'Bush Wanted War'

Its hard to disagree with Richard Cohen's analysis on whether or not President Bush 'wanted war', a subject that reignited after Helen Thomas asked (most likely) her last question of President Bush. Here's Cohen:

There remains, though, the little matter of what was in Bush's gut -- not his head, mind you, but that elusive place where emotion resides. It was there, in the moments after 9/11, that Bush truly decided on war, maybe because Saddam had once tried to kill George H.W. Bush, maybe because the neocons had convinced him that a brief war in Iraq would have long-term salutary consequences for the entire Middle East, maybe because he could not abide the thought that a monster like Saddam might die in his sleep -- and maybe because he heard destiny calling.

Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got.

This is exactly right. While no president enjoys learning of the deaths of American soldiers, this presdient certainly wanted war. President Bush's agenda driven advisors have failed him, miserably. They encouraged this president, who clearly has no real understanding of foreign relations, to start this war. And who could blame Bush - they told him the war would be short, with few casualties, and would dramatically transform the Middle East resulting in a more peaceful world. The buck, however, does stop with the president. To reiterate what Cohen wrote, "Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got."

Larry Sabato Has Crystal Balls

Here's the latest from Mr. Sabato. He tackles '06 races for Senate and Governor throughout the country. Sabato's stuff is always enjoyable and insightful--go take a look at it.

Fukuyama Watch

I've been trying to keep up with the reaction from Francis "end of history" Fukuyama's much publicized divorce from neo-conservatism. As such, I recommend heading over to OxBlog to read David Adesnik's thoughts on the subject.

Head For The Bombshelter Kids, There's A War On Christians!

I don't even want to start. Just read this.

Don't Drop The Soap, Jack (UPDATED)

Via Washington Post:

MIAMI, March 29 -- Jack A. Abramoff, the once-powerful Republican lobbyist at the center of a major corruption scandal, was sentenced Wednesday to five years and 10 months in prison for his role in the fraudulent purchase of a fleet of casino cruise ships. An associate received the same sentence.

Abramoff still hopes that the Big Guy will forgive him:

Wearing a gray double-breasted suit and appearing somber, Abramoff said he was "very much chastened and profoundly remorseful over the reckless and hurtful things I have done in my life." He added, "I can only hope that the Almighty and those whom I have wronged will forgive me my trespasses."

The Post notes that this was the minimum sentence for Jacko's crime - 5 years, 10 months for a good ol' boy isn't a minimum anything. Furthermore, this sentence was for a crime unrelated to his well publicized lobbying scandals that will surely implicate members of Congress.

One last point - The Fix's Chris Cillizza, on Hardball today, rightly noted that Abramoff isn't going anywhere; the meat of the Congressional end of the Abramoff scandal will be heating up at the same time as the midterms. Democrats can and should use ethics as a MAJOR issue in the election. The Republicans have handed them this issue on a silver platter and they need to exploit it.

UPDATE: I meant to include this in the original posting. It's priceless:
















At least he looks good...

Israeli Exit Polling (UPDATED)

Exit polling out of Israel shows that I was wrong in predicting a larger than expected showing for Likud. I was wrong. I apologize a THOUSAND TIMES. Here's the story, via CNN:

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's new centrist Kadima party was projected to claim the largest share of parliamentary seats in elections Tuesday, according to three Israeli TV exit polls.

The party, formed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon late last year when he broke from the Likud bloc he helped form in the 1970s, snared between 29 and 32 seats, according to the exit polls. If the results hold, Kadima would have the largest bloc of seats in the 120-member Knesset.

However, Kadima's projected showing was weaker than forecast, meaning party leaders will have to look for coalition partners. The top prospect to join forces with Kadima is the Labor Party, for which the exit polls projected a stronger-than-expected showing, at an estimated 20 to 22 seats.

The dark horses in the election were the socialist Pensioner's Party, which was projected to win between six and eight seats, and the Israel Beitenu Party, which is made up largely of Russian immigrants and was projected to take 12 to 14 seats, according to the exit polls. Sharon's former party, Likud, was expected to corral 11 to 12 seats.

CNN is also reporting that Netanyahu has admitted that the elections results are a "body blow" to his Likud party.

UPDATE: More, via Haaretz.

Israeli Elections Today (UPDATED)

Today, Israeli's will go to the polls and vote in parliamentary elections. Polls have shown the newly formed centrist Kadima party running ahead of the more conservative Likud. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the Likud party, now led by Benjamin Netanyahu, makes significant gains in this elections. Consider, via Washington Post:

Israelis will elect a new parliament, and by extension a new prime minister, on Tuesday after a campaign season marked by complacency, disappointment and a sense of betrayal among many voters now searching for new political leadership. The result is that a large number of voters remain undecided, a floating segment that could determine a quarter of the 120-seat parliament, the Knesset. More Israelis than in any past election are expected to sit out the vote.

It will be interesting to see what effect the rise of Hamas and the party finished Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories will have on these elections. There certainly seems to be a great deal of uncertainty among Israeli's right now and that always makes predicting electoral outcomes difficult. We'll be watching this one.

Heres a good graphic that breaks down the major players in the elections as well as the Knesset as a whole.

UPDATE: AP picks up on the significance of these elections. Do not be surprised if Likud gets a larger share of the vote than polls currently show. Here's what I mean:

About 47 percent of the 4.5 million eligible voters had cast ballots by 11 a.m. EST, the Central Elections Committee said. That was about 7 percentage points lower than at the same time in the 2003 national elections.

Analysts have said low turnout could hurt the prospects of Olmert's front-running Kadima Party.

The election was held the same day the Palestinian parliament overwhelming approved the new Hamas Cabinet, setting the stage for the new administration to take office later this week. Lawmakers belonging to the Islamic militant group chanted "God is great!" after the 71-36 vote. Two parliamentarians abstained. [...]

Pollsters predicted that the centrist Kadima, founded in November by Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon, would finish well ahead of the center-left Labor Party and the right-wing Likud. However, an unusually large number of voters said they were undecided, and pollsters said large fluctuations were possible.

MORE FUKUYAMA!! (UPDATED AGAIN)

I recomend this piece about ex-neocon Francis Fukuyama. Good read. Interesting stuff.

FUKUYAMA UPDATE (3/27/06 - 4:34PM): Read FUKUYAMA and Adam Garfinkle's piece from he Wall Street Journal on promoting democracy in the Middle East the 'right' way.

FUKUYAMA UPDATE II (3/28/06 - 10:51PM): Charles Krauthammer fires back.

Andy Card Resigns

Big news of the day: WH Chief of Staff Andy Card Resigns

Via WaPo:

White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. announced his resignation this morning after nearly 5-1/2 years as President Bush's top aide. Bush said Card will be replaced by Joshua B. Bolten, the director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Card will serve until April 14 to provide a transition period. The move could presage broader staff changes as Bolten takes over an operation hobbled by political problems heading into a crucial midterm election season. [...]

Card has held the top staff job at the White House longer than any person since Sherman Adams under President Dwight D. Eisenhower and had earned enormous respect within the building and around Washington for his calm professionalism and stamina. But his stewardship of the Bush team had come under question in recent months after a series of mishaps, including the failed Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, the bungled federal response to Hurricane Katrina, the slow public disclosure of Vice President Cheney's shooting accident and the unexpected Republican revolt over a plan to turn over management at a half dozen ports to an Arab-owned company.

Bush said Card had approached him earlier this month about the possibility of stepping down, and Bush accepted his offer this weekend, when the two were at Camp David.

"He's been here 5-1/2 years. The average tenure of chief of staff is two years," said a senior administration official, who spoke before the announcement, but refused to be named so as not to upstage the president. "Change can be good and necessary and that's what they had discussed."

The official said the decision was Card's, not Bush's: "Andy initiated it with the president." [...]

Card, 59, has been the focal point of much discussion in Washington about how physically and politically exhausted the White House staff must be in the sixth year of a presidency buffeted by recession, terrorism and war. Card has told interviewers that he gets up every morning at 4:20 a.m., arrives at the White House an hour or so after that and works until 8 or 9 at night.

