home

Netroots Cover For the Village Blog Anti-PO Campaign

Add Steve Benen to the Village bloggers who are thrilled that Netroots stalwart Chris Bowers has capitulated on the public option:

In general, the netroots have not looked kindly on "Public Option Pragmatists." It was interesting, then, to see Chris Bowers, who has as much netroots credibility as anyone, embrace, with some apparent reluctance, the Pragmatists' line.

This is the upshot of of Bowers' actions. He provides cover for those who have been arguing against the very policy and strategy Bowers championed all year. If Bowers had "netroots credibility," he certainly no longer does. Imagine watching Bowers rally support for a progressive initiative on anything? Why listen to him? He'll be caving in the end anyway.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | Thursday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    "Pols capitulate" (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Andreas on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 11:40:36 AM EST
    Opportunist politicians capitulate under pressure from the right. It is far less likely that they capitulate under pressure from the working class.

    Watching the Democratic Party proves this again and again.

    It depends...local, state, federal... (none / 0) (#33)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 02:35:09 PM EST
    You'd be wrong about a state legislator from a conservative rural district who got elected as a D in my state.  You don't have to capitulate if you represent your district.  Compromise, yes...sometimes.  And sell your reasoning to your constituents.

    Works for me.

    Parent

    If pols can be counted on to capitulate, (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by HenryFTP on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    what does a would-be activist gain from capitulating?

    Given how perversely rightwards the Overton window in our country is still tilted, why should any activist provide cover for people who've already got more than enough? Does Bowers think Ruth Marcus isn't doing a good enough job in defining down what is "possible"?

    I feel like a complete idiot for having given OpenLeft money on the theory that they would never be herded into the "veal pen". I am not that Lefty, but I am highly conscious of how distorted the political system has become and how important it is for a vibrant Left to pull the country back from the abyss.


    What do they gain? Same thing (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Radix on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:37:54 PM EST
    bloggers get when they play ball, access. It's all about access. What parties you get invited to. Do um-named WH sources talk to you. Will they throw you the occasional Scooby Snak of a named source.

    Parent
    Bloggers Get Access and Money$$$ (none / 0) (#62)
    by norris morris on Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 07:40:23 PM EST
    Capitulating is basically a lack of moral fiber because money and other advanages are to be gained.

    Look at the group of so called activists who hope to come in on the "tide" of some sort of bill that WHouse needs. Any crapola bill.

    So those of  the left who've been hawking a good Healthcare  bill who've caved are hoping to be included in whatever.

    They have totally lost their credibility as they have shown no moral center. They are currently hiding behind a paragmatist position which is totally false.

    You can't give away the store and hope to sell it to us.

    Parent

    Bowers Capitulation Disaster (none / 0) (#59)
    by norris morris on Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 06:14:18 PM EST
    Bowers no longer has any credibility as an activist or progressive.

    This kind of capitulation is disastrous for anyone claiming to be in touch with our nation's needs regarding decent affordable healthcare.

    It has become shamefully apparent that real healthcare reform cannot happen.

    Bowers insn't even sincere and concerned about the loathsome Stupak Amendment which cynically endorses the worst kind of mysogyny and discrimination regarding women's abortion rights.

    Anyone even remotely pretending to be liberal could never endorse a plan which literally takes
    away  women's reproductive choice.

    What's really going on? Bowers is acting like and Obamaton and is willing to pass ANYTHING. Why? Because our leader has allowed the healthcare bill to become a game and a shame.  And Obama needs SOMETHING,...ANYTHING so he can pretend he really did a Biggie in his 1st year.

    This is Chicago politics in it's purist form.
    Transparency?  A joke. Backroom deals,meetings,
    betrayals, but no sunlight.

    Parent

    2 things (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:16:02 PM EST
    1, to repeat my comment in the other thread:

    Ezra Klein: The individual mandate, paired with the subsidies and the insurance regulations and the exchange, are a major new social policy program. It is a basic structure for universal health care, which we have never had in this country. And as more people move to the exchanges over time, and the mandate and subsidies are strengthened to go the final few miles to universal health care, it will become more so.

    No.  And I do not find this formulation to be progressive whatsoever.  Medicare is not a mandated insurance purchasing free market exchange for seniors.  How is that idea not a conservative one?  And if you are going to redefine what is on the table sans-PO as a progressive achievement, that is the death knell to the party of FDR.

    2.  From the Benen article:  

    In the meantime, subsidies and consumer protections would help millions who need it.

    He is unwittingly on the same page as you BTD.

    While I support providing good quality (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:54:51 PM EST
    health care to all, I have to wonder how long the subsidies are sustainable if the price of premiums and drugs are not controlled. To further compound the problem, if the current economy continues, more and more people will become eligible for subsidies. The Senate Finance bill has a mechanism that reduces the subsidies if they exceed the offsets. In fact, the CBO stated that the subsidies could be reduced by as much as 15% in years 2 and 3 using this formula.

