Monday Morning Open thread

What Glenn Said.

Open Thread.

< WSJ Report on Excessive Use of Federal Forfeitures | Desperate Last Moves by Lawyers for Dominique Strauss-Kahn's Accuser >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Are we sure that this guy (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:08:43 AM EST
    is better? Better for whom?

    Sen. Mark Warner is hoping to form a bipartisan, bicameral post-Gang of Six group to pressure the already bipartisan, bicameral supercommittee to "go big or go home," his spokesman told POLITICO Thursday.
    Warner told the group Wednesday that "$2.2 trillion is not enough" deficit reduction and warned that any new plan will likely include both more taxes and higher fees for services like the Tricare military health care plan.

    If you listen to our current leaders you'd assume that the real malefactors of wealth are the moochers who are ruining the country with their expensive illnesses and lavish old age pensions. The enemy, according to Democrats like Warner, are veterans who are unwilling to lay down in the tracks for the interests of Wall Street. digby

    Geezuz (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 11:43:35 AM EST
    "The truth is that you will see some increase in some of the Tricare co-payments," he said, according to the Virginian-Pilot. The cost of health care "is the fastest-growing part of the defense budget. ... I know some of you don't want to hear that ... but everything has to be on the table."

    Medical spending!  So is this what will be on the table for military cuts?  The gross immorality of cutting veteran's health benefits seems little deterrent.

    Is there not one person inside the Beltway who understands we can't afford to be the world's policeman?  We never could afford it but you'd think by now it would be obvious.


    I'm sure charging more for (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25:52 PM EST
    Tricare will help raise these poll numbers substantially.

    Only 48% of Democrats on our most recent national survey said they were `very excited' about voting in 2012. On the survey before that the figure was 49%. Those last two polls are the only times all year the `very excited' number has dipped below 50%.

    In 13 polls before August the average level of Democrats `very excited' about voting next year had averaged 57%. It had been as high as 65% and only twice had the number even dipped below 55%.
    The debt deal really does appear to have demoralized the base, and the weird thing about it is that this is one issue where if Obama had done what folks on the left wanted him to do, he also would have had the support of independents. The deal has proven to be a complete flop in swing states where we've polled it like Colorado, North Carolina, and Ohio. And in every single one of those states a majority of voters overall, as well as a majority of independents, think new taxes are going to be needed to solve the deficit problem.

    digby asks a very good question in the post referenced in comment #1:

    Who, exactly, do the Democrats hope to have vote for them in the next election? For the moment, billionaires only get one vote.  

    Especially (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:11:42 PM EST
    Since Warner is the Senator from Virigina - you know, with lots of military people and where the Pentagon is located?

    Should be very popular indeed.


    Except (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:49:45 AM EST
    A person who is thinking about running against him is Commonwealth Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli.

    Sigh.  Out of the frying pan and into the fire.  Or out of the fire and into the ash bin.


    this is why (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52:54 PM EST
    all the comments about how Elizabeth Warren is "too good" to run for senate kill me.

    We really need better candidates.


    I don't think Elizabeth Warren (none / 0) (#65)
    by itscookin on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:46:22 PM EST
    is "too good" to run for the senate. I just think she'll lose to Scott Brown.

    Worth a shot, though (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:57:35 PM EST
    You never can tell how election campaigns are going to develop.

    The president supporting his base (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:13:42 AM EST
    Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, has come under increasing pressure from the Obama administration to drop his opposition to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices, according to people briefed on discussions about the deal.
    Mr. Schneiderman and top prosecutors in some other states have objected to the proposed settlement with major banks, saying it would restrict their ability to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing in a variety of areas, including the bundling of loans in mortgage securities. TINS

    Thank God there's finally someone out (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:44:27 AM EST
    there looking out for poor, oppressed Wells Fargo.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:45:38 AM EST
    Evil, just plain evil.  And because a Democrat is doing it, there is no outrage from Democrats.

    Trying to murder due process (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    Hide all the bodies

    Must be too (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:52:33 AM EST
    reminiscent of Eliot Spitzer.

    Can't have that.  Good government would risk  disrupting flow of cash from the Street.


    Mr. Schneiderman is also being criticized for (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:59:25 AM EST
    objecting to a settlement  proposed by Bank of NY Mellon and Bank of America  that would cover mortgage backed securities that investors say were mischaracterized when sold. The deal would require Bank of America to pay $8.5 billion to investors (the unpaid principal amount of the mortgages remaining in the Countrywide pools totals $174 billion).Mr. Schneiderman sued to block the deal, contending that claims are compromised in exchange for a fraction of losses.