No big surprises here. He's served his president and now its time for him to relax. This may not be the BIG shakeup that Washington has been buzzing about (replacing one insider with another is hardly giving the administration a 'facelift'). However, it certainly is a start and I suspect there will be more changes to come.

GOP Primary Polling In RI

It certainly isn't easy to find a big enough sample of registered GOP voters in RI to conduct a reliable poll. Such polling has proven inaccurate in the past and is looked at with skepticism.
Read this piece from the Hotline On Call blog for more on GOP primary polling in RI.

Bush-Blair Memo

Fascinating piece in the New York Times this morning; although the new information may not be surprising, it is certainly intriguing. Here are the main points:

...[B]ehind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons. [...]

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war. [...]

At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.

Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach." [...]

At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected." [...]

Go read the whole article. This is great stuff. The communication between two leaders preparing for war is always remarkably interesting.

Avenging Tom Daschle??

Political Wire cites a Bob Novak column that reports the DCCC chairman is ready to go after the seat now held by his "Republican counterpart", Rep. Tom Reynolds.

Between this race and Tom Delay's battle for reelection, it appears that the Democrats may be trying to avenge the defeat of their former Senate Leader, Tom Daschle. Just a thought.

Civil War Debate Deepens

I've heard the following question several times in the last week in various settings (one of them was a PolySci class...): Could civil war in Iraq ultimately be a good thing? Alan Stuart Carl has a piece about the "Meaning of Civil War" over at "Maverick Views" and touches on this subject.

I want to make my position on this very clear: a civil war in Iraq may be catastrophic for the entire region. People out there who essentially say, "if our side wins, a civil war could end well for the U.S." are incredibly naive. First of all, we don't have an actual side in Iraq. Our side, as our president has made clear, is "democracy" and "the march of freedom." Yeah...how's that workin' out for ya?

In other words, our side is abstract and our hands will be tied in a civil war. The foundation for a civil war in Iraq is strong and won't be broken with a "unity government." Civil war may very well be inevitable from this point on, no matter how successful we are in installing a Freedom-friendly government. It may have been inevitable from day 1 of the invasion--we removed the strongman (Saddam) that was keeping a lid on the sectarian tensions that have been brewing for centuries in Iraq (albeit in a disgusting, brutal way).

Furthermore, this is nothing new. Others have tried to impost democracy, or at least friendly governments, at the barrel of a gun. The lack of respect for, or perhaps the ignorance of, the history of not only Iraq but of international relations in general on the part of the Bush administration in disgusting and inexcusable. A relatively small degree of thought could have foreseen a likely post-invasion civil war in Iraq.

Finally, here's a simplified version of what could happen with a divisive civil war in Iraq: a disintegration of the Iraq that we know into Kurdistan in the north, a Shi'a state in the south, and a Sunni state in central Iraq. A Kurdish state in the north would piss of Turkey, a Shi'a state could ally with Iran, and a Sunni state could ally with its ethnic brethren, perhaps Syria. This scenario has been cited many times before. The significance of such a disintegration cannot be overstated - the entire region would be severely destabalized and we would have a much larger problem on our hands. Again, something that could have been foreseen with a minimal amount of thought...

Who Said Hollywood Was Full Of Whackjobs?

Has Charlie Sheen gone nuts? Maybe. I might have to object to the premise that he wasn't already nuts.

Methinks Sheen's recent musings on the "real" explanations for 9/11 may have come to him after watching this video. Just a thought.

Put A Muzzle On Dick Morris

Watch this clip from Media Matters and try not to vomit.

I...sort of...understand what he's trying to say, but dear God - the man calls sectarian violence "negotiation, Iraqi style." This statement is disgusting. He's an ignorant moron. Period.

PIRATES!!

That's right, pirates. Via AP:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Two U.S. Navy warships exchanged gunfire with suspected pirates Saturday off the coast of Somalia, and one suspect was killed and five others were wounded, the navy said.

Seven other suspects were taken into custody after the early-morning shootout, said Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown, spokesman for the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet.

No sailors were wounded in the battle, which occurred at about 5:40 a.m. local time, approximately 25 nautical miles off the Somali coast in international waters.

In Honor Of St. Patrick's Day...

In honor of St. Patrick's Day, here's a list of the most Irish congressional districts in the nation, via Congressional Quarterly :

Massachusetts’ 10th (33.4%)
Pennsylvania’s 7th (30.6%)
Massachusetts’ 9th (30.2%)
Pennsylvania’s 13th (26.7%)
Pennsylvania’s 8th (25.9%)
Massachusetts’ 6th (25.6%)
New York’s 1st (24.9%)
Massachusetts’ 7th (24.1%)
New York’s 3rd (24.1%)
New Jersey’s 1st (23.0%)
New York’s 19th (22.8%)
Massachusetts’ 5th (22.4%)
New Jersey’s 3rd (22.2%)
New York’s 20th (22.2%)
Massachusetts’ 3rd (22.1%)
New York’s 21st (21.4%)
New Jersey’s 5th (21.3%)
New Jersey’s 4th (21.1%)
New Hampshire’s 1st (20.5%)
New Jersey’s 1st (19.8%)
New York’s 25th (19.8%)
Rhode Island’s 2nd (19.7%)
Connecticut’s 2nd (19.3%)
Massachusetts’ 1st (19.1%)
Illinois’ 13th (18.7%)

Shout out to RI 2nd - that's my district.

Warner Update

Here's a bit from the latest update to Mark Warner's Forward Together Blog (his PAC's blog, that is):

[...]Since leaving office, I’ve been to more than 20 cities, in three countries, usually with 7 to 9 events a day. Here in Alexandria, we have held dozens of policy briefings with some of the best minds in the country as we work towards ideas to better address some of our nation's most pressing problems.

I’ve been particularly pleased by the energy everywhere I travel about our ideas on how Democrats can lay out a positive future-focused agenda. While it is essential that we continue to point out where we disagree with the Bush administration, I find that people also want to hear specific ideas on how we will do better.

Mark Warner: Running full speed ahead to 2008.

Line Of The Day

Line of the day, via Tony Blankley:

Sen. Feingold has all the early indications of being this season's Eugene McCarthy -- without the wit or poetry.

Nice.

Will He Or Won't He?

Howard Fineman writes about the biggest wildcard facing Republican Presidential hopefuls: Will 'America's mayor,' Rudy Giuliani, run for president in 2008? There's not too much in the article that we don't already know, but a Giuliani candidacy would change everything. Here's Fineman:

The effect of a Rudy run? There are those who think the presence of a pro-choice, pro-gay-rights New Yorker would help McCain by making him seem to be a comparative godsend to evangelicals. But the two men, who are personally close, occupy the same macho shelf space, and the clear hope and expectation among McCainanites is that Rudy will ultimately stand down. [...]

But those who say he'll fold may not know the man, his history or what he is really up to. Decades of jousting with the New York press have left him with a hide of titanium. [...] A few weeks ago in Florida, he did the drop-by of all drop-bys as the "surprise guest" at the annual convention of the Global Pastors Network. He wowed them with his energy and his revival-style witness to his faith in Jesus. Ralph Reed, a godfather of religious conservatives, thinks Giuliani's charisma may help him overcome his social-issues liberalism in the Bible belt. "He can take control of a room better than any politician I've seen," said Reed. The key moment with the pastors was in the private holding room, where he spent quality time among their leaders. Giuliani told them that the key to his final decision on whether to run would be whether he thought he could raise enough cash. But he didn't sound as if he had much doubt and nothing going on in Memphis this week is likely to change his mind.

First of all, if Giuliani runs and wins in '08, it won't be with the help of Evangelicals. That being said, Giuliani, even without the eamaneuveringring and groundwork that other candidates are doing, can still play the role of a spoiler in '08. There's plenty of time for Giuliani to decide to run and win the nomination. Also, the more I think about McCain, the more I think that being the frontrunner two and a half years out might end up biting him in the ass. I generally like McCain and have been pretty high on him for a while; I'm starting to come down, especially after what he did in Memphis.