    I fear the solution will be to shift more of the expense for care to the insured to the point that people will not be able to afford actual health care even while they are forced to buy insurance.

    Parent

    I worry (none / 0) (#20)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:09:08 PM EST
    about trying to solve the health care problem the same way we solve the access to higher education problem, where the solution to sky-high tuition is to make more and more student aid available.  I'm not against financial aid, of course, but if that's the only solution it seems like a death spiral.

    Looking at what we spend on health care versus other advanced societies - you know, the point Paul Krugman and Bob Somerby keep harping on - it's hard to escape the conclusion that our health care system is going to bankrupt us unless we find an answer.  The only way subsidies can provide even a significant fraction of the answer is if they're funded through taxation schemes a lot more progressive than anyone currently has in mind.

    Parent

    at least (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CST on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    with higher education - we already have a public option.

    Although it has hardly kept the cost of private education down - it certainly helps those who can't go private.

    Parent

    In fact (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CST on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:15:26 PM EST
    public universities could be a pretty good argument for those who think the public option will provide unfair competition for the private market.

    It's not like private universities have suffered.

    Parent

    Big ones are much stronger, and the small ones (none / 0) (#24)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:22:47 PM EST
    have either merged or have closed doors, or gone public.

    Not that a lot of colleges and universities have closed, but a lot of mergers.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:37:39 PM EST
    there really aren't too many small, private insurance companies left to merge.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:34:04 PM EST
    More than half the students are taking loans even at public schools, and tuition keeps going up up up even at public schools.

    Has the existence of public schools served to keep private schools cheaper than they otherwise would be?  I sure think so.  But obviously that hasn't been sufficient, the prices are still absurd.

    I'm not talking about the public option in the context of health care, though, I'm talking about my concerns with relying on subsidies alone.  A public option will surely help even if I can't say exactly how much.

    Parent

    The answer for universal affordable health care (none / 0) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 02:57:27 PM EST
    will never be found as long as Congress is owned by the corporations and the meme of "taxes are evil" especially if they are progressive survives.

    For us to pay 2 or 3 times for a service than any other developed country is totally stupid as it negatively effects not only our individual pocket books but our ability to compete in the global market.

    Take prescription drugs for instance. We pay 35 - 50% more for prescription drugs than other countries who negotiate prices. The CW is that this is necessary to allow U.S. companies to do necessary research. If we want to subsidize research (federal and private grants already fund a portion of the research already), we could negotiate prescription drug prices and increase federal grants for new treatments and still save quite a bit on costs. IOW not subside copy cat drugs or small changes that are done for the purpose of extending the patent rights.    

    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    The same conservatives who are always telling me we need to cut spending are insistent that it would be the end of the world if the government started negotiating drug prices.  "Without those profits, the pharmaceutical companies will never invest in the lifesaving R&D that makes us the envy of the world!"

    I can't figure it out.  Look, if it's good public policy to subsidize research, then subsidize it to your heart's content.  Directly, not through some f'd-up mechanism like refusing to negotiate drug prices.  As always, it's apparently impermissible for the government to tell corporate America to do anything (like perform research on treatments that are in the public interest); no, the only acceptable solution is to hand them giant wads of cash and hope they do the right thing!

    Parent

    Obama's Deal With Big Pharma (none / 0) (#60)
    by norris morris on Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 06:31:33 PM EST
    We've already been shafted by Obama's backroom deal with Big Pharma. Pharma's chief lobbyist Billy Tauzin, ex Republican member of Congress  has made a deal with Obama thus:  Drug Companies will give $80 billion over a 10 year period incrementally in exchange for desisting in mounting out an anti-Healthcare campaign against Healthcare reform.

    So Jello prevailed in the darkness as Big Pharma rubbed their hands. Last year the profits of Drug  Co's was 77billion dollars, so Obama gave them a really terrific deal to  be quiet while he let congress snooker us with Stupak, lose the Public Option, and in general turn the
     Healthcare debate over to the Republicans.

     We watched as the Repubs controlled and framed the debate, and got more and more concessions each day along with conservative Dems like Stupak,Baccus,Landrieu,Lincoln,Nelson, and others
     Our dear leader stood in the wings and did NOTHING to stop this, add clarity, or ACTUALLY FIGHT for us. He compromised from day one, and not out in the open.

    This despicable bunch of phonies have crafted the late stage abortion they so revile. The only thing left of Healthcare will be the afterbirth.

    Parent

    Thanks MOBlue (none / 0) (#63)
    by norris morris on Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 07:46:37 PM EST
    A great comment which focuses on how to pay for this and what will inevitably happen. We are a credit obsessed society that cannot due what all other countries do to provide decent healthcare for all:  Taxes.
     

