northnotes

matthewyglesias.com

Torture as Investigation

Vladimir Bukovsky:

Investigation is a subtle process, requiring patience and fine analytical ability, as well as a skill in cultivating one's sources. When torture is condoned, these rare talented people leave the service, having been outstripped by less gifted colleagues with their quick-fix methods, and the service itself degenerates into a playground for sadists. Thus, in its heyday, Joseph Stalin's notorious NKVD (the Soviet secret police) became nothing more than an army of butchers terrorizing the whole country but incapable of solving the simplest of crimes. And once the NKVD went into high gear, not even Stalin could stop it at will. He finally succeeded only by turning the fury of the NKVD against itself; he ordered his chief NKVD henchman, Nikolai Yezhov (Beria's predecessor), to be arrested together with his closest aides.
It goes on, including tales of Bukovsky's own experiences as a victim of Soviet torture and deserves to be read in its entirety. But this here is essentially the key point at hand. While you can obviously imagine or gerrymander or stipulate a situation in which torture might yield useful information, in practice the systematic authorization of torture creates an army of butchers, not a crack investigative team. Bush, Cheney, and those around them remind me of Nietzsche's line about staring too long into the abyss. They've become transfixed, hypnotized almost, by the evils they believe themselves to be fighting. Obsessed to the point where they've clearly developed an admiration for the brutal methods, ruthless dishonesty, and utter secrecy with which the enemies of liberalism conduct themselves.

But these things they're so eager -- determined, really -- to cast aside aren't frivolous luxury to be abandonned in times of peril. They're the very essence of what makes our system of government work. They're what makes it worth preserving, as a matter of ethics, but also as a matter of practice vital to the preservation of our way of life. Liberal democracy isn't a fluke occurrence that just so happens to have survived despite its drawbacks. It's actually a superior method of organizing a state. The idea that the country is being run by people who don't understand that is sad and frightening. The idea that the very same people claim to be embarked upon a grand mission to spread our system of government around the world is like a horrible tawdry joke, but doubly frightening in its own way.

9/23/06 3:04PMdel.icio.us thisincoming links

Published on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Memo to House Democrats
by Robert B. Reich

Democrats: Odds are, come November 7, you will gain the 15 seats you need to take back the House (the odds are much lower in the Senate). So it’s not too early to start thinking about what you should do during the two years leading up to the 2008 presidential election.

You’ll be sorely tempted to showcase the Bush administration in all its lurid awfulness. Imagine an endless parade of witnesses offering shocking details of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture camps, payoffs to Halliburton, Defense Department usurpations, Iraq’s descent into civil war, and other cover-ups, deceptions, data manipulations, suppressions of science, crass incompetencies, and outright corruptions. Out of all of these hearings would come a bill of particulars so damning that every 2008 Democratic candidate running for everything from Indianapolis City Council to president will be swept into office on a riptide of public outrage.

After all, didn’t House Republicans during the Clinton years wreak all the damage they could even when there wasn’t much to complain about? Recall Dan Burton, the Indiana Republican who, while chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, issued truck loads of White House subpoenas along with a sulphurous geyser of unsupported accusations. Why shouldn’t Henry Waxman, who will fill the same shoes, give as good as the Clinton White House got? Imagine how John Dingell, who will run the House Energy and Commerce Committee, could expose the intimacies between the Bushies and Big Oil; what John Conyers, in command of the House Judiciary Committee, could reveal about Bush’s trouncing of Americans’ civil liberties; or the job Barney Frank, at Financial Services, could do on the administration’s nefarious links to Wall Street. Hell, why not try to impeach Bush?

Warning: Resist all such temptation.

You won’t be credible. The public would see the investigations and hearings as partisan wrangling. They might even cause the public to question what it already knows, allowing Republicans to argue it was all conjured up by partisan zealots from the start.

You won’t get any new information anyway. Your subpoena power would have no effect on this White House. You’d end up fighting in federal courts for the whole two years. Besides, there’s enough dirt out there already to sink any administration. Although cowed at the start of the administration, the mainstream media have done a fairly good job since.

Moreover, Bush is the wrong target. His popularity could hardly be lower than it is already, which means 2008 Republican candidates in all but the reddest of red states will distance themselves from this White House. John McCain, should he be the Republican nominee, won’t be tarnished by Bush at all because in the public’s mind McCain is a maverick and independent. He’ll remain above the partisan mud throwing while you’d just mire Democrats in it.

Finally, you and your colleagues have spent the last six years whining and complaining. That was understandable. There was ample reason, and you didn’t have the power to do otherwise. But do that when you do have some power, and you’ll confirm the Republican message that Democrats are pessimistic Eeyores, obsessed with what’s wrong with America and clueless about what to do or how to fix it.

Here’s a better way to go. Use the two years instead to lay the groundwork for a new Democratic agenda. Bring in expert witnesses. Put new ideas on the table. Frame the central issues boldly. Don’t get caught up in arid policy-wonkdom.

For example, instead of framing basic economic questions as whether to roll back Bush’s tax cuts, make it about how to recreate good jobs at good wages and rebuild the middle class. Consider ideas for doing this through trade policy, industrial policy, antitrust, publicly financed research and development, and stronger trade unions.