I haven't yet commented on McCain's much publicized write in campaign for President Bush, so I'll say a bit here. I thought it was foolish and cowardly. While he was right that the president certainly needs the support of his base, the SRLC's straw vote wasn't the right way to do it. The SRLC was going to boost GOP confidence regardless of who won the straw poll. This was a way for McCain, indeed the frontrunner at this early stage, to not embarrassedssed by a third or fourth place showing. McCain knew he wasn't going to win the straw poll and therefore, he didn't want to participate. In practice, straw polls don't mean anything; but for politicians with egos who don't like to lose, straw polls mean a great deal.

UPDATE (3/15/06 - 8:55PM): RUDY!!!!! - "The Fix" weighs in on Giuliani.

Feingold's Folly

Joe Gandelman has some good stuff on Sen. Feingold's censure resolution. I have to agree with Joe on this one. This proposal is not only going nowhere, its horrible timing for such a move. The Republicans are just coming off a rah-rah session in Tennessee and now Feingold is giving them another reason to unite behind the president. Here's Gandelman:

That's clear, if you look at the chronology of where the White House was, what polls were showing, how Republicans were scrambling to distance themselves from the White House amid signs that the GOP base was starting to sour on Bush, and the not-good-news-for-Bush topics of news cycles.

Feingold's proposal shifted all of that in a way that, in the end, could help Democratic party activists send a message, but could also lose the party votes since it derailed some of the conditions that had seemingly blessed Democrats.

Instead of basking in the glory of the administration's blunders, Feingold is now putting members of his own party in a very difficult position. This is the the problem with the Democratic party - there's no continuity and no message control. Where does the Democratic Party, not Russ Feingold, stand? God only knows. Say what you want about the GOP, but, until recently, Republicans have been very good with getting their message out with a united voice.

While thismeasuree is clearly going nowhere, I will say this about Feingold - he's getting his name in the news. He's putting himself out there as the '08 candidate for liberals disheartened by Hillary's move to the middle. However, I would put 2006 ahead of 2008 on my list of priorities if I were a Congressional Democrat. Feingold's purpose here is transparently selfish. He has no regard for party loyalty or continuity and I'm sure he's gotten a number of phone calls telling him as much.

UPDATE (3/15/06 - 4:48PM): Hotline On Call has a great roundup of reaction to Feingold's censure measure. Here are some highlights:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), known for his "near-daily" news conferences, "made history" by saying: "I'm not going to comment." At a time when Dems "had Bush on the ropes over Iraq, the budget and port security," Feingold "single-handedly turned the debate back to an issue where Bush had the advantage -- and drove another wedge through his party." [...]

A Dem aide: "[Feingold has] forced Democrats into the impossible position of trying to talk tough on the issue [of nat'l security] but voting against a stern censure. It was premature and basically about Feingold's ego. The rest of us pay the check his political capital can't cash" (Roll Call, 3/15). [...]

There is also a "long line of more senior" Dems who want to drag out Bush's agony for months. "Wiser" Dems understand that "political dis-utility of going after" Bush to stop him from doing the "wildly popular act of monitoring terrorist communications" (3/15). [...]

The censure resolution is receiving a "warm welcome" from the WH and the GOP, who have "seized" on the issue after "weeks of bad news" in Iraq, defeat on the UAE port deal, and "plummeting" approval ratings. Instead of attempting to block the resolution, Frist "sought a quick vote" on the issue, and VP Cheney, during a 3/13 WI fundraiser, used Feingold's measure "as a rallying point." [...]

In an email to supporters, RNC Chair Ken Mehlman writes, "after months of searching, Democrat leaders are finally beginning to find their agenda: take away the tools America needs to fight terror."

UPDATE II (3/15/06 - 6:03PM): I just found this post which Hugh Hewitt used the title "Feingold's Folly." This is a coincidence - my bad Hugh.

UPDATE III(3/15/06 - 8:34PM): Text of Feingold Resolution

Line Of The Day

I'm sitting here reading the New York Times Magaizine article on Mark Warner and I'm feeling the need to share this particular line from the rather lengthy article:

As of the end of 2005, [Sen. John] Kerry had more than $15 million in contributions stashed away for another bid, as well as a handful of major fund-raisers who remain loyal to him, but the general assessment among Democratic insiders is that his Swift boat has already sailed.

I can't possibly be the only person who finds this funny.

More on the whole article later.

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus"

Yeah, that's right - bong hits...4 Jesus...

Biden On Iraq

Sens. Joe Biden (D-DE) and George Allen (R-VA) were on Meet The Press this morning talking about a number of issues, most important of which, the War in Iraq. We're going to focus on what Biden said, for he actually spoke candidly.

Biden did a good job of driving home the incompetence of the Bush administration, particularly the civilian defense personnel (yeah, you Rumsfeld). Consider:

[Biden]: It has stunned me, the incompetence and way in which they pursued the war, what they’re doing now. [...]

I think it [war planning] was mishandled. I didn’t ever think they [the Bush Administration]would be as incompetent as they were. If I’d known that, I wouldn’t have voted for it [war authorization]. [...]

I—when I got back from Iraq a little while ago, I went down to see the president, and I sat with the president, and he kept talking about terrorists. And I said, “Mr. President, if every single al-Qaeda personality, every single al-Qaeda operative or anyone like him tomorrow were blown away, you still have a war, Mr. President. This is well beyond terrorists.”

There’s an insurgency, Tim, a gigantic insurgency that has nothing to do with terrorists. It’s a big deal. And there’s no serious—we put these military guys so far behind the eight ball, because we didn’t go in with the 5,000 police trainers that I talked about on your show two and a half years ago and others did, because they said we didn’t need it, because we said we had all the oil we needed when in fact the oil companies told us we needed $30 billion dollars in. These guys are about two years behind the curve. The civilians have done a disservice, in my view, to the military on the ground. We said we needed more troops. Remember on your show, I called for more troops the year we went in? Then John McCain called for more troops. What were we told? “No, the folks on the ground don’t want the troops.” Now what’s coming out, including Bremer? “Yeah, we needed more troops, we wanted more troops.” This has been a debacle. This has been a debacle. The president, literally, this is a test of his leadership. He’s got to unite the international community to bring every pressure possible on these guys or it’s not going to get done.

As I've stated before, the incompetence card is a good one for the Dems in '06. In lieu of having alternative ideas, they might as well kick the president while he's down. Highlighting the incompetence, however, is more than a shameless attack - it drives home a point that many Americans, I suspect, already believe: The Bush Administration can't get the job done. Its not that they're just pursuing the wrong policies; rather, there's a general lack of ability and leadership that is damaging this country. If the Democrats keep driving this home, the public will respond.

Besides criticizing the Bush Administration, Biden also spoke the truth about Iraq. Here's what I mean:

[Biden]: And I think, by the way, General Pace [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who was on MTP last week] is very, very wrong in his assessment. I think we’re in, we’re at a point where in the next six to eight weeks, we don’t get something moving in terms of a government—and that’s just the first step, by the way. The idea that once a government is formed here that somehow things are going to begin to roll is, is really another misrepresentation.

MR. RUSSERT: But finish that statement. If they don’t get another government in the next six to eight weeks, what happens?

SEN. BIDEN: I think what happens is you’re—we have to decide how we’re going to deal with, it’s going to be a different circumstance. It’ll be closer to a civil war. We’re going to have to have a different function for our troops. You’re going to have to have a plan B. You’re going to have figure out how to contain rather than how to, how to build. And that’s a very much tougher circumstance to be in. [...]

But, look, we, we have vital interests that are there. We—it’s bad enough it’s a civil war. It’ll be a lot worse if it’s a regional war. [...]

SEN. BIDEN: We can’t want peace in Iraq more than the Iraqis want it. We can’t want it more than they want it, and if they don’t step up to the ball we’re going to be gone. The—no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people.

MR. RUSSERT: And what do you leave behind?