    Parent
    It's as though the definition of progressive (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by kempis on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:22:36 PM EST
    has been changed to "whatever is OK with Obama." At least Tom Hayden snapped out of it and now regrets his primary call of "every progressive must vote for Obama" because he's so much more progressive than Hillary.

    Bowers and others in the Obamaverse seem to be reluctant to see that there are different forms of pragmatism. One can be pragmatic and still inch toward the goal that one knows is right. Or one can be "pragmatic" by abandoning the goal in the interest of pleasing the special interests involved.

    If you can't hold on to your principles and stand your ground on what is right, then pragmatism isn't worth a damn.

    Business model (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by lambert on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:54:41 PM EST
    The key sentence:
    Since I will be making more asks for the Open Left community to take action in support of health care legislation, I wanted to let you know why I had changed.

    One of the other hilarious many hilarious things about the Bowers post is that "why I had changed" is a product of the bait and switch process, whereby "progressive" access bloggers managed to sell a lot of people on [a|the] [strong|robust] public [health insurance]? [option|plan] [if your state doesn't opt out][if you're not a woman] with the idea that it would be Medicare-like and cover 130 million people, when it's turned out to be nothing like Medicare and covers, say, 10 million.

    So, if you call bullsh*t on that, you get banned. But if you congratulate yourself for "moving the goalpostsl," especially to preserve continued funding opportunities, then everything's jake with the angels.

    What is it in Versailles? The water?

    Parent

    I'm probably (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    the only one that thinks this way but I've long thought Bowers was one of the most clueless bloggers out there. If you go back and read his Dean posts from 2003/2004 he sounds like he's come from another planet. His creative class post is one of the most snotty clueless things I've ever seen.

    Parent
    At least one Senator (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 02:04:33 PM EST
    is interested in passing affordable Health CARE.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders has an amendment to create a single-payer health care system. link


    Parent
    Bernie Sanders (none / 0) (#64)
    by norris morris on Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 07:50:40 PM EST
    Means what he says and says what he means. Bernie Sanders has a moral center and really cares about good and affordable HC for all. He has been consistent and proactive on Healthcare Reform from day one.

    Parent
    It seems to me that the first, and (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 02:54:26 PM EST
    possibly, biggest mistake made by the so-called activists is that they didn't define, early on, what it this public option was that people were supposed to support; the term "public option" was being dropped into post after post after post, but it was never defined.  Many of us were asking right from the beginning, "but what exactly is this public option," and were treated as if we had asked what time the aliens were landing from the planet Grbblespyx.

    For those familiar with the work of Rene Magritte, I feel like I want to say Ceci n'est-ce pas une public option, with "ceci" (this) referring to an undefined idea, no more real than the pipe in Magritee's famous painting, and maybe less so.

    The undefined shape of a/the public option was dealt another blow when the leadership that should have been coming from the WH, and could have marched this effort in the right direction, was abandoned in favor of entertaining ideas from the very executives and lobbyists who helped bring us to this crisis in health care.  Secret meetings.  Back room deals.  Promises-that-weren't-really-promises.

    And still, the public option went undefined, and opponents to reform in general were able to rally, through the usual tactics of fear and misinformation, such that polling for this blobby public option started to trend down.  The activists allowed the other side to define the term, and we've been playing from behind ever since.  Would activism supported by an actual plan have been able to cut the legs out from Stupak/Pitts before they managed to take the House bill hostage?  We'll never know, will we?

    And buried in all of this seems to a reluctance to abandon, or even temper as a result of experience, the idea of Obama, whether from wanting to keep the dream alive or not make enemies that would cut off the access and end the conference calls.  

    Am I wrong to think that if the loyalty is to the man, and not to the advancement of the right policies, it's not activism, it's wankery?

    Parent

    So true, can't beat something with nothing (none / 0) (#42)
    by beowulf on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 08:12:48 PM EST
    possibly, biggest mistake made by the so-called activists is that they didn't define, early on, what it this public option was that people were supposed to support; the term "public option" was being dropped into post after post after post, but it was never defined...

    The tell that the PO advocates lacked a concrete idea what a "public option" should look like is that they didn't have a particular bill to rally around (the first rule of contract negotiation, you don't want the other side to be the only one with a draft proposal).

     I know people like to think that the history of healthcare reform began with Jacob Hacker but there've been a couple of "public option" bills from the past that could have been revived and pushed as an alternative.  For example,  the 1974 Kennedy-Mills compromise bill and  the Sam Gibbons bill passed by the Ways & Means Committee in 1994.  One of Gibbons's allies, Pete Stark, re-introduced a similar "public option on steroids" bill just this past January.  Frankly, Stark's Americare bill is what the public option fans should have been lobbying and demanding CBO scoring for.
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/7/739706/-Strong-Public-Option:-100-CoverageCost-Control

    Granted,  it didn't help matters that Stark signed onto the tricommittee bill as a co-sponsor (Pelosi has him on a leash since she can block his jump to Ways & Means Chair once Rangel is forced out by his tax scandal). Nevertheless, that was the  robust public option bill right there-- 100% coverage via Medicare system or private insurance opt-out, starts January 1, 2011, no tax increases.  Oh well, there'll be another Democratic president in 2016 or so, guess we can revisit the issue then.