    According to reporting in the NYT, Ms. Kathryn Wylde, a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY who represents the public and criticized the lawsuit, engaged Mr. Schneiderman in a contentious discussion leaving the memorial services for former Governor Hugh Carey. Public member Wylde said that she told the NY Attorney General that "it is of concern to the industry that instead of trying to facilitate resolving these issues, you seem to be throwing a wrench into it.  Wall Street is our Main Street---love them or hate them.  They are important and we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to support them unless they are doing something indefensible." Mr. Schneiderman declined to comment.


    Don't you know that every time (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:06:05 PM EST
    a bank is held accountable, a Certainty Fairy loses her wings?

    At the other end of the spectrum there is my own FL AG Bondi who is against the settlement because it is too tough on the banks.  Between all sides, this deal will probably get quashed no matter what the administration wants.


    YES (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:46:14 AM EST
    No better when "our side" (whatever the that is today) does it.  Worse, in fact, much worse.

    Oh, Glenn, no need to (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:48:51 AM EST
    call out Secretary of State Clinton. Unless you think she is a rogue cabinet member.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:20:34 PM EST
    True...but at the same time if she were so against the idea, she would quit.

    When was the last time (none / 0) (#26)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:35:40 PM EST
    someone in the Cabinet pulled an Elliot Richardson?  Doesn't happen often.

    But the bottom line (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    is that staying in the administration as SS is tacit endorsement of their policies.

    It's not like Ms. Clinton would be out of opportunities if she quit...in fact, quitting my open up worlds to her....and at this point she could say she was simply tired of the job.  No harm, no foul!

    But she's with them.  She's enjoying the power and she apparently agrees with the policy.


    And she did not just stay in the administartion (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:39:12 PM EST
    She fully supported the Libya policy, and did say what Glenn quoted. Not her finest hour.

    To Oculus's point, other cabinet officers undoubtedly support it too, but she is the only one that is SoS and her opinion has a lot more weight on this issue than most.


    While I believe Mrs. Clinton (none / 0) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:27:22 PM EST
    has been a good Secretary of State,  I agree that Libya was not a sterling moment for her.  Indeed, she seemed to not only be supportive of the policy, but also, among its architects--perhaps in the service of allies' interests ( e.g., France and UK) as part of her notion of statecraft.  

    She is quitting though (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    I guess she's leaving at the end of next year.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#63)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:41:44 PM EST
    quitting next year?  Still tacit endorsement.

    If she quits (none / 0) (#49)
    by loveed on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:53:38 PM EST
    She would have to campaign for Obama. I don't thinks she wants to do that.

    I will bet you all my earthly possessions that (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:37:33 PM EST
    she campaigns for Obama. How can there be any doubt in your mind?

    She can't as SOS (none / 0) (#61)
    by loveed on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:40:37 PM EST
    It's illegal

    She (none / 0) (#64)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:45:28 PM EST
    doesn't have to do anything she doesn't want to do.  She can go on a mission overseas with Bill if she wants during that time....

    What will they do to her if she doesn't campaign...take away her millions?  deny her further positions?  She plans to retire after this.

    She likes this policy.  She likes her power....and if she didn't? having to campaign for Obama would be pretty small potatoes as a tradeoff for getting out of a job furthering a policy she doesn't want.


    Hillary is a pol and a patriot (none / 0) (#77)
    by loveed on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:34:02 PM EST
     She believes in her party, when the party did not believe in her.
     It would destroy the party even further if she would not campaign for him.
     I feel she should have taken the vote to the floor at the convention. I also think she would have won.
     She could have ran in "12".



    She will step down (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:57:07 PM EST
    after the election. Either the end of the year or the day of the inauguration - regardless of who wins.

    I think so, too (none / 0) (#57)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:30:43 PM EST
    If you stay, it means that you either whole-heartedly or tacitly agree with the policies.  You can't have it any other way.

    It was relevant (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CST on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:46:38 PM EST
    She's being called out for her own personal vote while in the senate and words that came out of her own mouth.  I think that's fair game.

    People are responsible for their own actions, no matter who their boss is.  It's not like he's letting Obama off the hook either.  I can see where that comment from Clinton might have grated and it was very pointed, and spoke to the issue at hand in the article.


