The Left Coaster

New Look to Daou Report

eriposte — 2008-07-24T06:47:35-08:00

The Daou Report has a new look. It's not run by Peter Daou, who is still working for Sen. Clinton. As the About page says:

...The Daou Report was hosted by Salon from February 2005 to April 2008, renamed the Blog Report in 2006 and managed by the ubiquitous Steve Benen after Peter joined Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It was relaunched in July, 2008, with editors and guest writers including Vanessa Valenti, Mark Leon Goldberg, Jessica Valenti, and Steve Benen. [Peter remains on leave.]

The site is divided into four sections:

CHATTERSTREAM features news stories, blog posts and online opinion pieces that are part of (or entering) the public discourse. Each item is tracked across the web and additional commentary is posted as part of the item's 'chatterstream.' Readers can help track stories and add relevant sites, blogs, or links to the Daou Report homepage by clicking "Add your link to the stream."

THE SCOOP is where editors and guests offer their personal observations and opinions.

VIDEOSTREAM highlights interesting, informative and/or newsworthy video clips.

NEWSSTREAM is a continuous feed from major news sources to keep readers abreast of the latest national and international headlines.

Here is the home page.

Open Thread

Mary — 2008-07-24T00:00:47-08:00

In my opinion, the very best speech at NN08 was the key note speech by Van Jones on Sunday. Which is truly a pity, because this was a very poorly attended session and it should have been seen by everyone at the conference. It was certainly more important than listening to Harold Ford talk about why it was essential that the telecoms get immunity for breaking the law.

Read Grist's summary.

Your turn now.

The Lying Old Man Strikes Again

Steve Soto — 2008-07-23T15:19:54-08:00

McCain is still insisting that he is correct and everyone else is wrong about the surge creating the Anbar Awakening.

McCain asserted he knew that and didn't commit a gaffe. "A surge is really a counterinsurgency made up of a number of components. ... I'm not sure people understand that `surge' is part of a counterinsurgency."

Speaking on CBS Tuesday of a Sunni sheik who approached Col. MacFarland, McCain said, "Because of the surge, we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening."

For the record, the Sunni awakenings began in the Summer of 2006, six months before Bush announced the escalation in Iraq over the objections of the Iraqis and the military brass in January 2007. The military officer McCain references didn't even meet the leader of the Awakening until after it was already under way in August 2006, months before the troop escalation was even discussed at the White House.

Lastly, Petraeus didn't even show up in Iraq as chief commander until early 2007, and he didn't even authorize American support for the Sunni groups across Iraq until June 2007, four months after the escalation was even announced and authorized. So how could Petraeus's counterinsurgency have been underway and creating the Awakening in 2006 when he wasn't there or even supporting it until almost a year later?

Update: A member of Petraeus's staff also confirms that the Awakening began long before our escalation or any effort on our part. McCain's simply a lying sack of shit.

A Pliable Duty Statement

Steve Soto — 2008-07-23T12:05:03-08:00

So now Chuck Schumer is disappointed in AG Michael Mukasey, but doesn't have the guts to go public with it. Pat Leahy mouths weak-assed concerns, Arlene Specter does also. And DiFi says nothing, because she's as dirty as the worst of the Buch cabal and has been compromised into doing whatever the administration wants her to do.

The fundamental problem here stems from how each side sees the role of the AG, something the hapless Schumer and Leahy still don't get.

To Democrats, the AG is supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer in the land, plain and simple. But to Republicans, what drives the AG's duty statement is the party affiliation of the chief executive. If the president is a Democrat, then Republicans agree that the AG is supposed to be pure, as evidenced by what they demanded of Janet Reno. But if the president is a Republican, then the AG is supposed to protect the president, as evidenced by the pathetic comments of the former Reagan and Bush official cited in the story.

For years now, all Leahy and Schumer needed to do was throw the Senate GOP's attacks against Janet Reno's alleged lack of independence back into their faces, and demand to know what's different now. But that would require guts and brains, and since Schumer and Leahy are part of the same vile Beltway party as the GOP, it's a moot point.