    Parent

    Ceci Le Public Optiom (none / 0) (#65)
    by norris morris on Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 08:12:37 PM EST
    Regarding clarifying and delineating the Public Option from the get go was the job of our leadership which BEGINS in the White House and is reflected by the House and Senate leadership and Committee Chairs.

    The first failure is clearly Obama's. He hid for political cover and made a backroom deal with Big Pharma for a 10 year program with Drug monopoly without our knowledge or consent.
    So much for the transparency he promised.

     We were not educated as to what the Public Option meant to the President who says he wants Healthcare Reform. Isn't that curious? He spent months debating Hillary and telling us this was of prime importance and his Heathcare Program was superior to hers. Remember??

    So when it came time for Obama to be specific he fudged and fudged. Remember his first public speech about Healthcare as President? It was deliberately vague. No details. No educating. No passion, no hope, no change.

    In fact it got so bad the Repuplicans took the bait and framed and controlled the Healthcare debate, death squads and all. No one from the WHouse like er, Obama responded.     A few mismanaged Town Halls that erupted into amateurish thuggery where Obam droned on with generalities finally stopped. But nothing else took its place.

    And none of our other elected representatives or congressional leaders did as they were left to thrash it out alone. Because? Because Bill Clinton told Congress what he wanted and Bill and Hill's healthcare was rejected.

    So Obama's antidote was to do nothing. Which he did as he waited in the wings as the entire HCR debate spun out of control. And still is.

    We all know that Obama is desperate to have a bill....any bill that can allow him to claim healthcare reform even if it isn't healthcare reform but a piece of crapola that we see before us that is using women's rights as a bartering device, and omits a public option of any reality.

    So the job of our leaders is to lead. They've been hiding, manipulating, compromising, and missed the opportunity to enlighten us. Why?

    They didn't quite know what kind of a bill they wanted or would get, let alone commit to, explain, or fight for.

    We have been watching devious and corrupt moves all the way. The Public Option sounds kinda good. What is it?

    Parent

    Yes, Tom Hayden is so upset (none / 0) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 02:02:41 PM EST
    that he is going to remove the bumper sticker on his car.  That will teach them.

    Parent
    Obamots Disease (none / 0) (#61)
    by norris morris on Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 06:41:50 PM EST
    It's hard to believe that I voted for another Chicago Pol, but I admit I did and he has made and continues to make serious mistakes. As for Healthcare Reform it's over.

    A late staged abortion of a bill will emerge, but Obamots are still ill with the HopeandChange virus, and are committed to supporting ANYTHING Obama crafts no matter how wrong and empty it is.

    They are blogging away thinking up new rationals for a "distilled bill" but claim it's better tnan no bill at all.  We know this is wrong because we can think.

    But Obamatons have a serious viral infection that affects the mind from thinking clearly and evaluating honestly.  They will do anything for Obama even when he's dead wrong and shows no strength or leadership.

    They may even die of this disease, but listen, it's their lives.

    Parent

    Pathetic. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by s5 on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:28:20 PM EST
    Let the politicians compromise. Activists (and I include opinion makers here, sorry but to me they're the same thing, even if they're not whipping people to make calls) should not be about compromise, they're about pushing for what they want.

    If Reid has to compromise to get a bill passed, then we'll judge that compromise by the real-world results. But activists should be pushing for what they want, and if the real-world results are lousy or incomplete, then we should go back to pushing for what we originally wanted.

    Reid could very well give us a decent bill, or at least, a bill that will be folded into the House bill into something decent. I'm still of the opinion that Obama and the Democrats want a public option, and will get one.

    Anyway I'm deeply disappointed in the progressive blogosphere right now. Even if you privately hold the belief that you would be satisfied with less as a "we're doing the most good we can", why post about it? The White House reads the internet too, and they gauge public opinion, in part, by what people are blogging and twittering. If progressive thought congeals around "well we don't really care if you pass this", guess what's going to happen.

    Progressive (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:45:33 PM EST
    mean that you cave on every issue. Progressive means that you don't have any allegiance to issues. Progressive means all kinds of junk. Don't call me a progressive, call me a liberal.

    On being a Liberal (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    I have always called myself a liberal. A Liberal Democrat. It has a clearer meaning within the context of American politics and the modern history of the Democratic Party.  Somehow, the word "Progressive" has all sorts of meanings (for me, it sometimes sounds reminiscent of Teddy Roosevelt's bull-moose group. It also seems that the term Progressive suffers a bit from its early dodge--using a "nicer" term than Liberal early on when some people felt uncomfortable with being the unpopular liberal. Perhaps I am being unfair, but the term "Progressive" tends mostly to take its meaning in recent years from those who got highest on the horse and talked the loudest about how progressive they were (without too much further definition.) The term "progressive" really needs further delineation or evolution so that one can see, for example, where he/she fits.