    Well written (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:55:10 AM EST
    Concerns me a lot when partisan team spirit takes over and we lose our way, lose our common sense and basic humanity.  

    Some lightness on a Monday (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 11:21:25 AM EST
    Knuckleheads in the News

    A few of my favorites:

    A fugitive was caught kissing his girlfriend on the "Kiss Cam" at Cincinnati's Great American Ball Park. The only problem was, he skipped out on his court date a few months ago -- and his parole officer saw the smooch. He was arrested in his front-row seat.


    A wanted man in New York taunted police by posting his location and "catch me if you can" on Facebook. So, U.S. Marshals tracked him down and arrested him like he asked.


    This Michigan man who fled a courthouse after his sentencing. Too bad the police officer chasing after him was a marathon runner. The man was quickly caught and taken back to jail.


    A Florida man who was arrested after attacking a woman with a pool noodle. The dispute occurred after the woman allegedly threw his watermelon into the ocean.

    Watch out for angry people with pool noodles!

    LOL! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:30:59 PM EST
    I followed the link, jbindc.  Thanks for the laughs!  I particularly liked the eight-year-old who drove 100 miles before the police caught him and his intoxicated father.  Clearly the father is a complete moron, but the kid has a future as.....I'm not sure what, exactly, but it should involve driving.  (And how could the kid even see over the dashboard???)

    Future NASCAR driver?? (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:10:21 PM EST
    NASCAR, or (none / 0) (#53)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    Formula 1, or perhaps Indy car races.  Any would work.   ;-)

    What Glenn said. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Among troubling remnants of  "Operation Hoodwink", albeit, drowned out by warrior jubilation are: (a) US participation to prevent a "bloodbath" in Bengahzi in accord with UN Resolution 1973 for a no-fly zone and certain sanctions that in concert with NATO efforts  unceremoniously morphed from a mission to protect civilians to taking sides in a civil war, (b) the 'creative argument' of the Obama administration that did not challenge the War Powers Resolution but did hold that the military adventure could continue without Congressional approval because our involvement fell short of hostilities; there was no sustained fighting or active fire with hostile forces nor were ground troops involved.  The US, in fact, was constrained by the UN resolution which authorized air power for the purposes of defending civilians.  

    Well, so much for the process and the outcome at this point is what it is. Hopefully, a little less triumph and a little more trepidation will be shown "going forward," and a NATO occupation will not be needed as the "rebels"  sort out their interests, cast about for a government and divide the oil spoils.  And, hopefully, Muannar al Qaddafi will not be subjected to a botched hanging and his sons' heads will not be paraded around on a stick.  That, at least, would be a good start.

    In Colombia, orchids grow wild. (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:47:20 PM EST
    Had a meeting at son's school today, and another Friday. Looks like there might be a new English teacher in town next year.

    Son wants me to stay NOW, but y'all know I can't... Surgery set for October. I can, however, set up a job for next year!

    great news (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CST on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:55:52 PM EST

    Wow, how cool is that!!! (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:23:50 PM EST
    Congratulations - what a wonderful time for you and your son.

    Hey, good to hear from you. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by caseyOR on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:28:03 PM EST
    And excellent news about the teaching job. Seeing the wee lad on a more day-to-day basis will be a very good thing. Sounds like maybe things are starting to look up now a little.

    How long will you be in Colombia this trip? Since the surgery isn't until October, can/will you stay until then?


    Fantastic (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:28:56 PM EST
    A future opportunity to move closer to your son, a new job and orchids that grow wild.

    Can't beat that.


    That is wonderful news! (none / 0) (#82)
    by vml68 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 04:37:17 PM EST
    And it is good to hear fom you.

    Congrats (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 04:47:59 PM EST

    asdf (none / 0) (#12)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 11:11:25 AM EST
    I'm not quite sure how anyone can really view the US involvement in Libya's civil war (at least past the 90-day window) as lawful. It's pretty clear cut that re-defining war as "kinetic military action" doesn't quite cut it. At least this time we kept infantry boots off the ground, I guess, and showed that given a suitably motivated and supplied native ground force this model of warfare can accomplish goals without engulfing American soldiers. And happily Glenn Greenwald has seemingly come off the reductionist, US-led oil-centric conspiracy theories that he was pushing earlier.