Instead of framing the central foreign-policy question as whether we should have invaded Iraq, make it how to partition Iraq into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish zones while America gets out. Focus the national-security debate on how to control loose nukes and fissile material, and secure American ports. Encourage direct negotiations with North Korea and Iran. On energy and the environment, offer ideas for developing new non–fossil-based energy industries in America, and how to ratify a realistic Kyoto accord.

Help the public understand how these are all related -- why, for example, we’ll never have a sane foreign policy unless we reduce our dependence on oil. And most important, be positive. Bush’s shameful record is plain. Start the new Democratic record. Help America dream again.

###

I found this clip on Atrios's site from this morning's Today Show ...

LAUER: Senator, is there any phone call you could receive? Is there anyone in the Democratic Party who could call you today and ask you to drop out that you would listen to?
LIEBERMAN: Respectfully, no. I am committed to this campaign, to a different kind of politics, to bringing the Democratic Party back from Ned Lamont, Maxine Waters to the mainstream, and for doing something for the people of Connecticut. That's what this is all about: which one of us, Lamont or me, can do more for the future of our people here in Connecticut. And on that basis, I'm going forward with confidence, purpose and some real optimism.

Maxine Waters isn't really my kind of Democrat. But then, if I understand what's happened in the last 36 hours, Joe Lieberman isn't a Democrat at all anymore.

But more to the point. This isn't just inaccurate, it's pathetic. I'ts a like a mini-version of the Iraq War or the War on Terror. You're either with Joe or you're with the extremists. Apparently half of Connecticut Democrats are outside the mainstream.

This is really the attitude that got poor Joe into this bind.

The mainstream is Joe Lieberman, along with possibly Sean Hannity and Bill Kristol. If you disagree with Joe Lieberman, a disagreement about policy is the least of it. It's a major existential crisis for the Democratic party which risks conquest by unreconstructed leftists, extremists and miscellaneous other freaks.

The idea that Ned Lamont is 'outside the mainstream' on any issue I'm aware of is laughable.

As a matter of civics, if Joe Lieberman wants to run as an independent, good for him. If 51% of Connecticut voters want to vote for him, that's democracy. As a Democrat, he should get out of the race now. And every Democrat should tell him to.

If he wants to run as an independent he should and could go to Connecticut voters and say, "A lot of people in my own party disagree with me on this or that issue. But I've served all of Connecticut's citizens for 18 years. And I still think I can be the best senator. So vote for me."

I wouldn't agree with that. But I could respect it.

But he's not. It's all about him and stabbing his own party in the back while he disingenuously pleads that he's trying to save it. He can't admit or realize or get his head around the idea that his denial about Iraq and his obliviousness to his own constituents got him into this mess.

In the end, he just won't come clean. Forget about being a Democrat. Just be a man. It's time.

-- Josh Marshall

The Road Not Taken: Obsessed with Invading Iraq, Bush Ignored an Arab Peace Initiative in 2002
by Paul Rosenberg

Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:14:41 PM PDT

From Random Lengths News By Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor

On June 25, an Israeli soldier was captured, apparently by a combination of three fringe Palestinian groups, one an offshoot of the military wing of Hamas. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) re-entered Gaza three days latter, on a mission to find him. Two weeks later, another Islamic resistance group, Hezbollah, captured two more IDF soldiers, and IDF forces retaliated quickly, launching an ever-widening aerial bombardment, hitting the Beirut airport, and other key infrastructures in northern Lebanon, as well as numerous targets in Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah launched missiles into Israel's interior.

Israel's massive response--meant to destroy Hezbollah--appears on the brink of massive failure, since Hezbollah's mere survival is enough to severely undermine the aura of Israeli invincibility built up over the decades. Like America's invasion of Iraq, the attacks seem to have been launched without any thought about what comes next, or having a "plan B" in case things didn't work out as hoped for.

Paul Rosenberg's diary :: ::
But there's a deeper connection to the US invasion of Iraq.

On March 28, 2002, 22 members of the Arab League unanimously approved a Saudi-crafted peace initiative at a summit in Beirut. The "Beirut Declaration" as it came to be known had the appearance of a dramatic gesture, promising to explicitly recognize Israel's right to exist, in exchange for a return of the Occupied Territories.

Had it been pursued, the carnage and chaos now unfolding in Lebanon could have been rendered impossible. What's more, such a peace agreement would have deprived al Qaeda of a major grievance to exploit, and made it much easier to strengthen moderate voices throughout the Arab world and among Muslims generally. Instead, the Bush Administration remained focused on invading Iraq, under the false assumption that this would benefit Israel as well.

"They totally ignored it," Mideast expert Steven Zunes told Random Lengths. "It was a major breakthrough offering pretty much what Israel had been wanting all these years--land for peace."

Zunes is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism.

Ironically--or predictably, depending on your perspective--the current hostilities have disrupted yet another Arab peace effort that most Americans have never heard of. The original kidnapping derailed a promising agreement between Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and Gaza's Hamas government. It called for a political initiative, explicitly endorsing a two-state solution, recognizing Israel's right to exist, and calling for the creation of a Palestinian government of national unity--just the sort of entity that could credibly negotiate such a solution.

Furthermore, the kidnappings were just a pretext on both sides. Both Hezbollah, and the IDF had long been planning their attacks, simply waiting for the right moment, the right excuse to launch them.