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#1)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 11:29:02 AM EST
    "Netroots credibility."  Hopefully not an oxymoron.  Who actually has it?  Maybe Jane.  Surely not our BTD.

    Whatever the word means (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 11:32:08 AM EST
    Netroots -- the question is simple, would you trust Bowers to fight for an initiaitive you care about? After this?

    Pols capitulate. Activists fight. Pundits wank.

    The roles are clear.

    Bowers can no longer be thought of as an "activist" imo.

    Parent

    Yup. Pick your poison. Although (none / 0) (#32)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 02:31:19 PM EST
    one might change roles if converted...or elected!

    Parent
    "netroots credibility" (none / 0) (#4)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 11:48:13 AM EST
    I vote for oxymoron.

    Parent
    I believe that's... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by lambert on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:43:12 PM EST
    "oxymoran." Heh.

    Parent
    Pubic? (none / 0) (#5)
    by gaf on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 11:48:44 AM EST
    Add Steve Benen to the Village bloggers who are thrilled that Netroots stalwart Chris Bowers has capitulated on the pubic option:


    Will Doctor Freud... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lambert on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:43:52 PM EST
    ... please pick up the white courtesy phone?

    Parent
    wanking AND pubic... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:58:42 PM EST
    What would Dr. Freud say, BTD? ;-)

    Parent
    What the L... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 02:36:12 PM EST
    heh, big oops (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 11:49:57 AM EST
    It's a corrolary to Stupac (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 11:50:14 AM EST
    Well, yeah (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 11:56:38 AM EST
    Benen:
    I'd just add that this calculation is slightly easier given that what's left of the public option is a shell of its former self.

    Can't argue with that I guess. Sure, if you accede to a thing being diluted to next to nothing, it is easier to stop fighting for it. Nice work.

    Exactly how did the public option (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:09:40 PM EST
    get so watered down? Each step of the way, the so called liberal media, including the blogs (excludes FDL), lowered the bar of what was acceptable. Mimicking the Dems in Congress, they capitulated time after time adopting the same lack of commitment that they often decry.

    Parent
    Yup, but you see how (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:20:35 PM EST
    much easier that makes it to be pragmatic at the end! /snark

    Parent
    Has Bowers argued for (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:12:47 PM EST
    Obama's BS war escalation too?

    I got a love letter (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 10:32:44 PM EST
    from my husband today.  One of the nice things that comes with absence, you remember how much you like each other.  But when he phoned he seemed strangely bummed.  Asked how the country was taking Obama's decision and I told him not very well from what I could tell.  Nobody was happy.  I looked at the recent news from Afghanistan after we hung up wondering why he could be so seemingly blue....he may just be tired though, and I read about the German coverup of the civilian airstrike deaths.  Overall not good

    Parent
    And this... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 02:41:43 AM EST
    In Afghanistan, The Pentagon Digs In

    Forget for a moment the "debates" in Washington over Afghan War policy and, if you just focus on the construction activity and the flow of money into Afghanistan, what you see is a war that, from the point of view of the Pentagon, isn't going to end any time soon. In fact, the U.S. military's building boom in that country suggests that, in the ninth year of the Afghan War, the Pentagon has plans for a far longer-term, if not near-permanent, garrisoning of the country, no matter what course Washington may decide upon. Alternatively, it suggests that the Pentagon is willing to waste taxpayer money (which might have shored up sagging infrastructure in the U.S. and created a plethora of jobs) on what will sooner or later be abandoned runways, landing zones and forward operating bases.

    The building and fortifying of bases in Afghanistan isn't the only sign that the U.S. military is digging in for an even longer haul. Another key indicator can be found in a Pentagon contract awarded in late September to SOS International, Ltd., a privately owned "operations support company" that provides everything from "cultural advisory services" to "intelligence and counterintelligence analysis and training" to numerous federal agencies. That contract, primarily for linguistic services in support of military operations in Afghanistan, has an estimated completion date of September 2014.



    Parent
    I have discussed among other (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 08:41:37 AM EST
    military persons how difficult the social situation is there.  I haven't discussed it with my spouse though.  I get every single opinion imaginable though.  I think I mentioned that one of my neighbors was shotdown there.  He was there in the early portion of all this and he insists the social situation is hopeless.  The people have been too war torn for too long and anybody who had a peaceful bone in their body was killed off long ago.  The environment is not conducive to civilization building.  Then I meet others who have been on the ground more, worked with locals and had interpreters that they became very close to and they have not given up hope yet and only seem more determined.  I will say this though.  My husband wrote to me that he is extremely grateful that his children were not born there.  He said that being there makes it easy to appreciate the important things that many Americans get to take for granted in our own lives.  America is still no apple pie for a large slice of us, but it isn't Afghanistan.  I am up in the air about how beneficial we may to the overall civilazation of Afghanistan, but I also believe that we must address the threat of the Taliban.

