After the Veto: Day Two

Posted by Radical Internets Extremist
May 3, 2007

I'm sure they are considering the no time-line, benchmark with no consequence for missing them alternative. However, I would be highly skeptical of any argument that it is a done deal.

Why? Because over 60% of the nation supports time-lines, and second, I don't see what advantage there is to Democrats to start a civil war within the party, with the growing liberal wing. They already have the MSM opposed to them. Do they want the blogoshere to turn on them as well?

If they have made their minds up, as Karen suggests, then I guess the Democrats have decided to go after the same 30% of the populace, that currently constitute the base of Republican Party, and use those new recruits to replace all the Liberal voters, who will abandon them, if they abandon the Left. Or, they have simply lost their minds.

Posted by BUSH WINS AGAIN
May 3, 2007

Cut through the crap: The Dems have SCREWED THEMSELVES for the next 18 months, at least.

Get used to IS, demlix.

PS: Hillary has crazy bug eyes.

Posted by Bows and Flows of Leftist Crap
May 3, 2007

= SURRENDER ACCOMPLISHED =

Posted by John Palcewski
May 3, 2007

Ah, Karl is rubbing his fat little hands with glee. He's pulled off another miracle. A major victory for his moron-in-chief, which comes from a split in the Democrat Party followed immediately by utter paralysis. Sixty percent? Ah, well, yeah, but Karl will make us look like we're not supporting the troops.

Sickening.

Posted by James, Los Angeles
May 3, 2007

Commander Guy is ridin' high? Is that what you're saying, Karen?

Here's a slightly different take on exactly the same events by a newspaper who largely doesn't copy and paste Republican spin into their headlines and lead paragraphs:

>

Some Republicans split with Bush on the war
They say a new spending bill should include benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet.
By Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook, Times Staff Writers
May 3, 2007

WASHINGTON — Distressed by the violence in Iraq and worried about tying their political fate to an unpopular president, some Republicans on Capitol Hill are beginning to move away from the White House to stake out a more critical position on the U.S. role in the war.

These lawmakers are advocating proposals that would tie the U.S. commitment in the war to the Iraqi government's ability to demonstrate that it is working to quell the sectarian conflict.

As Democrats start work on a new war spending bill to replace the one President Bush vetoed, at least three Republican senators who opposed the Democratic withdrawal plan said Wednesday that the new bill should include so-called benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet.

"Obviously, the president would prefer a straight funding bill with no benchmarks, no conditions, no reports," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). "Many of us, on both sides of the aisle, don't see that as viable."
< etc.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-warfunds3may03,0,7640493.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Posted by James, Los Angeles
May 3, 2007

More from that story:
>
Some Republicans, including Collins, are already talking about tougher standards.

Among the most influential is Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who led a bipartisan effort to oppose the troop buildup. He said he was working on a compromise measure that would include some benchmarks.

"I'm optimistic that something can be worked out … that we can achieve a document that will get 70 votes," Warner said, citing a Senate vote tally that would make the war spending bill veto-proof.

Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) has introduced legislation that would require the U.S. military commander in Iraq to begin planning a withdrawal unless the Iraqi government met the benchmarks.

Collins said she was having discussions with many of her colleagues.

Sen. Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat from Nebraska who has often worked with Republicans on legislation related to Iraq and other matters, said there had been a marked increase in Republican overtures recently.

"I've gotten a lot of calls," he said.
<

So stop with the "surrender" talk, you defeatocrats! That's Shailagh Murray talking, fer chrissakes!

Posted by Andy from Maine
May 3, 2007

James, Susan Collins is up for reelection in '08. Maine has had a large number of National Guard rotate through Iraq not once but twice. Several have not made it back alive. Both she and Olympia Snowe, are probably hearing from consitutents to get off their butts and start being part of the solution.

I think Collins seat may be hotly contested next year by 1st distict rep Tom Allen, Rhodes Scholar, former Mayor of Portland and reasonably intelligent guy.