The Beirut Declaration came at a dire moment, much like the present situation, with Arafat physically under Israeli attack, and General Anthony Zinni--the American mediator hand-picked by Secretary of State Colin Powell--working furiously for a cease-fire. But the Beirut Declaration went far beyond responding to the immediate crisis. Two weeks later, Powell had a two-hour working meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and other top Saudi officials, sharply focused on the Beirut Declaration. Despite Powell's hopeful press conference afterwards, the US never showed further interest.

Although not known at the time, Bush had already decided to invade Iraq, and thus put the Israeli/Palestinian conflict on the back burner. The decision had put the British government in a bind, as British reporter Michael Smith wrote in The Telegraph on September 18, 2004: "A Secret UK Eyes Only briefing paper was warning that there was no legal justification for war. So Mr. Blair was advised that a strategy would have to be put in place which would provide a legal basis for war."

This mid-March 2002 paper was part of a trail leading directly to the July 23 "Downing Street Memo," in which Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence service MI6, reported that in Washington "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of going to war against Iraq.

The Arab Summit had also passed a resolution unanimously opposing that invasion. The Bush Administration ignored both resolutions. Yet, it was necessary to appear engaged and peace-seeking in June 2002. Bush gave a major speech about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but failed to even mention the Beirut Declaration.

"He was trying to appear more even-handed to assuage the anger in the Arab world," Zunes explained. "But the failure to even refer to the increasing urgent Arab peace initiative indicates he wasn't all that serious about it."

Since then, the Beirut Declaration has virtually disappeared from memory in the US. "Its indicative of yet another manifestation of the rewriting of the history of the conflict, that wants to make the US seem like the only hope for peace," Zunes said. This creates a "rationale for the contradictory role that the US plays of the chief mediater and chief backer of the more powerful party in the conflict."

By never discussing Arab peace initiatives the fantasy is maintained that only Israel and the US are interested in peace. And this, in turn, is used to justify their resort to war. Similar contradictions plague supposed US support for democracy, as seen in the fact that Israel is attacking two Arab democracies--Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority--and that its actions have been condemned by a third: our own creation, the new Iraqi government.

The situation directly clashes with the alleged neo-con "idealism" about democratizing the Middle East. Zunes saw two possible interpretations of what was happening with the neo-con's "democracy" agenda. "The more cynical one [interpretation] is it was a desperate rationale, given the lack of weapons of mass destruction and the lack of a connection to al Qaeda," after the invasion of Iraq--around the time when the neo-cons dramatically stepped up their talk about democracy.

and free-market capitalist," Zunes explained, then added, "Its no accident that half the neocons are former Trotskyites. They have the same ideological blindness." (Irving Kristol, considered the founder of American neo-conservatism, was only the most prominent of the neo-cons to have been a member of the Fourth International--the worldwide organization of anti-Stalinst communists--during the late 1930s and 1940s. Over time, the neo-con's enduring anti-Stalinism lead them to form alliances with the CIA and the American defense establishment, pulling them first to the right of the Democratic Party, then into the Republican Party.)

General Zinni, the Middle East envoy when the Beirut Declaration was announced, soon became one of the earliest critics of the coming war. On August 24, 2002, the Tampa Tribune reported on his speech to Economic Club of Florida in Tallahassee:

"Zinni said a war to bring down Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein would have numerous undesirable side effects and should be low on the nation's list of foreign policy objectives."

In the speech, Zinni said, "The Middle East peace process, in my mind, has to be a higher priority. Winning the war on terrorism has to be a higher priority. More directly, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Central Asia need to be resolved, making sure Al Qaeda can't rise again from the ashes that are destroyed. Taliban cannot come back--that the warlords can't regain power over Kabul and Karzai, and destroy everything that has happened so far.

"Our relationships in the region are in major disrepair, not to the point where we can't fix them, but we need to quit making enemies we don't need to make enemies out of. And we need to fix those relationships. There's a deep chasm growing between that part of the world and our part of the world. And it's strange, about a month after 9/11, they were sympathetic and compassionate toward us. How did it happen over the last year? And we need to look at that -- that is a higher priority."

Bush didn't listen. And the Mideast is again engulfed in flames.

Family, friends honor Cpl. Baucus
By GWEN FLORIO
Tribune Capitol Bureau


WOLF CREEK — By the time the Chinook helicopter with the huge American flag streaming beneath it passed slowly over the ranch here, the protesters and their vile signs were gone, leaving Marine Cpl. Phillip E. Baucus to be put to rest in peace.

A July 29 suicide bombing in Iraq's Al Anbar province killed Baucus, the nephew of U.S. Sen. Max Baucus. He had been married less than a year.

"Every death is a shame, but even more so when one is so young and so intelligent and so vibrant and has so much to offer," said Anthony J. Preite, director of the Montana Department of Commerce, who attended the funeral.

He was among more than 500 people who drove from across Montana and neighboring states to attend the funeral at the sprawling Sieben Ranch, owned by his parents, John and Nina Baucus.

Baucus' status as a nephew of a U.S. senator also drew the attention of the Topeka, Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, whose members picket military funerals around the country. They believe the troops deserve to die because they fight on behalf of a government that, according to church beliefs, does not adequately condemn homosexuality.

Other groups have started staging silent counter-protests. On Sunday, Tom and Colleen Broeker of Great Falls took part in one here at the turnoff leading to the ranch.