Say Something Else Stupid John

Steve Soto — 2008-07-23T11:44:25-08:00

Even though new offshore drilling won't generate any new domestic oil supplies for years if not decades, John McCain said with a straight face this morning that Bush's lifting of the ban is the reason why oil prices have dropped $10 a barrel, a claim that not even the White House makes.

He's right, he doesn't know anything about the economy. He's simply playing to the polls and the base. He also intentionally ignores the fact that by talking directly with the Iranians, the Bush Administration reduced some of the regional tension that was driving up prices. But since this doesn't fit into the McCain narrative, his intellectually-bankrupt default position is to spew this drivel.

So John, who gets the "credit" when oil resumes its upward climb?

What Body Officer?

Steve Soto — 2008-07-23T11:14:52-08:00

Bob Novak is involved in a hit-and-run in DC, and then says he didn't see the person who he knocked onto the hood of his Corvette.

A man who didn't see the body on the hood in front of him until he was caught red-handed is a guy who would out a CIA agent without thinking twice.

He's A Lying Old Man

Steve Soto — 2008-07-23T07:36:14-08:00

I give Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz credit this morning for covering an issue that needs more attention: Do John McCain's repeated misstatements deserve more coverage than they are getting? MSNBC's Dan Abrams to his credit has been all over this issue of late as well. Still, few in the media have understood what's behind the recent right wing pushback narrative that Obama gets too much positive coverage: this is really nothing more than a typical Rovian preemptive attack to hide McCain's mistakes and ensure better coverage for his smear campaign. Rove is simply attacking from McCain's position of weakness once again, namely McCain's years of favorable uncritical coverage.

Several commentators note correctly that if Barack Obama had made the Sunni-Shia, Czechoslovakia, and Iraq/Pakistan border slip-ups, the right wing and mainstream media would be hammering him for his inexperience. Until recently, McCain was getting a free pass on these blunders, and in the case of the whitewashing "CBS News with Katie Couric", McCain was aided by the network's editing out yesterday of his lie that the surge led to the Sunni Awakening.

McCain supporters strangely rally to defend him by saying of course he has the knowledge to know these things, based on his alleged experience. But to buy that argument, and I don't, it means that McCain knows better when he utters these mistakes and outright lies, but either because of age or mendacity or both he says this crap anyway. All of which makes him a lying old man. As for his alleged experience, McCain has never been known as a foreign policy expert in the Senate, having served a long time on Armed Services and never on Foreign Relations. His claim to being experienced is that he was a POW and Navy flyer, honorable things to be sure but not things in and of themselves that recommend him over others who have better brains and are strategic thinkers.

Candidates will make mistakes, as evidenced by Obama's slip-up yesterday, simply because the demands of campaigning produce gaffes. That isn't the same thing as repeating lies and misstatements, even after being corrected on them more than once. To do what McCain is doing represents a lack of integrity and a willingness to say anything to win the office even at the expense of the truth, which is another reason why McCain is simply Bush's third term.

He's worse than a doddering imbecile. He's revealing himself to be a lying old man who knows exactly what he is doing and is unfit for the office. It's about time the media got off the bus, avoided the BBQs, and noticed.

Open Thread

Mary — 2008-07-23T00:14:32-08:00

Companies beg for regulation when they get blamed for bad product. Funny how it needs real trouble for the industry to get to that point.

Your turn now.

Done With Them

Steve Soto — 2008-07-22T20:14:07-08:00

I stipulate up front that I am cranky from working way too many hours between work and the blog, but my problems are not special or worse than yours. I'm just finally fed up and have reached my tolerance for Washington, and our party.

