The Problem

New York Times:

Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the country to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal. In a forum at a gathering of bloggers last week, he declared: “I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get out!”

The article points out that Joe Biden wants to temporarily split Iraq in three. That might not be a bad idea. Long term. It's certainly better than the idea of staying there, long term.

This Was Once A Great Newspaper

Washington Post:

There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton.

She was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn't an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.

It was startling to see that small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative -- aesthetically speaking -- environment of Congress. After all, it wasn't until the early '90s that women were even allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor. It was even more surprising to note that it was coming from Clinton, someone who has been so publicly ambivalent about style, image and the burdens of both.

Digby's take. And MissLaura, of Daily Kos, also weighs in.

And just when you think they can't get any worse, their editorial places the blame for the political impasse over Iraq on the Democrats. This is, of course, an editorial page that has always supported the war, never apologized for it, and endorsed war hawk Joe Lieberman's re-election bid. Frank, at Daily Kos, has this one.

Hillary Stands Up, The Pentagon Backs Down

TPM Cafe:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is distancing himself from an under secretary's assertion that Senator Hillary Clinton's public questions about Pentagon troop withdrawal plans are aiding the enemy.

In response to our queries, the Pentagon declined to endorse the remarks made by Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman in a recent letter to Clinton.

"I have said on several occasions in recent months that I believe that congressional debate on Iraq has been constructive and appropriate," Gates said, in a statement that was emailed to Election Central by Pentagon spokesperson Karen Finn.

Gates added that he was "looking into the issues" raised by Edelman's comments in the letter and Hillary's concerns about them.

These People Are Insane

Associated Press:

The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.

In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.

Here's a clue: they don't need propaganda.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

Of course, we had no business being in any of those three countries, either.

He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."

Those allies who are taking a month's vacation, while our troops fight and die? Those allies who can't meet the benchmarks set to demonstrate they're making progress? Those allies who have such confidence in us, anyway, because of the fine job we're doing destroying their country?

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman's answer "at once outrageous and dangerous," and said the senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

To Our Democratic Leaders: Say The Fucking Word!

The Libby commutation was the modern day equivalent of the Saturday Night Massacre. Even though that, too, was technically legal, it was the final outrage epitomizing an entire climate of criminality. The Democrats, then, knew how to respond. The Democrats, now, need to. I've read their statements. They're all pissed and outraged and blah blah blah. I have one answer:

Say the fucking word!

You really think your expressions of outrage matter? You think Bush cares? You think the Republicans care? You think we care?

Speaker Pelosi said this:

The President’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people.

The President said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the President shows his word is not to be believed. He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable.

Wow. Sounds bad. Anything you want to do about it?

Say the fucking word!

Majority Leader Reid said this:

The President's decision to commute Mr. Libby’s sentence is disgraceful. Libby’s conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq War. Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone. Judge Walton correctly determined that Libby deserved to be imprisoned for lying about a matter of national security. The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own Vice President’s Chief of Staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law.”

History? Ouch. I'm sure that will hurt. I'm sure that will restore our Constitution. How do you think history will judge this Democratic Congress?

Say the fucking word!

Chairman Conyers said:

Until now, it appeared that the President merely turned a blind eye to a high ranking Administration official leaking classified information. The President’s action today makes it clear that he condones such activity. This decision is inconsistent with the rule of law and sends a horrible signal to the American people and our intelligence operatives who place their lives at risk everyday. Now that the White House can no longer argue that there is a pending criminal investigation, I expect them to be fully forthcoming with the American people about the circumstances that led to this leak and the President’s decision today.

Really? You expect that? Seriously? What in Bush's entire record of behavior would lead you to believe he will be forthcoming about anything?

Say the fucking word!

And how about our plausible presidential candidates?

Senator Biden said:

It is time for the American people to be heard.

I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law.

Oh, gosh. That'll teach them! You know what? We send people to Congress to ensure the rule of law. To express our outrage with actual actions. Actions that have consequences. People like you, Senator. You want my vote?

Say the fucking word!

Senator Clinton said:

Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.