Posted by BUSH WINS AGAIN
May 3, 2007

Proposed:

Google Earth maps and addresses with phone & fax numbers plus e-mail for all reporters homes, vacation homes, beach condos, RVs, and DC hookers.

I mean, if Freedom of Information is good enough for Vanity Fair and Mother Jones, why not return the favor?

Anyone?

Hello?

Posted by Eric
May 3, 2007

Hi Karen,

It's great that you're engaging the commenters -- this is much appreciated. That said, I think you may be missing an important part of what many commenters were skeptical about in your post yesterday. The skepticism was not exclusively focused on your prediction that the Democratic leadership was willing to jettison the deadlines of redeployment in the Iraq war funding bill. I think most people saw that coming, though admittedly not as an opening move.

What I think many people were questioning -- certainly what I was questioning -- was your portrayal of the Democratic leadership as fearful that public support for their position was fleeting and transitory, as concerned that they needed to "turn the politics in their favor" by assembling a bipartisan coalition ASAP, lest their opposition to Bush cost them politically. You wrote that Democratic leaders were concerned that the "short leash" option would just hand Bush a "series of victories."

I can definitely see why paul_lukasiak thought you were chanelling Steny Hoyer. The attitudes and political self-perceptions that you attributed to the Democratic leadership are difficult to reconcile with the views and positions we have repeatedly seen Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi take on the Iraq funding issue. These attitudes were certainly not on display yesterday -- on the contrary, I thought Nancy Pelosi in particular was very tough and resolute in discussing her commitment to ending the Iraq war.

By contrast, Steny Hoyer does pretty clearly hold the views you attributed to "Democrats" and the "Democratic leadership."

I'm not doubting that your sources told you what they did respect to withdrawal deadlines, or your account of who those sources are. But I still have a hard time believing that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid view the world -- and their political position within it -- in the way that your post suggested they did. I'm still skeptical.

Posted by Aaron
May 3, 2007

Even the Post article reflects the fact that the leadership discussion is not yet over:

"Already, liberal Democrats think that public opinion and circumstances in Iraq are on their side, and they view benchmarks alone as far too weak. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (Wis.) has repeatedly told Democratic leaders that he would not report a war funding bill out of his committee that he could not support. Pelosi is also reluctant to embrace such a compromise until she sees how far congressional Republicans are willing to bend."

According to the Post, Nancy Pelosi is not ready to jettison the deadlines from the Iraq war funding bill. (May I assume headlines are written by editorial and not reporters?)

Posted by JJ
May 3, 2007

I bet Tom Allen can really motivate some people. Not only the crunchy Portland people, but many other parts of the state at this point. Collins and Snowe have to tack to the left if they want to avoid Lincoln Chafee's fate... Putting some teeth in the benchmarks is a good way for them to be able to say that they kept the Bushies in check.

Posted by Jim J
May 3, 2007

This is far from a done deal. Let's not forget that WaPo has a dog in this fight, i.e., its continued institutional support for Bush's failed war.

Posted by Radical Internets Extremist
May 3, 2007

The Left has already compromised twice.

Bush and his "centrist" lapdogs have stone-walled the nation, and held government up for ransom. They have shown no willingness to stop their filibuster of the national will and government, to get their way.

They have not compromised a single time.

Unless the Republicans and the moderates decide to bargain in good faith, which they have shown a complete disdain for so far, I don't see anything but the short leash option being viable. That is the only option visible at the moment, that can hold the factions together.

Are Liberals the only political group left in America, that is still willing to negotiate and bargain in a rational fashion?

Does anyone think the Republicans, Lieberman, McCain, and the rest of the hypocrite moderates, will ever stop acting like third world dictators?

The answer to the first question appears to be yes, and No is the answer from the "my way or the highway crowd."

Posted by JJ
May 3, 2007

Atrios this AM:

****I think one of the most telling moments in Bill Moyers' Iraq/media show was this one.

WALTER ISAACSON: We'd put it on the air and by nature of a 24 hour TV network, it was replaying over and over again. So, you would get phone calls. You would get advertisers. You would get the Administration.