    Parent
    Except that "threat of the Taliban" (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 11:35:33 AM EST
    was not the reason for the invasion, and there will always be things that can be used as justification for continuing the occupation, for as long as justifications are needed, meaning that occupation is the goal, while "threat of the taliban" is only an excuse.

    "threat of the *taliban* would equally serve as justification for invading and militarily occupying the deep south US right NOW.

    Parent

    And that goal of occupation (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 11:44:52 AM EST
    is to guarantee an energy transport corridor - a pipeline - bypassing Russia and China's needs.

    "Civilization building" and concerns for the Afghani people do not even enter into the calculations. If they could get away with total genocide and kill every single Afgani the purpose of the invasion would also be served.

    "threat of the taliban" is pure manipulative propaganda.

    The New Great Game is not only focused on the face-off between the United States and strategic competitors Russia and China - with Pipelineistan as a defining element.

    The full spectrum dominance doctrine requires the control of the Pentagon-coined "arc of instability" from the Horn of Africa to western China. The cover story is the former "global war on terror", now "overseas contingency operations" under the management of President Barack Obama's administration.

    Most of all, the underlying logic remains divide and rule. As for the divide, Beijing would call it, without a trace of irony, "splittist". Split up Iraq - blocking China's access to Iraqi oil. Split up Pakistan - with an independent Balochistan preventing China from accessing the strategic port of Gwadar there. Split up Afghanistan - with an independent Pashtunistan allowing the building of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline bypassing Russia. Split up Iran - by financing subversion in Khuzestan and Sistan-Balochistan.

    The reason for the Afghanistan occupation is the same as the reason for the Iraq occupation, and the same as the reason for recent US military buildups in South America.

    Parent

    The Taliban is part of the threat though (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 04:31:51 PM EST
    I know that you are against our mission in Afghanistan and that is okay.  I don't expect you to agree with me. The Taliban is an integrated part of the global terrorism threat that Islamic Extremists are breeding in that particular area of the world.  I know that certain narratives exist out there framing reasons why we need to leave and not address the "Taliban/Whatever the Islamic Extremist of the area is calling himself today" problem, but I am not one of the people using that narrative and in fact I find it disingenuous and to me it is dangerously disingenuous.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 04:51:06 PM EST
    The whole "war on terror" thing is nothing more than a propaganda war against the American public and the rest of the world, and the "terrorist threat" they need protection from emanates from Washington DC.

    I've explained above, and many many times in the past here, what the "mission" in Afghanistan and in Iraq is.

    The politicians, in both parties, and the corporations behind them in the MIC, live in more terror than all the terror they try to fan in the American public to justify wars of imperial aggression.

    They are absolutely terrified that if they cannot control the energy reserve of the Middle East and the entire world that their empire and the global economy will collapse.

    They are right.

    But, they appear unable to comprehend that everything they are doing is what will cause the collapse.

    The people they label and convince you to believe are "terrorists" are fighting a defensive war against US imperial hegemony, and have been doing so for more than half a century.

    But there are too many messages and too much propaganda aimed at you for me to convince you otherwise in a couple of comments here.

    War is a racket. Especially these wars. And these wars are bankrupting the United States to enrich a few.

    Parent

    Your sentence (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 04:53:36 PM EST
    The Taliban is an integrated part of the global terrorism threat that Islamic Extremists are breeding in that particular area of the world.

    Is exactly the message Bush/Rove/Cheney et all sold to the world for years.

    Now Obama is carrying the torch for them.

    Parent

    In July 2008 (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 05:10:57 PM EST
    ...during the presidential campaign Obama wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times.
    As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan.
    In April 2008, shortly before Obama wrote his op-ed, there were 32,000.
    When Obama wrote his op-ed piece there was not anyone in the country that believed that he was proposing that he would more than triple the force size in Afghanistan to over 100,000 troops.  A couple brigades was what he said.
    Two brigades is 5,000 to 8,000 troops

    ...

    Obama: "We Did Not Ask for This Fight"
    Bush: "We Did Not Seek This Conflict"

    Obama: "New Attacks are Being Plotted as I Speak"
    Bush: "At This Moment ... Terrorists are Planning New Attacks"

    Obama: "Our Cause is Just, Our Resolve Unwavering"
    Bush: "Our Cause is Just, Our Coalition [is] Determined"

    Obama: "This Is No Idle Danger, No Hypothetical Threat"
    Bush: "The Enemies of Freedom Are Not Idle"

    Obama: "We Have No Interest in Occupying Your Country"
    Bush: "I Wouldn't Be Happy if I Were Occupied Either"



    The Bush statements above are from varying times in the past.

    The Obama statements above are all from his speech last Tuesday evening...