"We are here to support a poor, young kid who had to die too young and whose family deserves a peaceful funeral," said Colleen Broeker.

Across the road, four members of Westboro Baptist — including 20-year-old Megan Phelps-Roper, daughter of its founder, the Rev. Fred Phelps — held up signs at the turnoff leading to the ranch.

"Thank God for dead soldiers," read one. "Soldiers Die, God Laughs," read another.

"They have a constitutional right to be here," sighed Lewis and Clark County Sheriff Cheryl Liedle, whose deputies were out in force Sunday.

"We're out here to make sure that nothing untoward happens to anyone, particularly to members of our community, and to keep the peace and tranquility for an honorable soldier," she said.

A procession of pickup trucks driven by well-dressed people with stony faces kicked up clouds of dust as they sped past.

"That's right. Don't even look at them," yelled Roy Banks, 54, of Helena, a disabled veteran. He was among about 15 people, including other veterans and members of church groups, who gathered to form a peaceful counter-protest to the Westboro Baptist contingent.

The church's actions spurred a measure, signed into law by President Bush on Memorial Day, that prohibits protests at or near national cemeteries. Baucus voted for the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, hence Westboro's presence at his nephew's funeral, according to Westboro attorney Shirley Phelps-Roper. About 26 states have enacted similar laws, she said.

"What he got for his trouble ... is a dead nephew," Phelps-Roper, another of Phelps' daughters, said in a telephone interview.

At 2 p.m. sharp, when the funeral was to begin, the members of Westboro Baptist packed up their signs and left. The helicopter rattled into view a few moments later, the flag fluttering from its belly.

At the protest site, a bearded man holding a flag of his own tilted his head skyward, a tear tracing a path through the dust on his sun-reddened cheek.

Those at the funeral remembered Baucus' more lighthearted moments. Family members who recalled a scatterbrained youngster seemed surprised when Baucus' fellow Marines spoke of a supremely well-organized recruit, according to funeral pool reporter Charles S. Johnson of Lee Newspapers.

"He didn't become a hero when he died. He was a hero before then," said Baucus' older brother, John. He faced his brother's casket and raised his hand to his forehead.

"I'm saluting my brother and my hero. I'll miss you."

And the "free spirit, almost irreverence," of which his uncle, Max, spoke was on display at the end of the funeral. After the other ceremonies — the 21-gun salute; the presentation of the folded flag to his widow, Kathy; the bugled "Taps" and "Amazing Grace" on a bagpipe; the doves released by the Marines — there was one more, a Baucus family tradition that was Phillip's favorite.

There was a loud bang and a lot of smoke. An anvil flew through the air, landing about 30 feet from a car. The Baucuses send anvils flying at family events and on holidays. They used to use one pound of gunpowder to accomplish the feat; Phillip insisted up on two. That's what was used Sunday.

Some two hours after the service began, the pickups began their procession back toward the highway. As they left the ranch, they passed a sign taped to a fencepost. It bore a single word:

"Honor."

Contact Gwen Florio at 406-442-9493, or gflorio@greatfal.gannett.com


Originally published August 7, 2006

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter's defending Lieberman, as well, going on at some length during an interview with Fox's Neal Cavuto to explain how much she admires the senator and suggesting that, instead of fighting for the Democratic nomination in Connecticut, Lieberman ought to switch parties. "I think he should come all the way and become a Republican," argues Coulter, who says of Lieberman and the GOP: "at least he'd fit in with the party."

In Case We All Forgot, Americans Are Still Dying in Iraq
by Jimmy Breslin

By the way, there are many American soldiers fighting in the Middle East.

In case you haven't noticed, they get killed. A lot of them get killed.

I was watching the endless television coverage of Israel and Hezbollah/Lebanon killing women and children and then picking up the papers to read almost exclusively of the same thing. I found no picture on television and almost no mention in newspapers of Americans dying.

The dead babies of Lebanon and those dismembered by rockets in Israel are considered to be glorious distractions that allow our government to stroll the hallways that appear to have no blood on the floors.

I made a call to the Defense Department: "How are our soldiers doing lately?"

"We've had a bad month," the man responded.

"How bad?"

"Stay there and you'll see."

There now came faxes detailing American soldiers who died in Iraq since July 1. There have been 50 who died since then.

We list below who they are and where they are from, and the statistic that causes all to retch: the age.

We cannot list the entire number of dead in Iraq, for 2,583 Americans have been lost so far. And counting every day.

There also have been 19,270 wounded, with such injuries as legs blown off, young men with shattered backs being placed in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives, genitals lost, brains numbed by flying ball bearings, faces left in half by flames.

The television and newspaper coverage of this has been weak, lazy, fearful. What there is of it, you watch and read with clenched teeth.

Once, on HBO, they showed a young soldier on the table and the whine of a saw sounded as it went through the bone of his leg being amputated. This should be on day and night.

The obligation of reporting is to tell and tell and tell of the deaths and great injuries of young Americans sent to die by old draft dodgers in Washington.

How old was the kid on the table? What could he be? Twenty-two?

He stayed the course in Iraq.

What did it get him? He loses a leg.

Just as he was in his great college appearances, Bush is a cheerleader for any war that can be fought by somebody else's kids.

"I grieve for the children of Beirut."

"My heart truly goes out to the people of Haifa."

