Be informed

Is the story of Obama's uncle being bandied about at your office water cooler these days?

Since there is a lot of asshattery around this topic, check out this post for some information.

WWII Vet Vs. Right Wing Blogger Smackdown (Updated)

--the BB

C'est vrai tout cela?

Well, mostly not. Check it out.



--the BB

Definitely a Safford

Senator Clinton spoke in Eugene, Oregon, on Saturday:

Clinton said that historians will judge if her decision was the right one, but she reminded voters that Obama’s voting record on the war is not very different than hers.

“When you want to compare, compare decisions so when Senator Obama came to the Senate, he and I voted exactly the same except for one vote and that happens to be the facts.”

Obama has been credited with foreseeing a troublesome war in Iraq primarily due to a speech he gave in 2002 while he was a state senator, where he spoke out against the war. Clinton said, “I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did. So, I’m well aware that his entire campaign is premised on a speech he gave in 2002 and I give him credit for making that speech. But that was not a decision.” [Emphasis mine]

That's some fine criticizing, Senator Clinton.

Lefty Coaster adds this:

Here's how Hillary explained her vote for the War 14 months later after the war was already going very wrong.

Remarks by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

December 15, 2003
Council on Foreign Relations

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

Hillary was worried about maintaining support for the War in Iraq:

I worry a lot about how difficult it will be in the political arena to stay the course...

h/t to First Amendment

For the Safford reference, see here.

Update:
There is the unvetted health care story also. Tuzla is old hat by now but that was the beginning of a rolling snowball. I came across another story Saturday that is potentially very damaging but until I see it from multiple sources I am not going to give it credence.
--the BB

BLOGSWARM 031908 - Part 2

From Barack Obama's foreign policy speech "The World Beyond Iraq " today:

Five years have gone by since that fateful decision. This war has now lasted longer than World War I, World War II, or the Civil War. Nearly four thousand Americans have given their lives. Thousands more have been wounded. Even under the best case scenarios, this war will cost American taxpayers well over a trillion dollars. And where are we for all of this sacrifice? We are less safe and less able to shape events abroad. We are divided at home, and our alliances around the world have been strained. The threats of a new century have roiled the waters of peace and stability, and yet America remains anchored in Iraq.

History will catalog the reasons why we waged a war that didn't need to be fought, but two stand out. In 2002, when the fateful decisions about Iraq were made, there was a President for whom ideology overrode pragmatism, and there were too many politicians in Washington who spent too little time reading the intelligence reports, and too much time reading public opinion. The lesson of Iraq is that when we are making decisions about matters as grave as war, we need a policy rooted in reason and facts, not ideology and politics.

...

The war in Iraq has emboldened Iran, which poses the greatest challenge to American interests in the Middle East in a generation, continuing its nuclear program and threatening our ally, Israel. Instead of the new Middle East we were promised, Hamas runs Gaza, Hizbollah flags fly from the rooftops in Sadr City, and Iran is handing out money left and right in southern Lebanon.

The war in Iraq has emboldened North Korea, which built new nuclear weapons and even tested one before the Administration finally went against its own rhetoric, and pursued diplomacy.

The war in Iraq has emboldened the Taliban, which has rebuilt its strength since we took our eye off of Afghanistan.

Above all, the war in Iraq has emboldened al Qaeda, whose recruitment has jumped and whose leadership enjoys a safe-haven in Pakistan – a thousand miles from Iraq.
The central front in the war against terror is not Iraq, and it never was. What more could America's enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations? That is why my presidency will shift our focus. Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

--the BB

About those presidential candidates-multiple updates

Well, the Republicans are a motley crew of walking disasters.

But the Dems have an opportunity to do something really spectacular.

Sen. Dodd cannot fight against telcom immunity and support the rule of law by himself. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have a chance to DO SOMETHING instead of running around the country talking. Edwards can challenge (and loan his voice) and the other two CAN SPEAK ON THE SENATE FLOOR, FILIBUSTER IF NECESSARY, AND VOTE.

Check out Jane Hamsher on this issue here, or Digby here, or Glenn Greenwald here.