A clear signal? Glad you figured that out. As if they haven't been sending that clear signal since day one. Since before day one. Yes, we're still living with the consequences. Any consequences you'd like them to have to live with? You want my vote?

Say the fucking word!

Senator Edwards said:

Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today. President Bush has just sent exactly the wrong signal to the country and the world. In George Bush's America, it is apparently okay to misuse intelligence for political gain, mislead prosecutors and lie to the FBI. George Bush and his cronies think they are above the law and the rest of us live with the consequences. The cause of equal justice in America took a serious blow today.

A serious blow? You think? Anything you think your former Congressional colleagues ought to do about it? And you want my vote?

Say the fucking word!

Senator Obama said:

This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law. This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people’s faith in a government that puts the country’s progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years.

Yes. Let's change the kind of politics. By letting it stand, by moving on, and by waiting for grave breaches. And you want my vote?

Say the fucking word!

Governor Richardson said:

This administration clearly believes its officials are above the law, from ignoring FISA laws when eavesdropping on US citizens, to the abuse of classified material, to ignoring the Geneva Conventions and international law with secret prisons and torturing prisoners.

There is a reason we have laws and why we expect our Presidents to obey them. Institutions have a collective wisdom greater than that of any one individual. The arrogance of this administration's disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking.

My breath is taken. Anything you care to suggest actually doing when officials behave as if they are above the law? Or are they above the law? Certainly, if they are allowed to get away with this kind of criminal activity, their belief is actually justified. Is it? Do you want my vote?

Say the fucking word!

I respect every one of our Democratic leaders. I don't respect everything they do. I don't respect what they're not doing. I don't respect what they're not even saying! It's time. It's long past being time! Senator Sam Ervin, Congressman Peter Rodino, and the Democrats of the 93rd Congress knew what they had to do to save our nation from Constitutional collapse. They dared public opinion and the judgment of history. They did what had to be done. They were heroes. I respect the Democrats of the 110th Congress. We need a Congress that is more than respectable. We need heroes.

Say the fucking word!

And then do something!

Hillary Wants To Repeal The War Authorization

Hillary Clinton rightfully gets a lot of criticism, but praise where praise is due.

New York Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate over financing the war.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal brings her full circle on Iraq — she supported the war measure five years ago — and it sharpens her own political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront the White House.

“It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible,” Mrs. Clinton said as she joined Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in calling for a vote to end the authority as of Oct. 11, the fifth anniversary of the original vote.

Her stance emerged just as Congressional leaders and the White House opened delicate negotiations over a new war-financing measure to replace the one that Mr. Bush vetoed Tuesday.

This will never pass, but it will create a buzz, put more pressure on Bush and his party, further promote the meme that this is wholly a Republican war, otherwise help widen the Overton Window, and bring an actual end date one step closer.

Kudos also to Senator Byrd!

"Hillary" means never having to say you're sorry

I loathe reflexive Hillary-bashers, and if she wins the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for her; but this is part of the problem...

Tim Grieve, in Salon:

As transcripts show, Sen. Clinton's views on the war have slowly changed since 2002, but she still can't say her own vote to authorize force was a mistake....

Her public statements since October 2002 reflect a slow, relatively steady evolution in her thinking -- or at least in her talking points. She has gone from 1) voting for the use-of-force resolution, to 2) questioning the intelligence that formed the basis of that vote, to 3) arguing that the Bush administration distorted the intelligence, to 4) saying she didn't regret giving Bush authority to use force but did regret the way he used that authority, to 5) saying the resolution never would have come to a vote if Congress knew then what it knows now, to 6) saying that Congress wouldn't have voted for the resolution if Congress knew then what it knows now, to 7) saying that she wouldn't have voted for the resolution if she knew then what she knows now.

That's a lot of small steps, but Clinton remains either unable or unwilling to take the final one: To say not just that she would have voted differently if she knew then what she knows now but that she should have voted differently based on what she knew then. Clinton has said many, many words in her evolution. "Mistake" -- at least when it come to describing her own vote -- still hasn't been one of them.