BILL MOYERS: You said pressure from advertisers?

WALTER ISAACSON: Not direct pressure from advertisers, but big people in corporations were calling up and saying, 'You're being anti-American here.'

So, "big people in corporations" get to call up CNN and tell them what they should be doing with their news coverage.****

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_04_29_archive.html#8609452653840650713

Glenn Greenwald:

****To begin his article, Simon pronounces:

It is the haircut that will not die.

He can spin it, he can gel it, he can mousse it. But it is not going away.

Simon marvels at how enduring the story is -- as though there is some phenomenon keeping the story alive independent of the fact that the gossipy, tiny-minded, substance-free "political journalists" plaguing our nation -- from Roger Simon and Maureen Dowd to Adam Nagourney and Mickey Kaus and Matt Drudge -- have not stopped talking about "the story." It's tantamount to someone who keeps chewing their food and spitting it across the room and then marvelling at how filthy things are and writing columns bewilderingly examining how and why the floor is covered with crusted food and what that signifies.***

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/03/politico/index.html

Who do these people think they are? And what makes them think they can tell us what should go in our ears. What we should think. This is why there is this netroots populism thing going on. Jon Chait asks us how dare we advocate for our own views.

Who do you think you are, Jon Chait? Someone gave you the position and capacity to opine at TNR. So what?! So. What.

If we own our own electronic version of a printing press, so can we.

Posted by JJ
May 3, 2007

Those bloggers. Advocating their own views. SHame on them:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_05/011231.php

Posted by paul_lukasiak
May 3, 2007

Karen....

This posting is reminiscent of how intelligence was abused to lie our way into a war.

You cite unnamed "leadership sources" as saying something... then, when we point out who your "leadership sources" are, you cite an article that uses the same sources to "reinforce" your earlier assertion .... IGNORING the contrary facts (see Pelosi and Obey) to be found in the same article.

Its like "Niger-Uranium" and "aluminum tubes" all over again....

John Edwards already has a campaign ad out telling Congress not to buckle. And I doubt that any of the people running for the Democratic nomination will endorse the "throw in the towel" approach that your sources claim is what the Democratic leadership is doing.

And with Obey making it clear that he's not going to report a "surrender" bill out of his committee, the simple fact is that you are just reporting GOP spin designed to make Democrats look weak.

Do better.

Posted by Eric
May 3, 2007

Greg Sargent is reporting that Pelosi and Reid are denying the WaPo story. It looks like major elements of the story rest on pretty shaky ground.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/05/pelosis_office.php

Karen, based on Greg Sargent's report, would you now agree that Swampland readers were right to be skeptical of the claims you were making in your post yesterday?

Posted by Cranky Observer
May 3, 2007

Eric,
Be sure to read the update at the end: the WaPo is claiming that it was an anonymous Pelosi aide who told them yesterday the timetable was already out of the 2nd bill. So it is not clear whether the WaPo story was wrong, P&R are backpedaling, some of both, or neither.

Cranky

Posted by Tom Betz
May 3, 2007

The Washington Post story is wrong.

Greg Sargent has laid it to rest.

Tumulty should have made the calls Sargent made, and she would have found out the same thing.

Karen, like Tim Russert (and Jonathan Weisman, who wrote the Washington Post story, and whom Sargent quotes as having told him, "nobody has contacted me about it,") seems to be satisfied with waiting for somebody to call her, rather than doing the hard work of getting the real story, before she passes along somebody else's bogus reporting as fact.

Posted by paul_lukasiak
May 3, 2007

Cranky....

one of the most pernicious practices of beltway journalists is the way they develop their own narrative, then keep asking questions of various people until they get the quotes they want.