    Here is Larry Wilkerson on the subject, this morning... (video)

    Parent

    All good points (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 08:57:18 PM EST
    All valid points, as is most discussions with, but does nothing to address the threat of the Islamic Extremism in the region.  I really liked the Larry Wilkerson interview too.  And he had me, he had me cold and dead on until he announced to the world that we probably couldn't fight a conventional war right now because our military is too broken.  The minute that he said that I knew he had a hidden agenda in this interview.  There is a fight out there in the undercurrent of all this, and one part of this fight is General McKiernan, Holbrooke, Biden, and other old school military who want nothing to do with a nimble military action cloaked in counterinsurgency clothes.  They had their minds made up a long time ago that COIN was going to sink us, that it will lead to hell on earth and is Satan.  Then you have Petreaus, McChrystal, Mullen who represent a completely different military approach.  Obama did what he always does, he figured out how to split the difference.  Those of us who support a COIN strategy are thrilled with whatever we got, we knew this was going to be a fight from hell no matter how it is done.....big footprint or little footprint, but every pair of boots on the ground during these operations is at least a multiplier times ten in civilian casualties not experienced.  I can already tell you what team Wilkerson plays on now.  And he doesn't want to believe that a Petreaus or a McChrystal or a Mullen can serve a liberal President and that's his own hangups but they can.  They can figure out how to do this, and they are willing to.  The Joe Biden bomb bomb bomb bomb the tribes party would rather execute a strategy where nobody lives to tell about how they were collateral damage, and it looks like we aren't executing a war over there and we are all really a bunch of doves that can make Taliban disappear like magic.  When persons are willing to go on national networks after holding a very high position within our own government involved in the security of our government and talks about how weak they think our military currently is, well Wilkerson's phone rang off the hook after this interview.  He got scratched off of a few Christmas party lists. And it isn't that I think Wilkerson should lie, but after the office he held he isn't supposed to say things that could endanger the nation and almost everybody in uniform that I know thinks he stepped so far out of line there that he is literally nuts in doing so.

    Parent
    Well, I have to say that (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 09:40:22 PM EST
    if you like McChrystal's approach to doing things, then we don't have much basis for discussion left.

    McChrystal's job, as far as I'm concerned, as with Petraeus and Mullen, is to create "terrorists", since it's pretty hard sell a "war on terror" or "Overseas Contingency Operations" without doing everything possible to create as many "terrorists" or "Contingencies" as possible to sell to a gullible public back home.

    General McChrystal comes from a world where killing by any means is the norm and a blanket of secrecy provides the necessary protection. For five years he commanded the Pentagon's super-secret Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which, among other things, ran what Seymour Hersh has described as an "executive assassination wing" out of Vice President Cheney's office. (Cheney just returned the favor by giving the newly appointed general a ringing endorsement: "I think you'd be hard put to find anyone better than Stan McChrystal.")

    McChrystal gained a certain renown when President Bush outed him as the man responsible for tracking down and eliminating al-Qaeda-in-Mesopotamia leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The secret force of "manhunters" he commanded had its own secret detention and interrogation center near Baghdad, Camp Nama, where bad things happened regularly, and the unit there, Task Force 6-26, had its own slogan: "If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it." Since some of the task force's men were, in the end, prosecuted, the bleeding evidently wasn't avoided.

    In the Bush years, McChrystal was reputedly extremely close to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The super-secret force he commanded was, in fact, part of Rumsfeld's effort to seize control of, and Pentagonize, the covert, on-the-ground activities that were once the purview of the CIA.

    Behind McChrystal lies a string of targeted executions that may run into the hundreds, as well as accusations of torture and abuse by troops under his command (and a role in the cover-up of the circumstances surrounding the death of Army Ranger and former National Football League player Pat Tillman). The general has reportedly long thought of Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single battlefield, which means that he was a premature adherent to the idea of an Af-Pak -- that is, expanded -- war. While in Afghanistan in 2008, the New York Times reported, he was a "key advocate... of a plan, ultimately approved by President George W. Bush, to use American commandos to strike at Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan." This end-of-term Bush program provoked such anger and blowback in Pakistan that it was reportedly halted after two cross-border raids, one of which killed civilians.

    Also, this is not only getting very far off topic for BTD's post and my intention was not to hijack it... but I'm starting to feel like I'm talking to a Bush/Cheney war on terror supporter for whom it's ok because it's Obama doing it.

    So I will end the discussion here. Thanks.

    Parent

    General McChrystal will preform (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 12:31:07 AM EST
    his job based on the rules that his existing Commander in Chief hands him.  This is a different President that he works under now, and everything that happened under a previous administration he was given a bye for.  As I come to know of the dude better I bet he had something in writing....a get out of war crimes free card or something of a sort from the Bush administration.  I don't like that part of him either.  It isn't my choice though.  Nobody cared about what I thought.  Now if you want to talk strategy and attempting to save the lives of little people on the ground not involved in any sort of suspicious activities....I would be hard pressed to find a commander who would try harder to save those people. He is preforming this mission though to the specs of his current commander and that's commander Obama.  What he did for commander Bush in now history.