SEN. BIDEN: You leave behind chaos. You traded dictator for chaos, open civil war, and the concern of a regional war. Worse off than we were when we had him sitting there. It’s good he’s gone, but what are you trading him for? What are we going to trade him for?

MR. RUSSERT: Is this a distinct possibility?

SEN. BIDEN: Absolutely, it’s a distinct possibility. And you even have our generals on the ground saying it’s a distinct possibility. [...]

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Biden, if they don’t get a government together, and we do get out, and we leave chaos behind, is that not a foreign policy disaster for the U.S.?

SEN. BIDEN: It is an absolute foreign policy disaster. What I said was that we’re going to have to have a different deployment of the troops. We’re going to have to figure out a containment policy, Tim. You may find a debate begins to ensue: Do we help the Badr Brigade and the Peshmerga deal with the Sunnis? Do we decide to cordon off the north? Do we decide—it’ll be a different policy. We’re not going to just be able to walk away. It will be a disaster.

That's a lot of text, I know. But its all important and hasn't really been talked about before today. Biden is right to point out the potential for an Iraqi Civil War sparking a broader regional conflict with dire consequences. This is, more than any other so called 'tipping point' in Iraq thus far, a most pivotal moment for Iraq's future. If a viable, legitimate government (or 'unity government') does not form in the coming weeks, disaster is likely.

Biden is also right to note the hard realities of removing Saddam Hussein, as despicable as he was. Morally nobody can dispute the fact that Iraq is better off with Saddam out of power. However, the reality is his brutal, iron fist kept a lid on the sectarian tensions within Iraq. As Biden put it, we've "traded a dictator for chaos" - and by the way, our troops are in the middle of that chaos.

Feingold Calls For Censure

On this mornings This Week, Sen. Russ Feingold told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he would introduce a Senate Resolution that would censure President Bush over the domestic spying scandal:

But in a copy of the censure resolution obtained by ABC News, Feingold asserts the president, "repeatedly misled the public prior to the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program by indicating his administration was relying on court orders to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States."

I've noted before [1] that in order for the Democrats to be taken seriously on this issue, they would have to, in essence, walk the walk. However, I've never actually advocated censuring/impeaching President Bush on this issue. I think its rather useless for a basic reason - this is not a winning issue for Democrats. Despite his plummeting poll numbers, he still polls relatively well on this issue. There's a lot of time between now and November for the President to get his sea legs and appear strong, once again, on national security.

Feingold is certainly attempting to walk the walk with this stunt. He knows its going nowhere. However, I suspect he doesn't care. This is not about actually holding the president accountable; this about Feingold's own Presidential ambitions. He's trying to cozy up to the liberal wing of the Democratic party. He's essentially telling them, 'I've been against the Patriot Act since the beginning, I want to censure this President - I'm your guy for '08.' Feingold may very well be the ultra-liberal choice for the Democratic nomination in '08 - but he won't get the nomination.

I'd love to say that I admire Feingold's backbone on this issue, but I can't. He, just like every other presidential hopeful, is positioning themselves for '08 and trying to develop a base. This is nothing more than a nod to the liberal 'Deaniac' wing of the Democratic party.

Quick Note: I do feel that the NSA program is, most likely, illegal. However, I'm not talking about legalities, I'm talking about politics.

[1] Here's me from February 15:

Some Republicans (especially those in moderate-liberal districts/states) have been eager to distance themselves from the president on many issues, including domestic and foreign policies. However, the NSA controversy is a different beast entirely - while certainly controversial, Republicans have begun to frame this debate as one of essential national security vs. liberal whining over legal technicalities. Rove and company have made it clear what the GOP national security platform will be (it should sound familiar): Democrats have a pre-9/11 world view and will not protect you and your family in these dire times. The NSA spying controversy is actually a relatively strong issue for the President - he has come out swinging from the beginning and will continue to do so. [...] As Iowa Gov. Vilsack recently implied(and I predicted soon after the program was revealed...), the Democrats are falling right into this trap and are once again allowing the GOP to frame this debate. Unless Dems start talking seriously about sanctioning the administration (i.e. censure, impeachment) for this abuse, they will look like a bunch of whining softies. Obviously, without a majority in either house of Congress, talking about censuring/impeaching the president is useless. Most Americans (including myself) aren't very well versed on the inner workings of the FISA Court - thus, citing abstract, legal objections to the program may not be wise.

SRLC Straw Poll Results

Here they are, the results of the Hotline's Straw Poll from the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. Frist comes in first (no surprise, the event was held in his home state of Tennessee) and a surprise second place finish by MA governor Mitt Romney (at least I was surprised).

Hotline has a good breakdown of the results at their site - go check it out.

Another Gem From Bill O'Reilly

Check out this clip from Media Matters.

In it, Bill O'Reilly places North Korea on a pedestal for its success in keeping foreigners out (and, in addition, its citizens in).

If you don't feel like going over to Media Matters, here's the quote:

[O'Reilly:] ...You're not gonna solve the illegal immigrant hordes coming in here by having an effective guest worker program because the criminals aren't gonna sign up for that. The criminals are still gonna get in here in a furtive way. And unless you put stringent -- and you can go to any country in the world and watch how they do it. It's doable. Nobody gets into North Korea, all right?

Just when you thought Bill O'Reilly couldn't be more absurd...

Sabato On Portgate: A Godsend

Larry Sabato, of Sabato's Crystal Ball, had this to say about the Congressional Republican response to the Dubai Port controversy, via Reuters:

"In a way, the port deal was a godsend to them," Sabato said. "It allowed them to put a lot of daylight between themselves and a very unpopular president.

"I'd bet you that most Republicans on the ballot this year end up citing their opposition to the port deal to show how independent they are -- that they are independent Republicans, not 'Bush Republicans."'

He's absolutely right. This was a great opportunity for members of Congress to distinguish themselves from the president. While this type of split may not be good for the party in general terms, for vulnerable Republicans up for reelection this was indeed a "godsend."

In a way, the visceral reaction by fellow Republicans was also a bit of a godsend for the President as well - it allowed him to see the light without his normal partisan blinders. If Republicans had hesitated and weren't so openly against this deal - if they tried to pretend that this was good for the country, as the president did - they would've handed this issue (and possibly national security issues in general) to the Democrats. If this had happened, the President would've battled with Democrats and lost; his approval ratings would be even worse than they are now. I wouldn't be surprised if, privately, the President thanked Congressional Republicans for kicking his ass on this one.

ABSURD CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL!!!! - A MUST SEE

I was just about to close up the old laptop for the night when I saw it. It was the most ridiculous attempt at a campaign commercial I've ever seen.

A BIG hat tip to Shakespeare's Sister for this guy...

Here she is: Absurd Commercial

Please, if you're reading this, do yourself a favor and watch the commercial - its worth you time.

This guy, Vernon Robinson, is trying so hard to convince people that he's a 'real conservative.' Here's a bit from the bio on his website:

My political heroes are Ronald Reagan, Jesse Helms, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia. That should give you a pretty good idea of where I stand. [...]

My concept of family is the same as the one God ordained in the Garden of Eden thousands of years ago -- one man, married to one woman, with so many children as God should see fit to entrust to their care. [...]

I put my trust in God, not my finger to the wind, and my record proves it. [...]

Dueling with the Left's talking sock puppets on television will not be a new experience for me. On our local equivalent of the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" (a program called "One on One"), I ably played Sean Hannity's role as the conservative television talk show host (opposite a radical feminist).

My family attends First Assembly of God in Winston-Salem. I believe my single greatest qualification to be a Congressman is that my mother raised me in a Christian home and taught me right from wrong.

Robinson is running against Rep. Brad Miller in North Carolina's 13th district. I couldn't find any polling data, but I would sure be interested in seeing some.

If Looks Could Kill...

Okay, its not that bad - but take a look at what The Hotline has about the New York Times Magazine's upcoming feature article about former VA Governor Mark Warner. Apparently, Gov. Warner doesn't photograph that well.