    Who knows if things are turning out (none / 0) (#14)
    by observed on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 11:34:02 AM EST
    well in Libya anyway?

    Good article on political fractions in Libya (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:11:52 PM EST
    Libyan rebel Husam Najjair seems more concerned about the possibility of rebels turning on each other when they try to take control of the capital Tripoli than the threat posed by forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi.

    "The first thing my brigade will do is set up checkpoints to disarm everyone, including other rebel groups, because otherwise it will be a bloodbath," said Najjair. "All the rebel groups will want to control Tripoli. Order will be needed." link

    Next question is "Who will disarm Najjair's group?"


    My thoughts on the tea party (none / 0) (#16)
    by loveed on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 11:57:27 AM EST
     A large group(still growing) of Americans disgusted by both parties.
      The tea party is not republicans. There republicans whom has left the party, because of the crazies that have taken over the party.
    They don't like the spending. There embarrassed by GWB presidency and policies. The lost of personal freedoms. The wars cost, and direction.
      Ask Karl Rowe if there republican. Remember how they went against the party choice,in the 2010 midterm election. They control apox. 70 seats in the house. Maybe 7-8 senate seats. Whether you agree with them or not, they have a lot of power. Acquired in a short time.

     The democratic wing of the tea party, comes from the 2008 primaries. The way the party treated Hillary and Bill. Not counting votes from Michigan and Florida. The unfair weight given to the caucus states. Giving Obama, Hillary delegates. The super delegates. The pushing of a inexperience candidate over a better candidate. The use of race. The treatment of women.
     I don't think the democratic party has realized what they have done to the party. There no sense of loyalty. There is no upcoming new young democrat. It's all Obama.
     The difference between tea party and independents? The tea party truly want a third party candidate.

    Respectfully disagree (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    The tea party owns the GOP right now - why on earth would they want a third party candidate? If they want one, all they have to do is put one forth and the media would be all over it.  Sorry to say they are probably the only third party that has a chance.

    That said, they would not win on their own, so they are stuck like glue to the GOP.  How many disaffected Dems are really part of the tea party?   Very few, I suspect.  Hard for me to see how one could support Hillary Clinton and the tea path at the same time.


    A second to your second paragraph (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:25:50 PM EST
    as, if there are any tea partiers who also supported Clinton, they did not know or support her policies -- and are just nuts.

    Yup. Need to start a policy-free (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:48:15 PM EST
    'We're Just Mad' party.

    Maybe the Mad-Hatter's Tea Party (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:48:49 PM EST
    i always thought (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:53:39 PM EST
    that was independents :)

    I disagree (none / 0) (#36)
    by loveed on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    The biggest mistake the dems. made was going along with the media portrayal of the tea party. They label them as racist,right wing,hillbillies,without a chance to  win anything. They were wrong. Most people think Sarah Palin lives in a trailer park. There wrong.

     The tea party is a group of americans concerned about the direction of the country.

     The tea party seems republican because it's the only way to change things. The democrat has no chance of tea party support in the 2012 presidential election. Maybe in down ticket races. Depends on the candidate put forth.

     Believe me there are a lot of former democrat whom belongs to the tea party.
     Personally I've been a democrat all my life. My disenchantment began with the 2000 election. The way the party treated Gore was terrible. He won, but the party did not stand by him. I was for Wes Clark in '04'. Someone else the party treated badly. The 2008 primaries was the final straw. The racist charges against the Clinton. Obama polices. And there wimps.
     You can Label them whatever you want. But cannot deny there is a movement going on in this country.
     A third party candidate that wins, will give the people, back control of the country.


    If the tea party were not mostly (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:41:39 PM EST
    mainstream GOP at heart, they would be embracing the Ron Paul candidacy.

    We should be so lucky (none / 0) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:16:46 PM EST
    to have the Tea Party put up a whole host of third party candidates for the presidency, the senate and the house. Dems would be winning in every part of the country.

    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#42)
    by loveed on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:13:58 PM EST
    It depends on the candidates.
     There are a lot of Americans whom do not believe in the repub. or dems. ideas. The only base they would have would be the american people. There more than qualified.

    Disagree (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:08:09 PM EST
    Every tea partier I know thought Bush was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think they know that the GOP brand is in the garbage so they are calling themselves the "tea party" instead of republicans.

    The tea partiers have no problems with the wars as far as I've seen.