Here is what Weisman told Greg Seargent:

"That is very interesting, since I was told in no uncertain terms by one of her aides that the withdrawal dates had to go, since they could not stand by language Bush would never sign. That was cofirmed by another senior leadership aide and two members of the leadership. "

note that saying "timetables have to go" is COMPLETELY different than saying the Democrats are "surrendering" and will offer a bill funding the war for a full year with only non-binding benchmarks. Yet the latter was the gist of the story.

"Timelines have to go" does NOT preclude the option preferred by people like Murtha and Obama...the "short leash" approach. Nor does it justify saying that the Democrats aren't going to maintain their demand for timelines until they MUST pass a three month funding bill.

The Post reporters had a narrative THEY wanted, and interpreted what they were told by a select and non-authoritative group of "anonymous sources."

Karen did the same thing -- she IRRESPONSIBLY cited an anonymous "leadership source" without confirming the story with Pelosi or Reid's office on the record. Karen was MORE CONCERNED WITH GETTING A SCOOP than with GETTING THE STORY RIGHT.

Posted by Andy from Maine
May 3, 2007

I thought I would post this link from a Portland Press Herald columnist, who actually went to Iraq and visited with some troops.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/iraq/070425nemitz.html

Maybe the Swamplanders can get a better perspective on the war from this article rather from their confidential sources and cocktail weenie parties.

I'm not a great fan of Nemitz, but I do admire his courage to go to Iraq not once but three times when he obviously doesn't have to. Kudos to his photog as well.

You can now see why Senators Snowe and Collins have suddenly come to life.

Posted by A Hermit
May 3, 2007

Read Joe Galloway, then forward this to your representatives is\n the House and the Senate. This is how you support the troops:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17173005.htm

" The time for bumper-sticker bombast, sound-bite strategizing and gotcha politics as practiced by the politicians who infest the nation's capital needs to end right now, at least where it intersects with the disaster that is the Iraq War.

There's no high ground left to capture by either a stubborn president who won't see or hear the truth about where his path to "victory" in a lost war really leads, or the new Democratic majority in Congress, which is too timid and fearful of doing what they were elected to do - bring an end to the war as swiftly as possible..."

Posted by EmanG
May 3, 2007

Greg Sargent via TPM/Horses Mouth:

"I have no problem believing that these aides said this, or that the withdrawal language is likely to be taken out in the end. But the question remains: If this offer hasn't actually been made yet, why is WaPo saying it has been? It's one thing for the aides to be saying that the language will have to go; it's another to say even before the negotiations have started that the concession has already been offered to the White House. If what the Pelosi and Reid aides are telling me is true, isn't WaPo jumping the gun in saying Dems have already caved in advance of the negotiations?

This all gives rise to a bigger question: Why is much of the media's coverage of this focussed on the Democratic dilemma the veto creates, while so little of it is focussed on the fact that Republicans, too, are in a bind, are trapped between public opinion and their unyielding President, and are going to have to make concessions towards a compromise?"

Josh Marshall's little engine that could is pwning you guys on this story. Again, it's always the Democrats facing defeat, willing to surrender blah blah blah, ad nauseum. Or maybe we should just be focusing on that damn haircut...

Posted by Cranky Observer
May 3, 2007

Paul,
I agree with much of what you write, but I don't think the Swampland contributors consider this a fact-checked reporting venue but more of a freeform "my thoughts" area, with input from a variety of sources including the unverifiable. Gossip if you will.

And there is also the possibility that there was a gutted bill ready to start through the process, but that P&R underestimated the pushback they would get on it.

Cranky

Posted by exhuming mccarthy
May 3, 2007

Karen,

Did you ever think to ask why someone in the leadership would leak this to not one, but multiple news sources at the same time? My guess it has to be because they are pro-war and want to weaken the anti-war position. That would make my guess our friend Mr. Hoyer.

However, you should follow up by reporting both Ried and Pelosi have denied this is true. And there is no evidence this is true, other than "confidential sources" and "confidential sources" have also told us a lot about Iraq, its WMD program,its links to AL Queda, etc., all of it wrong.