Regardless, he's still the leader in my mental straw pole...

Byron York Echoes The Last Polka's Sentiments

That's right - you Byron York. I know you read this post (Dems Chances In '06) before you wrote your recent column for The Hill (link at bottom). Obviously I'm being facetious, Byron. But, I have been ragging on the Dems for a little while. They don't have a message and their national leadership is incompetent (we're looking at you Dr. Dean, Sen. Reid, and Rep. Pelosi).

York's column is entitled, "The Democrats are the real party of arrogance," based on the fact that "Democrats believe they can ask voters to give them control of the legislative branch without revealing any sort of policy or plan to deal with the most pressing issue before the country today: the war in Iraq." Can't say I disagree with you, Mr. York.

York notes the same Washington Post article that I did in the aforementioned post (yeah, I know - its suspect). Here's how he sees the Dems' dilemma:

Questions that were unanswered many months ago are still unanswered. Should they come up with their own version of the Contract with America? Some say yes, and some say no. Right now, “no” is winning. Tomorrow, maybe “yes” will be winning.

And how about a slogan? Surely that’s simple enough that everyone can agree, right?
Well, it took Democratic leaders months to come up with their big, catchy sales pitch: “Together, America can do better.” But now the Post reports that “there is an effort afoot to drop the word “together.” It tests well in focus groups and audiences, Democratic sources said, but it makes the syntax incorrect.”

Ouch. After all that work, they’re still looking for a few words to summarize what they stand for.

Well, if “together” tests so well, how about “Together, together, we can’t get our act together”?

Here's the whole thing from The Hill : The Democrats are the real party of arrogance

Bad Blood At The SRLC

According to CNN, Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) took a bit of a shot at the current Senate Leader Bill Frist today, the opening day of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. After referring to the Hotline's straw pole as a "rigged deal," Lott reportedly said the following:

"Frist is bussing people in," Lott said, referring to Senate Majority Bill Frist (R-Tennessee), whose political organization is working to ensure he wins this unscientific early test of election viability. "These are not real delegates. These are people being bussed in to produce the results.

Here's more on the tension between the two senators:

Lott's preemptive strike on Frist is not surprising, given that the two Senators have been estranged since December 2002. That is when Frist announced he would run for Majority Leader after Lott came under fire for declaring the U.S. would have avoided "all of these problems" if then-segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948. Lott tried to apologize for the remark made at Thurmond's birthday party, but public pressure forced him to step down as GOP leader just as Republicans were weeks away from taking back control of the Senate.

And Lott indicated to the Grind earlier this week that he would support Sen. John McCain for the GOP nomination should the Arizona Senator run for president in 2008.

"Lott is plotting his revenge for four years now," said a Frist confidante. "He is not interested in promoting John McCain. He is more interested in taking pot shots at Bill Frist."

I love intra-party bickering.

h/t: Political Wire

Russo-American Relations: At A Crossroads?

Over at The Reaction Michael Stickings picks up on a piece by Newsweek's Michael Hirsh about U.S. relations with Russia in the current international environment. Hirsh notes Russia recent involvement is several areas that the United States would normally take a lead:

Now Bush is having trouble keeping up with all of Putin's diplomatic initiatives: talking with Hamas, seeking a middle ground with Iran and organizing the G8 summit, which Russia (once a barely tolerated observer nation) will host for the first time in St. Petersburg in July.

Here's more on Russia's talks with Hamas, from The New York Times (March 4, 2006):

MOSCOW, March 3 - Russia greeted the leaders of the militant Palestinian group Hamas on Friday with a pointed warning that the organization had to recognize Israel and dismantle its militias or face isolation.

As Hamas officials began a high-profile, three-day visit here, the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said that Moscow would convey to them a position shared by the United States and other international mediators in the Middle East conflict, as well as "most of the Arab capitals." He said Hamas, which won control of the Palestinian parliament last month, needed to transform itself into a legitimate political movement on the model of the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland. [...]

The invitation from President Vladimir V. Putin, announced last month during a visit to Spain, surprised and angered Israeli and American officials, who had tried to isolate Hamas after its victory in Palestinian elections. Russia has since sought to reassure its sometime partners that it did not intend to diverge significantly from international efforts to resolve the conflict. [...]

Though Hamas delegations have visited Iran and Turkey since the election, the trip to Moscow is the first outside the Islamic world. It has given the group, classified by the United States and the European Union as a terrorist organization, an international legitimacy it clearly desires, much to Israel's chagrin.

Clearly Putin is trying to reestablish Russia as a major player on the international scene. Indeed, Russia's role with both North Korea and Iran is crucial to any progress made in those crises. Russia's role is even more important now that the United States is bogged down in Iraq. Our involvement in Iraq basically makes any threat of the use of force against Iran unrealistic. Therefore we must hope that Russia (and other states - China, India etc.) will work towards the greater good and not merely try to fill perceiveded "vacuum of global leadership left by Bush," as Hirsh put it.

Our relationship with Russia is crucial in the current global environment and has recently caused divisions within the Bush administration.

Consider this Washington Post article, from February 26, 2006:

The Bush administration is quietly exploring ways of recalibrating U.S. policy toward Russia in the face of growing concerns about the Kremlin's crackdown on internal dissent and pressure tactics toward its neighbors, according to senior officials and others briefed on the discussions.

Vice President Cheney has grown increasingly skeptical of Russian President Vladimir Putin and shown interest in toughening the administration's approach. He summoned Russia scholars to his office last month to solicit input and asked national intelligence director John D. Negroponte to provide further information about Putin's trajectory, the sources said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has sought to balance worries over Russian democracy with a pragmatic partnership on mutual issues such as Iran's nuclear program, responded by calling her own meeting with outside advisers a week ago. Some involved in the administration deliberations saw the move as an attempt to counter Cheney. Senior officials deny any split but describe the views of Cheney and Rice in different terms. [...]

Another person close to the discussions said Rice, a Russia scholar, privately believes that pushing Putin too hard on democracy would be counterproductive, and views the issue as a distraction from higher priorities. "You get the impression it was annoyance more than anything else -- 'we got so many other things to think about, we don't need this,' " the person said.

This split within the administration is fascinating. I tend to side with Sec. of State Rice, being that she is a Russia scholar. This will be interesting to watch play out, both domestically and internationally.

UN Staff To Annan: No Confidence

Via AP:

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Staff Union overwhelmingly voted no confidence in Secretary-General Kofi Annan Thursday over his proposal to radically overhaul U.N. operations.

The union, representing over 5,000 staff at U.N. headquarters, said it was dismayed at many proposals in Annan's blueprint, especially the call to consider outsourcing a variety of U.N. services from translations to billing.

The disappearance of permanent appointments and a new policy on job mobility without job security implied a "fundamental attack against the international civil service," it said.

The resolution said "in the future, all staff may be at risk" and expressed "a statement of no confidence in the secretary-general and his senior management team."

Oh dear. Good thing his term is up in the relatively near future. Here's a taste of how bitter this has gotten:

[...] Annan and his senior team faced strong objections from U.N. staff, especially about outsourcing and job security, at a raucous and contentious meeting Tuesday afternoon.

The resolution was adopted at an emergency meeting of the Staff Union attended by over 500 U.N. employees. Union leaders said it was approved overwhelmingly, with two people voting "no" and fewer than 10 abstentions.

Facing Political Realities: Dubai Deal Is Dead

This afternoon, Dubai Ports World , as the AP reported, "signaled surrender Thursday in its quest to take over operations at U.S. ports." The company announced that it would 'transfer' operations of our ports to a "U.S. entity." The announcement came a day after the House Appropriations Committee voted 62-2 to approve an amendment to an appropriations bill that would block the deal. It also came hours after a closed door session between GOP Congressional leaders and the President:

Washington Post:

Warner's announcement came just hours after Republican leaders from the House and Senate met with President Bush to tell him Congress appeared ready to block the deal.

The GOP leaders gave Bush their assessment of where the deal stood at a private meeting at the White House, according to Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). [...]

