I heartily salute both organizations in their efforts. I have been saying since the beginning of this year that the anti-war forces need to keep the pressure on the politicians in Washington with a show of numbers in order to convince weak-willed congressmen from both sides of the aisle that the anti-war stance is actually wildly popular among their constituents. Even in red states.

Read Complete Article »

Some may call me crass (or even worse names) for addressing just the "framing" or "spin" of these issues. I strongly disagree. Republicans have been winning these framing victories for years now, and the only way Democrats can counter this tactic is to co-opt the framing game. Democrats need to agree on one phrase to use in order to ridicule the other side's position -- and then repeat that phrase ad nauseum. "Ten words or less" should be the golden rule.

Read Complete Article »

Republican:

3. "GOP in '08! No, seriously!" -- DerekJ.

2. "9/11/2001. 9/11. 911. NineEleven. Boo! GOP in '08." -- monsteroflove.

Democratic:

3. "We Shouldn't Even Need A Slogan." -- ScottyRVA.

2. "Osama Still Has a Job. Do You?" -- myiq2xu.

Read Complete Article »

The White House even tried to stop Petraeus from testifying before Congress in the open (as opposed to a secret hearing), until they noticed that the law specifically said that he would be made available to Congress for testimony in both "open" and "closed" settings. The White House quickly backpedaled on that one, thankfully, which means that both Petraeus and Crocker will indeed be answering Congress' questions in public, in open hearings.

I'm actually kind of surprised President Bush didn't try to claim executive privilege, which seems to be his knee-jerk reaction to anyone testifying before Congress. Even if Bush thought he'd eventually lose in court, it would take months if not years to resolve, just like all his other executive privilege claims

Read Complete Article »

The irony is that whoever wins the upcoming September battle in Congress will likely lose in next year's elections, because the American public will not like the outcome -- no matter which political party wins the debate in Congress.

Read Complete Article »

There are two parts to the Petraeus-is-trustworthy spin: that he's competent and knows what he's doing, and that he's not political and not partisan. But when you examine the evidence, this fantasy falls apart.

Read Complete Article »

Farce returned his attention to her handbag. Digging past the outrageous wads of bills, he found two objects at the bottom. He pulled the first out. It was a gigantic medieval shield, something a knight in full armor would carry into battle. He pulled it out by its straps, and slowly turned it over to reveal the text of the Constitution on the face of it. He noticed right away that in the midst of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment had indeed been blacked out. Crudely spray painted on top of it in blood red letters was the phrase: "In Gonzales we trust."

Read Complete Article »

There is a bigger question than "Is it legal?" or "How can we change the law to make it legal?" which must also be addressed: "Should it be legal?" Due to the secrecy surrounding the law in Congress (national secrecy sometimes means closed sessions and secret laws), this debate may have to happen among the public, since the lawmakers may be unable to legally discuss the issue.

This argument will fall along the fault line of those who strongly believe in civil liberties (even if it makes intelligence and law enforcement work harder), and those who believe in security at all costs (even if it means their phone will occasionally be tapped by a computer).

Read Complete Article »

This is another reason the story isn't getting much play in the media. They seem to be accepting the spin from the White House that "this Congress can't do anything but investigate and obstruct."

Read Complete Article »

President Bush isn't going to back down, either. Even if a delegation from the Republican National Committee, with leading Republicans from the House and Senate, and even the ghost of Ronald Reagan marched down to the White House to "lay down the law" -- in other words, to tell him: "Mr. President, we will let you destroy your presidential legacy, but we will not allow you to destroy the entire national Republican party" -- even then, I just don't see Bush and Cheney backing down. Nixon, remember, did resign when faced with such a delegation from his own party, but I doubt Bush and Cheney will follow his example.

Read Complete Article »