The vice president, Dick Cheney, is a serial draft dodger: five deferments, a national record.

The strategy for the Middle East is to keep Israel and Hezbollah/Lebanon fighting. Keep all attention on them. If they ever stop, then everybody would look at Americans dying.

"We didn't know," Erin Tinsley, 37, was saying late Friday. "We didn't know what they were here for. Two military women."

Erin was in the hot 10th-floor hallway of the Alfred E. Smith houses on the downtown East Side. Two doors down from her lived the parents of Haiming Hsia, an Army specialist who died Tuesday in an explosion in in Iraq.

"The father let the military women in and then when they came out, he stood there and seemed fine. I thought that they had brought an award for his son."

Erin said she didn't know how long afterward, an hour, maybe two, before the words of the Army officers exploded inside him. He collapsed, and on Friday, somebody from the family said that his wife, the soldier's mother, was unable to cope.

"President Bush took away my son, my only son," the mother had said.

Just this once, there was no poor, helpless family member saying that they were proud that their son had died in this war.

Don't ever say that the young man had died in vain, because that is the icy truth of Iraq that people often cannot handle.

"I grew up with him," Erin Tinsley was saying on Friday. "We went to PS 126 and IS 131. We used to run up and down the hall. Playing soldier. The last time I saw him was in April. He was home, but he said that he had to go back."

Spc. Hsia joined the Army because he couldn't make enough as a security guard to support a wife and baby. He spent three years in the Middle East and wanted to come home for good, but part of the secret of Iraq is that we don't have enough soldiers. He was ordered back.

This time Hsia was in Iraq for a month. Now he returns to the Alfred E. Smith houses in a box.

He is placed on the list with other U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq since July 1.

CPL. PHILIP E. BAUCUS, 28, Wolf Creek, Mo. With 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. Died while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

CPL. NATHANIEL S. BAUGHMAN, 23, Monticello, Ind. With 101st Airborne Division. Died of injuries sustained when his Humvee encountered enemy forces' rocket-propelled grenades during patrol operations in Bayji.

LANCE CPL. ANTHONY E. BUTTERFIELD, 19, Clovis, Calif. With 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. One of two Marines killed while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

SPC. STEPHEN W. CASTNER, 27, Cedarburg, Wis. With Wisconsin Army National Guard. Died of injuries sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near his Humvee during combat operations in Tallil.

LANCE CPL. GEOFREY R. CAYER, 20, Fitchburg, Mass. With 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. Died in a nonhostile incident in Anbar province. The incident is under investigation.

SGT. ANDRES J. CONTRERAS, 23, Huntington Park, Calif. With 1st Combat Support Brigade. Died of injuries sustained when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device in Baghdad.

LANCE CPL. KURT E. DECHEN, 24, of Springfield, Vt. With I Marine Expeditionary Force. Died from wounds received while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

STAFF SGT. MICHAEL A. DICKINSON III, 26, Battle Creek, Mich. With 4th Psychological Operations Group, U.S. Army Special Operations Command. Killed when his dismounted patrol encountered enemy forces' small-arms fire in Ramadi.

STAFF SGT. DUANE J. DREASKY, 31, Novi, Mich. With Michigan Army National Guard. Died at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio of injuries sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near his Humvee in Habbaniya.

STAFF SGT. JASON M. EVEY, 29, Stockton, Calif. With 2nd Brigade Combat Team. Died of injuries sustained when his Bradley Fighting Vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device during combat operations in Baghdad.

CPL. ADAM J. FARGO, 22, Ruckersville, Va. With 101st Airborne Division. Died of injuries sustained when his convoy encountered enemy forces' small-arms fire in Baghdad.

STAFF SGT. OMAR D. FLORES, 27, Mission, Texas. With 130th Engineer Brigade. One of three soldiers killed when a roadside bomb detonated near their Mine Protected Vehicle during combat operations in Ramadi.

SGT. ALKAILA T. FLOYD, 23, Grand Rapids, Mich. With 130th Engineer Brigade. Died at Landstuhl Medical Center in Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near his Mine Protected Vehicle in Ramadi.

SGT. JOSHUA A. FORD, 20, Wayne, Neb. With the Army National Guard 485th Corps Support Battalion. Died during combat operations in Al Numaniyah.

SPC. JOSEPH A. GRAVES, 21, Discovery Bay, Calif. With the 89th Military Police Brigade. Killed in action while conducting combat operations north of Baghdad.

PFC. JASON HANSON, 21, Forks, Wash. With 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. Died while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

SGT. IRVING HERNANDEZ JR., 28, Manhattan. With 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team. Killed when he encountered enemy small-arms fire during combat operations in Mosul.

LANCE CPL. JAMES W. HIGGINS, 22, Frederick, Md. With 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. Died of wounds received during combat in Anbar province.

SGT. MANUEL J. HOLGUIN, 21, Woodlake, Calif. With 1st Armored Division. Died of injuries sustained when his dismounted patrol encountered enemy small-arms fire and a roadside bomb in Baghdad.

SPC. HAIMING HSIA, 37, Manhattan. With 1st Armored Division. Died Aug. 1 during combat operations in Ramadi.

SGT. RYAN D. JOPEK, 20, Merrill, Wis. With Army National Guard's 127th Infantry Regiment. Died in Tikrit of injuries suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his convoy.