    Parent
    Well, I would call hiring a war criminal (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 11:09:26 AM EST
    rather than prosecuting him giving him a pass. I'm not sure how you justify it to yourself, but you're in good company.

    Karl Rove, and Dan Senor and the rest of the Neocons, as well as most Republicans, love what Obama has done too.

    Sad.

    btw, how did Bush supporters excuse the war crimes of him and his appointees for eight years to support his fictitious war on terror at all costs?

    .
    .
    .

    Part 2 of Wilkerson's interview is here this morning...

    "This is not a future that we can sustain. We cannot be the new Rome, it is an impossibility in today's world. We will squander our power, we will squander our resources, we will be a third world nation, we will be bankrupt in a generation if we try."


    Parent
    The speech I heard President Obama (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 01:15:14 PM EST
    give didn't say anything about nation building.  The speech I heard was that for the next 18 months we are going after the Taliban, then same combat forces are leaving.  He'll probably take a look at his positions in 18 months.  We will probably continue with the "nation building" items that have already funded and scheduled, but I did not hear a long a term commitment in his speech and he would be a fool to say such a thing given the realities.  As far as justifying McChrystal, I never have justified what he did.  I was one of the very very few people on the web willing to say anything about it consistently too.  Most people put their standard position of "I'm concerned"....and they let him walk.  I never have but nobody cares what I think Edger.  McChrystal may have committed war crimes but he is also a General who has proven that he knows how to preform a COIN strategy effectively and that was all anybody wanted or cared about.

    Parent
    Yeah, McChrystal will be a great guy (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 04:55:43 PM EST
    to have over there in time for next November when than democrats lose both the house and the senate and O becomes even more of an ineffectual lame duck acting like a waiter with a towel over his arm in a restaurant catering to republicans than he is now and the republican nutbars can keep dictating foreign policy to him for the next three years while never even tossing a bipartisan bone to the democrats, and the Pentagon's contract with SOS International with it's completion date of 2014 for military ops support in Afghanistan gets extended indefinitely, while the Republican cowboy who moves into the oval office in 2012 will team up with India to take over the Pakistan that McChrystal and his psychotic COIN strategies and his newest toy the Gorgon Stare Drone system with the ability to "stare" via 12 video feeds (where only one now exists) at a 1.5 mile square area, and then, with Hellfire missiles and bombs, turn any part of it into rubble will have so badly destabilized by then that there will be even more attacks on the US mainland...

    All because Obama didn't have it in him to stand up to them now and fulfill his own campaign promises (which were crap anyway):

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. "

    - Barack Obama Campaign Promise, 10/27/07

    The Afghan Ambush

    The decision has been made. The months of meetings and briefings are over. Tuesday night, the president made it official: 30,000 more American troops to Afghanistan. Along with Friday's announcement of an additional 7,000 from our NATO allies, after all those weeks of debate and consultation, the result's pretty much exactly what our commander over there, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, asked for in the first place. As they used to say in the old war movies, we're in it now, up to our necks. More than ever, this is Obama's War. The mess he inherited from the previous administration is now his mess. And while many Republicans may don their helmets, rattle their empty rusty scabbards and shout that escalation is the only way to go, their temporary declarations of support are just that - temporary. Pats on the back are simply their way of finding the proper place to stick the knife. Last week's Gallup Poll showed that while 65 percent of Republicans support sending all the troops McChrystal wants, only 17 percent of Obama's own Democrats do; 57 percent want a troop reduction. In other words, ignoring the entreaties of a majority in his own party Obama is going to war cheered on by the opposition that will do everything in its power next fall to bring him and his fellow Democrats down.

    Project for a new American century...

    Parent

    Have you seen this (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 02:35:25 AM EST
    video report from The Guardian's Sean Smith embedded with the 501st Parachute Regiment?

    "These people just want to be left alone - the presence of the troops is causing problems for them because that is what is attracting the Taliban."

    Parent

    progressive ideals are not portable (none / 0) (#37)
    by pluege on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 03:01:23 PM EST
    if someone leaves the ideals, the ideals stay. Its the person that is gone.

    Flavor of the day in the Senate (none / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 03:11:53 PM EST
    A triggered community co-opt.

    According to Landrieu, the focus right now is on a version of a proposal, first proposed by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and modified by Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), to attach the public option to a trigger.

    "What I could support is something like a competitive community option...which would be triggered," Landrieu said. "Various moderates have slightly different versions of that." link

    Leave it to the Dems to come up with the worse solution.

    if this health bill ever passes with this crap (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by athyrio on Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 03:56:18 PM EST
    Obama just sealed his presidency to one term IMO...

    Parent