Less than an hour after Warner's announcement, critics of the Dubai takeover continued to press their point and forced a Senate vote on the issue. The Senate voted 51-47 to clear the way for a vote on blocking the takeover. [...]

A knowledgeable Senate aide said the GOP leaders told Bush today that they would not be able to stave off a vote.

More, from AP:

"This should make the issue go away," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. The Tennessee Republican was one of several GOP leaders to tell President Bush earlier in the day that Congress was ready to ignore his veto threat and scuttle the deal.

Several Republican officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Frist and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, had been privately urging the firm to give up its plans.

After weeks of controversy and White House veto threats that spokesman Scott McClellan renewed at midmorning Thursday the end came unexpectedly.

This is fascinating. First of all, this was the only way that the White House could cut their losses and kill this deal. The President needed DPW to 'voluntarily' back out of the deal. The White House would've had an awful time defending this deal through weeks of Congressional abuse. Also, I don't believe that President Bush would have actually vetoed any Congressional action on this issue. If he did, he and his party would've suffered dearly, politically speaking. Killing these deal before a veto showdown was the only real option.

While Senator Frist may hope that this issue will just go away, the Democrats (if they're smart) will not let it go away. This issue is illustrative of the President's incompetence. This should be a key issue in '06 and '08. Democrats should nationalize these midterm elections and ride this anti-Bush wave. They don't have many ideas of their own and they have not developed a coherent message. Until (or if...) they do develop some sort of strategy, Democrats should keep hammering away at the president.

Finally, what ultimately made the president face the political realities of this situation was the Republican response. This was not a partisan issue, and the White House couldn't save it.

UPDATE (3/9/06 - 5:38PM): Look at this AFP headline: "DP World pulls out of US ports to rescue Bush from firestorm."

Indeed.

Friedman On Iran: Risk Of A "Nuclear Middle East"

In keeping with our 'Friedman Watch' series here at The Last Polka, let's take a look at what NY Times foreign affairs columnist had to say about Iran's nuclear ambitions on today's "Good Morning America." (Note: The whole transcript hasn't been posted yet, so I'll be quoting from the video and ABC's story about the interview)

If Iran successfully develops a nuclear bomb, Friedman warned, "Saudi Arabia is going to want one, Egypt is going to want one. We're going to have a nuclear Middle East." At first glance, it seems a bit premature to be jumping to this conclusion. However, Friedman is correct to note the long term implications of a nuclear Iran. A nuclear Iran would not just be a threat to the United States and Israel - it would destabilize the entire region and make it easier for other Middle Eastern countries to develop nuclear technologies.

Friedman also notes the role of Iranian nationalism tied to its nuclear endeavors. While many Iranians are thirsty for democracy and dislike the current regime, "The idea of Iran getting a bomb is very popular with the Iranian people." Again, I think that Friedman is correct to note this. A nuclear weapon would completely change the way the world deals with Iran, regardless of the regime in power.

I will take issue with one of Friedman's comments: After being asked about what type of 'harm' that Iran could inflict upon the U.S., Friedman commented, "If they cut off oil and it went to $100 a day, that would make my day because then we'd get everybody in America driving hybrid cars fueled by corn and ethanol and I think that would be a great thing." Let's be serious Tom. While having the country driving hybrid, electric, or ethanol fueled cars is admittedly your wet dream, I don't think the best way to achieve this would be allowing Iran to get a nuke. I hope you feel the same way.

Here's the story from ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=1703960

The video can be found at www.abcnews.com or at Yahoo News.

UPDATE (3/9/06 - 8:11PM): For more on the Iranian public's support of a nuclear Iran, see: http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/noteworthy-thus-tgamillions-of.html -

P.S. OxBlog is a great site.

Dems Chances In '06

I saw an article in today's Washington Post, and the headline really says it all: "Democrats Struggle To Seize Opportunity." This has been the story of the Democratic Party for some time now and I don't see it changing much for the upcoming midterms. I've devoted much time here at The Last Polka to the troubles of the GOP (Iraq, Katrina, Ethics etc.) and I truly believe that the Democrats can make significant gains in 2006. Polls are showing, at the very least, a great opportunity for the Democrats to tip the balance in Congress. However, with Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid running the show, my expectations are lower than they probably should be. Without a unified message and effective organization (not to mention $$$$$$) the Dems will be disappointed. If they get their act together, they can make significant gains - picking up seats in either House of Congress would certainly be significant, even if the Dems fall short of a 1994-style shift.

Here's what I mean:

[...]On Feb. 27, [Sen. Harry] Reid and [Rep. Nancy] Pelosi appeared before the Democratic Governors Association. At one point in the conversation, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, noting that the two leaders had talked about a variety of themes and ideas, asked for help. Could they reduce the message to just two or three core ideas that governors could echo in the states?

According to multiple accounts from those in the room, Reid said they had narrowed the list to six and proceeded to talk about them. Pelosi then offered her six -- not all the same as Reid's. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said later: "One of the other governors said 'What do you think?' and I said 'You know what I think? I don't think we have a message.' "

Here's more:

[The Democratic] slogan -- "Together, America Can Do Better" -- was revived from the 2004 presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry. It was the last line of Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's response to President Bush's State of the Union address, and Reid, Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have used it in speeches. But there is an effort afoot to drop the word "together." It tests well in focus groups and audiences, Democratic sources said, but it makes the syntax incorrect.

Governors privately scoff at the slogan. They also say the message coming from congressional leaders has been too relentlessly negative. "They want to coordinate. They want to collaborate. That's all good," said one Democratic governor who declined to be identified in order to talk candidly about a closed-door meeting. "The question is: Coordinate or collaborate on what? People need to know not just what we're against but what we're for. That's the kind of message the governors are interested in developing at the national level."

This account is just a small example of why the Democrats have failed time and time again since 2000 - they actually think that the slogan is their biggest problem. They're spending too much time on things that, in the long run, don't matter. If you run solid candidates and actually have something to say, the slogan won't matter. This sort of thing should have been worked out long ago, certainly not during the midterm primary season.

Bottom line: The Democrats can't sit back and wait for the public to respond to Republican failures. They need to campaign for change, aggressively. They need to stop talking and actually say something. They will not take back Congress by crossing their fingers and hoping for the Republicans to screw up enough for the public to vote for Democrats. You need to give the people a reason to come out and vote for you - being the 'anti-Bush' or 'anti-GOP' candidate is not enough (remember '04?).

UPDATE (3/7/06 - 8:43PM): The Carpetbagger Report is blogging on the same Post article. They offer a slighly more optomistic view of the circumstances.

SI: The Truth About Barry Bonds And Steroids

(A little detour from our regular discussion of politics...)

For the record, I can't stand Barry Bonds. He's a phony, a cheater, and a lying, smug, SOB. It will truly be a sad day if he breaks Hank Aaron's HR record.

So if you feel the way I do, you may also get a kick out of this blockbuster from Sports Illustrated (www.si.com - it's right on the front page). The print edition will apparently have an excerpt from an upcoming book, Game of Shadows - this story from the website, however, has enough to keep the public going for quite some time.

Here are some excerpts from the website:

For instance, the authors write that by 2001, when Bonds broke Mark McGwire's single-season home-run record (70) by belting 73, Bonds was using two designer steroids referred to as the Cream and the Clear, as well as insulin, human growth hormone, testosterone decanoate (a fast-acting steroid known as Mexican beans) and trenbolone, a steroid created to improve the muscle quality of cattle. [...]

According to the book [forthcoming Game of Shadows by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams], Bonds gulped as many as 20 pills at a time and was so deeply reliant on his regimen that he ordered Anderson to start "cycles" -- a prescribed period of steroid use lasting about three weeks -- even when he was not due to begin one. Steroid users typically stop usage for a week or two periodically to allow the body to continue to produce natural testosterone; otherwise, such production diminishes or ceases with the continued introduction of synthetic forms of the muscle-building hormone.