PETTY OFFICER 2ND CLASS EDWARD A. KOTH, 30, Towson, Md. With Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit Eight. Died after ordnance exploded during a disposal operation at Camp Victory.

SGT. DUSTIN D. LAIRD, 23, Martin, Tenn. With the Army National Guard's 46th Engineer Battalion. Died in Al Qaim of injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle during combat operations in Rawah.

PETTY OFFICER 2ND CLASS MARC A. LEE, 28, of Hood River, Ore. Lee was an aviation ordnanceman and a member of a West Coast-based SEAL Team. He was killed during combat operations while on patrol in Ramadi.

SPC. TROY C. LINDEN, 22, Detroit Lakes, Minn. With 130th Engineer Brigade. One of three soldiers killed when a roadside bomb detonated near their Mine Protected Vehicle during combat operations in Ramadi.

PFC. COLLIN T. MASON, 20, Staten Island. With 4th Infantry Division. Killed after encountering direct fire while manning a checkpoint in his vehicle in Taji.

SPC. JOSEPH P. MICKS, 22, Rapid River, Mich. With 130th Engineer Brigade. One of three soldiers killed when a roadside bomb detonated near their Mine Protected Vehicle during combat operations in Ramadi.

SPC. DAMIEN M. MONTOYA, 23, Holbrook, Ariz. With 4th Infantry. Died from a non-combat-related cause in Baghdad.

LANCE CPL. ADAM R. MURRAY, 21, Cordova, Tenn. With 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. Died while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

SGT. JUSTIN L. NOYES, 23, Vinita, Okla. With 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force. Killed while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

STAFF SGT. PAUL S. PABLA, 23, Fort Wayne, Ind. With Indiana Army National Guard. Killed by small arms fire during combat operations in Mosul.

CAPT. CHRISTOPHER T. PATE, 29, Hampstead, N.C. With 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. Died while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

PFC. DEREK J. PLOWMAN, 20, Everton, Ark. With Arkansas Army National Guard. Died from a gunshot wound in Baghdad.

STAFF SGT. KENNETH I. PUGH, 39, Houston. With 4th Infantry Division. Died of injuries sustained when his M1A1 Abrams tank encountered enemy forces small arms fire in Baghdad.

CPL. JULIAN A. RAMON, 22, Flushing. With 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. Died during combat operations in Anbar province.

CPL. TIMOTHY ROOS, 21, Cincinnati. With 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. Died of wounds received while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

CAPT. BLAKE H. RUSSELL, 35, Fort Worth, Texas. With 101st Airborne Division. Died of injuries sustained from enemy forces munitions while investigating a possible mortar cache during combat operations in Baghdad.

SPC. DENNIS K. SAMSON JR., 24, Hesperia, Mich. With 101st Airborne Division. Died of injuries sustained when he came under enemy small-arms fire in Taqaddum.

PFC. ENRIQUE C. SANCHEZ, 21, Garner, N.C. With 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force. Died while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

SGT. 1ST CLASS SCOTT R. SMITH, 34, Punxsutawney, Pa. With 52nd Ordnance Group. Died of injuries sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near a controlled ordnance clearing mission in Iskandariya.

STAFF. SGT. CHRISTOPHER W. SWANSON, 25, Rose Haven, Md. With 1st Armored Division. Died of injuries sustained when his patrol encountered enemy forces using small-arms fire in Ramadi.

PETTY OFFICER 1ST CLASS JERRY A. THARP, 44, Aledo, Ill. With Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 25. Killed when his dismounted patrol was struck by a roadside bomb while operating in Anbar province.

CPL. JOSEPH A. TOMCI, 21, Stow, Ohio. With II Marine Expeditionary Force. Died while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

SGT. THOMAS B. TURNER JR., 31, Cottonwood, Calif. With 101st Airborne Division. Died at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near his Bradley Fighting Vehicle in Muqdadiya.

SGT. GEORGE M. ULLOA JR., 23, of Austin, Texas. With II Marine Expeditionary Force. Died from wounds suffered while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

SGT. MARK R. VECCHIONE, 25, Tucson, Ariz. With 1st Armored Division. Died of injuries sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near his M1A1 Abrams tank in Ramadi.

CPL. MATTHEW P. WALLACE, 22, Lexington Park, Md. With 4th Infantry Division. Died of injuries sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near his Bradley Fighting Vehicle during combat operations in Baghdad.

AIRMAN 1ST CLASS CARL JEROME WARE JR., 22, Glassboro, N.J. With 15th Security Forces Squadron. Died from a non-combat-related cause at Camp Bucca.

CAPT. JASON M. WEST, 28, Pittsburgh. With 1st Armored Division. Killed by enemy forces using small arms fire in Ramadi.

SGT. CHRISTIAN B. WILLIAMS, 27, Winter Haven, Fla. With 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. One of two Marines killed while conducting combat operations in Anbar province.

© 2006 Newsday Inc.

Centrism Is for Suckers
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
Published: August 4, 2006

If you want to understand the state of America today, a good place to start is with the contrast between the political strategies of conservative business advocacy groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and those of more or less liberal advocacy groups like the Sierra Club.

The chamber recently got into trouble because of ads it ran praising Republican members of Congress who, it said, voted for the Medicare prescription drug program. It turned out that one of the congressmen praised in the ads actually voted against the program, while two others weren't even in Congress when the vote took place.

