

Like Moveon.org and Win Without War, the contact for the Iraq Policy Information Program is Fenton Communications. Win Without War also collects tax-deductible donations through CIP.

Much more at Sweetness & Light

Link

Fifth Column

Top Democrats won't attend anti-war rally in Washington

2005-09-23

But there will be plenty of bottomfeeders. Hat tip to Charles at LGF.

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - As the anti-war movement arrives in Washington this weekend, many top Democrats are leaving. Nationally known Democratic war critics, including ~~Howlin'~~ Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Sens. ~~Hildebeast~~ Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and John ~~Frickin'~~ Kerry of Massachusetts, won't attend what sponsors ~~hope~~ say will be a big anti-war rally Saturday in Washington. The only Democratic officeholders who plan to address the rally are Reps. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and John Conyers of Michigan.

Time to warm up the TiVo!

Today's ~~poll-driven~~ leading Democrats head a party divided ~~not really~~ over the war, and many leaders are ~~scared shitless~~ wary of standing with anti-war activists, who represent much of the party's ~~looney~~ base. The divide between anti-war activists and Democratic leaders underscores a challenge the party faces in the 2006 congressional elections and beyond. Some activists say that Democrats such as Clinton and Kerry who criticize the war but refuse to demand a timetable for withdrawal are effectively supporting the status quo - and may not merit future support.

Yeah, you guys pull the rug from under the Hildebeast. I dare you. I double-dare you.

En route to Washington for the rally, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan protested outside Clinton's New York office. "She knows that the war is a lie, but she is waiting for the right time to say it," Sheehan told about 500 cheering supporters. "You say it or you are losing your job."

Oh please, oh please, oh please ...

Spokesmen for the Democrats who are skipping the anti-war event all said they had ~~pressing~~ ~~unavoidable~~ schedule conflicts ~~no, honest, really!~~. But some leading anti-war activists aren't buying it ~~and neither am I~~. "There are a lot of people here who are wondering, where are the Democrats?" said Tom Andrews, a former Democratic House member from Maine who's now the national director of Win Without War, one of several ~~neo-Stalinist~~ groups that are organizing three days of protests against the war in Washington starting Saturday. "The Democratic Party has an identity crisis on this issue. We need voices. We need leadership," Andrews said. "But fear is driving them."

The fear that they might get voted out by citizens who see through them? That fear?

The rally comes at a time when a growing number of Americans want a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, a proposition that both President Bush and many leading Democrats ~~correctly~~ reject. Dean, who rallied anti-war activists with his fervent opposition to the war during his 2003-2004 presidential campaign, already was scheduled to spend the weekend meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus, spokesman Josh Earnest said. "His views on the president's handling of the war in Iraq are well documented," Earnest said. The anti-war rally, he said, is "not something the party was involved with."

"I know nothing! Tell them, Hogan!"

Kerry planned to be in his home state this weekend, a spokeswoman said. Clinton also didn't plan to attend, a spokesman said. "Our job is to make them pay a price for continuing to support this war," said Bill Dobbs, a spokesman for United for Peace and Justice, another ~~hard-left~~ group that's organizing the anti-war weekend in Washington. Sixty-six members of Congress have formed an "Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus" that wants either immediate withdrawal or a timetable to withdraw. None of the party's congressional leadership and none of the likely candidates for president are members.

They're not as looney as the caucus, it seems.

Anti-war organizers said they ~~pray for~~ expected 100,000 people Saturday. A rival group plans a rally Sunday in Washington to show support for the war.

Link

Fifth Column

Anti-War Activists Plan 'Counter-Inaugural'

2005-01-19

Gee. Golly. Shucks. Whoever expected something like that?

International S.O.R.E.L.O.S.E.R. is on the scene. They have 16-feet tall paper mache puppets...

I'm hoping the puppets will freeze their, um, handles off.

While Republicans ~~and most other sane Americans~~ will be celebrating the inauguration of their president's second term of office in Washington, ~~simple-minded rustics~~ activist groups

Oh, no Steve. "they" are the suave, nuanced, urban sophisticates. "We" are the simple rustic sheeple who consistently vote against what's good for us...

plan to counter his inauguration on Thursday by ~~making faces and rude noises~~ demonstrating against President Bush's economic agenda, the legitimacy of his election and the war in Iraq. Despite this week's record cold, Inauguration Week will feature rallies, marches and demonstrations with the focus on peaceful, family-friendly gatherings, said Shahid ~~Buttwipe~~ Buttar, a protest organizer.

Hundreds of ~~fools, rubes and tools~~ groups throughout the country will participate, Buttar said, including Mobilization for Global Justice and the Committee to ReDefeat the President, a public affairs committee that sees Bush's presidency as illegitimately won. But the anti-war activists said Friday that the Bush administration is attempting to "privatize Pennsylvania Avenue" by reserving the inaugural parade route for political contributors and keeping protesters off "America's Main Street." The privately funded Presidential Inaugural Committee is raising about $40 million to pay for the parade, inaugural balls and other events, and it plans to erect bleachers for some paying supporters along the route.

The organizers say thousands of demonstrators from around the nation will show up early on inauguration day anyway and claim the sidewalks to show the passing President Bush and a watching world that they object to "an unprovoked war of aggression" in Iraq. "It is lawful to come to the parade," declared Mara Veheyden-Hilliard, a lawyer for the Partnership for Civil Justice, one of the protest groups. "Everyone has a right to be there."

"Democracy is not by invitation only," said Katherine Stecher, campaign coordinator for the Nicaragua Network, another of the dissident groups. The anti-war "counter-inaugural" is being organized by the ANSWER Coalition. ANSWER stands for ~~"Assinine Nincompoops Swilling Wickedly Egregious Ratpoop"~~ "Act Now to Stop War and End Racism." Brian Becker, the national coordinator, told journalists at a recent briefing at the National Press Club, that the coalition of liberal groups was formed shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in anticipation of the Bush administration using this terrorism as an excuse ~~"to protect the country in spite of some of its citizens"~~ "to carry out a previously planned, aggressive, right-wing, militaristic foreign policy."

My guess is, they haven't "moved on".

The organizers said they had asked the National Park Service for permits for protest space along the parade route, and said their requests had been denied in order to accommodate the Presidential Inaugural Committee. ANSWER and attorneys from the Partnership for Civil Justice and the National Lawyers Guild filed a lawsuit on Jan.14 saying the US government was engaged in political screening to grant exclusive access to financial and political supporters of the administration and curtail freedom of speech and assembly along Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day.

Well yeah. Come back next week, it's all yours. Clean up after yourselves.

Protesters say the lawsuit reveals internal documents from the 2001 Bush/Cheney Presidential Inaugural Committee. Four years ago, thousands of protesters massed along the inaugural parade route to show their anger over the contested election in which President Bush gained his first term. Bearing signs such as "Hail to the Thief" and "Supreme Injustice," they crowded the subways, got into sidewalk debates with inaugural guests and gave the historic day what some called "a real sense of ~~idiots in motion~~ democracy in action."

This year, as George W. Bush is sworn in for a second term, the atmosphere promises to be calmer. Many of the mainstream liberal and antiwar groups have opted not to attend, saying the security planned for the first inauguration since the Sept. 11 attacks will make protesting difficult. "We felt our focus has been and should continue to be this war," said Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War, an antiwar coalition of MoveOn.org.

Link

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More