Posted by Andy from Maine
May 3, 2007

The eminent paul_lukasiak said:

"Karen was MORE CONCERNED WITH GETTING A SCOOP than with GETTING THE STORY RIGHT."

As Lou Grant once said to Ted Baxter, 'If you want to get a scoop, get a job working for the Daily Planet.'

I always attribute my source material like the professional journalist I aspire to be.

Posted by brendan
May 3, 2007

Ms. Tumulty:

Take it from a former long-term subscriber to the Post. Regard any story they offer on the politics of the war skeptically, and be prepared to regard it as the baldest kind of administration propaganda.

The editors there have become increasingly open and partisan in defending Bush on the war. Look at the Broder piece on Reid recently, the Post-laundered smear on Pelosi's Syria trip, the multiple op-eds offered Cheney's daughter. They're throwing everything into keeping this war going, not least of all their reputation.

Posted by Memekiller
May 3, 2007

Pelosi and Reid deny this: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/05/pelosis_office.php

Comments, please?

Posted by annb
May 3, 2007

Pelosi and Reid deny the story. Comments, Karen?

Posted by jayackroyd
May 3, 2007

Two anonymous staffers does not a capitulation make. The phones are ringing off the hook. The polls show there is no reason to capitulate. The president is the one who has the busted flush. He can't fund his occupation if he won't sign a bill. No Blue Dog has suffered for supporting the supplemental with deadlines.

But Republican senators are suffering for their support of this incredibly unpopular occupation. Collins, Coleman, Smith, Sununu are all in trouble. Domenici is in a different kind of trouble. McConnell is not a sure thing. Sanger has a challenger. And I think Stevens is ripe for a Tester-like candidate. If the Republican senators don't broker a deal, we will see a filibuster proof senate in 08.

There is no need to capitulate. The Congress has the aces here.

I don't think that Sargent fairly characterized this article. There's plenty in there about worried republicans.

Posted by Hilrod
May 3, 2007

Gotta love the "told ya so" post! You're getting with it Karen!

Posted by todd b.
May 3, 2007

Err, Karen.

Lil Debbie got you.

Pelosi And Reid's Offices Deny WaPo Story Saying Congressional Dems "Backed Down" To White House On Withdrawal

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/05/pelosis_office.php

Posted by dratty
May 3, 2007

Um Karen - now Pelosi and Reid are unequivocally DENYING the WaPo story. Got it? SAYING ITS FALSE!!!

So where are you now? Hiding behind Jay, crying about how mean we are?

Posted by thenekkidtruth
May 3, 2007

Good journalism suggests that two corroborating sources are recommended. When WaPo is one of them, best get three.

Posted by Franco
May 3, 2007

Wait...The WASHINGTON POST is your source? 8-o

Posted by kj
May 3, 2007

allow me to join in the chorus and ask ms. tumulty to respond to mr. sargent's reporting. and to be honest, i think you have a verbal spanking coming as you tried to smack down yr own commenters with a premature "i told ya so!" not cool...

Posted by paul_lukasiak
May 3, 2007

"I agree with much of what you write, but I don't think the Swampland contributors consider this a fact-checked reporting venue but more of a freeform "my thoughts" area, with input from a variety of sources including the unverifiable. Gossip if you will."

Sorry, but Karen acted completely irresponsibly. All she had to do was ring up Pelosi's office, and find out where the Speaker stood -- and included in her reporting that Pelosi denied what she'd heard from this anonymous source.

As to the idea that the "surrender" story is true, and that P&R changed their minds....

sorry, but that simply doesn't make sense. Neither Reid nor Pelosi is stupid, and aren;t about to give away the store the day after Bush's veto --- especially without consulting a whole bunch of Democrats who would have advised against folding so soon.

In other words, the story made no sense to begin with -- and if Karen were a better reporter, she would have been a whole lot less credulous about what she'd supposedly been told by her source.

This gets back to the OVERALL failure of the press on this war---reporters who repeat things that MAKE NO SENSE once you think about them for half a minute.