Oops. But the bigger question is, aren't business groups supposed to favor fiscal responsibility and reducing the size of government? So why is the chamber praising a program that substantially increases the size of government and has no visible means of financial support?

The answer is obvious: the Bush administration hopes to win some votes in the midterm elections from older Americans now receiving drug benefits, and the chamber, like many conservative organizations these days, believes that its interests are best served by helping Republicans win elections. If the administration and its allies in Congress want the chamber's support on an issue, they get it, never mind the details.

If you want an even starker example, consider the fact that the National Federation of Independent Business, the small-business lobby, is supporting the bizarre, hybrid wage-and-tax legislation now before the Senate. This legislation would raise the minimum wage while sharply cutting taxes on very large estates.

From a small-business owner's point of view, this deal makes no sense. Many owners of small businesses believe, rightly or wrongly, that they would be hurt by a rise in the minimum wage. Meanwhile, very few are rich enough to pay estate taxes: the Congressional Budget Office reports that if current law had applied in 2000, only 135 small business estates would have paid any tax at all, which means that small-business owners subject to the estate tax are substantially harder to find than people who have been struck by lightning.

It's possible that the federation's leadership has been misled by Heritage Foundation propaganda. But it's more likely that, like the chamber, the federation believes that its interests are best served by acting as a loyal servant of the Republican electoral effort. And both organizations are probably right.

Now compare this with the behavior of advocacy groups like the Sierra Club, the environmental organization, and Naral, the abortion-rights group, both of which have endorsed Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, for re-election. The Sierra Club's executive director defended the Chafee endorsement by saying, "We choose people, not parties." And it's true that Mr. Chafee has usually voted with environmental groups.

But while this principle might once have made sense, it's just naïve today. Given both the radicalism of the majority party's leadership and the ruthlessness with which it exercises its control of the Senate, Mr. Chafee's personal environmentalism is nearly irrelevant when it comes to actual policy outcomes; the only thing that really matters for the issues the Sierra Club cares about is the "R" after his name.

Put it this way: If the Democrats gain only five rather than six Senate seats this November, Senator James Inhofe, who says that global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," will remain in his current position as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. And if that happens, the Sierra Club may well bear some of the responsibility.

The point is that those who cling to the belief that politics can be conducted in terms of people rather than parties -- a group that also includes would-be centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman and many members of the punditocracy -- are kidding themselves.

The fact is that in 1994, the year when radical Republicans took control both of Congress and of their own party, things fell apart, and the center did not hold. Now we're living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician's partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs. And those who refuse to recognize this reality end up being useful idiots for those, like President Bush, who have been consistently ruthless in their partisanship.

Date Rape

by digby

David Gergen says:

Yes, I am biased in favor of my friend, but I also fear that if Joe Lieberman - a man, let's remember, who was the vice presidential nominee of his party only six years ago - is purged from national leadership, that would send a message rippling through both parties: that in our new politics, working too closely with leaders across the aisle can be political suicide. It's hard to believe that, despite all their frustration, that's what Connecticut Democrats really want to say.


I'm just curious what message the Republicans have sent rippling through both parties for the last six years of strong arm, thuggish political rhetoric and legislative tactics?

Here's a mild example of what the Democrats have been putting up with, from Gergen's brother in arms, David Broder:

Since 1995, when Republicans took control of both sides of the Capitol, the negotiating sessions often have been limited to GOP senators and representatives, with the Democrats locked out along with the press.

That arrangement has been reinforced by the "Hastert doctrine," the policy enunciated by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert that he will bring to the floor only bills that are supported by the majority of the Republican caucus. Because of that policy, bipartisan coalitions have become rarities in the House. The emphasis now is entirely on shaping bills in conference that most House Republicans can embrace.


No judgment there about whether it's good for the country to kill bipartisanship in a time of war. Just business as usual. IOKIYAR, I guess.

This stuff was going on throughout the first term, despite the disputed election of 2000 --- a unique historical circumstance that one would have thought called for excessive bipartisanship --- as you can see by this article:

Republicans, meanwhile, defended their handling of negotiations, saying too many voices — particularly those of lawmakers who do not support their policy goals — would yield cacophony, not compromise.

"You want to try to negotiate agreements with people who are going to vote for it and negotiate in good faith," said John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "You need to be able to reach agreement, and you can't have 6,000 people negotiating."

In both the cases of Medicare (HR 1) and energy (HR 6), the Republicans have been largely negotiating without the participation of Democrats, who have been complaining for weeks about the process. But in recent days the conflict has escalated.



Getting rid of bipartisanship was a conscious governing philosophy. A great book has been written about it called "Off-Center: the Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy" Somebody should send Gergen and his pals a copy.

There are, of course, a million examples of power crazed, partisan actions on the part of the GOP congressional majority over the years (not the least of which was an impeachment.) And it's not like they have been quiet about it. Here's Tom Delay all the way back in 1991:

We have a small faction, and they are a minority, who believe they are there to govern. Then there is the majority of us who believe that indeed we are there to govern but more importantly we are there to be an opposition to the Democratic philosophy and the only way to do that is through confrontation.


It's a real shame about bipartisanship going the way of the buggy whip, but blaming Democrats for it is laughable. If anything they hung on long after it was obvious that the Republicans were punking them over and over again. Rank and file Democrats have finally had it up to here and are sending a message to their party that they aren't going to sit by and let it happen anymore. The country is in deep trouble and somebody has to step up and put a stop to this.