Bonds called for the re-starting of cycles when he felt his energy and power start to drop. If Anderson told Bonds he was not due for another cycle, the authors write, Bonds would tell him, "F--- off, I'll do it myself.'' [...]

The authors describe how Bonds turned to steroids after the 1998 season because he was jealous of McGwire. Bonds hit 37 home runs in '98 -- a nice total and the fourth most of his career at that point -- but he was ignored by fans and the media who were captivated by McGwire's 70 home runs and his duel for the record with Sammy Sosa, who hit 66 that year.

According to the book, Bonds, in comments to his mistress, Kimberly Bell, often dismissed McGwire with racially-charged remarks such as, "They're just letting him do it because he's a white boy." But Bonds looked at McGwire and his hulking physique and decided he needed to dramatically increase his muscle mass to compete with him.

[...] In 100 days, Bonds packed on 15 pounds of muscle, and at age 35 hit home runs at the best rate of his career, once every 10.4 at bats. But he also grew too big, too fast. He tore his triceps tendon, telling Bell that the steroids "makes me grow faster, but if you're not careful, you can blow it out."

[...] [T]he authors write that in 2002, when Bonds won his fifth MVP Award and had a .700 on-base percentage in the World Series, he was fueled by meticulous three-week cycles in which he injected growth hormone every other day, took the Cream and the Clear in the days in between, and capped the cycle with Clomid. The cycle was followed by one week off. The authors write that Anderson usually administered the drugs to Bonds at Bonds' home, using a needle to inject the growth hormone and a syringe without a needle to squirt the Clear under his tongue.

In addition to detailing the drug usage, the excerpt portrays Bonds as a menacing boor, a tax cheat and an adulterer given to (probably because of the rampant steroid use) sexual dysfunction, hair loss and wild mood swings that included periods of rage. [...]

But how credible is this story?

The authors compiled the information over a two-year investigation that included, but was not limited to, court documents, affidavits filed by BALCO investigators, confidential memoranda of federal agents (including statements made to them by athletes and trainers), grand jury testimony, audiotapes and interviews with more than 200 sources. Some of the information previously was reported by the authors in the Chronicle. Some of the information is new. For instance, in an extensive note on sourcing, the authors said memos detailing statements by BALCO owner Victor Conte, vice president James Valente and Anderson to IRS special agent Jeff Novitzky were sealed when they first consulted them, but have been unsealed since.

Oh boy.

UPDATE (3/7/06 - 6:27PM): Here's link to the actual excerpts from Sports Illustrated

UPDATE (3/7/06 - 7:06PM): A photographic display of Bonds' 'growth,' also from SI

Conservative House GOPers Unveil Alternative Budget Proposal

From today's NY Times:

WASHINGTON, March 6 — With Congress heading into a politically perilous budget season, influential House conservatives plan this week to propose an austere alternative spending plan that would pare more than $650 billion over five years, balance the budget and drastically shrink three cabinet agencies. [...]

But House conservative leaders would go far beyond the president's own budget proposal, illustrating the difficulty the White House and the Republican leadership have had in persuading the caucus to speak with one voice on the matter.

Senior aides say the conservatives' plan would wring about $350 billion from Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs and save $300 billion partly through a major reorganization of the Education, Commerce and Energy Departments. [...]

The new budget proposal is certain to be assailed by Democrats who accuse Republicans of forging ahead with tax cuts that benefit the affluent and add to the deficit while reducing support for those most in need. [...]

Under the proposal, expected to be introduced by Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, and Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, military spending would continue to rise, administration tax cuts would be protected and Social Security would be spared. But many other programs and foreign aid would be greatly scaled back.

The authors of the proposal describe it as a sequel to the Contract With America, which helped catapult Republicans to power in 1994. An outline of the plan says the proposals require "tough choices, but members have expressed a serious desire to do the hard things to save America."

Nothing new here. Conservatives plan to "save America" on the backs of the most vulnerable among us. Cutting Medicare, Medicaid, protecting tax cuts for the wealthy, and cutting foreign aid...Yeah, I think they've hit all the major targets. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, with Boehner as the new leader. At this point, this seems to be more of an attempt by Republicans to show how fiscally conservative they really are. This will get some play in the news; I wouldn't be surprised to see further cuts in some of the social programs mentioned above. However, the cuts will be much less harsh than the Pence Plan.

Democratic Weekly Address During A Bad Week For Bush...

The last week and a half or so have been bad for the Bush Administration - the Dubai Ports controversy was as hot as ever, Iraq remained on the edge of a sectarian civil war, and the Katrina videos. Clearly, the Democratic Party would take advantage of this opportunity by having a strong, credible voice speak on its behalf. Right?

Via AP:

WASHINGTON - Democrats used their weekly radio address Saturday to scold the Bush administration over the Dubai ports management deal.

The address also gave a national stage to the party's candidate to replace former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., who was sentenced Friday to eight years and four months in prison for corruption.

Francine Busby, a school board member in a San Diego-area district, said Democrats want an immediate vote on the controversial ports deal, an increase in the screening of arriving cargo and more resources for the Coast Guard.

Ms. Busby is surely good at what she does. However, in such a critical week in a Mid-term election year the party needs to speak with a strong, united voice. Someone with substantially more influence and credibility should be provide that voice. They need to focus the public's attention on the importance of the Mid-terms and possibly swinging the balance in the Dems favor.

I don't know about these Democrats...

DUKE!!!!!

Oh dear God...

Via AP:

Former U.S. Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, who collected $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes on a scale unparalleled in the history of Congress, was sentenced Friday to eight years and four months in prison, the longest term ever meted out to a congressman.

Cunningham, who resigned from Congress in disgrace last year, was spared the 10-year maximum by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns.

God speed, Duke.

Perspective...

If you want a taste of how bad this past week has been for the Bush Administration, consider this, from The Carpetbagger Report: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6763.html

It's worth a look...it's got some good links to.

Senate Candidate (RI) In Sticky Situation

Democratic Congressional Candidates who hope to use the corruption of the Republican Majority may have to turn a blind eye the race for the Senate seat currently held by Lincoln Chafee. Sen. Chafee faces a tough primary bid against Cranston Mayor Steven Laffey, and several Democrats are vying for their party's nomination. One of these Democrats, RI Secretary of State Matt Brown currently finds himself in campaign finance controversy. From Stu Rothenberg, via yesterday's Political Wire :

[Matt] Brown is in the center of a huge controversy, first reported by Roll Call reporter Lauren Whittington, with political opponents and journalists questioning whether he used Democratic state parties in Massachusetts, Maine, and Hawaii to launder funds that he otherwise would not have been able to accept. [...]

With many national and state party insiders already preferring [Sheldon] Whitehouse[former RI Attorney General and Brown's major competition for the Democratic nod], Brown may well be forced to spend his time and resources defending himself during an embarrassing Federal Election Commission investigation that will likely ensue. His outsider/reformer message is at least compromised, and much of the good will that he created from his initial wave of ads is likely to dissipate.

How does Brown respond to these allegations? He accuses his opponent, Whitehouse, of going negative and tries to raise more money. Here's the text of an e-mail he sent to supporters yesterday:

Dear [Supporter],
At a time when Rhode Islanders are looking for leaders who will focus on solving the problems people are facing and getting results, Sheldon Whitehouse has decided to go negative with personal attacks on me and my campaign.
Yesterday, Whitehouse's top campaign consultant made false, negative and personal attacks on my character that should have absolutely no place in this campaign.

It's clear why he has decided to go negative -- recent polls show I've gained 25 points since last fall and am now leading Whitehouse and am tied with Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee. In 2002, Whitehouse promised not to run a negative campaign -- but broke that promise and attacked another Democrat in the primary. This year, he made the same promise -- and he just broke it.

I need your help to defend myself against these negative attacks.
So, while Sheldon Whitehouse is launching personal attacks against me -- let's fight back and show him there is no place for that in this campaign. He didn't get away with running a negative campaign against other Democrats in 2002. Let's not let him get away with it this year either.

Please consider contributing $10, $25, $50 or more to my campaign today so we will have the resources to fight back and win in September and November.