    I wouldn't count the people who disagree with the RBC and all that as tea partiers. I would call them "Democrats in Exile" or some other description. The tea party largely seems to function as a far right organization.


    It's like your saying all Black American (none / 0) (#47)
    by loveed on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    Voted for Obama. Neither is true.

     I grew up with the democrat party fighting for voters rights. And fair elections.It was what the party stood for.
     To accuse someone of being a racist(when clearly you know this not true),is horrible. Blacks and whites fought side by side for equal rights for blacks and women. And this the way they treat the first women candidate for the presidency. This is not the democratic party that I knew.
     I supported Hillary run for the white house. I still believe she would have been a great president. But Hillary is a pol. She did what she thought was best for the party. I like to do what I think is best for the country.

     Maybe no one is paying attention, but every election since 2004 at least one branch of government has changed.


    Let's not let unjust accusations of racism (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:51:08 PM EST
    blind us to the real thing when we see it.

    What is the real thing? (none / 0) (#58)
    by loveed on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:35:22 PM EST
    If it not unjust racism?
     I hate when racism is use as a tool or and excuse. And it's a card always used by the democratic party. It's used to divide us. It's used as excuse for the policies they pass or don't.

     One day I hope all of us will call ourselves, Americans.


    Considering (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:36:23 PM EST
    that about 95% of African Americans voted for Obama I'm not seeing your point here.

    And I don't know where the racism part comes in here either.

    I'm really not just seeing the point you are trying to make.

    People are disgusted with both parties right now but for different reasons I would say. There's plenty of people on this blog who are disgusted with Obama but it's certainly not the same reason that the tea party is I would imagine.


    Maybe 95% of voting blacks (none / 0) (#72)
    by loveed on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:22:06 PM EST
    Probably about 40% of black register voter, voted. Also a lot of blacks don't vote. The poll is looking at voting in black community. There are a lot of blacks who do not live there. There was a large amount of the black caucus that supported Hillary, until the leadership got heavy handed with them. Ask Rep.Cummings.
     10x as many whites voted for Obama than blacks.Plus blacks always voted dems. by at least 90%.

     My problem with the dems.party is the game they played with Bill Clinton in South Carolina. It was used to inflame the black population. And if you remember Hillary was leading in SC at that time.
      Do you think Bill and Hillary are racist? Will Donna Brazil(member of the roolz committee),rep. Clayborn(member of the democratic leadership) Ted Kennedy(senator),Roland Martin (cnn analyst) do.

    There is a lot of reasons people have left both parties. Theses are my reason.


    Glenn confusing Libyans with Americans (none / 0) (#20)
    by souvarine on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:17:14 PM EST
    Glenn is conflating two very different things, a revolution the world chose to support versus a unilateral invasion, and trying to make a case assuming they are essentially the same.

    He repeatedly claims that NATO defeated Gaddafi's army, when it is clear that the Libyans did the fighting and dying. This is so that he can make the specious point that we don't know what will happen next. Well, no, of course we don't, but it is not up to us. It is not our revolution, it is the Libyans revolution. The world could have chosen to sit this out and watch civilians be slaughtered, but instead we chose to support the people of Libya. Juan Cole has an informed post on Libya, partly rebutting Glenn.

    Glenn also, unfortunately, identifies with Republican congressmen who, while claiming to support the Libyans, chose to dicker with the funding of already committed forces, drawing Secretary Clinton's question "Whose side are you on?"

    Glenn often engages in solid criticism, but this was a contradictory and misleading piece.

    Your comment (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:17:52 PM EST
    I'm not following it.

    trying again (none / 0) (#33)
    by souvarine on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:00:58 PM EST
    There were many different arguments against the Libya intervention, and many different arguments for it. The rapid collapse of Gaddafi's forces demonstrates that some of the arguments against the intervention were false, most notably the Republican caucus argument, that Obama was intervening ineffectively, and the argument that the war in Libya was a civil war rather than a revolt of the Libyan people against a small ruling clique.

    Glenn concludes that "none of the arguments against the war (least of all the legal ones) are remotely resolved by yesterday's events." and that pointing out which arguments have been disproved by Gaddafi's collapse is "Shamelessly exploiting hatred of the latest Evil Villain to irrationally shield all sorts of policies from critical scrutiny"

    Glenn's conclusion does not hold up, the above arguments against the intervention were proved false by Gaddafi's rapid collapse, and pointing out their falsity doesn't shield anything from scrutiny.