Massimo Calabresi of Time is quoted by Greenwald as saying this:

The bitterest point of contention for Democrats will be the same question that divided them last summer: immunity for telecom companies that complied with Bush Administration requests for access to American phone and e-mail traffic without warrants after 9/11. After news of the Bush program broke, civil liberties groups brought cases against the companies, and since then the telecoms have in some cases refused to help the U.S. intelligence community further. Bush has said he will veto any bill that doesn't grant the telecoms immunity. The Democrats are split on the issue. Smart money bets the Democrats will cave again -- the only question is how much they fight before doing so. [Emphasis by Greenwald, underscored by me putting it in red]

We can register our wishes with the candidates. If they want our votes, they can flipping well earn them!

As Thom Hartmann likes to put it: Tag, you're it. Democracy begins with you.
[I may be misquoting him slightly, but you get the point.]

Jane says this:
You can email Senator Edwards directly at john@johnedwards.com.
[I'm not sophisticated enough to make that launch your e-mail but you're clever people.]

Digby says this:
Or you can simply go over to the campaign websites of our two frontrunners and ask them to do it yourself.

Obama Community

Clinton Community

I just sent my comments to all three of them.

UPDATE:
Is Harry Reid just selling us down the f**king river?

So Reid is not forcing the Republicans to do their filibustering "in the openness of the Senate", just the Democratic Senators who haven't pocketed money from the Teleco's.

Hubris Sonic discusses this over at Group News Blog and writes that "Greenwald points out this bill will also ensure that Bush gets vast new warrantless eavesdroppings powers and permanent protection from investigation into illegal spying." Lovely.

OK. McJoan over at Daily Kos has an update with this.

Update: Reid's staff e-mails to clarify that his challenge to Senators wishing to "talk this to death" was intended for Republicans who had been insisting on 60 vote majority on FISA votes. That is, Reid told the Republicans that if they want 60 vote threshold they will have to essentially filibuster to do so. Should the votes start tomorrow, I hope he holds that line.

McJoan's earlier post on this is here. In it she wrote:

Last month, we generated over half a million calls and e-mails to Senate offices in support of Senator Dodd's filibuster of telco amnesty. We need to double that number this week. We need to tell our Senators that we stand with the majority of Americans in opposition to amnesty, and they should be more afraid of us voters than of a lame duck, failing president.

I am just very skeptical (many times burned, very shy) and also angry that it has gotten this far. Why Reid spurned a decent committee bill earlier to bring a much inferior one to the floor is a mystery to start with. Whether he actually has any allegiance to the rule of law remains to be seen. I am very disappointed in him these days. He has a chance here to do something good and important. Keep the pressure up.

Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake is trying to hold the candidates' feet to the fire:

Dear Senators Obama and Clinton: No Excuses This Time

Update: Emptywheel -- "[A]ny immunity is immunity for those who decided it was a swell idea to illegally wiretap Americans. And that list of people begins with Dick Cheney."

It's looking like the FISA battle could start as early as tonight, but Senate staff are preparing for tomorrow. Which means Chris Dodd will start his filibuster, and both of you will have plenty of time to get back to Capital Hill to help.

Look, Senators. It's not like nobody cares -- polling shows that voters overwhelmingly oppose immunity for telecom companies (PDF), and Credo's action to contact your respective campaigns took down the Obama email servers.

Jane puts it very bluntly and I agree 100%.

Look, you two came back for the farm bill. Our readers are already stocking up on popcorn, and once Dodd takes to the floor we'll be watching things on CSPAN round the clock until it finishes. I think people will notice if you try to do a Pasadena on this one again, and all of the rhetoric you have both been spouting about "change" and standing up to the Bush Administration will be reduced to instant horseshit.

Please get back to DC and do your jobs.

ANOTHER UPDATE:
John Edwards today (shared by Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake:

In Washington today, telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press to win retroactive immunity for their illegal eavesdropping on American citizens. Granting retroactive immunity will let corporate law-breakers off the hook and hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program.

"It's time for Senate Democrats to show a little backbone and stand up to George W. Bush and the corporate lobbyists. They should do everything in their power -- including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation -- to stop retroactive immunity. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price."

--the BB