Weeks after 105 House Democrats and dozens of Senate Democrats voted to shred the Constitution to shield the telecoms in the FISA vote, I have now received at least six phone calls from the DSCC and DCCC asking me for money. I got another call tonight during another late dinner at home after 11 hours at work, wherein the pleasant phone solicitor for Democratic congressman Jerry McNerney asked me for money also. When I asked the young man how McNerney voted on the FISA bill, he told me that McNerney voted against the five previous bills, which of course was the preemptive defense before telling me that McNerney voted to give the telecoms a free pass this time because "this version really protects civil liberties." I politely interrupted Jeff or Jason or whatever his name was to tell him that I would not give money again in 2008 like I did in 2006, and would never do so for McNerney again.

I also told the DSCC and DCCC the same thing. I'm done with them.

Then today, I got the face-slap that an Obama administration will not prosecute most Bush Administration officials for their lawbreaking. As a result, he'll only get my vote and nothing more.

Sure, most of you will say I'm only shooting myself and the party in the foot by standing on principle, and the trolls among you are cheering at this news.

But life's too short, and I've been disappointed by my party and its leaders many times over the last eight years, and I don't feel like going along anymore. Money is tight but principle is still in abundance with me. The DSCC, DNC, and DCCC don't need me and frankly never have. And truthfully, Obama doesn't either. There's the Beltway, and then there's the rest of us.

Which is fine because I've had enough. They'll do fine without me, and if they don't, then they should have thought about that first before selling out and all becoming one party. Perhaps in my post-retirement lifetime I'll begin work on my long-standing dream of a new Liberal Party, but until then the wallet and my heart are closed to false progressives and phony Democrats.

Sure McCain is odious, but we knew that already. Democrats have to make their case without my financial help because they haven't earned it.

Blood For Oil

Jeff Dinelli — 2008-07-22T11:31:22-08:00

Riveted to HBO's brilliant docudrama series "Generation Kill" for the last two weeks, it's brought me back to the original build-up and initial invasion of Iraq. The days of yelling, "IRAQ?? What the hell are we doing?" Remembering those feelings and watching the young Marines crossing the border into Saddam Hussein's country with no air cover or tank assistance has made for quite an emotional viewing experience.

The announcement a few weeks ago of a deal being worked out between the Iraq Oil Ministry and Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP (original partners decades ago in the Iraq Petroleum Company, now joined by Chevron and other smaller oil companies) raises some serious questions about the nature of the invasion. Questions that should be raised and discussed by Obama, McCain, Congress, Americans everywhere, and the Iraqi people, who have no say in the future of their country.

These four companies got no-bid contracts, skipping right over 40-some others, including some in Russia, India and China. "There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract," Andrew E. Kramer wrote in the New York Times.

"Suspicion" is an understatement. Surely the military occupation is secretly setting up the hated Iraq Petroleum Company, which, as Seamus Milne of the Guardian points out, was put into place during British rule to "dine off Iraq's wealth in a famously exploitative deal."

Obviously the demand is great, and is there a bigger oil reserve anywhere on the globe, that is as easy to extract, as Iraq? No deep-sea drilling, no tar or ice to drill through, and we set up permanent military bases right there. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Saddam and bin Laden hand-in-hand? It would be laughable if not for all the senseless killings of our children in the name of easy oil.

None of this is new, but remember Bush and al-Maliki agreeing on that Declaration of Principles, which was signed without the approval of Congress, the Iraqi Parliment, or anyone else? Now we have gigantic military airports, the so-called embassy, which is basically one of the largest cities in the country. We have the understanding that Iraqi oil is to be open to investment, "especially American investments" is how the Declaration unbelievably reads. There can be no question as to why we invaded that country.

Bush's signing statement in January that he would bypass any Congressional rules keeping the U.S. from establishing any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq" was illegal and violated Constitutional separation of powers. He pulled that one right out of his ass and got away with it, despite protests from the American Bar Association and Iraqi unions, which somehow still survive.