    His larger, more substantive argument, which I addressed in my original post, rests on a conflation of the civil war which we precipitated in Iraq by invading, with our intervention on behalf of the Libyan people in their revolution against Gaddafi. Juan Cole addresses how the means of Gaddafi's ouster undermines Glenn's contention ("It's impossible not to be moved by the celebration of Libyans over the demise of (for some at least) their hated dictator") that this revolution was really a civil war, and that our intervention would make things worse.


    Naw (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:32:24 PM EST
    That's not what Glenn wrote.

    You're mischaracterizing it.

    Beyond that, Ghaddafi "rapid fall" took 7 months.

    Not seeing how the END happening after a seven month struggle quickly disproves that the entire event  would not happen quickly. Beyond that, was that really the objection? Not in my opinion.


    how did my quotes mischaracterize? (none / 0) (#51)
    by souvarine on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    What did I mischaracterize? I quoted most of Glenn's concluding paragraph, I don't see how quoting the entire paragraph changes my characterization.

    Glenn's first sentence, "But the real toll of this war (including the number of civilian deaths that have occurred and will occur) is still almost entirely unknown", is true regardless of NATO intervention, and therefore specious. His last "the everything-is-justified-if-we-get-a-Bad-Guy mentality -- is one of the most common and destructive staples of American political discourse, and it's no better when done here." is false, since per my argument above Gaddafi's collapse disproves some arguments against the intervention, and making that point is not an "everything is justified" mentality.

    Gaddafi's collapse from 'stalemate' to gone was rapid, it appeared to happen suddenly yesterday. It was rapid because his support within Libya was very shallow. Some people argued that the length of the war showed that Gaddafi had deeper support.  But the seven months from the beginning of the revolution to yesterday was mostly, as Juan Cole explains, the rebels organizing and training to defeat Gaddafi's small but well armed force.

    If the objection was that Obama's limited intervention could not do enough to topple Gaddafi, then that objection was proved wrong, Obama's intervention degraded Gaddafi's heavy weaponry, enabling the rebels to topple him with less loss of life. If the objection was that NATO intervention would increase the loss of life in the revolution, then the fact that Gaddafi's forces largely fled as Tripoli rose up against them shows that contention to be unfounded. NATO's intervention reduced the number of deaths by destroying Gaddafi's heavy weapons and helping cut off his supplies.

    If those were not the real objections, what were?


    Which quotes? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:28:31 PM EST
    The only ones you included in your comment:

    Glenn concludes that "none of the arguments against the war (least of all the legal ones) are remotely resolved by yesterday's events."

    You mischaracterized that one.

    Thern you wrote "that pointing out which arguments have been disproved by Gaddafi's collapse is 'Shamelessly exploiting hatred of the latest Evil Villain to irrationally shield all sorts of policies from critical scrutiny'"

    You mischaracterized THAT one as well.

    You then stopped quoting Glenn and wrote

    "Glenn's conclusion does not hold up, the above arguments against the intervention were proved false by Gaddafi's rapid collapse, and pointing out their falsity doesn't shield anything from scrutiny."

    That was not Glenn's conclusion.

    Finally you ask "If those were not the real objections, what were?

    A lot was written at the time by me, both here and at daily kos. Those were MY personal objections.

    I think they are a fair representation of what the "real objections" were and are.

    You've discussed precisely NONE of them.


    sorry to be dense (none / 0) (#78)
    by souvarine on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:41:10 PM EST
    but how did I mischaracterize "none of the arguments against the war (least of all the legal ones) are remotely resolved by yesterday's events?"

    Glenn links to Balloon Juice as an example of people who "exploit the emotions from Gadaffi's fall to shame those who questioned the war" The Balloon Juice post lists recent quotes from Republican presidential candidates objecting to the intervention on the grounds that it was not sufficient to unseat Gaddafi. Gaddafi is unseated, therefore the intervention was sufficient, and those arguments are resolved by the events of yesterday.

    I honestly don't understand what I have mischaracterized. Yes, Glenn's arguments on the legality of the intervention are stronger, but many arguments against intervention were resolved yesterday, many as in more than none.


    Glenn states his main objection: (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:41:24 PM EST
    the intervention is illegal. Not only is it without congressional approval, it is specifically against congressional approval.

    His point is that the emotions of the moment (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:47:39 PM EST
    should not be used to obscure that fact.