Naturally, now that the crooked Republicans have shown themselves to be miserable failures at every aspect of governing, which they have consciously done without Democratic input, the mandarins who have been conspicuously silent about the excessive GOP partisanship of the last six years (and the previous decade as well) are calling for comity. If Democrats win in November, I have no doubt we are going to read sanctimonious op-ed after sanctimonious speech about how the Democrats need to put all this unpleasantness behind them and run the congress in a bipartisan spirit to heal the country's wounds.

It's always the same old nonsense with these people. The Republicans run the country into the ground, treat the Democrats like enemies of the state and when they are finally done screwing things up (and exhausted from counting all the money they've stolen from the taxpayers)the Dems have to clean up their mess. And they're supposed to be generous and kind and not embarrass anyone when they do it.

I have no doubt that's what will happen again. But I'm not ready to make nice, not by a long shot. The internet is a powerful tool that keeps a record of every rotten thing these people have ever done and said and I will never let them forget it.


Update: McJoan over at kos today has a great quote:


"Bipartisanship only works when the other side compromises, too. Otherwise it's just capitulation."


That seems like an obvious point. Perhaps David Gergen can give us all an example of anything Joe Lieberman has been able to get the Republicans to compromise on in the last six years. In fact, I'd be interested in hearing about any Republican compromises with Democrats in the last six years. I'm sure there must be a few.

Update II: Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice, examines various lessons people might take from the race if Lamont wins on Tuesday. One of them is this:

Bipartisanship Has Limits: If Karl Rove’s strategy has been to paint the United States’ security in danger if Democrats win control, and accuse Democrats who raise questions about the war as wanting to “cut and run” (event it is conceivable that someone supported the war but has very serious questions about its conduct), then it doomed Lieberman’s brand of bipartisanship. Rather than cultivate cooperation, Bush’s “your either with us or against us” has been applied to domestic politics and it sabotaged Lieberman’s cooperation with Bush would be perceived by many in his party.


That would be my take.


.
digby 8/06/2006 11:44:00 AM Comments (37) | Trackback (0)

Greenfield: It's more than just Iraq
Lieberman has long been on the outs with his party's base

By Jeff Greenfield
CNN Senior Analyst


Thursday, August 3, 2006; Posted: 10:13 p.m. EDT (02:13 GMT)

Sen. Joseph Lieberman differs with his party's base not only on Iraq but also on vouchers and affirmative action.


NEW YORK (CNN) -- If the latest Quinnipiac University Poll is right, three-term Sen. Joseph Lieberman is headed for defeat Tuesday in Connecticut's Democratic primary, and Iraq -- more specifically, his steadfast support for that war -- is the big reason.

But it's not the only reason, which is something those looking for broader lessons from this primary campaign might keep in mind.

Yes, of course rival Ned Lamont would never have mounted so daunting a challenge to Lieberman without the Iraq issue, but take a look back to the key "use of force" resolution passed by Congress in October 2002.

Of the Democratic presidential wannabees who were in the Senate back then, just about all of them -- Sens. John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Chris Dodd -- also voted for the resolution empowering the president to use force against Iraq. Among presidential aspirants, only Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold voted "no."

But Lieberman's backing was different: It lasted far longer and was far more full-throated. As late as last November, with conditions in Iraq producing a massive dose of second thoughts from one-time war-backers, he wrote an op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal hailing "visible and practical" progress, and celebrating the spread of satellite TV and cell phone use.

President Bush often quoted Lieberman as evidence of bipartisan support of his policies. Most memorably, at the 2005 State of the Union speech, Bush embraced Lieberman -- a moment known scornfully as "the kiss" to the senator's foes.

But it's important to remember that Lieberman's problems with Democratic constituencies go back further. He has often taken positions at odds with his party's base. For instance, he supported vouchers for public school students so they might attend other schools -- a position public school teachers' unions strongly oppose. This year, both Connecticut teachers' unions have endorsed Lamont.

In the past, Lieberman has questioned the value of affirmative action. Ten years ago, he said: "Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators could never have intended."

It's not exactly a coincidence that prominent African-American politician Rep. Maxine Waters of California and the Rev. Al Sharpton are supporting Lamont.

And last year, he supported federal intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman at the center of a long legal battle over whether she could be taken off life support, thus aligning himself on that issue with religious conservatives. Schiavo's husband is campaigning for Lamont, and those Democrats generally unhappy with the power of the "Religious Right" gained another reason to oppose the incumbent.

Then there's lingering unhappiness over Lieberman's decision in 2000 to run both for vice president and his Senate seat. Had Al Gore won the White House, Lieberman's replacement would have been chosen by a Republican governor -- costing Democrats control of the Senate and fueling the idea among some that Lieberman cared more about his career than his party.

And his promise to run as an independent if he loses the primary might complicate Democratic efforts to take two or three House seats in his state from vulnerable GOP incumbents.

So though a Lieberman loss will be interpreted as a signal that the party's base will demand an anti-Iraq presidential candidate, don't forget the special circumstances that Lieberman is facing.

One more question: Although polls suggest Lieberman could win in November running as an independent, wouldn't that course be a lot harder for him to follow if he loses the primary in a landslide?