The United States has committed an international war crime in Iraq, one which has taken the lives of thousands of American troops and untold numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians. "Generation Kill" is a great reminder of the chaos that surrounded the initial invasion, from the perspective of the troops who risked, and often lost, their lives. It's a good time to remind ourselves what the reason was behind this tragic policy, and to demand that the two guys running for president not only acknowledge this fact, but explain to us how they would get our kids out of there.

Nobody should have to die over oil.

Diseased

Turkana — 2008-07-22T10:57:56-08:00

I shouldn't need to remind anyone to go read digby, but just in case- go read digby.

Open Thread

Mary — 2008-07-22T00:00:30-08:00

Aw... Some conservatives believe the Bush administration has been the fifth column for increasing socialism. Yeah, the corruption of the Republicans in charge has created a desire for real answers, but one wonders what exactly would be the "answer" from the "real conservatives." After all, they had the government for most of the past 40 years and screwed up almost everything. It seems to be inherent in their philosophy of the market (and greed) being the arbiters of all that is good.

Your turn now.

Genocide Mastermind Caught

Turkana — 2008-07-21T23:42:56-08:00

In a brief bit of fantastic news, Agence France-Presse is tonight reporting that one of the world's most genuinely evil people finally has been captured.

Serbia said its security forces had captured Radovan Karadzic, the mastermind of the genocidal Srebrenica massacre who had been on the run for nearly 13 years.
Karadzic, 63 -- described as the "Osama Bin Laden of Europe" -- had been "located and arrested tonight," said a statement Monday from the office of Serbian President Boris Tadic.

"Karadzic was brought to the investigative judge of the War Crimes Court in Belgrade, in accordance with the law on cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)," it added.

The presidency and prosecutors refrained from disclosing any more details about the operation, but a war crimes official who requested anonymity said Karadzic appeared "depressive" and offered "no resistance" when arrested on Serbian territory.

PBS has a website about the massacre. The very concept of justice took a big step forward, today. Let's hope it's not the last time.

Netroots Nation Dispatch Update

Mary — 2008-07-21T21:15:43-08:00

Here's an update on the shadow conference (aka American Dream Summit) in Austin. As Digby noted, the conservative conference had the goal of "confronting the left head-on" in Austin.

David Neiwert and some friends decided to help with that confrontation and dared to enter the belly of the beast and found the participants wanly waiting for Michelle Malkin who was running late.

At least one of the conservative luminaries, Bob Barr, did decide to come to Netroots Nation, although from dday's report, without really a very coherent argument about why impeaching Clinton for lying about sex was necessary and vastly more important than impeaching Bush for his somewhat trivial crimes which include torture, spying on Americans, starting illegal and counterproductive wars. Goes to show that inappropriate sex is so much more evil than unrestrained violence. According to the war lovers party, guns are sacred while contraceptives are not.

Update: Don't be shocked! The press continues to be a cheap date for the right wing.

Summertime Diversions

Steve Soto — 2008-07-21T13:24:15-08:00

Reuters photo - Not a picture of McCain’s newest campaign advisor.

I thought it might be a good diversion to get your thoughts on summer movies you’ve seen. I’ll start off with a few comments on what I’ve seen. My family saw "The Dark Knight" last night, and my short review is that the movie is a half-hour too long, with too much crammed into the storyline. It’s still a good improvement over the earlier series of Batman movies (except I’m in the minority that liked the Val Kilmer/Nicole Kidman one), but not as good as the first Christian Bale Batman movie (“Batman Begins”) of several years ago. Yet there is one overriding reason to see this movie however: the late Heath Ledger. He dominates every time he is on the screen, and I found myself in awe of what he put into this part.

My favorite summer movie so far has been “Iron Man”, a movie carried by the perfectly-pitched performance of Robert Downey, Jr. in the title role. On the other hand, the only reason to see the newest “The Incredible Hulk” is to see a good cast do well with tired material. I admit that I haven’t seen “Get Smart” or Harrison Ford’s return as Indiana Jones. Lastly, “WALL-E” was a better movie than I anticipated.

Your reviews and comments are welcome.