Volunteer to help reach out to Rhode Islanders.

We need to stand up and work harder than ever to win this election. Whitehouse touts his political insider support but we know that does not win elections -- people win elections!

Thank you for your outpouring of support over the past two days condemning Whitehouse's actions. Let's fight back and show him we will not stand for it.
Thank you,

[Matt]

This assures the Democratic primary to be as nasty as the Republican, so long as Brown can keep raising enough money to stay in it. If the Democratic primary is as nasty as it could be, and Chafee wins the GOP primary, its going to be tough for the Dems to take this seat.

-->For more of my thoughts on this race: Chafee Challenger Lands Club For Growth Endorsement

UPDATE (3/3/06 - 6:09 PM): Here's a breakdown of the contributions in question: http://www.tray.com/cgi-win/x_ptytoc.exe?DoFn=S6RI00213BROWN,$MATTHEW$A06

AP: Iraqi Politicians Clashing Over Minister's Post

I found this in the print edition of the Providence Journal (I couldn't find it online though...sorry, no link):

Iraq's prime minister [Ibrahim al-Jaafari] and his radical Shiite backers vowed yesterday to fight a bid by Sunni Arabs and Kurds to oust him, threatening to plunge the country into political turmoil, delay the formation of a new government, and undercut U.S. plans to begin withdrawing troops this year. [...]

Many Sunnis blame al-Jaafari for failing to rein in commandos of the Shiite-led Interior Ministry...Kurds accuse al Jaafari of dragging his heels on resolving their claims around the oil rich city of Kirkuk. [...]

Al Jaafari won the nomination by a single vote during an election Feb. 12 among Shiite lawmakers who won seats in the Dec. 15 parliamentary election. He defeated Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi in large part because of the support of radical, anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

This is bad for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the U.S. government's recent rhetoric regarding the importance of a "national unity government." Not surprisingly, this prospect seems more bleak with each passing day.

NBC News - I'm Losing Faith

Am I the only one who's disgusted with NBC's series of 'exclusive' interviews with former FEMA Director/current jackass Michael Brown? The week began with a two-part exclusive with the disgraced bureaucrat, and just minutes ago Campbell Brown scored a live exclusive, during which she asked Brown about the Katrina Tapes. That's at least three times in the last week that viewers have had to look at Brown's monkey ass when they're trying to learn about the days events. Giving this fool a platform to play the victim in this mess is disgraceful. Consider:

[Brian] Williams: Why was yours the only head to roll after Katrina?

Brown[ie]: Part of being a presidential appointee is that you have to be willing to fall on the sword for the president of the United States. And, clearly, I either fell on the sword or was pushed on the sword. I'll leave that for others to make that judgment. And so, I think that I was made a scapegoat, in that regard. Most always, though, really, they never leave their wounded or their dead on the battlefield. And, in this case, I'm willing to take the fall for the president, but I wish I hadn't been left on the battlefield.

You wish you hadn't been left on the battlefield? You must be joking. Left on the battlefield? Brownie, tell me you haven't already forgotten the images of hundreds upon hundreds of people, including women, young children, and the elderly who were literally left for dead in the New Orleans Convention Center and the SuperDome? You truly are a moron, Brownie - even if that was just an unfortunate metaphor. (And so are the producers who insist on giving this buffoon a platform).

UPDATE (3/2/06 - 7:46 PM): Add CNN to list of networks showcasing Brownie and his fat mug. WHAT IN HELL MAKES THESE NETWORKS THINK THIS MAN HAS ANYTHING TO OFFER?

More PortGate Commentary

Here's some of what the Dallas Morning News' columnist Mark Davis has (via www.RealClearPolitics.com):

Welcome to 45 days of positioning on both sides of the Dubai Ports World controversy. Since the issue heated up last week, those of us who have chosen to stand up for port security have been rewarded with a wide variety of insults.

We are racists, as if only hatred of Arabs could spur opposition to Islamic control at U.S. ports;

We are isolationists, as if such opposition means we have no tolerance for foreign investment in America:

We are panicky nervous Nellies, as if strong negative reaction can only be born of paranoia and prejudice;

And, my favorite, we are idiots, as if we have not grasped all the comforting spin proponents have been offering up. But a lot of their arguments have been peppered with irrelevancies.

They seem driven to tell us the United Arab Emirates will not run security. Anyone paying attention knows that. The problem is not that the UAE will take over security, but that its involvement makes security harder.

Indeed. I for one have no problem being labeled any of these things if it means that our ports will be that much more secure. As I have said before, national security takes precedence over any macro-level, globalization argument. Its interesting that the same individuals (cough, cough, Thomas Friedman) who are bitching over the perceived 'overreaction' to this deal (i.e. the security concerns are 'bogus') are quick to cry wolf about the implications of blocking this deal. Blocking a government with a spotty (to say the least) record on terrorism (indeed, a government with some reportedly close ties to Osama bin Laden) from operating our ports won't halt the wave of globalization; nor will it prevent the most powerful nation, economically and militarily, from participating in the global village. Anyone who thinks otherwise is terribly mistaken.

WaPo: U.S. Reviewing 2nd Dubai Firm

A front page story from today's Washington Post discusses yet another UAE owned company with hopes of buying a British company that "make[s] precision components used in engines for military aircraft and tanks." The British company currently owns and operates plants in Georgia and Connecticut. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. is now reviewing this deal for possible security concerns. Get this: the administration has apparently notified some members of Congress about this deal.

Here's a bit from the story:

Dubai International Capital's acquisition of Doncasters could present some of the same political problems created by Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. Once again, a state-controlled Dubai company with deep pockets is purchasing a British firm with U.S. holdings. Doncasters has operations in nine U.S. locations and manufactures precision parts for defense contractors such as Boeing, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric. [...]

In the case of Dubai International Capital and Doncasters, an acquisition that ordinarily may have been whisked through the process without objection is now under security investigation, administration sources said. Dubai International Capital is the financial arm of Dubai Holding, an investment conglomerate that is the third-largest shareholder of DaimlerChrysler Corp. and is a major investor in Holiday Inn Express in the Middle East.

Did Old Europe Aid Our Invasion Of Iraq?

According to a NY Times report, German intelligence officials provided information being gathered in Baghdad to American officials, including CentCom Commander Tommy Franks:

The German liaison officer made 25 reports to the Americans, answering 18 of 33 specific requests for information made by the United States during the first few months of the Iraq war in what was a systematic exchange between American intelligence officials and the Germans, according to the German report.

The decision to install the officer was planned and approved at the highest levels of the German government, including by Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the chief of staff for Gerhard Schröder, then the chancellor, and by the foreign minister at the time, Joschka Fischer. Mr. Steinmeier is now the foreign minister. [...]

The German government was a vocal critic of the Bush administration's decision to use military force to topple Saddam Hussein and has long insisted that it provided only limited help to the United States-led coalition. But in recent months, news reports of greater German involvement prompted the parliamentary review, which indicates that German-American cooperation during the war was continuing, systematic and regular. [...]

Much of the information concerned the location of sites where bombing should be avoided, including embassies and the place where it was thought that a missing American pilot was being held. But in eight of the reports, the German intelligence officer provided information on Iraqi police and military units in Baghdad. According to the report, German officials provided the geographic coordinates of some units, but the report asserts that they did not direct airstrikes against Iraqi leaders or forces.

And for good measure...

Germany had already decided that if war broke out, it would close its embassy, which led to an interesting sidelight: the Germans also arranged that, once the war broke out and the German Embassy was closed, the two German intelligence agents in Baghdad would take refuge in the French Embassy.

They did exactly that after the beginning of the invasion on March 20, 2003, moving into offices of the French intelligence agency and thereby giving the French, who also vociferously opposed the American war in Iraq, an indirect role in supporting the German-American intelligence exchange.

A HA! It seems that the German government is having some problems with the leaking of sensitive information to the press. Interesting.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear the Germans or the French boasting about a united European effort to counterbalance American hegemony.

Here's the article from The New York Times