Posted by Memekiller
May 3, 2007

I'm not saying Karen lied. It is very possible one of those commenters was correct in suggesting this was a trial balloon -- Karen's reaction seems to suggest she didn't buy this. So, she might have been duped, or sources of the Old Guard might have been leaking this to try to prevent a showdown.

No one hates the media more than I, but Karen is not one I have seen any evidence of having intentionally misled, so much as occasionally falling for DC conventional wisdom, which appears to be the case here.

There are many bad actors out there, but they succeed because the conventions of journalism have created a might blind-spot which exploits the "objective" Tumultys and "open-minded" Joe Kliens, and damn near sucked Cox into the vortex as well. Stand firm, Anna!

Posted by ama
May 3, 2007

Andy and AHermit,
Both of those were nice articles.

Andy, soldiers from my area are serving three and four tours. We have had several deaths.

The poor soldiers that I especially feel sorry for are those from Alaska and Maine who have to serve in that ungodly heat in Iraq when they are unaccustomed to that kind of climate.

Galloway was clearly pi_sed in his commentary, and I so agree with him.
*******
Karen,

I hope you and WaPo are wrong. I hope the Democrats stiffen their spins and tell the Bumbling-in-Chief that he has had four years to get this war right and has failed every step of the way. You don't support the troops by using them as props and sending them to war without the proper supplies and without an exit strategy. You don't send soldiers on multiple tours of duty without an adequate rest time in between tours and without retraining.

It is time to bring our troops home!

Posted by Eric
May 3, 2007

Karen, your update is misleading. You write, "Facing a backlash from their liberal members, Reid and Pelosi maintain that timetables are still on the table."

As far as I can tell, there is no reason to believe that timetables were ever off the table. Your language suggests that Reid and Pelosi are changing their position in the face of a backlash. What evidence do you have that this is so?

A more accurate update line would have read: "Contradicting claims made to me by my sources, Reid and Pelosi reassured Democrats that timetables are still on the table."

Posted by paul_lukasiak
May 3, 2007

Karen doesn't care about accuracy, all she cares about is towing the Company Line.

Karen thinks she's vindicated herself because "several Democrats have signaled they intend to do so"..... of course "several Democrats" voted against the timelines bill itself, so this doesn't come as a shock.

More importantly, "several democrats" IS NOT THE CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP that Karen claim folded. Only an idiot would think that Obey (who is doing the negotiating on behalf of Pelosi for the House Dems) is going to fold this quickly -- or should I say, only idiots and beltway liars who can't see past the cocktail weenies they consume on the DC social circuit.

The bottom line here is that Karen repeated a rumor WITHOUT CHECKING WITH EITHER PELOSI OR REID to see if that rumor was true. She felt safe in doing so because she captive to the Beltway narrative that Democrats are "weak."

Posted by lister
May 3, 2007

Karen, my point was that it's really not enough to just report that someone said something. There are many, many reasons for saying things. Without knowing who this is-- and I do understand that for some reason you granted anonymity to this person-- we can't really figure out whether it's credible, if the person is actually saying what he/she thinks, if there's some agenda going on, etc. And without that context, without some discussion of why this statement might not be the entire and absolute truth, it kind of becomes meaningless.

For example, let's say it's just a trial balloon, and the savvier leaders let Mr. Hoyer or his aides or someone else float it so that they could see the negative response and then point to that to do what they wanted to do all along. (I suspect that's what Pelosi did-- let Hoyer blabber so she can say, "See? That was a really stupid thing to blabber. That's why you should all do what I say.")

Or maybe it's just an office canoodle, some aide wanting to get press for his/her boss, or points with you.

Anyway, there are many different reasons why politicians say things, and most of them don't come under the "speaking the truth" umbrella. Not to say they're lying, necessarily, only that they have other motives that are relevant.

But we can't know any of that unless you tell us. Context is all. And part of the context, yes, is seeing who salutes that trial balloon... and who doesn't. Pelosi and Reid didn't, and that means a lot.