    Whoops, too late.


    Glenn's post and this discussion (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:56:36 PM EST
    are timely to me because I am listening to the audiobook of Christopher Hitchens' memoir 'Hitch-22'. He makes the same arguments in favor of the Iraq war - if the US has a chance to topple a dictator, it has a moral imperative to do it. Arguments that attempt to count the cost or the legality are to be swept aside. No one is more contemptible to him than people that argue, 'yes, we know he is a terrible guy, but....'. Glenn's post is a direct argument against Hitchens' view that nothing  proves the rightness of the action more than the sight of a newly liberated populace. He says that anyone who has ever seen that in person would be converted immediately to his point of view.

    It is all sheer emotional manpulation, and I resent it as much now as I did when this scheme was first proposed.


    I agree with Glenn (none / 0) (#76)
    by souvarine on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:32:26 PM EST
    Arguments that ignore the cost of war, or the legality, should not be swept aside. Hence the policy in Libya is different from the policy in Syria, and in Iraq.

    The cost of intervening in Libya was minimal, in blood and treasure, had a high probability of success, given the popular indigenous revolution, and was aligned with American principles of self-governance. It was entered into as a result of our treaty obligations to the UN and NATO.

    The legality under the war powers act is in dispute, but Glenn did not link to anyone saying "Gaddafi's a bad guy and he is out so it was legal." His argument is that the administration's defense is inadequate and legalistic.


    Boy, you might really be C. Hitchens (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:49:38 PM EST
    You are as good at straw man argument as he is. I never said Glenn said anyone said "Gaddafi's a bad guy and he is out so it was legal."

    Or Hitchens either. Hitchens ignores legality altogether.


    legality and rightness are not (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:52:37 PM EST
    synonymous in any dictionary I know.

    NATO made the difference, right? (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 12:54:00 PM EST
    The Libyans could not defeat Gadhafi's army without NATO, else they would not have asked for help. That makes it NATO's revolution too, and partially NATOs responsibility. NATO is not a value-free mercenary organization. They only jump in if the cause is perceived to be just and in NATO's interests. If that turns out not to be the case, where do we get our bombs back?

    a difference, not sufficient (none / 0) (#43)
    by souvarine on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:29:27 PM EST
    NATO's involvement prevented Gaddafi from massacring civilians in a number of cases, and accelerated Gaddafi's fall, shortening the war. But the Libyan rebels had to actually defeat Gaddfi's troops and take territory.

    It was clear before NATO intervened that Gaddafi had lost control over Libya, and that he would have to use extreme violence to regain it. The likely event without NATO was a long, brutal war, with atrocities on both sides, and the eventual defeat of Gaddafi.


    We will never know now, but I (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 01:58:18 PM EST
    disagree with your conclusion. I don't think Gadhafi would ever have been defeated without NATO help. According to the rebels, Gadhafi was willing and capable of using the extreme violence NATO prevented. Given that, how exactly would have have been toppled in the long run without NATO air support?

    it would have been bloody (none / 0) (#52)
    by souvarine on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:14:27 PM EST
    He was one man with a small but well armed army. His entire country turned against him. His defeat was inevitable. Gaddafi would have killed a lot of civilians, but not all of them, and his killing would just expand the insurgency against him. He might have held out in part of Libya for a while, but even Tripoli was against him, he could not have held out forever.

    In most cases, such violence against insurgents (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 02:30:05 PM EST
    and civilians tends to quash the insurgency, not strenghen it, else dictators would not keep power for 40 years. Are you saying the country just turned against him last spring? Of course not - the difference was that they saw a chance to get outside help.

    Lloyd Blankfein hires a defense attorney: (none / 0) (#71)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:21:36 PM EST
    Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein has hired Reid Weingarten, a high-profile Washington defense attorney whose past clients include a former Enron accounting officer, according to a government source familiar with the matter.

    Blankfein, 56, is in his sixth year at the helm of the largest U.S. investment bank, which has spent two years dodging accusations of conflicts of interest and fraud.

    The move to retain Weingarten comes as investigations of Goldman and its role in the 2007-2009 financial crisis continue.

    The Securities and Exchange Commission scored a $550 million settlement against the bank in a fraud lawsuit in July 2010, but other investigations continue.

    "Why do you bring in someone like that?" said the source, who was not authorized to speak publicly. "It says one thing: that they're taking it seriously."

    Probably the smart thing to do.